NationStates Jolt Archive

I am of the opinion that no matter what Bush does, or how he does it, there are people on this forum who will consistently say that he's evil, stupid, rotten, corrupt, etc.

So, in that spirit, I present you with his latest direction in foreign policy - negotiating a peace treaty with North Korea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/world/asia/18korea.html?ei=5065&en=cd12c1a272db52a3&ex=1148616000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Ok, I'll sit back now and listen to Gymoor and others tell us how evil, stupid, rotten, corrupt, etc., this idea is, and how we should just attack North Korea and get it over with.

Actually it says that he has been advised to do it and not that it is new policy, but when have shrub supportors ever let the fact get in the way?

He's been all over peace with North Korea since they mentioned they had nukes.

I am of the opinion that no matter what Bush does, or how he does it, there are people on this forum who will consistently say that he's evil, stupid, rotten, corrupt, etc.

So, in that spirit, I present you with his latest direction in foreign policy - negotiating a peace treaty with North Korea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/world/asia/18korea.html?ei=5065&en=cd12c1a272db52a3&ex=1148616000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Ok, I'll sit back now and listen to Gymoor and others tell us how evil, stupid, rotten, corrupt, etc., this idea is, and how we should just attack North Korea and get it over with.
This is lovely. Goes to show the importance of nukes4all.

It seems that the US government has now realised (and not before time) that their original way of dealing with it (cross fingers and hope it goes away) wasn't working so they'd better do something else - and they come up with something that North Korea has "long demanded".

Genius.

He's been all over peace with North Korea since they mentioned they had nukes.
Yep, and look how quiet things have gotten with Iran.

I am of the opinion that no matter what Bush does, or how he does it, there are people on this forum who will consistently say that he's evil, stupid, rotten, corrupt, etc.

Just because the administration seems to be moving in a productive direction with North Korea doesn't preclude their stupidity, rottenness, corruption and general incompetence. Frankly, they could do nothing but excel for the next three years and they'd still be on the short end of the equation, because they've fucked up so badly on everything else so far.

As to this particular example, the situation sounds not bad right now. Maybe they'll keep from fucking this one up--who knows? It would be a welcome change.

Doesn't he realize it'll never work?

So, Bush's advisors and most of his administration have seen some sense on the issue. The article also points out that this new direction may have something to do with Iran and not letting them think they can get away with building nuclear weapons.

I think it's time that some people realise that politics is a dirty business and being cynical about certain, somewhat dim, leaders is only common sense. No one can inject Bush with a higher IQ, he will always be stupid and serve as a suitable puppet for those behind him with agendas of their own. It'd be foolish to think that anything he says is his own idea or in any way free of selfish motivation for someone behind him.


I am of the opinion that no matter what Bush does, or how he does it, there are people on this forum who will consistently say that he's evil, stupid, rotten, corrupt, etc.

So, in that spirit, I present you with his latest direction in foreign policy - negotiating a peace treaty with North Korea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/world/asia/18korea.html?ei=5065&en=cd12c1a272db52a3&ex=1148616000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Ok, I'll sit back now and listen to Gymoor and others tell us how evil, stupid, rotten, corrupt, etc., this idea is, and how we should just attack North Korea and get it over with.

I am of the opinion that no matter what Bush does, or how he does it, there are people on this forum who will consistently say that he's evil, stupid, rotten, corrupt, etc.

Well, I don't think he's evil, but I certainly think he's rotten and corrupt...and I'd say most of the available evidence leans towards my line of thinking.

And of course he's stupid...who chokes on a pretzel? :p

So, in that spirit, I present you with his latest direction in foreign policy - negotiating a peace treaty with North Korea.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/world/asia/18korea.html?ei=5065&en=cd12c1a272db52a3&ex=1148616000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Good idea, except I highly doubt that NK will ever comply with disarmarment...why give up their weapons now when they're finally getting them everything they've been wanting?

Ok, I'll sit back now and listen to Gymoor and others tell us how evil, stupid, rotten, corrupt, etc., this idea is, and how we should just attack North Korea and get it over with.

My guess is we're going to have to invade them sooner or later. The current leader might not be crazy, but that's not to say that the next one (or the next...or the next) won't blow his load in his pants over all the leftover Cold War hardware and decide to win the war his predecessors were too scared to finish.

Better to do it sooner, rather than later...who's to say what their capabilities will be in 20-30 years?

I am of the opinion that no matter what Bush does, or how he does it, there are people on this forum who will consistently say that he's evil, stupid, rotten, corrupt, etc.



Ok, I'll sit back now and listen to Gymoor and others tell us how evil, stupid, rotten, corrupt, etc., this idea is, and how we should just attack North Korea and get it over with.

It doesnt matter who this the next or any President is or what policies he has. He will be hated and flamed by a certain percentage of people. A small portion of these will be so blinded by hate and disgust that they will even change their own stance on issues merely to oppose whoever is president. It comes with the job description.

Zealots are by no means limited to discussions about heads of state. You can easily find most of these zealots by merely searching for the terms "Nazi" and "Hitler". If people are using those terms much, and are not talking about the 1930s or 1940s, then they are almost certainly zealots You can pretty much consider them as too blinded by emotion to have anything resembling an objective viewpoint and can safely ignore them without much fear of missing any valid points. Or you can bait them if you enjoy that sort of thing

Ok, I'll sit back now and listen to Gymoor and others tell us how evil, stupid, rotten, corrupt, etc., this idea is, and how we should just attack North Korea and get it over with.

Name one time I've criticized the Bush administration for something that may or may not happen at some unspecified time in the future?

It doesnt matter who this the next or any President is or what policies he has. He will be hated and flamed by a certain percentage of people. A small portion of these will be so blinded by hate and disgust that they will even change their own stance on issues merely to oppose whoever is president. It comes with the job description.

Zealots are by no means limited to discussions about heads of state. You can easily find most of these zealots by merely searching for the terms "Nazi" and "Hitler". If people are using those terms much, and are not talking about the 1930s or 1940s, then they are almost certainly zealots You can pretty much consider them as too blinded by emotion to have anything resembling an objective viewpoint and can safely ignore them without much fear of missing any valid points. Or you can bait them if you enjoy that sort of thing

So, does pre-emptively mentioning that someone might Godwin count as a Godwin?

Name one time I've criticized the Bush administration for something that may or may not happen at some unspecified time in the future?

Well, you've already convicted the entire Republican Party, and Bush and all of the White House in a massive conspiracy to conduct widespread election fraud.

You've also stated that they are so stupid that regardless of what they do, bad things are going to happen.

So, does pre-emptively mentioning that someone might Godwin count as a Godwin?


No. It takes a comparison to Hitler or Nazis.


Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) clearly states

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.



I will further it by saying that the reason the probability approaches one is that the longer the discussion the greater the chance a zealot who cares deeply will stumble onto the discussion and feel the need to act out.

Well, you've already convicted the entire Republican Party, and Bush and all of the White House in a massive conspiracy to conduct widespread election fraud.

You've also stated that they are so stupid that regardless of what they do, bad things are going to happen.

Care to quote me?

Well considering a war with Korea would probably be extremely detrimental, I guess he is just showing some common sense.

Bush is so evil, stupid, rotten and corrupt!!

I am of the opinion that no matter what Bush does, or how he does it, there are people on this forum who will consistently say that he's evil, stupid, rotten, corrupt, etc.

So, in that spirit, I present you with his latest direction in foreign policy - negotiating a peace treaty with North Korea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/world/asia/18korea.html?ei=5065&en=cd12c1a272db52a3&ex=1148616000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Ok, I'll sit back now and listen to Gymoor and others tell us how evil, stupid, rotten, corrupt, etc., this idea is, and how we should just attack North Korea and get it over with.
Wait, so just because Bush has (so far) refrained from completely and utterly fucking things up with N.Korea, we're supposed to all agree that Bush is a super-duper guy?

This thread wins my No, You Cannot Have A Cookie prize for the day.

No, the president of the United States does not get a cookie for refraining from fucking up. No, he does not get a cookie for choosing diplomacy over "KOREA GO BOOM NOW!!! ME NUKE YOU!!" No, we are not obligated to pat him on the back every time he DOESN'T fail at his job.

He's been all over peace with North Korea since they mentioned they had nukes.


If you were him, wouldn't you be? they are boms the size of bw bugs that make holes the size of new york! *huddles in corner, singing softly*

My guide to how to deal with N. Korea:

Kim Jong Il: "Give us food Great Satan Bush!"
Bush: "Starve you little fuckers!"

Couple years later, problem solved. Let 'em eat their nukes.

Bush is so evil, stupid, rotten and corrupt!!
That's the spirit. At least you're honest.

That's the spirit. At least you're honest.
I was quite surprised it hadn't been done already. I mean, it was a pretty big opening-had to be exploited :p

I was quite surprised it hadn't been done already. I mean, it was a pretty big opening-had to be exploited :p

There seem to be quite a few Bush-haters who can't be bothered with being honest about their Bush hatred.

Bottle seems pretty honest, too. If you hate Bush, you can't ever give him any credit for doing anything remotely correct.

I am of the opinion that no matter what Bush does, or how he does it, there are people on this forum who will consistently say that he's evil, stupid, rotten, corrupt, etc.

So, in that spirit, I present you with his latest direction in foreign policy - negotiating a peace treaty with North Korea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/world/asia/18korea.html?ei=5065&en=cd12c1a272db52a3&ex=1148616000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Ok, I'll sit back now and listen to Gymoor and others tell us how evil, stupid, rotten, corrupt, etc., this idea is, and how we should just attack North Korea and get it over with.

well, if you read even the first few parapraphs it says "North Koreans have long demanded a peace treaty, which would replace the 1953 armistice ending the Korean War." i don't think he had to negotiate too much. nor do i think he did the negotiating. nor was it his idea: "President Bush's top advisers have recommended a broad new approach to dealing with North Korea that would include beginning negotiations on a peace treaty". bush is still a moron

He's been all over peace with North Korea since they mentioned they had nukes.
Probably because when he wanted to go to war, one of his advisors told all about the Korean War, which didn't quite go according to plan...

well, if you read even the first few parapraphs it says "North Koreans have long demanded a peace treaty, which would replace the 1953 armistice ending the Korean War." i don't think he had to negotiate too much. nor do i think he did the negotiating. nor was it his idea: "President Bush's top advisers have recommended a broad new approach to dealing with North Korea that would include beginning negotiations on a peace treaty". bush is still a moron

Can you name one American President prior to the current Bush who offered to negotiate a peace treaty with North Korea?

Eh?

Or do you think that Bush is responsible for the actions or inactions of every President prior?

If you hate Bush, you can't ever give him any credit for doing anything remotely correct.

What the hell kind of retarded logic is that?

What the hell kind of retarded logic is that?
That's Bottle's logic, if you read Bottle's previous post.

Don't ask me about it.

Can you name one American President prior to the current Bush who offered to negotiate a peace treaty with North Korea?

Eh?

Or do you think that Bush is responsible for the actions or inactions of every President prior?

no but then north korea hasn't been waving their nukes at anyone til relatively recently. and they're only waving them around because the us has already threatened iran who has nukes. the difference between the approaches to iran and n korea is because the korean leader is probably unhinged enough to actually use his when threatened with forced disarmament. finally getting round to a peace treaty is the only option.

no but then north korea hasn't been waving their nukes at anyone til relatively recently. and they're only waving them around because the us has already threatened iran who has nukes. the difference between the approaches to iran and n korea is because the korean leader is probably unhinged enough to actually use his when threatened with forced disarmament. finally getting round to a peace treaty is the only option.

I guess you don't remember the North Koreans waving the nukes during the Clinton Administration.

I am of the opinion that no matter what Bush does, or how he does it, there are people on this forum who will consistently say that he's evil, stupid, rotten, corrupt, etc.

So, in that spirit, I present you with his latest direction in foreign policy - negotiating a peace treaty with North Korea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/world/asia/18korea.html?ei=5065&en=cd12c1a272db52a3&ex=1148616000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Ok, I'll sit back now and listen to Gymoor and others tell us how evil, stupid, rotten, corrupt, etc., this idea is, and how we should just attack North Korea and get it over with.

I am of the opinion that no matter what Bush does, or how he does it, there are people on this forum who will consistently say that he's good, just, intelligent, incorrupted, admirable etc.

So, in that spirit, I ask you if that peace treaty with North Korea - Axis of Evil member - is a really good idea? What would you think if he was negotiating a peace treaty with, I dunno, Iran instead?

I'll sit back and watch how you tell us Iran is more evil than North Korea because Iran has Muslims.

I am of the opinion that no matter what Bush does, or how he does it, there are people on this forum who will consistently say that he's good, just, intelligent, incorrupted, admirable etc.

So, in that spirit, I ask you if that peace treaty with North Korea - Axis of Evil member - is a really good idea? What would you think if he was negotiating a peace treaty with, I dunno, Iran instead?

I'll sit back and watch how you tell us Iran is more evil than North Korea because Iran has Muslims.

If I had been President during 9-11, I would have taken that moment to nuke several nations and annihilate their populations.

Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, without any warning.

If I had been President during 9-11, I would have taken that moment to nuke several nations and annihilate their populations.

Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, without any warning.

And some people wonder why anti-Americanism is so rampant these days. :rolleyes:

And some people wonder why anti-Americanism is so rampant these days. :rolleyes:

Would have solved a lot of problems, and I'm sure that everyone would be over it by now.

Plus, the opinions that matter to a US President - the electorate - would be better than they are now - because we wouldn't have lost a single US soldier anywhere.

Would have solved a lot of problems, and I'm sure that everyone would be over it by now.

Plus, the opinions that matter to a US President - the electorate - would be better than they are now - because we wouldn't have lost a single US soldier anywhere.
I wouldn't count on it. It's more likely to have been the start of WWIII

If I had been President during 9-11, I would have taken that moment to nuke several nations and annihilate their populations.

Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, without any warning.

Yeah! Fuck those millions of innocent people! AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

Yeah! Fuck those millions of innocent people! AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

*high-fives*

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAH!!!

i agree:p
everything and anything bush does people try and make it seem wrong. Im with bush a hundred percent of the way...Go George Bush!!

Would have solved a lot of problems, and I'm sure that everyone would be over it by now.
It would have created far more problems, and people wouldn't be over it. Americans aren't even over 9/11 yet, and you think other countries would have got over an unprovoked nuclear attack in a shorter timeframe? What planet are you living on?

Wait...planet America...

USA shoulden´t have an place in the UN security-council. They love to kill people all to much :sniper: :mp5:

USA shoulden´t have an place in the UN security-council. They love to kill people all to much :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

Wow. You managed to include all of the simpleton smileys in your first post.

*shudder*

That's Bottle's logic, if you read Bottle's previous post.

Don't ask me about it.
Actually Bottle's logic was:

'If Bush does something he's meant to do, you don't congratulate him'.

Not:

'If you don't like Bush, you can never give him credit'.

'Credit' (in this context) is very very different from congratulations.

In this instance, he's meant to govern America properly. Which he is apparently attempting to do here. I don't expect my tutors to congratulate me every time I hand an essay in on time, so it's unreasonable to expect us to congratulate Bush when he tries to improve international relations.

Yes I liked them! :p

Wow. You managed to include all of the simpleton smileys in your first post.

*shudder*
Nope. He forgot these: :upyours: :headbang:

Wow. You managed to include all of the simpleton smileys in your first post.

*shudder*

Nuh-uh, he left out :headbang: and :confused:. :mad: possibly counts, too.

Nope. He forgot these: :upyours: :headbang:

Oh, I forgot about :upyours:

Ahh... I almost forgot about those. :p

I find it interesting how much "power" everyone seems to think the president has. Really he's not much more than a figurehead. The president happens to be the most visible member of our government, but really is responsible for the least amount of change and legislation. Republican or Democrat, doesn't matter. Bush or Clinton...I don't care. Look most closely at the people that you share this nation with. Their blind eyes and sleeping minds are the reason things are the way they are. You want change? You want a fucking government that doesn't piss you off? Educate and awaken your friends, family, neighbors, etc. It takes to the people (and this means all of them) to make democracy work. And that's my piece. Sorry if it's inappropriate.:headbang:

Yes i did!

I don´t care hows in charge! I think we should bomb USA! Once and for all! They should taste their own medicine!

Ahh... I almost forgot about those. :p
We provide an important public service.

Cant some one get angry over my messege?

I guess you don't remember the North Koreans waving the nukes during the Clinton Administration.
which was not very long ago and then there was the option of ignoring them.

Cant some one get angry over my messege?
Over an extremely obvious flamebait? Then you tell us that's what you wanted? A piece of advice - tread carefully on this forum.

Oh God! All international forums are so boring! Listen to me! USA think they can do whatever they want! But they can´t! Cuase there is terrorists out there standing up against the evil empire of the west! They fight against capitalism and pressure! Is there is an better way to do it? I´m tired being an part of the fucking west and their lovley nukes! Fuck you all!

Oh God! All international forums are so boring! Listen to me! USA think they can do whatever they want! But they can´t! Cuase there is terrorists out there standing up against the evil empire of the west! They fight against capitalism and pressure! Is there is an better way to do it? I´m tired being an part of the fucking west and their lovley nukes! Fuck you all!

*hands a valium*

Nukes should not be a part of this world! I don´t know how to explain what im trying to say, I´m to angry! I dont think USA become an better nation if Bush leave the post as the president! The american people will still vote for some crazy bastard how gonna bomb all the rebelions how keep fighting against the selfish capitalist empire!

I'm really conflicted about this. It's not because it's a Bush administration policy.

Suing for peace with North Korea is a damned good idea on the surface. By doing so, the diplomatic pressures would ease hopefully and the way would be paved for the sending of aid to ease the conditions of the people in that wretched place.

This would, in an indirect way, also help along the process of Korean reunification.

At the same time, I worry that this sets a bad precident for rogue states. In a way, it rewards bad behaviour. By doing this, we're saying, "We'll be tough on you, sure. But the minute you get nuclear weapons we're going to go all weak in the knees and play nice."

Look at how we handled India and Pakistan. We made a few demonstrative barks of discontent but eventually we relented, even though they were so blatantly defying the principles of various nuclear non-proliferation agreements.

I can't help but believe that this sort of thing would only make nuclear weapons more attractive to rogue states looking to get the west off it's back.

Cant some one get angry over my messege?

You are angry enough for everyone. Try meditation, or liquor, or a laxitive, you'll feel better.

At the same time, I worry that this sets a bad precident for rogue states. In a way, it rewards bad behaviour. By doing this, we're saying, "We'll be tough on you, sure. But the minute you get nuclear weapons we're going to go all weak in the knees and play nice."

Look at how we handled India and Pakistan. We made a few demonstrative barks of discontent but eventually we relented, even though they were so blatantly defying the principles of various nuclear non-proliferation agreements.

I can't help but believe that this sort of thing would only make nuclear weapons more attractive to rogue states looking to get the west off it's back.
Hey, could you imagine if North Korea suddenly discovered billions of barrels worth of oil under its territory? The US would bend over backwards to get a treaty signed.

Would have solved a lot of problems, and I'm sure that everyone would be over it by now.

Why don't you go to Hiroshima and ask the Japanese why they aren't "over it" yet.

Do you even bother to think before you speak?

Why don't you go to Hiroshima and ask the Japanese why they aren't "over it" yet.

Do you even bother to think before you speak?


He's already said a couple times before said that he joined the military so he could get his kill on legally. Insane people don't know they are insane so I think that thinking before he speaks would only produce something crazier.

EDIT: Oh yeah, diplomacy is a good thing (so what? am I supposed to kiss Bush' ass now?) and it would be nice if the Bush administration was more diplomatic with more people (at home and abroad). Good work on actually doing something beneficial rather than the normal detrimental thing Bushie and Co. *back pat*. I'm surprised you aren't denouncing Bush for this move DK.

Peace is good...I guess. Bush I think was a GREAT President...and then came "no child left behind"...and then his remarkably stupid handling of illegal immigrants. My love of Bush has (to say the VERY least) has diminished.

I am of the opinion that no matter what Bush does, or how he does it, there are people on this forum who will consistently say that he's evil, stupid, rotten, corrupt, etc.

So, in that spirit, I present you with his latest direction in foreign policy - negotiating a peace treaty with North Korea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/world/asia/18korea.html?ei=5065&en=cd12c1a272db52a3&ex=1148616000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Ok, I'll sit back now and listen to Gymoor and others tell us how evil, stupid, rotten, corrupt, etc., this idea is, and how we should just attack North Korea and get it over with.
Actually, I think the only thing Bush has done right is having a pretty sensible approach to illegal immigration. Not perfect but I don't think anyone has perfect answers to this. But at least he isn't for a throw them all in prison or send them all back approach. But then again, how long has Bush had time to think about this problem? Since he was governor in Texas? More than a decade? If it takes Bush a decade to find solutions to problems that do not make more than half the country slap their collective forehead... what does that tell you?

This is of course is answer to your idea that all of us who are left wing don't actually think about things he does and has nothing to do with your link.

And of course Bush wouldn't actually go after a country that really has WMD.