North Korea Agrees to end Nuke Program

[bob_barron 0]

And he bolded it too!

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Again with talking about my side. You've got to stop that. It makes you sound like a moron. I'm not going to speak for a side in general, I'm going to speak for myself. Also, perhaps you could make use of the electronic record which contains my years of right wing posts. Of course, I don't believe things because they are left-leaning or right-leaning I believe things because I feel they are right. Try me.

 

With regard to Clinton, you don't wait to respond to an act of war because you only have a few months left in your term. Of course, he didn't care about what was right, he only cared about how he looked. You can't say that about our current President.

 

Fact: Clinton received donations from the Chinese. Later, Clinton allowed weapons and technology to flow to a Detroit-based company with ties to the Chinese military.

 

Don't believe me about intelligence... why don't you look up the Clinton administration's "primary purpose" guidelines? And then explain to me why Clinton allowed the number of graduating CIA case officers to reach its lowest point... and, more importantly, why George W. Bush has tripled the number from 2001.

 

Oh, just to help you pull your head out of your ass... I think Hannity is a moron and I don't listen to Limbaugh. Got another one for me?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Well, supposedly North Korea is preparing for a second nuclear test, and have said the sanctions imposed by the UN "amount to a declaration of war." What do we do if they actually do conduct a second test? I mean, I can't see the UN going any further than the current sanctions they just passed.

[SuperJerk 0]

Again with talking about my side. You've got to stop that. It makes you sound like a moron. I'm not going to speak for a side in general, I'm going to speak for myself. Also, perhaps you could make use of the electronic record which contains my years of right wing posts. Of course, I don't believe things because they are left-leaning or right-leaning I believe things because I feel they are right. Try me.

 

You forgot to quote me. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that if you cited our entire conversation in his post, it would be much easier for people to see that you started this conservation by defending Bush and attacking Clinton, thus undermining your assertion that you're not on a side.

 

You picked a side. I didn't pick it for you.

 

This isn't the first time you and I have locked horns over politics. You always take the conservative side, and I always take the liberal side. We have a history of arguing that I'm drawing from to base this conclusion on.

 

With regard to Clinton, you don't wait to respond to an act of war because you only have a few months left in your term. Of course, he didn't care about what was right, he only cared about how he looked. You can't say that about our current President.

 

I'll say it again, since you missed it the first fifteen times I said it:

 

The investigation that showed that Al Quaeda was responcible for the USS Cole bombing wasn't complete until after Clinton left office.

 

Fact: Clinton received donations from the Chinese. Later, Clinton allowed weapons and technology to flow to a Detroit-based company with ties to the Chinese military.

 

OMG CONSPIRACY~!!!!1111

 

 

Okay, I'm going to have to ask for a source, though.

 

I'd also like an explanation as to how the President of the United States would give weapons to a Detroit based company (which you cannot name) or how he has any control over what this "company" did with the "technology" or "weapons" once they got it.

 

The story is probably bullshit because there are too many holes in it.

 

 

Don't believe me about intelligence... why don't you look up the Clinton administration's "primary purpose" guidelines? And then explain to me why Clinton allowed the number of graduating CIA case officers to reach its lowest point... and, more importantly, why George W. Bush has tripled the number from 2001.

 

Yeah, you better get a source on that one, too. That doesn't sound like the sort of thing that would be public knowledge even if it were true.

 

Oh, just to help you pull your head out of your ass... I think Hannity is a moron and I don't listen to Limbaugh. Got another one for me?

 

Fine, then. Coulter, Drudge, Malkin, Cal Thomas, take your pick. I don't care. But given how some of your criticism mimmicks the right-wing hack establishment so precisely, I doubt you came up with all of your views on your own.

 

Quit trying to pretend like you're some independent thinker who only came to these conclusions after he got his information from actual news sources.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Sorry I didn't quote you before. I figured you would be intelligent enough to figure out I was responding to you. That fact alone makes me different than the right wing hackery as you would call it.

 

Happy?

Quit trying to pretend like you're some independent thinker who only came to these conclusions after he got his information from actual news sources.

Now, allow me to quote myself:

Of course, I don't believe things because they are left-leaning or right-leaning I believe things because I feel they are right. Try me.

 

As far as the Cole goes, we were not under ANY burden of proof, whatsoever. Bin Laden had already declared war on us, the CIA had declared war on Al Qaeda, Clinton had condemned the Taliban... if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a duck. Clinton wanted 100% certification. That exists in a dream world. He was worried about his legacy and his image. He admits that a strike plan had already been drawn up. He should have said fuck you to the Republicans and started the battle. And you know what? If he had started the war on Al Qaeda, and if Bush had stopped it, and if 9/11 had happened after... Clinton would have been golden.

 

 

I3K, if you want my honest opinion, a country that says they feel war has been declared against them and responds by testing a nuclear weapon... in my opinion that's about as close as you can get to the nail in the coffin. To me, that requires a military response, preferably air strikes. Of course, South Korea, Japan, and China definitely will want, and probably should have, a say in what happens.

[SuperJerk 0]

Of course, I don't believe things because they are left-leaning or right-leaning I believe things because I feel they are right. Try me.

 

You need to do more than "feel" something is right. You need to be able to back it up.

 

For example...

 

As far as the Cole goes, we were not under ANY burden of proof, whatsoever. Bin Laden had already declared war on us, the CIA had declared war on Al Qaeda, Clinton had condemned the Taliban... if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a duck. Clinton wanted 100% certification. That exists in a dream world. He was worried about his legacy and his image. He admits that a strike plan had already been drawn up. He should have said fuck you to the Republicans and started the battle. And you know what? If he had started the war on Al Qaeda, and if Bush had stopped it, and if 9/11 had happened after... Clinton would have been golden.

 

Both facts and reason are presented in this post. I don't agree with the conclusion, but I respect how you presented your rationale in a way that took those things into consideration before stating it.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

SuperJerk, the whole point of the first two quotes was to get you to start naming issues so I could show you how independent my thinking may or may not be. If I feel something is true, it is because it is backed up by facts and logic. That's something you can't know from a message board.

[EricMM 0]

Shit, I'm in favor of N.Korea conducting nuclear tests.

 

Let them blow up a thousand nukes underground...

 

Just don't use them against people or sell them!

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

And how do you ensure that?

[SuperJerk 0]

^That's a great sig.^

 

SuperJerk, the whole point of the first two quotes was to get you to start naming issues so I could show you how independent my thinking may or may not be. If I feel something is true, it is because it is backed up by facts and logic. That's something you can't know from a message board.

Can we start with this issue and by having you tell us where you got your Bill Clinton facts?

 

Its one thing for us to disagree because we have different opinions on when its okay for the U.S. government to blow people up, its another for us to disagree because we believe different facts are true.

 

Here is an article you should read, if you have not already:

http://factcheck.org/article444.html

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Thanks for the compliment on the sig.

 

With regard to the USS Cole, we are only disagreeing because of our opinion on when it's okay to blow people up. I concur with everything the fact check article says about the Cole. I just think that President Clinton, as commander-in-chief, could have exercised his authority without waiting for definitive proof. I don't think he could have ever gotten a 100% guarantee, but more importantly, under the military/intelligence climate he was facing, he didn't need a 100% guarantee. And I don't doubt for a second that there would have been a bunch of morons talking about wagging the dog, but it would have been the right thing to do.

 

The key here is: I'm not assigning full blame to any party for our country's current situation. I'm just as interested in the facts as you are.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Is it just me, or did all McHaggis really have to do to get Y2Jerk to tone down his dickishness was to post a picture of a hot chick?

 

 

 

(As far as pics of hot chicks go, that's top notch, though.)

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Shhh!

 

My tactics are top-secret.

 

Actually, with all the good vibes I've gotten over the sig, all my other cool Trojan football pics will go to waste. Oh well.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

so drudge linked to this article:

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/...90449-7656r.htm

 

and this bit caught my eye

 

The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- according to a South Korean executive who met for more than two hours late last year with Kim Jong-il -- convinced the little dictator only a crash program to test a nuclear device would deter the U.S. from invading a charter member of President Bush's "axis of evil."

 

I find it darkly amusing, that yet again, another problem, has its roots with Iraq. oh and the main reason that certain military options are off the table? because we're tied up in iraq.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il expressed regret about his country's nuclear test and said no further nuclear action by Pyongyang was planned, report South Korean newspapers.

"I understand he expressed clearly there was no plan to conduct nuclear tests," South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted a diplomatic source in China as saying.

 

Kim also said international talks were possible if the U.S. stopped financially isolating his country, reported the South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo.

 

But those talks would require the U.S. to loosen its enforcement of economic sanctions, reported Chosun Ilbo.

 

"If the U.S. makes a concession to some degree, we will also make a concession to some degree, whether it be bilateral talks or six-party talks," the newspaper quoted Kim as telling a Chinese envoy.

 

The same report also quoted Kim as telling Chinese officials that he was "sorry about the nuclear test."

 

"This is the most promising sign that we've seen so far from the North Korean regime and perhaps a signal that it is moving towards a point where it is willing to negotiate," CTV's Steve Chao said Friday from Beijing.

 

Chinese State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan and other delegates met Kim on Thursday, before returning to Beijing for meetings with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

 

Rice said Friday that the U.S. was willing to reengage the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program but that financial restrictions on Pyongyang would remain.

 

"The Chinese are emphasizing the need for six-party talks to begin again and for the North to re-engage in the talks," Rice told reporters in Beijing.

 

"They (North Korea) urged us to be open to returning to those talks without preconditions, which for us is not difficult," she said after talks with Chinese officials.

 

But North Korea wants the U.S. to agree to a precondition.

 

"Kim Jong Il also expressed to a certain degree with his Chinese envoy if the United States agreed to lift sanctions then perhaps he would be willing to go back to what is known as six-party talks or bilateral talks directly with the U.S.," said Chao.

 

Meanwhile, China urged the U.S. on Friday to be more flexible in their dealings with North Korea.

 

"This is in the interests of all sides and I hope the United States will take a more active and flexible attitude," Chinese envoy Tang Jiaxuan was quoted as saying during a meeting with Rice Friday.

 

Tang was part of the envoy that visited Pyongyang Thursday.

 

He called on all countries to show political wisdom, return to dialogue and to re-engage the six-party talks, China's Xinhua news agency said.

 

North Korea's state news agency, KCNA, referred to Thursday's talks between Chinese and North Korean officials as being held in a "friendly atmosphere."

 

"Discussed there were the issues of developing the relations of friendship between the two countries and ensuring peace and security on the Korean Peninsula and a series of international issues of mutual concern," it said.

 

Thursday's meeting in Pyongyang marks the highest-level Chinese visit to its reclusive ally since the Oct. 9 nuclear test.

 

With files from The Associated Press

 

 

That's from CTV News. Take it for what it's worth.

[SuperJerk 0]

With regard to the USS Cole, we are only disagreeing because of our opinion on when it's okay to blow people up. I concur with everything the fact check article says about the Cole. I just think that President Clinton, as commander-in-chief, could have exercised his authority without waiting for definitive proof. I don't think he could have ever gotten a 100% guarantee, but more importantly, under the military/intelligence climate he was facing, he didn't need a 100% guarantee. And I don't doubt for a second that there would have been a bunch of morons talking about wagging the dog, but it would have been the right thing to do.

 

Do a Google search of the words "clinton sudan terrorists aspirin" and read some the articles that come up.

 

You will see that Clinton was blamed for killing innocent people in his attempts to get bin Laden back in 1998.

 

My favorite:

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/09/23news.html

 

This article seems grotesquely naive in today's world, but prior to 9/11 killing bin Laden didn't seem like it was really that important to Clinton's critics, who bitched non-stop about how innocent people were killed by this US attack on terrorist targets.