North Korea tests nuke

Parent Cafe
81

<p>Driver,
The links were not meant for you but to fundinfather who requested sources to my post #75. So I provided them. Is there a problem? </p>

<p>I would think it’s pretty clear what I’m getting at, but I guess I need to make it clearer: IT IS ABSURD TO LIST PAKISTAN AS AN EXAMPLE OF A BUSH FOREIGN POLICY SUCCESS. My reasons for saying it are in post #75. Sourced in post #79.</p>

<p>I can’t make it any clearer.</p>

82

<p>I’d expect most of the brave souls who post on the political threads to have the required intellectual capacity to understand that when links are provided, they establish or corroborate a poster’s POV.</p>

<p>Come now, Driver. I am certain you are capable of such undertakings.</p>

83

<p>Saying it’s so doesn’t make it so. Having read K-mom’s articles, I don’t see that they support her contention that the US policy vis-a-vis Pakistan is not a success. Unless one evaluates success along these parameters:

</p>

84

<p>You’re being incredibly disingenuous, driver. Sayanara.</p>

85

<p>Sayonara. Hasta la vista, baby.</p>

86

<p>Don’t let driver be the bully she feels like being today…honestly, is that your intention driver, to bully everyone who disagrees with you, because that is how it appears</p>

87

<p>I had a big tennis match this morning, and I’m still feeling the adrenaline. I don’t mean to be a bully, so I’m going to take a long break and go enjoy this fine fall day for a few hours and let it wear off. Plant some mums, bring in the herbs. Sorry to have offended anyone. I will be a little lamb when I return.</p>

88

<p>Katliamom,</p>

<p>From one of your sources:

Notice anything? Like the number of terrorists arrested in Pakistan. I’d say that swinging a country from being a Taliban supporter to one that arrests terrorists is a very significant success. Even more important than arresting them, the subsequent interrogation of these people resulted in the disruption of additional terrorist plots. So, yeah, I’d say that turning Pakistan around was quite a success story. But, I guess if you are 100% invested in Bush bashing it’s hard to see the reality.</p>

89

<p>If it’s true that the GOP won’t use this excellent piece of advertising by David Zucker, they deserve to lose. Satire only works when it’s based on truth, and it doesn’t get closer to the truth than this.</p>

<p><a href=“http://drudgereport.com/flashma.htm[/url]”>http://drudgereport.com/flashma.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

90

<p>I find it much scarier that Bush ****ed off the NK’s to the point they kicked out the UN inspectors, taped over the monitoring cameras, unsealed their spent fuel rods…and then folded his cards without a whimper because he was tied up in Iraq. Once again, blustering, posturing, and big words didn’t have the desired result. On one hand we have a fanatical leader isolated in a bubble and divorced from reality with immense power in his hands; on the other hand, the NK’s are stuck the same way.</p>

<p>I’m beginning to have this vision that if the Republicans held power for 100 years, every setback and ill occurrence would still be blamed on Clinton.</p>

<p>I see where a recent poll shows that only 83 percent of Americans think Bush is trying to hide something or is lying when he talks about Iraq. The remaining 17 percent sure is vocal. And I wonder what pro-Bush excuses for anything they won’t believe.</p>

91

<p>“Once again, blustering, posturing, and big words didn’t have the desired result. On one hand we have a fanatical leader isolated in a bubble and divorced from reality with immense power in his hands;”</p>

<p>Funny, I thought Mr. Sleaze was posing as Neville Chamberlain and represented the policy of appeasement.</p>

92

<p>and though Bush has had 6 years, 6, count em, 6 years to do something, it is still Clinton’s fault for the Republicans…do they ever ever ever take responsibility, or do they always place blame elsewhere</p>

<p>oh wait, he did do something, he ignored NK…and ignored all the ground work laid out for him…</p>

93

<p>No, he “appeased” them.</p>

94

<p>John McCain on what not to do with North Korea:

<a href=“http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008256.php[/url]”>http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008256.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

95

<p>Well, milktoasty Clinton is long gone, and Neville Bush has appeased them for the past six years, so I guess he can continue a little longer. More of the moddy-coddling.</p>

<p>He could try “the comfy chair”. ;)</p>

96

<p>More insight from Austin Bay:

</p>

97

<p>Mini,</p>

<p>Seriously, it’s not appeasement to try multilateral 6-part talks. It’s just another approach. I don’t blame Clinton that his efforts failed but I think it was smart of Bush to try something else after seeing that bilateral talks did fail.</p>

<p>Non-seriously, I always heard the term molly-coddling but you wrote moddy-coddling - a term that I also found online. Do you know if this is a regional variation?</p>

98

<p>Seriously, I have heard repeatedly that we must end the policy of appeasement that we’ve had for the past six years. So I’m looking for it. Personally, I haven’t seen it, but if Republicans want to think of Mr. Sleaze as the reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain, who am I to stop 'em?</p>

<p>As long as NK feels insecure, nothing is going anywhere. Their main form of insecurity is food insecurity. Get 'em fat and sassy, and they’ll talk. And it’s pretty cheap to do, relative to the other options.</p>

99

<p>I’m not even sure what you are saying, Mini. Is Mr. Sleaze Bill Clinton or George Bush? It sounds like some Batman villain. </p>

<p>I don’t think Bill Clinton or George Bush wanted North Korea to get nuclear weapons on their or anyone else’s watch. It happened because A. Q. Khan, the Iranian mullahs, Kim Jong-Il, and especially the North Korean military commanders wanted it to happen. Short of a full-scale attack on North Korea (and imagine what China would have done about that), I doubt anything that Clinton or Bush did was going to stop North Korea’s drive to weaponize. </p>

<p>Further, both Presidents tried to get the North Koreans fat and sassy. The military took the food aid and money and kept it for themselves and their cronies. Heck, Kim Jong-Il is fat and sassy and it hasn’t helped as far as I can see. Sometimes, no matter how much we want them to, peaceful options just don’t work.</p>

100

<p>So let’s hear in some detail, please, about all that food aid that Mr. Sleaze (of the bush variety) gave to the North Koreans. Details, please. Budgets, shipments, dates. Seriously, I want to hear and understand the Republican policy of appeasement, so that I can form better judgments.</p>