Author Topic: Hillary Blames Bush for North Korea Nukes (Read 1625 times)

john9001 · « **Reply #15 on:** April 30, 2005, 04:24:57 PM »

it was really trumans fault for firing MacAuther when mac wanted to blow up the bridges , "oh , can't do that , half the bridges are on the chinese side of the river"

same with vietnam, LBJ & mcnamera "can't bomb SAM sites until they shoot at you"

leave the war to the military, it's their job.

Nilsen · « **Reply #16 on:** April 30, 2005, 04:29:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
leave the war to the military, it's their job.

Thats a really bad idea, but at the same time its a really good idea.

It depends so much on the circumstances that it really should not be up to them.

bottom line.. yeah, not at all but it sure should be.. some times.

midnight Target · « **Reply #17 on:** April 30, 2005, 04:32:45 PM »

OK, I went to the NYT and found this...

Quote

Admiral Jacoby said that the United States had increased its assessment of the current North Korean arsenal's size, but he gave no numbers.

Six-nation talks the United States is backing in an effort persuade Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear program have been stalled since last June. China, a neighbor and ally of communist North Korea, has been host to three inconclusive rounds of the negotiations, which involved the United States, North and South Korea, China, Japan and Russia.

Senator Clinton called Admiral Jacoby's testimony "troubling beyond words."

She added: "We have been locked into this six-party idea now for a number of years and all the while we've seen North Korea going about the business of acquiring nuclear weapons and the missile capacity to deliver those to the shores of the United States."

Spin is right... but who is doing the spinning?

Mini D · « **Reply #18 on:** April 30, 2005, 04:51:08 PM »

Ummm... I'm missing something here.

Is it that you guys refuse to believe she said it? Or that there's not enough supporting evidence for her saying something that stupid?

What is your oppinion on the comment itself.

NUKE · « **Reply #19 on:** April 30, 2005, 06:16:16 PM »

Quote

She added: "We have been locked into this six-party idea now for a number of years and all the while we've seen North Korea going about the business of acquiring nuclear weapons and the missile capacity to deliver those to the shores of the United States."

So, the six party idea is now to blame? Albright and Clinton had nothing to do with any of it.

As opposed to 6 nation talks, I'm sure bi-lateral talks are the way to go.....as long as it's the US and NK and the US gives in and gives them all that they demand. That worked real well so far.

Nilsen · « **Reply #20 on:** April 30, 2005, 06:18:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
So, the six party idea is now to blame? Albright and Clinton had nothing to do with any of it.

As opposed to 6 nation talks, I'm sure bi-lateral talks are the way to go.....as long as it's the US and NK and the US gives in and gives them all that they demand. That worked real well so far.

you want to go hard-line with NK ?

Hangtime · « **Reply #21 on:** April 30, 2005, 06:26:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
you want to go hard-line with NK ?

Yah.. but not untill they take out Tokyo, Seoul and Manilla and Taipei. Otherwize, we'll be considered imperialistc drama queens for acting too soon.

NUKE · « **Reply #22 on:** April 30, 2005, 06:32:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
you want to go hard-line with NK ?

Back when Clinton and Albright ( who loved Kim) were "negotiating" with NK, I say we should have never offered them one dime in assistance, let alone 6 billion to build the 2 nuclear reactors that allowed them to build nukes.

We do not owe NK anything.

In fact, I think the US should remove itself from anything to do with NK and instead let the rest of the world deal with them. It's not our problem.

Time for Europe to deal with its threats and Asia to deal with it's threats without the US.

midnight Target · « **Reply #23 on:** April 30, 2005, 06:37:10 PM »

How far into Bush's second term should we go before he takes responsibilty for foreign affairs?

And... My comment was on the title of the thread. Attacking Hillary for ... something she didn't do or say. Seems to be a regular passtime of the far right....... and Nuke.

Hillary is just one Senator on the committee that heard the testimony on the NK nukes. I'm glad she asked the question, aren't you?

NUKE · « **Reply #24 on:** April 30, 2005, 06:38:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
How far into Bush's second term should we go before he takes responsibilty for foreign affairs?

And... My comment was on the title of the thread. Attacking Hillary for ... something she didn't do or say. Seems to be a regular passtime of the far right....... and Nuke.

Hillary is just one Senator on the committee that heard the testimony on the NK nukes. I'm glad she asked the question, aren't you?

When did Bush say he didn't take responsibility for his forgein affairs?

And I have never attacked Hillary.

Mini D · « **Reply #25 on:** April 30, 2005, 06:40:51 PM »

The article quoted her MT. You're the one holding out hope that she didn't.

As for the part you quoted... you do realize how completely assenine it is... right? Hillary is criticizing the current administration for wasting time talking with China, Russia, Japan and SK about NK? Really?

NUKE · « **Reply #26 on:** April 30, 2005, 06:43:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
The article quoted her MT. You're the one holding out hope that she didn't.

As for the part you quoted... you do realize how completely assenine it is... right? Hillary is criticizing the current administration for wasting time talking with China, Russia, Japan and SK about NK? Really?

Hey, 6 nations are just meddling....we need to go it alone.....just like she suggested for Iraq.

midnight Target · « **Reply #27 on:** April 30, 2005, 06:43:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
The article quoted her MT. You're the one holding out hope that she didn't.

As for the part you quoted... you do realize how completely assenine it is... right? Hillary is criticizing the current administration for wasting time talking with China, Russia, Japan and SK about NK? Really?

Assinine? It obviously isn't working. Why is it assinine to question it?

NUKE · « **Reply #28 on:** April 30, 2005, 06:44:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Assinine? It obviously isn't working. Why is it assinine to question it?

So you want the US to deal with NK alone like the NK's demand?

Giving NK 2 nuclear plants didn't work too well.

Mini D · « **Reply #29 on:** April 30, 2005, 06:48:41 PM »

Obviously what isn't working MT? What would be the alternative and the implications of that alternative?

If anyone is even remotely suggesting that the solution to NK would be to completely leave out China, SK, Japan and Russia when dealing with NK then it is simply assenine. There is no other way to put it.

The only only place the solution for NK's antics will come from is the East. This is painfully obvious to most. Except, of course, the die hards.

And let's not forget the direct contradiction with the reasoning behind why we shouldn't have gone into Iraq from ms clinton. There is no consideration for international politics with any statement she makes. She is only doing one thing: Finding fault with the actions of the current administration without maintaining any level of consistancy with her statements. She talks for the cameras and for those who really want to believe her. She says little of relevance and has zero conviction for any of it.