Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Octavius on February 16, 2002, 02:34:26 PM
-
http://my.aol.com/news/news_story.psp?type=1&cat=0100&id=0202161451556114
Something isn't clicking here.. what is dubya's reason for saying something so aggressive? I agree America should take action if something happens.. he spill his coffee that morning? wake up on the wrong side of bed? laura bush not putting out? ;) a lil clarity would be appreciated.
oct out
[EDIT: nevermind.. suppose i should read the whole article first.. ]
-
Hmmm... During the Clinton administration, North and South Korea seemed quite close to reconciling their differences.
1. Bush Becomes president.
2. Bush denounces North Korea, diplomacy stalls.
3. Bush calls North Korea part of the "Axis of Evil" and basically gives them notice that "We're comin'!"
4. Bush threatens North Korea meaning "Yeah, I know we said we're comin' but you are not allowed to prepare for it or we'll be comin' sooner."
Let's Roll
:rolleyes:
-
you can really classify any country as 'terroristic' if you want to.
they seem to be using it to mean: countries we don't like and don't do enough trade with for attacking them to be counterproductive.
i think i would feel best if they compiled a clear definition of 'evil nation' and then stuck to it - of course that would prove sicky wouldn't it.....
china
-
Don't confuse words with actions. Right now I think most of the evil regimes in the world are quite worried after what US and Allies did to the Taliban. Bush knows that if he talks tough he can get them to cooperate. Look at how quickly Iran started handing over terrorists after Bush included them in his "axis" speech.
-
Anyone wonder if the gov. knows something you dont? ;)
Imo, N. Korea may already be very close to getting weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems.. which I presume they'd be more than happy to start selling to every terrorist that can pay for them.
-
"Hmmm... During the Clinton administration, North and South Korea seemed quite close to reconciling their differences.
1. Bush Becomes president.
2. Bush denounces North Korea, diplomacy stalls.
3. Bush calls North Korea part of the "Axis of Evil" and basically gives them notice that "We're comin'!"
4. Bush threatens North Korea meaning "Yeah, I know we said we're comin' but you are not allowed to prepare for it or we'll be comin' sooner."
Let's Roll
- Sandman_SBM
*sniff *sniff*
poor, poor North Korea,
Bush bad man.
Sandman, your post gets you a free years supply of kim chee and a chance to buy an intercontinental ballistic missle... compliments of North Korea. :p
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
- Sandman_SBM
*sniff *sniff*
poor, poor North Korea,
Bush bad man.
Sandman, your post gets you a free years supply of kim chee and a chance to buy an intercontinental ballistic missle... compliments of North Korea. :p
Yeah Sandman. Shut up and wave your flag.
Elfenwolf
-
You guys don't get it...
We we're 'this' close to helping North and South Korea solve their differences.
This would have ensured the safety of the U.S. and it's allies far better than poking a stick at them and making threats.
-
I have to agree with Sandman here..
-
well sandman, thats all fine and dandy for the Koreans. But N Korea would still make them nukes and would still sell them.
Remember, there is no such thing as morality in Int. Politics. Its all bloody self interest.
-
Seriously, Sandman. I think the problem presented by North Korea goes far beyond that peninsula. Pyongyang’s missiles and weapons of mass destruction have always been the chief obstacles to peace over there... not President Bush.
The issue now is peace and security in the world.
Pass the kim chee, I like the stuff. :)
-
The new is wearing off GWB fast for me. You can almost hear the speech writer pitching his idea. "Look what the evil impire thing did for Reagan, Mr President. We can toss in the WW2 Axis thing. And we got a winner."
If we are going to hit them, then hit them. If not. Shut the F*&% up.
-
Did any of Clinton's foreign policy exploits produce any results on the scale of tearing down the Berlin Wall, reunifying Germany, and the collapse of the Soviet Union and the iron curtain with almost no violence?
Being tough on "evil empires" (however silly the dumbed down rhetoric for the general public sounds) got those results. I don't really see a problem with continuing the politics of the Reagan-Bush era seeing as how they not only secured an unprecedented level of co-operation throughout the world but also set up the economic conditions that made Bill Clinton's terms look so good on the domestic side.
If the otherwise belligerent North Koreans were so willing to co-operate under Clinton diplomatic strategies, why weren't they re-unified during those 8 long years of his two terms? The North Koreans know how to play international chess as well as anyone. Like Vietnam and China, they will say whatever it takes to get U.S. economic benefits, but still continue to do whatever they want regardless of what they say. Any treaty the North Koreans would have been willing to sign unifying the two countries would have been as meaningul as the agreement with North Vietnam when the U.S. left South Vietnam in 1973.
We signed over South Vietnam to a situation that was so bad that in the late 1990s, Vietnamese officials have joked the best thing the North could have done after taking the South in 1975 was to surrender to the U.S. to get rebuilt like our other defeated opponents, Germany and Japan, into a world economic power.
We should not and probably will not allow South Korea to be subjugated by North Korea. If anything, we want to repeat what was done in Germany with improvements learned from the problems Germany has faced. Of course if I were a North Korean leader, I wouldn't want to give up my power to an imperialist/capitalist U.S. backed regime in the South either. Make no mistake, the Korean War did not end in 1955. It has been an uneasy truce maintained with a continuing loss of lives. Bill Clinton made no more progress in Korea (or any other aspect of foreigh policy!) than the students in China who died proving nothing has changed in China except its economic strategy.
-
don't compare lil bush to Reagan
-
Compromise is the method of peace. However, uncivilized and uneducated nations do not know of compromise. Each nation must be willing to back off and to give in. This is how modern nations negoiate. Places like Somalia and Afghanistan and Palestine do not understand this concept. Instead of negoiating with compromise, they negoiate with fighting.
-
People attribute the fall of the Soviet Union to RaYGuNz policies.
That idiot got credit for policy that was put in motion by his predecessors, Jimmy Carter deserves more credit for it than RaYgUN does. :rolleyes:
-
Jimmy Carter was - i have to say this - an idiot.
The policy of this peanut-farmer according Iran was a total disaster. When he let the Shah of Iran, a strong ally of the USA, fall, he expected that Khomeini will be a "second Ghandi", bringing "democracy and peace to the region". How stupid advisors he must have had in these days.
By allowing this fanatic religious leader to get to power he destabilized the whole region. The soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the 1st Gulf War (which leds to the invasion of Kuwait) followed.
And in these times Frankensteins like Saddam and Osama were produced.
Carter also allowed with his weak policy that the members of the US-embassy were hold as hostages for such a long time - dishonoring the USA in the eyes of the nations there.
No - this president was one of the worst one in the world history.
I dont want to praise his successor Reagan - he was also not a good president (but definitly better than Carter).
The outstanding politician of the 80tie/90ties and the reunification of Germany was - from my point of view of a German - President Michail Gorbatchow. This man was indeed a great and brave politician who dared many risky decisions and who changed the world.
We in Germany also had the great luck that we had a brilliant chancellor like Helmut Kohl and a not weak socialist like Schroeder or so.
Kohl´s political decisions in this - for Germany so important - time could not be praised highly enough.
It was a great moment when in Berlin the german flag was raised over a unified city and country - I know what I am speaking about, because I was there.
I also think that Clinton was not such a bad politician some of you want to show him here.
Just compare your politicians with Carter - you will see that everyone is then a great one :D
-
You guys REALLY think that N-Korea and its government are truely interested in "reuninification"? That entire government is about as ate up as one can get. Does anybody here KNOW how many times the NK's have broken the "cease fire"? Have you ever heard of an entire SK diplomatic entourage that was assassinated? The NK's are desperate and dangerous. The current goverment is NOT to be trusted. Bush know this..his ADVISIORS know this aka Powel.
On anthor note..Reagan didnt break the SOviet Union...he simply sped up the process w/our miltary build up that economicly pushed the already strained Soviets over the brink after just doing a massive build up for decades. They couldnt afford anthor one...
xBAT
-
Originally posted by weazel
People attribute the fall of the Soviet Union to RaYGuNz policies.
That idiot got credit for policy that was put in motion by his predecessors, Jimmy Carter deserves more credit for it than RaYgUN does. :rolleyes:
lol weazel, I'll be keeping this, "That idiot got credit for policy that was put in motion by his predecessors", for future reference. :D
-
Originally posted by weazel
People attribute the fall of the Soviet Union to RaYGuNz policies.
That idiot got credit for policy that was put in motion by his predecessors, Jimmy Carter deserves more credit for it than RaYgUN does. :rolleyes:
Untruth.
The Military wanted bigger spending, Carter said no. 1980, Afghanistan gets invaded by Russians, Iran hostage situation. Carter goes on national TV and admits he should have bolstered the military. Reagan enters office in Jan. 1981...military planners give Reagan the same plans as they did to Carter, he approves 95% of them.
Its in the historic archieves...research before you spew.
-
http://www.fas.org/news/dprk/index.html (http://www.fas.org/news/dprk/index.html)
If anyone want's a compilation of news stories, the Federation of American Scientists has a pretty good one.
[Edit] I think that the North Korean change of heart has more to do with the Bush Administration's intent to set up a theater missile defense system in S. Korea. The North Koreans are very good at working the system. Even during the Reconciliation overtures, they were screaming about S. Korean agression, and sending naval patrol boats into S. Korean waters. The diplomacy here is pretty tricky IMHO. I remember in 1995/96 when a DPRK sub grounded itself on an ROK Beach and a commando Team was running around the countryside shooting people. My friends and I called it "4th and Goal" and we were just waiting for the DPRK to send it's starving troops South.
-Sikboy
-
what amazes me is the general gung ho attitude i see here.
let me ask you this:
1. do you think the taliban would have been so easily beaten if there was no northern alliance ground forces?
2. do you feel airpower would ever be enough alone to defeat a country?
3. How many would you suspect, would die to depose the government of a country like North Korea if they were deemed harbourers/supporters of terrorists?
Seems to me sanctions on north korea would be a far more prudent intitial step than fighting what could become a third and final world war.
Taliban down! only Iran-Iraq-North Korea-China-blah blah BOOM.
and so ends the world i guess?
-
Who said that the Taiban are down ?
Afghanistan has always been a clan dominated country - and already now the clans are starting to fight against each other again.
A few days ago a minister of the afghan government was killed right in the airport of Kabul - because of a clan-struggle?
Two members of the afghan government - members of enemy clans - have ordered his assassination.
The situation in Afghanistan is very unstable and similiar to the one of the beginning occupation of Afghanisatn by the USSR.
In the main cities some puppets have the power - but everyone knows that they wont survive 10 minutes when their masters leave.
And in small towns in the hills (and Afghanistan has many hills ;) ) the clan leaders are making their new alliances and preparing their next steps.
The topic Afghanistan is far from being solved - and there will be many losses in the future in this region.
-
Its in the historic archieves...research before you spew.
Your the one who needs to do some research.
Lemmings
-
Originally posted by weazel
Its in the historic archieves...research before you spew.
Your the one who needs to do some research.
Lemmings
"Advocates of enlarging the Clinton military budget resurrected the argument used in the late 1970s to manipulate President Jimmy Carter's military budget-that budget cuts will lead to a "hollow armed forces" incapable of fighting. Using this argument, seven moderate Democratic senior House members met with the president and vice president on November 23 to argue for adding $50 billion to the military budget over five years.
[/i]
Luckily, not all Dems are the lemming of your mold Weazel. ;)
-
I would rather through any means necessary (military or economic) bring problems to our enemies than wait for our enemies to bring problems to us. North Korea has been, and will continue to be in the foreseeable future, a threat to South Korea and world security. They show no mercy for their enemies, which obviously includes us. We should show them no mercy. If we are provoked, we should make the appropriate response. If we have intelligence showing they are helping others (terrorists?) attack us or are preparing to attack anyone else, we should do what it takes to stop them. I don't consider developing weapons of mass destruction a crime or we would have to attack ourselves first ;)
The Reagan-Bush era put Gorbachev into a position where he had no other options (besides war :(). The Soviet Union didn't release Eastern Europe and collapse because Mikhail wanted to be nice. He was outmaneuvered by over 40 years of US/NATO military and economic posturing. 12 years of that (nearly 30%!) was handled directly by Reagan and Bush. North Korea will only change if we put that kind of pressure on them. Being nice and hoping negotiations alone will keep peace with them will only make them stronger.
Debatably, our worst years in the Cold War coincide with the years Democrats held the Presidency: Truman with Korea, Johnson with Vietnam, and Carter with Iran/Afghanistan. Nixon inherited Vietnam with a Democratic congress tying his hands. The only thing I hold Nixon accountable for is when he signed away our POW/MIAs in order to meet his political promise of peace with North Vietnam.
I think Jimmy Carter was a great man and very well-intentioned, but honesty and kindness have no place in global politics. Reagan and Bush made the choices necessary (at the cost of our own economy) in a determined effort to prevent a NATO/Warsaw Pact version of WWIII in Europe. Negotiations alone have never brought peace. Harsh rhetoric has never brought peace. A strong military, the resolve to keep it that way, and a demonstrated willingness to use it are the key factors to winning at the negotiating table. This was the cornerstone of the NATO effort to win the Cold War.
Both Carter and Clinton failed tremendously in maintainence and use of the military. At least Carter makes a good negotiator since people trust him. Clinton could have found a way to take Manhatten Island without even giving the "Indians" (native Americans?) any beads except for the pearl necklaces he would leave on their women ;) Of course, he would have turned around and sold it to the Chinese.
I have absolutely no use for Bill Clinton. My stomach turns everytime I see him speaking on TV.
-
Originally posted by weazel
Your the one who needs to do some research.
Lemmings
More:
February 18: Reagan unveils his "program for economic recovery" to a Joint Session of Congress. Reagan calls for $41.4 billion in cuts from the Carter budget, mostly from "Great Society" programs to benefit the poor, and vows to maintain a ‘safety net’ for the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. He also calls for a 30% tax cut over three years and an increase in defense expenditures, and vows not to cut Social Security.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/timeline/index_3.html
Incidently, I don't think it would matter who was in office from 1976 to 1991, the Soviet Union would have fallen just the same.
-
outmaneuvered by over 40 years of US/NATO military and economic posturing.
Exactly!
Ripsnort - how many new weapons systems did raygun bring on line, if you take the time to do "your" research you might be surprised to find he just increased funding for weapons ol' peanut head had already approved.
I'll be here to make RayGuNZ supporters eat crow when the truth finally comes out.
Unfortunately it will have to wait until we get a REAL president in office to repeal EO 13233.....you know one that doesn't have to *hide* the truth like that slimey little noodlesucker currently in office.
-
Funny how these things always degenerate into DEM/GOP pissing contests.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Funny how these things always degenerate into DEM/GOP pissing contests.
-Sikboy
yup. hehe, a Dem calling Reps "lemmings". That's the biggest pot-kettle-black statement I've seen in quite some time. ;)
-
Originally posted by Nifty
yup. hehe, a Dem calling Reps "lemmings". That's the biggest pot-kettle-black statement I've seen in quite some time. ;)
Is it just me or is this statement ripe with Irony?
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by hazed-
what amazes me is the general gung ho attitude i see here.
let me ask you this:
1. do you think the taliban would have been so easily beaten if there was no northern alliance ground forces?
I don't think they are defeated yet, and honestly I don't trust the N/A much more than the taliban. They all switched sides when the fighting started. I think we (US/UK/NATO) should have gone it alone.
2. do you feel airpower would ever be enough alone to defeat a country?
Never have, never will, it hasn't yet. To take land you need an army on said land....
3. How many would you suspect, would die to depose the government of a country like North Korea if they were deemed harbourers/supporters of terrorists?
Hopefully alot more of them than us. Honestly I have no clue though.
Seems to me sanctions on north korea would be a far more prudent intitial step than fighting what could become a third and final world war.
How long have we had sanctions on NK? Iraq? What good has come of it? The only reaction seems to be the starving of their citizens which we then get blamed for after paying to feed them (NK). How long should we continue this while they get stronger and produce a missle that can make it anywhere in the world with any type of warhead they want to put on it?
Taliban down! only Iran-Iraq-North Korea-China-blah blah BOOM.
and so ends the world i guess?
I hope not! BUT :D I have a scarey feeling that when all is said and done that we will find China behind the smoking gun. What are we going to do then? Personaly I think we could take china in a war, but what about 20 years from now.
Let me ask this. Does America, as the strongest nation on the planet, have a responsibility to the rest of the world to stop these countries from terrorising the planet? What if we know stuff about the "axis of evil" that other countries don't have the ability to find out? At what point should America put it's own interest ahead of the world? Does America have a responsibility to pull these people out of the dark ages even if they don't want it? Should we just keep to ourselves, stop all foriegn aid and keep to within our own boundaries? What would the world be like today if we had done that after ww2?
-
I've never seen The Weeze ever spout much but irony.
xBAT
P.S. We're lemmings..who the hell here spouts off anything orginal or that hasn't been said before... its human nature.
:D
-
The policy of this peanut-farmer according Iran was a total disaster. When he let the Shah of Iran, a strong ally of the USA, fall, he expected that Khomeini will be a "second Ghandi", bringing "democracy and peace to the region". How stupid advisors he must have had in these days.
Your right, but when you get faulty intelligence analysis from the CIA that kind of stuff happens.....oh, guess who was one of the Directors of Central Intelligence during Carters administration?
......George Herbert Bush.