"Bush Warns N. Korea Against Any Moves"

[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.  

[babek-]

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

[batdog]

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

[Apache]

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.  

lol weazel, I'll be keeping this, "That idiot got credit for policy that was put in motion by his predecessors", for future reference.

[Ripsnort]

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.  

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.

[Sikboy]

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

[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?
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?

[babek-]

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.

[weazel]

Its in the historic archieves...research before you spew.

Your the one who needs to do some research.

 Lemmings

[Ripsnort]

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.

[streakeagle]

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.

[Ripsnort]

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.

[weazel]

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.

[Sikboy]

Funny how these things always degenerate into DEM/GOP pissing contests.

-Sikboy

[Nifty]

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.