Old Hippie Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 I might take China back to Nixon, after all, he recognized the little bastards, and from their they grew...and took over...we, as a world of supposedly civilized people never should have let them run unchecked, same for *some* of the Arab world...but then I am a racist... Let me add, the civilized world should not have let the USA run as wild as we did either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted April 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 I give you a serious article written by a former Bushie, a writer for the WSJ, Forbes and now at the AEI, still a conservative darling (you can't call it biased), and you respond with an article from the tin-foil-hat rag NewsMax. I guess any other comment is superfluous... Keep grasping at those straws, HH. Bush fucked up bad. He was playing poker with crazy Lil Kim. LK called his bluff and Chimpy folded. Almost as embarrassing as the Brits surrendering Singapore to the bicycling-riding Japanese in 1941, and just as disastrous. Cheers, SD You're saying what Newsmax "printed" is not true? How should GWB have acted differently? What do you think Obama and Hillary will do? Do you think they will reduce our nuclear inventory through negotiation with Russia by using NK as disposal site? HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 I don't see NK ever starting a war. They'll surely lose. The country is starving. The only way he keeps them in check is propaganda internally by telling them its the west that has caused the shortages. The other way of getting money and aid is to make everyone think you'll start a war. China won't let that happen for sure. I don't think NK is that stupid. They'll never win. No one wants to invade them. They know that. SK won't. America won't. They keep their military fed to stop any sort of coup. I may be sound and be a bit naive to call it all bluster. I really do think it is. They are roaring to get money and food and aid. Eventually they'll die under their own failed policies and ideology. As China becomes stronger, they'll put more pressure on them to stop the nonsense as its bad for business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 You're saying what Newsmax "printed" is not true? I'd venture 50% of what they print is not true or intentionally misleading ala Faux News. Some examples of where they got their dick in the wringer: * After the mysterious disappearance of Chandra Levy in 2001, contributor John LeBoutillier allegedly posted a speculative column on the site about the sex life of Representative Gary Condit, with whom Levy had an affair. The column quickly circulated among media members, even though Newsmax editors pulled it from the site.[9] * On May 26, 2000, Newsmax published an article claiming Hillary Clinton refused to meet with the Gold Star Mothers.[7] According to the Gold Star Mothers organization, this was false and "Senator Clinton greeted us graciously on Gold Star Mothers Sunday, 2005. This story was also debunked at other websites[8] and eventually led to a retraction by NewsMax.[9] * A 2005 NewsMax.com report about Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, claiming he was "teaming up" with rock band U2 for a fund raiser, gained considerable attention. Santorum had actually purchased 66 tickets to a sold-out show and was reselling these to campaign supporters at $1,000 per seat. The band issued a statement denying it was involved in the practice, saying, "U2 concerts are categorically not fund-raisers for any politician; they are rock concerts for U2 fans."[10] Rather than admitting the error and issuing a correction, Newsmax simply changed its article about the fund-raiser without telling readers it had been changed, stating that the story was misinterpreted.[10] * During the debate over the failed 2007 Immigration Bill, Newsmax popularized opposition to an alleged "North American Union," a dystopian vision of a future America where "NAU citizens no longer spend dollars or salute Old Glory. They spend 'ameros'." [11] * On August 9, 2007, Newsmax freelance reporter, Jim Davis, reported that Barack Obama was in attendance on July 22, 2007 during a controversial sermon giving by Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. at Trinity United Church of Christ in South Chicago, Obama's place of worship.[12] The claim that Obama was in attendance for this particular sermon was repeated by Newsmax as fact again on March 16, 2008. [13] A July 22, 2007 speaking schedule for the National Council for La Raza in Miami, Florida shows Obama as a scheduled speaker for 1:30pm. [14] Video confirms he attended the conference and spoke during his allotted time. New York Times op-ed author, William Kristol, who relied upon the erroneous Newsmax articles in an op-ed article in the New York Times on March 17, 2008, [11] provided the following retraction and apology later in the day, "In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama campaign has provided information showing that Sen. Obama did not attend Trinity that day. I regret the error." [12] Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 How should GWB have acted differently? What do you think Obama and Hillary will do? Bush should have stuck to the existing agreement negotiated by Clinton. It was working fine. Of course, one can say the same thing about Iraq... But instead, W had to put his anti-Midas touch on it (i.e., everything he touches turns to shit). This was arguably an even worse move than invading Iraq IMHO. I have no idea what they do now, but I'd recommend trying to salvage what they can of the original Clinton agreement...tho' in reality that means starting over again by first getting them to lock up their nukes. Again. Much harder the second time around. Regards, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 I don't see NK ever starting a war. They'll surely lose. The country is starving. The only way he keeps them in check is propaganda internally by telling them its the west that has caused the shortages. The other way of getting money and aid is to make everyone think you'll start a war. China won't let that happen for sure. I don't think NK is that stupid. They'll never win. No one wants to invade them. They know that. SK won't. America won't. They keep their military fed to stop any sort of coup. I may be sound and be a bit naive to call it all bluster. I really do think it is. They are roaring to get money and food and aid. Eventually they'll die under their own failed policies and ideology. As China becomes stronger, they'll put more pressure on them to stop the nonsense as its bad for business. The USA fears North Korea almost as much as the USA feared the USSR. The news said back then that the USSR and China were light years behind us. Today, the news says North Korea is extremely backwards, about as far back as China used to be. Look at China today. I don't believe everything I read especially if the info is coming from our government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted April 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 How should GWB have acted differently? What do you think Obama and Hillary will do? Bush should have stuck to the existing agreement negotiated by Clinton. It was working fine. Of course' date=' one can say the same thing about Iraq... But instead, W had to put his anti-Midas touch on it (i.e., everything he touches turns to shit). This was arguably an even worse move than invading Iraq IMHO. I have no idea what they do now, but I'd recommend trying to salvage what they can of the original Clinton agreement...tho' in reality that means starting over again by first getting them to lock up their nukes. Again. Much harder the second time around. Regards, SD[/quote'] Salvage what they can? 5555555555555 You mean bailout NK? Would be funny, if it isn't probably what Obama will do. Read this: "The irony of Mrs. Clinton and her ideological kin accusing the Bush administration of failure on North Korea is rich. By Mrs. Clinton's own standards, husband Bill must be responsible for Indian and Pakistani nuclear advancements -- as evidenced by the series of 1998 nuclear tests that caught the United States by surprise -- and for the continuing rise of the A.Q. Khan proliferation network during the 1990s. Since the first lady of the Clinton administration apparently cannot remember the facts about her husband's eight years in office or the decades before it, we're happy to remind her with a brief chronology of the North Korean bomb. North Korea started developing its nuclear-weapons capabilities in the 1970s. Bill Clinton's first director of central intellligence, James Woolsey, told Congress in 1993 that there was a "real possibility that North Korea has manufactured enough fissile material for at least one nuclear weapon." It didn't happen overnight. Decades of effort had brought North Korea to a point where it could go nuclear. In fact, major advances in North Korea's nuclear capabilities took place during the Clinton administration. North Korea greatly improved its missile technology. It successfully tested the Nodong missile to a range of 500 kilometers in 1993. In October 1997, a North Korean defector testified before the U.S. Senate that Pyongyang had two or three nuclear warheads. In 1998, North Korea tested a Taepo Dong-1 missile which flew over Japan and landed in the Pacific Ocean. In February 1999, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet told Congress that North Korea's missile-development program includes missiles that will be able to hit the continental United States. During the 1990s, North Korea repeatedly shut its nuclear reactors to harvest fuel for bombs. It built facilities underground to evade international inspectors. The Clinton administration's eight years compounded these North Korean successes. The diplomatic enticements and sweetheart deals it engineered or endorsed, including the Agreed Framework, all gave Pyongyang more resources and time to pursue its bomb. The truth is that North Korea will likely continue attempting to pursue its nuclear-weapons program regardless of who occupies the White House." http://washingtontimes.com/news/2005/may/02/20050502-094119-9101r/ HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 NK starting a war with Japan or SK invites the U.S. into the region militarily in strength and numbers as we have solid treaties with both of the countries. Its the LAST thing China wants. No way it will 'let' NK do that. The 'worst' that will happen is some skirmish along the DMZ that will be negotiated to end with massive aid. That's when we'll know they are getting desparate and think they can't hold on to the lie internally. Probably means the military has had it. When all is said done the NK has developed nukes at the expense of starving millions. The bigger threat I think is from them being so desparate for money they are selling the technology for hard cash, which they are already doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger77 Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 I don't see NK ever starting a war. They'll surely lose. The country is starving. The only way he keeps them in check is propaganda internally by telling them its the west that has caused the shortages. The other way of getting money and aid is to make everyone think you'll start a war. China won't let that happen for sure. I don't think NK is that stupid. They'll never win. No one wants to invade them. They know that. SK won't. America won't. They keep their military fed to stop any sort of coup. I may be sound and be a bit naive to call it all bluster. I really do think it is. They are roaring to get money and food and aid. Eventually they'll die under their own failed policies and ideology. As China becomes stronger, they'll put more pressure on them to stop the nonsense as its bad for business. My thoughts exactly CS. I've been stationed in Korea for 5 years. What you say is true...they wont start it because that would be the end of them. This is all a ploy for aid and to keep their citizens believing the BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 LOL, so you go from NewsMax to the Mooney Times? HH, you really *must* improve your source material. They are playing you like a fiddle LOL! Reading realistic sources will lower your BP and allow you to think for yourself. Cheers, SD -- you don't see me quoting HuffPo, The Guardian or The Marxist Daily! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.