In addition Bush included North Korea as partner to the “axis,” did not support Clinton’s signing on to the Comprehensive Test Ban, abrogated the ABM Treaty, violated the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, along with unconditionally ruling out the use of nuclear weapons against the north.

You may be right but here's why :Link

Bush “Diplomacy” By: stevendedalus Posted: Saturday, October 09, 2004 on http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com/ Message Board: Politics Bush claims that North Korea has not been ignored while the US expended its energy on Iraq. Kerry claims that North Korea’s proliferation of nuclear weapons was due to abysmal diplomacy. Even before 9/11 and Iraq, Bush reneged on a consortium of South Korea, Japan and the US to supply North Korea fuel temporarily until light water reactors could be built. As a result South Korea and Japan lost over a billion in investments. South Korea’s “sunshine policy” requiring relations with the north, was scorned by the administration and dropped all diplomatic relations with North Korea and then called Kim-Jong II a loathsome pygmy. In addition Bush included North Korea as partner to the “axis,” did not support Clinton’s signing on to the Comprehensive Test Ban, abrogated the ABM Treaty, violated the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, along with unconditionally ruling out the use of nuclear weapons against the north.

Before you start flapping your gums about just how bad Bush is. Maybe, just maybe you should read this first.

Link

Hmm, I wonder who was President in 1999 that failed to ratify the document?

Wonder if he was the same person who gave Communist China Nuclear Capability and Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Technology? DOH!

- GX

Reply #3 By: Grim Xiozan - 10/10/2004 12:30:05 AM Hmm, I wonder who was President in 1999 that failed to ratify the document?

Sorry Grim but you can't put this on Clinton. It belongs on the SENATE! And I wonder who is a part of that?

Sorry Grim but you can't put this on Clinton. It belongs on the SENATE! And I wonder who is a part of that?

Oh no! Not the Senate! No way, we must find a way to put all the blame on somebody who just stepped into this mess after the fact!!



Weapon of Mass Disinformation. Okay I wonder who that could be, really I wonder who?

- GX

Steve is smart. That's not sarcasm, either. That's why I know that Steve could easily destroy his own article if he were asked to. Steve KNOWS that no amount of diplomacy would keep North Korea from developing these weapons. They are bargaining chips for a dying nation.

Is "diplomacy" the act of keeping their society from imploding? I hope not. I despise their society. Would "diplmacy" moderate their nation's stance? Nope, it never has before. What helped before wasn't "diplomacy", it was BRIBERY.

So this nasty guy lives next to you, and says he is going to kill you if you don't feed his hungry family. You buy him groceries. After 20 years of doing this, you decide you have had enough with the bribery, and you stop. His family starts getting hungry. All your neighbors say "How DARE you starve his family!! If he kills you, you asked for it!!"

North Korea is a vastly dangerous nation, with a population so hideously brainwashed that there is zero, not one in a million, ZERO chance of wooing them with any kind of diplomacy. They have been told for 50 years that they are at WAR with the US.

In that light, wtf are we supposed to do diplomatically, Steve? Like I say, if I am hard on you, it is because I know how intelligent you are, and I know that if this were a debate class you could hop to the other side and rip this flimsy accusation to shreds...

Before you start flapping your gums about just how bad Bush is. Maybe, just maybe you should read this first.

I have and supports my view: just because the Ban is imperfect does not vitiate its spirited will.

Baker, thanks for the confidence you have in me. It's true, I could easily hop to the other side with instinctive pleasure [the old marine in me]. The simplistic approach is to bomb the hell out of them, but just as in the original war we would have the China threat. Since Jong II worshops Liz Taylor I suggest she be the chief negotiator for us.

North Korea is a vastly dangerous nation, with a population so hideously brainwashed that there is zero, not one in a million, ZERO chance of wooing them with any kind of diplomacy. They have been told for 50 years that they are at WAR with the US.

I would presume from the tenor of your comments that you've been there? Or talked with hundreds of North Korea ex-pats?

Seems to me that the west also believed all of the same about the USSR. Diplomacy is the act of deliberately keeping some lines of communication open, despite other provocations/justifications etc. Even enemies are less hateful if they communicate occassionally.

JW

Reply #7 By: stevendedalus - 10/10/2004 12:58:42 PM Before you start flapping your gums about just how bad Bush is. Maybe, just maybe you should read this first. I have and supports my view: just because the Ban is imperfect does not vitiate its spirited will. Baker, thanks for the confidence you have in me. It's true, I could easily hop to the other side with instinctive pleasure [the old marine in me]. The simplistic approach is to bomb the hell out of them, but just as in the original war we would have the China threat. Since Jong II worshops Liz Taylor I suggest she be the chief negotiator for us.

You may have read it but I ddoubt you comprehended it. FYI the United Sates NEVER ratified the treaty! Which means it is non-binding! Now just how is that Bush's fault? The SENATE is the one who has to ratify a treaty NOT the president. So the link DOES NOT support your position!

Even enemies are less hateful if they communicate occassionally.

A penetrating perception.

You may have read it but I ddoubt you comprehended it.

You're not content unless you zing me personally. It is contemptible that the Senate did not ratify it, but it still has the signature of a president endorsing its spirit and wisdom.

You may have read it but I ddoubt you comprehended it. You're not content unless you zing me personally. It is contemptible that the Senate did not ratify it, but it still has the signature of a president endorsing its spirit and wisdom.

It may have been endorsed, but it was NEVER ratified which means Bush is NOT bound by it. So how is he suppossed to support Clinton's signing of it?
BTW I apologize for the wise-assed comment.

But it would be nice if Bush went on record in support of it.

Reply #12 By: stevendedalus - 10/10/2004 11:57:36 PM But it would be nice if Bush went on record in support of it.

Why should he? Out of 160 signatures there were only 66 ratifications. Sounds to me like we're not the only ones.

Yes, but we are the leader of the world of reason.

Reply #14 By: stevendedalus - 10/11/2004 10:22:48 AM Yes, but we are the leader of the world of reason

Says who?