Dr Guy Dr Guy

Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don't

▼

Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don't

from JoeUser Forums

Yep!  Sunday proved that adage!  North Korea, and Kim Jung Mentally Il, detonated a nuke.  About the size of the Hiroshima bomb.  And the reaction?  Expected.  Those who condemned Bush for Iraq, a nation that had a nuclear program by EVERY acount just a few years before the invasion, now are condemning Bush for not invading, or at least Nuking North Korea.

Bush's Crime?  He tried Diplomacy, not appeasement (Clinton tried the latter and that is why NK was in the position to test a nuke, but I digress).  And for his efforts in insisting upon multilateral talks, and not uni-lateral talks?  He did wrong.  Yep!  They quote a traitor to America on what he MIGHT have done (but of course he never set forth the steps to do anything), and they point to Clinton and Madam Not-so-Bright as the real course to follow (omitting the fact that it was their policies that advanced the NK Nuclear program).

So out of one side of their mouth, they condemn the 'unilateral' invasion of Iraq (unilateral as in 40 nations, but again I digress), and then out of the other condemn the Multilateral talks that Bush insisted upon.

Bush haters are so easy to spot.  Just check for the forked tongue, or the both sides of the mouth talking.  They cant help but contradict themselves.  Hatred is not logical, and neither are they.

politics
19,780 views 71 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Absolutely. The democrats still have no coherent plan for anything, other than "it's Bushs fault".

They seriously act like this whole problem started with Bush, and now they resort to the usual...."well Bush is making them mad" argument. Seriously....what idiots.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

...."well Bush is making them mad" argument.

I love that one!

"We should not arrest murderers as it only makes the rest mad!"

Yep!  That works for me.

WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
It shows the ignorant minds of the left in this country. The problem is they don't view Iran and North Korea as threats, just the U.S.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem is that if you actually do anything you run the risk of not being politically correct. It's best to just talk and make it seem like you are trying to do something than to run the risk of offending someone.

If Bush did nothing, they would blame him for that.

If Bush did anything, they would blame him for that.

If Bush had nothing whatsoever to do with it, they would blame him anyway.

If a five year old kid in Peru stubs his toe on a rock I am quite certain that it is somehow Bush's fault.

The N. Korean government spends billions on their military while their people starve. It's Bush's fault even though it had been going on for years prior to him being elected.

My hip hurts today. It's Bush's fault.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
DNC official policy:

1. It's Bush's fault.
2. If it's not Bush's fault, see rule number 1
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

The problem is they don't view Iran and North Korea as threats, just the U.S.

That is the sad state of 21st century politics in America.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

My hip hurts today. It's Bush's fault.

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem is that if you actually do anything you run the risk of not being politically correct. It's best to just talk and make it seem like you are trying to do something than to run the risk of offending someone.


Basically what Clinton meant when he said "at least I tried". It's not about the results, it's about acting, it's about fooling people into thinking you are doing something and convincing them that if its a failure, you can at least say you tried and that should be good enough for everyone.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush fails = impeach and get rid of him

Clinton failed = at least he tried

This is sad.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Basically what Clinton meant when he said "at least I tried". It's not about the results, it's about acting, it's about fooling people into thinking you are doing something and convincing them that if its a failure, you can at least say you tried and that should be good enough for everyone.


No, it goes to intentions. Results dont count, only what your intentions were in regards to the policy.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush fails = impeach and get rid of him

Clinton failed = at least he tried

This is sad


Senator driving his intern into a lake and killing her and leaving = ok

Politician sending perverted text messages to over the age of consent boys = Outrage!
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

Senator driving his intern into a lake and killing her and leaving = ok

Politician sending perverted text messages to over the age of consent boys = Outrage!

Join the democrats! The Party of Hypocrasy.

Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

how many nuclear weapons did nk produce prior to 2001?

Just came across this article kb.  You may not think they had any, but a lot of scientist in 2000 ( a year before Bush too office) had the capability then to produce 12 bombs a year, and going to 65 a year.  A YEAR BEFORE BUSH TOOK OFFICE.

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
But next time, do your own googling. I hate lazy readers.


ooh fiesty!   
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
tizen)Island DogOctober 10, 2006 13:13:11Reply #30
DNC official policy:

1. It's Bush's fault.
2. If it's not Bush's fault, see rule number 1


Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
The fact is we tried "talking" to North Korea for how many years? What did it accomplish.....absolutely nothing. Now democrats get mad because Bush won't sit down and basically kiss their behinds. Good.

The best way to send a message is to send in a few stealth bombers and set their progress behind a few decades. I really do not understand these liberals who think talking to killer lunatics will get them somewhere.


ag no not another war!

Let me ask the question:-

Why cant they have it? What is the reasoning behind them not having it, others do why not them? If they had it would they actually use it?

Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top

Why cant they have it? What is the reasoning behind them not having it, others do why not them? If they had it would they actually use it?

For the same reason Terrorists cant have it.  A man who cares nothing for his people, does not value life very highly.  And that is the most dangerous man of all, for he surely will cut off his nose to spite his face.

Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why cant they have it? What is the reasoning behind them not having it, others do why not them? If they had it would they actually use it?


N Korea has a track record of selling weapon systems to others. That may well include terrorists. It's one thing for a country to have these weapons, it's quite another for them to put them on the market to anyone who can afford them.

And N Korea's leadership is not known for being stable or reasonable. There is a strong possibility that he would indeed use tham against Japan or even the US if he develops the means to deliver them that far.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
Natural disasters, war, nuclear weapons, scandal...tick tock, tick tock on the Armageddon clock.

~Zoo
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top

N Korea has a track record of selling weapon systems to others. That may well include terrorists. It's one thing for a country to have these weapons, it's quite another for them to put them on the market to anyone who can afford them.

That is another reason.  Bush did not randomly pick 3 countries to be the Axis of Evil.  They all had a history of selling weapons to terrorist groups.

Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top

Natural disasters, war, nuclear weapons, scandal...tick tock, tick tock on the Armageddon clock.

At least you did not have to play "Duck and Cover"

30 years ago, the world was going to end in a nuclear holocaust.  Now we have to put up with nasty storms and idiot tin pot dictators.  It is always something.

Reply #47 from PolMach Forums Top
But next time, do your own googling. I hate lazy readers.

Actually, documenting sources is your responsibility. I cannot count the nember of tiimes my College English proffesor talked about documenting sources and quotes. You, as a writter, must always assume that the reader is lazy, no matter how much you hates lazy readers.

Oh, and here are some sources to back me up.

Make sure you explain the relevance of quotes you include to your reader. Imagine a lazy reader. Make everything as clear as possible.
Link

Remember that we, as readers, are lazy. We don’t want to have to figure out a writer’s reasoning for ourselves; we want all the thinking to be done for us in the paper.
Link
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Agreed Framework we negotiated secured the spent fuel they held in storage (enough plutonium for five nuclear weapons), and all other plutonium-producing facilities were frozen under inspection. Had these facilities been allowed to become operational, North Korea would by now be producing enough plutonium for 30 nuclear weapons each year, a capacity far greater than, by most estimates, those of India, Pakistan and Israel combined. This has been greatly in our interest.


i guess none of yall read this (excerpted from drmiler's comment#20). i'm not sure what he point he thought he was making, but for once he got it right. like it or not, nk was much less a threat--not to mention a model for other nations who might not otherwise seriously considered acquiring nukes--during the late 90s than it's been since 2002.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
30 years ago, the world was going to end in a nuclear holocaust. Now we have to put up with nasty storms and idiot tin pot dictators.


no. as long as we have a government that doesn't take non-proliferation seriously enough to lead the world in achieving it, the nuclear threat still looms over us. i'd think people with kids and grandkids--especially those parents and grandparents who spent their childhood never knowing when or if some idiot was gonna push the first button--would be a much more concerned and responsible. no matter who controls em, each new nuke makes the entire planet a lil less healthy place for future generations.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
When their memory only goes back to the day Bush was sworn in, I guess it's easy to throw out anything that happened before that day.