Originally posted by Rayx0r

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by HYPERI0N

---

Originally posted by popinjay

 

 

Bush did nothing and Jong today is the result.

---

 
Sadly people like the one you replied to wont change there mind when faced with facts they will just retreat further into standard party line replies. As for your post i agree Jong was a clear and present danger with nuclear ambitions way back even at 2007. Bush would ahve made more sence doing something about Jong than he did going after saddam who claimed he was NOT after WMD's [unlike jong] and as it turned out he and the UN wepons inspectors was right.
 
*Puts on flame retardant suit*

---

 

No need for the suit. Anyone trying to dispute this fact of American history isn't dealing with reality and has no real response. They just want to argue. The smarter ones who just fawn all over Bush will stay quiet because they already realize this point is indefensible. You can look up any old article from 2003 onward and all signs showed Jong clearly wasn't lying while Saddam had nothing but inert, dried up residue and nothing nuclear.

 

Everyone and their brother was telling Bush to do something about North Korea. Jong was practically taking out full page ads in the Sunday paper in the US saying "Yeah, we got them. So what?" The inspectors told Bush he probably has them before they got kicked out.

 

But yet Bush went to the desert to chase boogeymen who were in Pakistan the whole time. He simply wasn't going "to wait for proof in the form of a mushroom cloud", eh? Well, he's got a lot to answer for North Korea does go off half-cocked, and we still don't have Bin Laden.

 

Just so much shame.

The more I read the more I believe that the reason Good 'ol GW pushed so hard for invasion of Iraq (aka... Iraqi failure) is because he wanted to show his pappi that he could do something his pappi couldn't.... kill Saddam Husein.  Well, that, and greed for oil.

Yes, the crazy dictatard (misspelling intended) Kim Jong Il was a threat back then.  He was flaunting his power.  However, I believe a lot of it was just attention-seeking.  But, the claims Jong was making should've been addressed in some way, shape, or form by Good 'ol GW.  Yet, Good 'ol GW did absolutely nothing about it as he was so focused on Operation:  Useless War... aka, Operation:  One-Up On My Pappi.

 

 

 

A lot of people are completely convinced that there was some deep conspiracy involved with invading Iraq.  Most people believe its oil control.  Ya..we see how far all this oil control has gotten us.  The government wanted us to believe it was WMD's, which they admitted after the invasion that nothing of the sort was ever discovered.

The US is positioning themselves, and Iraq is nothing more than a staging ground.  Just like Kuwait was to take Iraq.  Someone had to take Iraq and it needed to be the US in order to control airspace and basically have a staging ground for attacks in Iran and Pakistan.  Look at how global control through warfare has taken place in the past.  These things take years, decades even to control certain regions.  Iraq's infrastructure was wrecked and it was a good time for the US to take that chunk of real estate.  Especially with the US citizens on its side wanting revenge on...whoever..whatever. 

Nobody cared if it made sense then.  It still doesnt make sense now if you looking at it from an instant gratification perspective.  From a long-term strategic perspective, and who the greater enemies are it makes quite a bit of sense

I see....

1. Why did "someone" have to take Iraq?  What was Saddam Husein doing that required "someone" to invade and overthrow him?  If you are going to say "Human-rights violations"... well, then "someone" should've invaded China, Cuba, Iran, and at least a few other nations that I'm forgetting, a whole helluva long time ago.
2. So, you are outright claiming that the US was planning on invading Iran and Pakistan as well?  How many f*cking countries was Bush planning for the US to invade?  The whole Middle East (sans Israel of course)?   So, based on your conclusion as to why Bush set his sights on Iraq for Operation:  Useless War, that means Good 'ol GW blatantly lied about the WMD's to Congress, the American People, and the rest of the world just so we could have a staging ground for further potential wars.  Geeze... the Republicans sure are war hungry liars.  More proof that Good 'ol GW should be brought up on crimes against Humanity.

---

Originally posted by Mardy

---

Originally posted by popinjay

 

 
 
Bush did nothing about North Korea and YOU know it.

---

 
Stop talking about it as if you would've been OK if Bush did use military action against NK.

---

No offense, but this is the same limited thinking the other guy is guilty of. Assuming that the only way to deal with Jong was to invade or attack. Why is it that people are so fixated on war as the "solution"? Back the clock up, that's the only way to get perspective.

After 9/11, the U.S. was still in great shape, we just took a psychological hit. Everyone wanted blood and didn't care who's. Bush and friends were only happy to oblige and dusted off the plan for Iraq invasion they had stored away. The problem was, everyone who knew said, and all the intel pointed exactly where we needed to go: Afghanistan. All intel (not the cherrypicked kind) said that's where Osama was likely at and that up in the mountains was their stronghold.

So we sent a TOKEN force in there and messed with the wrong people: the Taliban who weren't terrorists. They were religious extremists but they didn't give a crap about the U.S. They just wanted to control their own country and didn't want nukes, WMDs or U.S. blood. But we picked a fight with those guys and ran them off into the hills. We them prop up Karzai and then declare victory. Mistake #1.

Bush decides that's not enough blood, and wants to settle old scores. Lies about intel, lies about cost, lies about length. We go there and create a war where none was needed. Meanwhile, the Taliban and REAL terrorists leaders are sitting in the mountains.

All the while this crap is going on, Jong is telling the U.S. he wants to be taken seriously as a world power. Bush laughs and continues to think he's a lying little nobody. He either doesn't think he has nukes or they aren't far enough along to do anything with them. And even if they did, they don't have missiles to hit the U.S. or carry the payload. Day after day, that clown Jong gets on and says more outrageous things to the U.S. China doesn't really care, they are busy buying up U.S. paper by the tankerful. Russia is busy too. This was the time to do something, at least open a line of diplomacy to the idiot and find out exactly what he wanted. There was a time in the middle where Jong was going to let inspectors back in.

Instead, Bush ignores him and doesn't send anyone to talk. At this point, North Korea wanted simple things like food and could have been had for a song. If the U.S. had not gone to Iraq and dealt with Jong THEN, we would have had billions of dollars, fresh troops and a national spirit.

Now look at where the U.S. is at, simply through bad leadership. Tired troops, broke economy, national ugliness. Bush is like that one neighbor on your block who never takes care of his house, lets it fall to ruin then sells it at the worst time for peanuts and bugs out, lowering the property value for everyone else.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Mardy

 
Stop talking about it as if you would've been OK if Bush did use military action against NK.

---

 

No offense, but this is the same limited thinking the other guy is guilty of. Assuming that the only way to deal with Jong was to invade or attack. Why is it that people are so fixated on war as the "solution"? Back the clock up, that's the only way to get perspective.

 

 

I don't get it, on one hand, you are accusing me of "limited thinking", yet you continued on saying how we should've dealt with NK instead of Iraq/Afghan.  So what would be your non-military way of dealing with NK that we have not done already?

---

Originally posted by Mardy

 
I don't get it, on one hand, you are accusing me of "limited thinking", yet you continued on saying how we should've dealt with NK instead of Iraq/Afghan.  So what would be your non-military way of dealing with NK that we have not done already?

---

Well, let's look at what North Korea could need because in the end with countries, it's all about what are you going to do for me if I do this for you. I think we all can agree on that.

What did the US want? North Korea no nukes. Plain and simple. So, what do you give North Korea in return?

A slap in the chops?

What do they need really? Food, and lots of it. They ate just about everything in North Korea that walks, crawls, swims or flies. It's been eaten. There are whole lakes in NK where practically nothing moves, making it look like a RvR lake in Warhammer. I mean, you don't even hear birds chirping because they've eaten most of them.

What does the United States have TONS and TONS of that we pay farmers NOT to grow? Food. That's how we got China and Russia to the table with plenty of issues. That would have been a good start to get them to open up, let inspectors in and to talk with the U.S. and other countries. We've been hammering them for years with sanctions, but it was like Iraq... Saddam was the only guy making out really. The people suffered and we didn't learn our lesson about sanctions.

Next option is what the leader really wants.. world recognition. Let's face it: the world is a different place today. It would be no big deal to include North Korea on the world stage in a larger role because.. surprise, they actually already ARE on the world stage in a larger role. So they really wouldn't have gained anything by talking what they would have gained this way, through bullying. And they are bullying the U.S. atm because they know we have too many fish to fry still from Bush's mess.

You don't always have to bomb a guy to get him to listen. It's like torture; you get way more information from being civil and conducting business professionally than strapping a guy down. Look at how we got Khaddafy to play ball after years of idiocy. Not through bombing or threats. Sanctions didn't work in Cuba, to people on an ISLAND for God's sake. Why would we think they'd work in North Korea when their main communist ally is right next door attached to them?

---

Originally posted by Mardy

yet you continued on saying how we should've dealt with NK instead of Iraq/Afghan.

---

False. I didn't say that. I said Iraq.

We SHOULD have dealt with Afghanstan and going there after 9/11 was correct. That was the right thing to do, that's where the terrorists were. North Korea wasn't an issue really until Bush claimed they were part of the "axis of evil", declared victory and then went to Iraq. That's just plain stupid and irresponsible.

Afghanistan should have been a easy mop up job and then a VERY easy rebuild. It was all mud friggin huts, for God's sake! There was nothing to do but build it up from the beginning and hook those people up so they come over to OUR side and away from the Taliban. Build them a few real houses with some satellite and those dirt farmers would have done anything for the United States we asked.

But we gave them peanuts and went and blew the hell out of Iraq just to ... rebuild buildings that were already working, houses where people already lived comfortable and create NEW jobs because we destroyed all their old ones. That's retarded.

We should have camped in Afghanistan for 3 years, rebuilding it and branching out into the mountains to get Osama, and Bush knew he was up there.

Do you know how many times NK has broken the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty?  They broke it several times, while banned nuclear inspectors from entering their country, something that was agreed upon in the treaty.

It was so bad, that we even agreed to ship them fuel oil in return for their cooperation.  This was back in the 90's.

I don't know what makes you think giving them food would make them stop producing uranium and furthering their nuclear ambitions.  I also think we all know that they were going nuclear, and there's nothing we could've done to stop it.  Just as Iran is going nuclear, and there's nothing we could do to stop it.  I'm not one to offer money & resources to countries that we knew would not stop their nuclear ambitions.

But we'll agree to disagree.  Of course I honestly don't get why you would bring up Iraq/Afghan wars when you are trying to offer a supposedly peaceful solution that NK would take lol.   I think we have people smart enough to know they weren't going to stop nuclear ambitions to go along with that.

And FYI, Iraq war started in March 2003, NK didn't break their nuclear non-proliferation treaty until December 2003.  NK knew we wouldn't engage them through military back then because we were preoccupied.  Ironically, military option was probably the only reason that kept them at bay for such a long time.

Originally posted by Rayx0r

A lot of people are completely convinced that there was some deep conspiracy involved with invading Iraq.  Most people believe its oil control.  Ya..we see how far all this oil control has gotten us. 

I'll tell you how far it has got us in the U.K.

The rest of Europe is Russia's bitch. They keep getting cut off in the middle of winter too.

You are not Venezuala's bitch.

As for rebuilding Afghanistan, there is nothing to rebuild. Any building to be done in Afghanistan starts from scratch. Some of our enemies there were cavemen.

It took my nation thousands of years to build itself up from that point and we are rich in natural resources.

---

Originally posted by Mardy
Do you know how many times NK has broken the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty?  They broke it several times, while banned nuclear inspectors from entering their country, something that was agreed upon in the treaty.
It was so bad, that we even agreed to ship them fuel oil in return for their cooperation.  This was back in the 90's.
 
I don't know what makes you think giving them food would make them stop producing uranium and furthering their nuclear ambitions.  I also think we all know that they were going nuclear, and there's nothing we could've done to stop it.  Just as Iran is going nuclear, and there's nothing we could do to stop it.  I'm not one to offer money & resources to countries that we knew would not stop their nuclear ambitions.
 
But we'll agree to disagree.  Of course I honestly don't get why you would bring up Iraq/Afghan wars when you are trying to offer a supposedly peaceful solution that NK would take lol.   I think we have people smart enough to know they weren't going to stop nuclear ambitions to go along with that.
 
And FYI, Iraq war started in March 2003, NK didn't break their nuclear non-proliferation treaty until December 2003.  NK knew we wouldn't engage them through military back then because we were preoccupied.  Ironically, military option was probably the only reason that kept them at bay for such a long time.

---

How many times did they break the treaty, please?

By your own admission, we agreed to ship them fuel oil. That shows that there was room for discussion and that they wanted some basic things. There was leverage if used it a positive way, not a punishing way.

Food works because that country is near starvation. Have you ever seen it at night? They have almost no electricity in the entire country. Food worked with Russia, food worked with China. Food works with most countries because the U.S. has plenty of it and those other places don't. In December 1998, the United States responded to a Russian request for food aid. Why do you think we made so much progress with Russia and China in the past? Again, we've been shipping those places food for years and that helped relations.

FYI, Bush put North Korea on his "Axis of Evil" hit list long before they even went to Afghanistan. What kind of diplomatic message do you think that sent? A bad one. We are the ones who started off on the wrong foot. It's no coincidence that North Korea started going nuts AFTER we went to Traq that same year. They knew we had our hands full and that's why he accelerated their programs. They knew we couldn't fight THREE wars. Besides, Bush was already talking about going to Iran after Iraq. Jong saw all that. He's not really crazy, you know. The media portrays him that way. That's just handy to slap on him because we don't understand his schemes.

Why do I bring up Iraq and Afghanistan? I have a feeling you didn't read what I wrote because it's clearly pointed out. If we fix Afghanistan, which would have been DIRT CHEAP because it's all dirt there, we would have had a strong ally and a presence from which to get Bin Laden. We should have stopped there. If we had stopped there, our troops would have never been committed to Iraq on a wild goose chase and worn down to the nub and we wouldn't have squandered BILLIONS of dollars in Iraq. We would have been in a much stronger position to deal with North Korea, instead of going after the guy who was saying all along he didn't have any nukes, Saddam. Which... he didn't.

See, there's a thing called allocation of resources which I think you are missing. We could have used all those resources to bring some meaningful actions of North Korea. But by squandering them all in the desert, North Korea knows our military is stretched to thin, so that kind of bluffing and sabre rattling that Bush kept doing was useless. They also know we are flat broke now. They also know Americans have just about had their fill of war from Iraq. Bush has done everything remotely possible to strengthen North Korea more and weaken us at the same time.

You seem to think that because Jong doesn't initially "go along", that would have always been the case. By your thinking, China and Russia would have never "gone along" either. It's well and good to say what he might not have done, but the reality is if it would have turned out the same way like it did, Jong having nukes, at least we would never have had to go to Iraq and would have had enough resources to weather this economic crisis.

---

Originally posted by Mardy

 
And FYI, Iraq war started in March 2003, NK didn't break their nuclear non-proliferation treaty until December 2003.  NK knew we wouldn't engage them through military back then because we were preoccupied.  Ironically, military option was probably the only reason that kept them at bay for such a long time.

---

Again, Bush is patently responsible for North Korea today.

---

Experts Say Bush Administration Strategy Has Claimed Credit For Diplomatic Process But Failed to Take Any Responsibility for a Lack of Results.

A report by the National Security Advisory Group issued in July of 2005 states that "Since 9/11, in the face of North Korea's runaway nuclear program, U.S. policymakers: did nothing as North Korea crossed redline after redline; claimed credit for diplomatic process (the Six-Party Talks) but have taken no responsibility for total lack of results; attempted to outsource the issue to China and then blame the failure on China; [and] tried to blame the Clinton administration, the administration that actually stopped plutonium production in North Korea." The report continues by saying that during the Clinton Administration, North Korea had no plutonium, but during the Bush Administration, North Korea has at least four to six nuclear weapons worth of plutonium. [Worst Weapons in Worst Hands, The National Security Advisory Group, July 2005]

North Korea Has Dramatically Increased Its Weapons Material Stockpile under the Bush Administration.

When President Bush took office in 2000, Pyongyang had enough fissile material to manufacture 1-2 nuclear weapons. Today, experts believe that North Korea possesses material sufficient to build between 4 and 13 nuclear weapons and, unless an agreement is reached to stop the country's program, it is estimated that Pyongyang will have enough material to manufacture between 8 and 17 nuclear weapons by 2008. [Institute for Science and International Security, 6/26/06]

---

That was 2006. Fast forward three years and now reports of North Korea may fire missiles. Iraq was the dumbest ass thing anyone could have ever done on a wide variety of levels and exactly why Bush's father chose NOT to do it.

Bush listened to morons and we all might end up paying for it now because of glory seeking neoconservatives. How is this not plain to you?

Here's a crazy thought...

"misdirection stan"

What if NK is planning to launch that missle at Alaska on July 4th instead?

I mean it's all over the news that we've moved anti missle batteries to the Pacific....  Can they still protect Alaska as well?

...and...

Wouldn't it just be the SHIT if that happened and we STILL shot his missle down?  muahaha....bad ass!

---

Originally posted by Faxxer

shot his missle down

---

Singular huh? You sure?

You are basing your whole argument on the idea that NK would take food in exchange to stop nuclear ambitions.   Because I don't believe that one bit, we'll agree to disagree.

How did oil for food work out for Saddam?  After all, he did invade Kuwait, he was flexing his muscles in the middle east taunting everybody, he did cheat the oil for food and kicked out inspectors when they were supposed to be given access.  There was corruption everywhere, especially when you get UN involved.  Some leaders in this world are simply too ambitious to be bought out by food.  And just because we send food somewhere, doesn't mean the government won't horde it and still starve their people into submission.....oh kinda like what he's been doing.

So again, I don't buy it one bit that food would've been enough to stop NK's nuclear ambitions.  Just as I know there's nothing in the world outside of military action would stop Iran from their nuclear ambitions.

---

Originally posted by Mardy

 
So again, I don't buy it one bit that food would've been enough to stop NK's nuclear ambitions.  Just as I know there's nothing in the world outside of military action would stop Iran from their nuclear ambitions.

---

Didn't say food alone. I don't think that would have done it either. But saber rattling and calling them "evil" right before going off on a Christian inspired crusade of war in the Middle East region doesn't help either. That's not diplomacy. Or rather it's gunboat diplomacy and the world is past that now.

There are a combination of things that countries can do in differing increments to bring about change. Perfect example is Obama and Iran.

Bush and the neo-idiots wanted to invade Iran. But if you look at how the Middle East has reacted to a Black President discussing change, seeing the change our country visibly has taken and actually sounding like he means it, that gave those Iranians the courage to protest openly when they think that they will have worldwide support. Bush only made Iran MORE closed up and hostile. Imagine if crazy Bush would have been on Iran's doorstep. This would have only given Iranian leaders like Ahmadinijahd more credibility.

By staying OUT of Iranian affairs and letting the people run their own course, Obama has helped bring about change. So might doesn't always make right, nor does scary talk of invasion. Bush could have done a lot more, but instead NK's nuke program took off and prospered.

You still aren't admitting that and I don't know why when you know it's true.

Obama is the perfect example of just how changing a discussion slightly can make a huge impact. If this country has a revolution and they change the structure, that didn't happen because of sanctions, threats and calling people evil.

A lot of the people think if Iraq didn't happen, and Saddam wasn't toppled, that people in Iran wouldn't be rioting today.  You would at least be a bit willing to say that's possible right?  You are so fast at giving Obama credit, as if what he did (which is nothing) made Iranians stand up to fight.  A lil biased maybe?

Also back to NK, they get their supplies from China, I just don't think anything we do would stop their nuclear ambitions.  These leaders know, being nuclear powered, changes everything for them. 

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Mardy

 

 
So again, I don't buy it one bit that food would've been enough to stop NK's nuclear ambitions.  Just as I know there's nothing in the world outside of military action would stop Iran from their nuclear ambitions.

---

 

 

Didn't say food alone. I don't think that would have done it either. But saber rattling and calling them "evil" right before going off on a Christian inspired crusade of war in the Middle East region doesn't help either. That's not diplomacy. Or rather it's gunboat diplomacy and the world is past that now.

 

There are a combination of things that countries can do in differing increments to bring about change. Perfect example is Obama and Iran.

 

Bush and the neo-idiots wanted to invade Iran. But if you look at how the Middle East has reacted to a Black President discussing change, seeing the change our country visibly has taken and actually sounding like he means it, that gave those Iranians the courage to protest openly when they think that they will have worldwide support. Bush only made Iran MORE closed up and hostile. Imagine if crazy Bush would have been on Iran's doorstep. This would have only given Iranian leaders like Ahmadinijahd more credibility.

 

 

By staying OUT of Iranian affairs and letting the people run their own course, Obama has helped bring about change. So might doesn't always make right, nor does scary talk of invasion. Bush could have done a lot more, but instead NK's nuke program took off and prospered.

 

You still aren't admitting that and I don't know why when you know it's true.

 

Obama is the perfect example of just how changing a discussion slightly can make a huge impact. If this country has a revolution and they change the structure, that didn't happen because of sanctions, threats and calling people evil.

I cant believe you actually think Obama speech laid the ground work for whats happing in Iran..
 

Plz don't take this to personal but your like a little chiwawa nipping a the ankles of a giant.

Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilize the Iranian regime."
Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Tehran has long claimed to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces. Last Monday, Iran publicly hanged a man, Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi, for his involvement in a bomb attack that killed 11 Revolutionary Guards in the city of Zahedan in Sistan-Baluchistan. An unnamed local official told the semi-official Fars news agency that weapons used in the attack were British and US-made.
Seymour Hersh Exposes New US Covert Operations In Iran (VIDEO) from your beloved Huffington post

At present, none of the opposition groups are much more than irritants to Tehran, but US analysts believe that they could become emboldened if the regime was attacked by America or Israel. Such a prospect began to look more likely last week, as the UN Security Council deadline passed for Iran to stop its uranium enrichment programme, and a second American aircraft carrier joined the build up of US naval power off Iran's southern coastal waters.
The US has also moved six heavy bombers from a British base on the Pacific island of Diego Garcia to the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which could allow them to carry out strikes on Iran without seeking permission from Downing Street.
 

More evidence.. notice the pictures coming from Iran...the words on the protest signs are in English !!! as the Iranians cry out for help from the west with words in English our fearless leader Obama just hopes this will just by along with the rest of the west.

Look at the great opportunity that is slipping away before our eyes.

Also 400 million comes from the Bush signing a presidential order giving them Iran rebels equipment to by pass the INTERNET if Iran shuts it down.This how they are able to organize so fast.groups this big have leaders and those leader are backed by the US.this has been going on since 2007.

Words and new found freedom from Iraq have been working their in to Iran for sometime now.They want freedom.Bush called Iran out as part of the axes of evil,,what has Obama done but let a great opportunity pass by and embolden the Thugs because this what liberals do placate thugs and dictators.

The time has come to pick this cherry its ripe..let the bombing begin..

One of the great legacy's of the Bush administration is he embedded many Conservatives in the DARPA,NSA,CIA,FBI.

We call this Black Ops-False Flags http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22839.htm

Iraq was just the first step.Iran your next...

---

Originally posted by Mardy
A lot of the people think if Iraq didn't happen, and Saddam wasn't toppled, that people in Iran wouldn't be rioting today.  You would at least be a bit willing to say that's possible right?  You are so fast at giving Obama credit, as if what he did (which is nothing) made Iranians stand up to fight.  A lil biased maybe?
 
Also back to NK, they get their supplies from China, I just don't think anything we do would stop their nuclear ambitions.  These leaders know, being nuclear powered, changes everything for them. 
 

---

Until you agree to address that, there's no need for you to ask for agreements on hypothetical situations.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Mardy
A lot of the people think if Iraq didn't happen, and Saddam wasn't toppled, that people in Iran wouldn't be rioting today.  You would at least be a bit willing to say that's possible right?  You are so fast at giving Obama credit, as if what he did (which is nothing) made Iranians stand up to fight.  A lil biased maybe?
 
Also back to NK, they get their supplies from China, I just don't think anything we do would stop their nuclear ambitions.  These leaders know, being nuclear powered, changes everything for them. 
 

---

Not sure why you'd expect an admission on conjecture, when you don't even give an admission on fact. You know, North Korea's nuke program taking off and flourishing under Bush's watch?

 

 

Until you agree to address that, there's no need for you to ask for agreements on hypothetical situations.

Same with Iran's nuclear programs, still progressing, still continuing, and this administration is doing so much better at stopping it correct?   Should we send food to them too?

And talk about hypothetical, you are the one suggesting that if we had not gone into Iraq, and that we sent food to NK, that they would've stopped their nuclear ambitions.  That's as "hypothetical" as it can be.  All I'm saying is that I think no matter who was president these past 4 years, NK would've reached the same point as they did today in nuclear technology.

---

Originally posted by frodus

I cant believe you actually think Obama speech laid the ground work for whats happing in Iran..

 

Iraq was just the first step.Iran your next...

---

And I can't believe how much you like to stretch things people say to fit your arguments. Actually, now that I think of your post history, I can.

I didn't say anything about Obama's "speech", so not sure why you fixated on that. Rereading is your friend.

What I said was-

"By staying OUT of Iranian affairs and letting the people run their own course, Obama has helped bring about change."

If he had listened to the Republicans telling him to speak out and do something about Iran, that would have allowed the Guard there to kill all the rallies and given them a "U.S. excuse" to kill their own people. Obama was incredibly smart staying out of it. Even when Obama said nothing, the Iranian extremists still tried to blame the U.S. for causing the riots, but they had no proof. If Bush was president, those rallies would have been shut down the minute he opened his big mouth and called them "evil".

The Iranian citizens probably figured if a black man could be elected President of the United States, then hell, they could change their own country! Anything's possible! This is quite a difference from the Bush doctrine of international welfare where the U.S. does all the fighting and the Iraqis sit on the sidelines and wait until its all over.

---

Originally posted by Mardy

 
Same with Iran's nuclear programs, still progression, still continuing, and this administration is doing so much better at stopping it correct?

---

For the third time, until you agree to address Bush's failures and North Korea's nuclear rise, there's no need for you to ask deflecting questions about Iran in hypothetical situations, is there?

Originally posted by popinjay

 

the Bush doctrine of international welfare where the U.S. does all the fighting and the Iraqis sit on the sidelines and wait until its all over.

It is the real, and serious, problem of U.S. foreign policy.  Our defense industry wants this, and so too the Republican party in addition to many (many) Democratic leaders.

I.e., the U.S. as the international fighting-force, with some minimal participation --Pakistan, e.g., is the largest contributor to soldiers to the U.N. LOL. 

The little U.S. taxpayer cannot sustain this --hence, the deficit, considering the military budget totally DOMINATES U.S. spending-- and associated and fall-out problems.