not really sure what the solution to nk is...
someone on another forum once asked why not just invade and crush their regime? is it cause they'll nuke sk or japan or something?
i think they definitely need to be taken out somehow... they're never going to come around and are only going to grow more dangerous as time goes on.
even if it means flattening the whole country with a surprise nuclear attack... i would consider that a good idea if we somehow managed to get china and russia and them involved so it doesn't escalate into a full blown nuclear war... which would likely never happen so i dunno
Originally posted by Time-ImmemorialYeah how, odd, during Clinton's term it was rocky at times, but cool. Then under the US' new administration and aggressive tone, talks start to sour.
Lets see.Clinton sigs a weak deal, it fails on Bush's terms..so its Bush's fault.
Do you think it's possible NK didn't like being strong-armed and called to be part of a "axis of evil"?
Originally posted by red g jacks
not really sure what the solution to nk is...someone on another forum once asked why not just invade and crush their regime? is it cause they'll nuke sk or japan or something?
i think they definitely need to be taken out somehow... they're never going to come around and are only going to grow more dangerous as time goes on.
even if it means flattening the whole country with a surprise nuclear attack... i would consider that a good idea if we somehow managed to get china and russia and them involved so it doesn't escalate into a full blown nuclear war... which would likely never happen so i dunno
Could there be any correlation to NK's recent actions, and the strict economic sanctions that were placed on the country?
Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah how, odd, during Clinton's term it was rocky at times, but cool. Then under the US' new administration and aggressive tone, talks start to sour.Do you think it's possible NK didn't like being strong-armed and called to be part of a "axis of evil"?
So wait, we are not supposed to strong arm those that suppress their people and threaten nuclear war? 😂
No wonder you want this Iran deal to pass.
Originally posted by Robtard
If the US strong-armed every country that treated people like shit, the US would have a few less allies. eg Saudi Arabia is one of the worlds top offenders.But this is of course you deflecting from the previous point.
Oh I know Hilary does not have a problem with them, after all they treat women like this.
Its all good with her, but when it comes to US.
"Sexism!"
Originally posted by Jmanghan
Obama needs to stop pussy-footing around and make a move.A move that won't kill us.
Covert operation?
We send the same team that took out Bin Laden. Only this time we use Un as a hostage. Then, we FORCE North Korea to give us their nukes.
The NK generals would probably write off Kim and then there'd be a power-struggle in NK.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh I forgot, its Bushes fault again. 😂
You're literally trying to blame Clinton for something that happened 5 years into Bush's term.
This "you can never note Bush is responsible for anything, else I will accuse you of blaming everything on Bush," stuff is pretty silly.
Clinton sigs a weak deal, it fails on Bush's terms..so its Bush's fault.
Considering it failed in large part because, specifically, of the US's more aggressive stance causing talks to break down, and that was Bush, and most famously
You conclude the deal is weak because it's convenient to you, when it was working not only for years after it was made under Clinton, but several years under Bush, and Bush had years to try and make a new one if he could.
Additionally, you conclude that the deal hurt in some way. If the deal was not there, then they could've made nuclear weapons before. How did the deal hurt when Bush had it for 3 years, and then another 2 years of no deal with which to act? Why could he not have renegotiated in the first 3, or gotten a 'stronger' one in 2?
Bush's aggressive posturing didn't stop them. And nor did Bush chose to invade to stop them. What, other than a deal, or the things Bush did but didn't work, was supposed to stop them?
If your criticism of Bill is refusal to invade, I'd call that hypocritical considering George didn't. If your criticism is Bill wasn't aggressive and hard line enough diplomatically, I'd call that short-sighted, considering it didn't work for George... unless you view Clinton as just that much better a negotiator that he could've threatened them into line where Bush didn't, though personally I think it's more a matter of saber-rattling not being too effective on the whole.
What is Clinton supposed to do that hurt and prevented Bush from acting? Why didn't GWB's actions work if they're what your proposing BC to have done?
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Sorry Obama is the one with Oil ties, after all they funded his campaign.
Actually, the bulk of his campaign money came from small US donors...
And the joke is that SA has ties with tons of politicians, especially the Bushes.
" In House of Bush, House of Saud, I trace more than $1.4 billion in contracts and investments from the House of Saud to companies in which the Bushes and their friends have had key roles. Saudi money bailed out Harken Energy when George W. Bush was on its board of directors. "