English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Refer to this question by Steve J and read some of the answers that I would expect Republican supporters wrote regarding his question as to why George Bush made some key mistakes in handling things in North Korea. They blame Clinton for the whole problem despite a well documented agrument made by Steve J which puts Donald Rumsfeld right in the thick of things. The President in this case Bush is supposed to be in charge, he is supposed to delegate people to help him deal with 911 etc. After attacking Clinton for 2 solid years over the Monicagate affair you cannot use the argument that he had too much on his plate, Mr. Bush, that is because Clinton was hounded to death over something as trivial as a BJ from Moncia. Get a life, George has refused to have meetings with Kim Jong IL and did the same with the leader of Iran. In today's speech he reported to the American people that he as President takes every step possible before getting into military involvement. Again he lies.

2006-10-11 13:44:14 · 8 answers · asked by Mr. PDQ 4 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

8 answers

What a waste of sentience for there to be so much party-line bellowing about "neo-cons" and "libs". We all are living in this world at a critical time in human history and survival may depend on learning how to live and work together. If we could somehow mute our opinions for a while and be realistic, there are serious questions we need to ask. It's so easy to just call each other names while our ship is listing in the waves. I have opinions too, but the more I hear of this cursing at each other like a couple of street gangs the less meaningful they seem to me. I'm going to try to reach deep within for meaningful options instead of stinging insults. I ask you to consider also how we can overcome this loud polarization long enough to focus on the immediate dangers at hand.

2006-10-11 14:54:10 · answer #1 · answered by beast 6 · 0 0

I looked for Steve J's question, but couldn't find it. Therefore, I have no idea what problem he has with Rumsfeld's handling of North Korea. However, the idea that anyone or any administration of the USA is ALL powerful (including Clinton) and could stop a maniac like Kim Jong Il from doing something incredibly stupid is probably is ludicrous. Perhaps you should try being a little less adamant that everything Bush says is a lie. How do you know he's lying about trying everything to stop military involvement? If you haven't noticed our military is not involved. You win no one's respect (including the people you wish to reach) by blaming anyone (Clinton or Bush) for matters beyond their control For not having a chrystal ball.

2006-10-11 13:55:04 · answer #2 · answered by MEL T 7 · 0 0

Honestly answerman, you are such a waste of space.

To his credit, Clinton appreciated the threat that a Nuclear North Korea posed, and had prepared to negotiate with the threat of force. His SecDef was ready to mass troops in S Korea, and use miltary force as a last resort. Plans were in the works to bomb their nuclear reactors.

Than every ones favorite dove Jimmy "what won't I do wo win a Nobel Prize" Carter accepted an invitation to NK form Kim Il-sung. This led to direct talks between the U.S. and NK, ultimately resulting in the "Agreed Framework." NK failed to deliver on any of their promises, and over the next eight years developed NUKES!!!

Now explain to me how direct talks with Kim Jong Il will result in anything positive? Why not include China, S Korea, Japan, Russia? Are they not at th greatest risk if NK has nukes? How, after as much criticism Bush got for "going it alone" in Iraq, can you now criticize him for demanding Multilateral negotiations on NK????

And what would be accomplished by speaking face to face with the Monkey of Tehran and the Mad Mullahs?? Negotiate with leaders that call for the destruction of our country, calls for Jews to be wiped off the map, have sponsored terrorists acts against our country??

You are a moron sir.

And by the way, what does it say about Bill Clinton if he can't get a ******** and run the country at the same time?

2006-10-11 14:08:55 · answer #3 · answered by thealligator414 3 · 1 0

Hey liberal(s)....Stuff it! At least he is not being impeached for having sex in the oval office, or anywhere else in the whitehouse! Even Richard M. Nixon had the common decency to resign, so as not to put the whole nation through an impeachment. AND, he knew what he did wrong! Which is more than can be said for your Clinton. He no doubt still has no idea of what is defined as sex! Poor fool. So, go pound sand up your *&$#. And that sorry excuse for a democrat, Al Gore. He never had a leg to stand on either! Last time a democrat got in by way of the swinging, hanging, and almost should have been chads, was none other than JFK himself! He wouldn't have gotten in against Nixon had it not been for all of his daddy's money! And the fact that Nixon didn't have the gonads to push for it, as did your Al Gore. Which proved to be a waste of time for him, and the rest of this country! Study up, or shut up pal!

2006-10-11 14:06:10 · answer #4 · answered by knownothing 4 · 0 0

your first mistake was actually accepting steven j's arguement with a STRAIGHT FACE.....After entering into an agreement with the United States in 1994, the Clinton administration ignored evidence the North Koreans were violating the agreement and continuing to build a nuclear weapon. "In July of 2002, documentary evidence was found in the form of purchase orders for the materials necessary to enrich uranium," NewsMax's James Hirsen previously reported.




"In October 2002, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly met with his North Korean counterpart for scheduled talks. Kelly confronted North Korea with the tangible evidence of its duplicity. After a day of outright denial, North Korea abruptly reversed its position and defiantly acknowledged a secret nuclear program."

2006-10-11 13:53:35 · answer #5 · answered by bushfan88 5 · 0 0

Spot... in case you think of it by logically, your stereotype of that distinctive function isn't clever what-so-ever. Sheep do not try to administration their very own lives with out exterior intervention or intrusion with a view to stand by making use of themselves independently from the various needs and needs of a team. They require a herd for secure practices and survival -- unable to do in any different case on their very own, based as a exchange on grazing together surrounded by making use of like-minded opposite numbers in a container of grass grown at somebody else's rate and attempt. The term "Democracy", as this is at present practiced in the U.S., is in accordance with a mob or herd mentality. extremely than recognizing and respecting the uniqueness and independence of each and every, fifty one% is all it takes to dictate what would be, to the the rest 40 9% -- in essence viewing the rights and the want of 40 9% of a inhabitants to be an appropriate minority and hence unimportant or only worth of disdain. a similar would be mentioned whilst a herd demands interest, course or secure practices (entitlements, government counsel, social justice, redistribution, etc.) from a shepherd who works to fulfill the purposes of his loud and boisterous rates in regardless of way he deems necessary at any given time -- his discretion. the purposes of people who've strayed from the herd are of much less difficulty than the mass following his each and every directive. the only time this physique of recommendations transformations is for the time of sheering season...whilst the quantity of wool he's able to hold together could make a extensive distinction to his very own livelihood, management or occupation aspirations to proceed herding sheep. purely then does he comprehend that 40 9% is a extensive extensive style to forget approximately approximately and does his utmost to coerce or tension something decrease back into his herd. and that's whilst the fleecing of a finished herd...or us of a...is a necessity to maintain each and every final sheep based on what HE comes to a decision would be offered to them. perhaps you ought to be extra of an self sufficient certainty seeker your self as a exchange of stereotyping.

2016-10-19 05:53:16 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

It is not a surprise to me that you caught Bush in a lie. I do it all the time, if his lips are moving he is lieing.

2006-10-11 13:47:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

to answer your question about the mentality, there is not enough sewer water to brain wash them back to normal and i hope they do not kick out your question like they kick my answers when i bad muth little junior.

2006-10-11 13:48:53 · answer #8 · answered by roy40372 6 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers