No Nukes for the Kook

[ricksrster]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07222007/postopinion/editorials/no_nukes_for_the_kook_editorials_.htm

 

[PW2]

Re: No Nukes for the Kook

Diplomacy, and bribes, can work! Imagine that! And talking to our enemies, to boot!

I hope this works, and congrats to the admin and Bush if it holds.

50 million barrels of oil ( or whatever the terms are)is a heck of a lot cheaper than fighting a war with them.

 

[BoatBuoy]

Re: No Nukes for the Kook

I seriously doubt Bush and Gonedolezza had much to do with it. Read the third sentence from the last. "Now, however, with regional powers China, Japan and Russia playing major roles in the discussions - and having much at stake - there's great pressure on Pyongyang to remain honest."

The neighbor across town is much less concerned what someone does than the next-door neighbor.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: No Nukes for the Kook

I seriously doubt Bush and Gonedolezza had much to do with it. Read the third sentence from the last. "Now, however, with regional powers China, Japan and Russia playing major roles in the discussions - and having much at stake - there's great pressure on Pyongyang to remain honest."

The neighbor across town is much less concerned what someone does than the next-door neighbor.[/QUOTE]

Hmmmm, BB, nice spin. The Clinton admin's wine and dine one on one policy did not work, (although I don't fault them for trying), and maybe the BUSH policy did. Why can't you be gracious and give credit where credit is due?

 

[JB]

Re: No Nukes for the Kook

"Why can't you be gracious and give credit where credit is due?"

That would violate the left's "Bush can do no right" policy, Murky.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: No Nukes for the Kook

Yeah, I gotta give Putin the "W" on this one.....​

 

[BoatBuoy]

Re: No Nukes for the Kook

"Why can't you be gracious and give credit where credit is due?"

That would violate the left's "Bush can do no right" policy, Murky.

Yabut, you think he can do no wrong. Yada, yada, whatever. This could go on all day. I knew better than to post on this.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: No Nukes for the Kook

Yabut, you think he can do no wrong. Yada, yada, whatever. This could go on all day. I knew better than to post on this.

BB, Please stick to readin' plain words not minds. Yer not very skilled at the mind readin' part.

President Bush appears to be spot on in forcing the North Koreans to deal with their immediate neighbors, no matter how you denagrate him or his very skilled Secretary of State n' try to spin this significant ackomplishment as no big deal.

America is full of appeasing Liberals n' Dems who seem to luv all our enemies, (regardless of who they are: Commies or Islamo Facists it really does not matter), n' creating any crisis they can create for the USA, (that their partners the MSM will do their best to blame on Republicans), as a means to help them to gain greater political power to grow Nanny Government n' defeat the Cornstatution and corntrol the individual citizen. It's real obvious if ya put down the kool aid fer a minute or two n' take a look around.

Why do ya think all Democrats are against missile defence BB? See any logic in their postition? If so please share the loons' logic. Only a Liberal or Democrat could see such logic. That brings up the ol' question: Is Liberalism a mental disorder? JR

 

[PW2]

Re: No Nukes for the Kook

So how is supplying them with 50 million barrels of oil not an "appeasment" tactic?

Not that I'm against it mind you, but it seems to fit your exact definition of appeasement.

And JR, dems are against the missle defense system for two fundamental reasons:
1. It can't possibly work, and the only way you can possibly really test it if you are under attack, and then it's too late.

2. It's designed to counteract a threat that no longer exists, and if we are smart, will never exist again...unless, of couse, we build the thing.

Besides that is the cost, but that is minor compared to the first two

 

[Plainsman]

Re: No Nukes for the Kook

Quote pw: "It can't possibly work, and the only way you can possibly really test it if you are under attack, and then it's too late." end quote

How do you know this for a fact pw? Could it be computer simulated?
I mean if you believe Al Gore and all the global warming freaks, then you obviously believe in computer models. Even though they can't get the weather predicted for a week ahead of time correctly.


Quote pw: "It's designed to counteract a threat that no longer exists, and if we are smart, will never exist again...unless, of couse, we build the thing." end quote

It's called being proactive, not just being reactive. And if Iran does get nukes, will you still feel the same? What about the countries that were part of the Soviet Union and the nukes that still exist?

 

[POINTER94]

Re: No Nukes for the Kook

Wouldn't have just been easier if we had just surrendered? Excuse me, redeployed?

Wasn't it Clinton who said we needed to engage them one on one? Along with a bunch of liberals like Kerry. BB you have to stay on the script or they will stop sending you the news letter.

 

[12Footer]

Re: No Nukes for the Kook

Yea.. We need to send pelosi back over to iran to "talk" to thet mahmuudamenedijaadjackass.
That should solve everything

 

[POINTER94]

Re: No Nukes for the Kook

Liberals and history, sort of like oil and water. And wanting it both ways? The President gets berated for not taking liberals ill advised advise, and then gets berated because he was right in not listening to the jabber. Just another "I voted for it before I voted against it."

Seriously, how does one get to this point? Does intellectual integrity mean nothing to liberals? As I have stated time and time again, being a liberal means never having to say you are wrong or sorry. Could there be a more appropriate time to bust out the kool-aid at the dnc than now?

Lets see in the past 4 weeks, things in Iraq are turning for the better, Korean nutjob put back in his box, economy busting out at the seams, France and Germany want to make nice, The liberals little slumber party was a disaster, and Undercover sister is tossed on her ear outside the courthouse. Bush looks to be on a roll!

For gods sake, throw the guy a bone when he deserves one, he is after all, everyone's president.

 

[PW2]

Re: No Nukes for the Kook

Quote pw: "It can't possibly work, and the only way you can possibly really test it if you are under attack, and then it's too late." end quote

How do you know this for a fact pw? Could it be computer simulated?
I mean if you believe Al Gore and all the global warming freaks, then you obviously believe in computer models. Even though they can't get the weather predicted for a week ahead of time correctly.


Quote pw: "It's designed to counteract a threat that no longer exists, and if we are smart, will never exist again...unless, of couse, we build the thing." end quote

It's called being proactive, not just being reactive. And if Iran does get nukes, will you still feel the same? What about the countries that were part of the Soviet Union and the nukes that still exist?

Well, not sure how Al Gore got into the topic, but weather patterns don't depend on one political idealogy or another. They are what they are, and as such are measurable, and lend themselves to computer models. Potential enemies don't, and would be specifically designed to counteract any action our defenses could employ. With our new global economy, there are lots of emerging entities that could spend the money to counteract any action we might take, if they felt the pressing need to do so.

Employing a system that presumably makes us invulnerable would by necessity make other vulnerable, which could well lead them feel the need to counteract it. Voila, we are in a new arms race.

And sure I worry about rogue regimes with nuclear weapons. Pakistan already has them. The missile defense system is just the wrong way to go about protecting us from this threat

 

[QC]

Re: No Nukes for the Kook

This portion of the article gives credit where it is due, but who would want to read that part . . .

"Washington had long insisted on negotiating with Pyongyang only in multilateral talks, with representatives of South Korea, China, Japan and Russia at the table, too.

For years, North Korea had insisted that only two-party talks with the United States could resolve the ongoing crisis over its nuke proliferation. Realizing that Kim was more interested in beating his chest and elevating himself in the world's eyes than in serious disarmament, the Bush team refused that format."

Also, the Patriot Missile system worked in 1991 . . . I wonder if we have actually got better at stuff like this in the last 16 years . . .

 

[ricksrster]

Re: No Nukes for the Kook

Well, not sure how Al Gore got into the topic, but weather patterns don't depend on one political idealogy or another. They are what they are, and as such are measurable, and lend themselves to computer models. Potential enemies don't, and would be specifically designed to counteract any action our defenses could employ. With our new global economy, there are lots of emerging entities that could spend the money to counteract any action we might take, if they felt the pressing need to do so.

Employing a system that presumably makes us invulnerable would by necessity make other vulnerable, which could well lead them feel the need to counteract it. Voila, we are in a new arms race.

And sure I worry about rogue regimes with nuclear weapons. Pakistan already has them. The missile defense system is just the wrong way to go about protecting us from this threat

So we should just leave ourselves vulnerable to bad nations that want to harm us. We should just be pansies. Because in the liberal mind we are the evil nation and the evil nations are the good nations.

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: No Nukes for the Kook

Employing a system that presumably makes us invulnerable would by necessity make other vulnerable, which could well lead them feel the need to counteract it. Voila, we are in a new arms race.

I'll bet the same traitors were saying this stuff to Reagan almost 30 years ago and look how Russia out did us....

 

[treedancer]

Re: No Nukes for the Kook

Our local group of Conservatives seems to be cheering the ?appeasement policy? that they, or someone with the same political leanings were railing against when President Clinton did the same thing.

Hhmmm??wonder if there could be any connection to the fact that Sept is fast approaching ,and the update on the? sssuuurrrgggeee?. Nah surely not.

Here is a little video I scrounged up, some might find it interesting.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH_ZSh9rL24

 

[bekosh]

Re: No Nukes for the Kook

And JR, dems are against the missle defense system for two fundamental reasons:
1. It can't possibly work, and the only way you can possibly really test it if you are under attack, and then it's too late.

Really?? News to me. Why would you think that an ABM system today wouldn't work, when we were able to make it work in the 60's with alot more primative tech than today. The Russians still have their ABM system in place around Moscow, that they built around the same time.
Hint, the US and USSR didn't sign the ABM treaty because they were afraid it wouldn't work.
The dems are opposed to it because they have their heads firmly planted in the McNamara idiocy of the 1960's.

2. It's designed to counteract a threat that no longer exists, and if we are smart, will never exist again...unless, of couse, we build the thing.

The current system is being built to defend against a small scale or individual launch by a rouge nation. Seems to me that is just that type of attack we are most likely to face and only an idiot would think that we are better off without any defence at all.

Seems the US isn't the only country building a missile defence.
India has had some success also.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6187326.stm
And Russia.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20061205/56477126.html
I also found articles on tests by Tiawan, Japan (in cooperation with the US) & Isreal. But the links to the news stories were out of date.

Here are a couple of links for your edjumacation.
http://www.missilethreat.com/ Current info.
http://www.nuclearabms.info/index.html Historic info.

 

[ricksrster]

Re: No Nukes for the Kook

Our local group of Conservatives seems to be cheering the ?appeasement policy? that they, or someone with the same political leanings were railing against when President Clinton did the same thing.

Hhmmm??wonder if there could be any connection to the fact that Sept is fast approaching ,and the update on the? sssuuurrrgggeee?. Nah surely not.

Here is a little video I scrounged up, some might find it interesting.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH_ZSh9rL24

The video says to leave them alone and for us to lead by example. In other words if we are nice to the bad guys they will be nice to us just like Kindergarten.
It's our fault because we bombed the Japanese during WWII?
Clinton did sell the North Koreans the nuclear technology. Don't try to change history.