So, you tell me, what did Kerry mean by this? - GoFuckYourself.com

baddog · 10-01-2004, 01:47 AM

From the debate

". . . . And meanwhile, North Korea has got nuclear weapons. Talk about mixed messages. The president is the one that said, ?We can?t allow countries to get nuclear weapons.? They have. I?ll change that."

Is he suggesting that he is going to do something about NK having nukes?

Rich · 10-01-2004, 01:49 AM

Of course he is. Good Presidents get things done, bad Presidents tell you they're doing things while they make things worse.

BRISK · 10-01-2004, 01:51 AM

I'd say Kerry was attempting to make it look like Bush hasn't done anything about the N. Korea situation.

pornJester · 10-01-2004, 01:51 AM

He said he wants to move into bilateral talks with North Korea.

bringer · 10-01-2004, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich
Of course he is. Good Presidents get things done, bad Presidents tell you they're doing things while they make things worse.

i hope you dont truely believe kerry will be a good president
there is a difference between better and good

corvette · 10-01-2004, 01:54 AM

he was pointing north korea out to show the obvious contrast to iraq and how much importance/attention each one gets

baddog · 10-01-2004, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pornJester
He said he wants to move into bilateral talks with North Korea.

I think that is pretty funny to think that talking to NK is going to get them to say, "okay, we will get rid of them."

baddog · 10-01-2004, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by corvett
he was pointing north korea out to show the obvious contrast to iraq and how much importance/attention each one gets

How do you keep countries like NK or Iran from getting nukes?

freeadultcontent · 10-01-2004, 01:56 AM

You also can come to agreements to dissmantle nukes. lil' kim may trade them for his own reality show and 3 b-grade actresses.

Rich · 10-01-2004, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by baddog
I think that is pretty funny to think that talking to NK is going to get them to say, "okay, we will get rid of them."

There's more to diplomacy than asking.

Also, there are ways to stop nuclear programs without invading countries.

bringer · 10-01-2004, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich
There's more to diplomacy than asking.

Also, there are ways to stop nuclear programs without invading countries.

really? oh holy clinton couldnt do it, so why do you think bush could? or kerry?

baddog · 10-01-2004, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BRISK
I'd say Kerry was attempting to make it look like Bush hasn't done anything about the N. Korea situation.

what could he do?

Rich · 10-01-2004, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bringer
really? oh holy clinton couldnt do it, so why do you think bush could? or kerry?

How was Clinton not holding back North Korea's nuclear program? There were inspectors there making sure they weren't making bombs until, guess who, George Bush came along and refused to continue talking with them because of course, everything Clinton did was the opposite of the right thing. The US had people supervising their plants. Bush can't do it, Kerry can and will.

baddog · 10-01-2004, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich
There's more to diplomacy than asking.

Also, there are ways to stop nuclear programs without invading countries.

Yeah, like letting China apply the pressure. NK isn't going to sit down at the tables with us, especially not with Kerry.

Personally, I did not get the impression from that comment that he meant talks, although an hour later he did mention talks, which Bush scoffed at.

BRISK · 10-01-2004, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by baddog
How do you keep countries like NK or Iran from getting nukes?

Well, Iran has signed an agreement not to develop or acquire nukes, so if they do, then you have a good excuse to use force since they broke an agreement.

NK is a more difficult situation

corvette · 10-01-2004, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by baddog
I think that is pretty funny to think that talking to NK is going to get them to say, "okay, we will get rid of them."

you keep a close eye on them and if you feel they are doing something wrong, you invade them?

a subtle message I thought that he was trying to give was that Iraq was played out to be a threat to the US and we invade them and find no wmd; at the same time we are taking completely different actions toward a (similar)historically hostile country that has recently demonstrated nuclear capabilities

baddog · 10-01-2004, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich
. The US had people supervising their plants. Bush can't do it, Kerry can and will.

oh man, you are going to make me wake up my son, and he has to work early

bringer · 10-01-2004, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich
How was Clinton not holding back North Korea's nuclear program? There were inspectors there making sure they weren't making bombs until, guess who, George Bush came along and refused to continue talking with them because of course, everything Clinton did was the opposite of the right thing. The US had people supervising their plants. Bush can't do it, Kerry can and will.

bush didnt invade korea
i was refering to iraq

BRISK · 10-01-2004, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by corvett
you keep a close eye on them and if you feel they are doing something wrong, you invade them?

a subtle message I thought that he was trying to give was that Iraq was played out to be a threat to the US and we invade them and find no wmd; at the same time we are taking completely different actions toward a (similar)historically hostile country that has recently demonstrated nuclear capabilities

Exactly

baddog · 10-01-2004, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by corvett
you keep a close eye on them and if you feel they are doing something wrong, you invade them?

a subtle message I thought that he was trying to give was that Iraq was played out to be a threat to the US and we invade them and find no wmd; at the same time we are taking completely different actions toward a (similar)historically hostile country that has recently demonstrated nuclear capabilities

you know what? that is what I thought he was saying too, and if anyone thinks invading NK is a good idea, they should check their history books. it did not go too well the last time we did that

You forget, we had a free pass to go into Iraq due to a treaty they signed after losing a war with us 12 years ago. We don't have that card to play with NK.

pornJester · 10-01-2004, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by baddog
I think that is pretty funny to think that talking to NK is going to get them to say, "okay, we will get rid of them."

You're right, lets just kill 'em all.

Iraq
North Korea
Iran
????

corvette · 10-01-2004, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by baddog
You forget, we had a free pass to go into Iraq due to a treaty they signed after losing a war with us 12 years ago. We don't have that card to play with NK.

if it is a threat, then it is a threat...you don?t just protect yourself against the easy threats, you do what you have to be safe?if you are going to go to war because you are in danger and need to protect yourself, you do it, whomever the threat

if you are going to kill ceasar, then kill ceasar

Drake · 10-01-2004, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by baddog
you know what? that is what I thought he was saying too, and if anyone thinks invading NK is a good idea, they should check their history books. it did not go too well the last time we did that

You forget, we had a free pass to go into Iraq due to a treaty they signed after losing a war with us 12 years ago. We don't have that card to play with NK.

A treaty they signed? That's like the US bombing Canada and then forcing Canada to sign a contact that says we can move freely in and out of your country as we please. There is no such thing as a war when you have one country with military capabilities and another one that throws pebbles.

As for Kerry's statement, my guess is that in the context he's just saying that he'll do what he says. Bush said he wouldn't allow countries to have nukes, but Korea has one. He's saying Bush didn't follow through with what he said he would. I don't think he's saying he's going to invade Korea...it's too late for that.

It's just politics. Kerry won't be able to stop anybody from getting nukes any more than Bush could. If Bush could have ensured Korea wouldn't have nukes he would have made it that way.

baddog · 10-01-2004, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pornJester
You're right, lets just kill 'em all.

Iraq
North Korea
Iran
????

I hope you are not implying that I suggested that.

and I honestly don't think Bush is dumb enough to invade NK. Iran . . . .well, I don't know about that one. THis wouldn't be a good time for it.

However, I do think Kerry is dumb enough to at least threaten to invade NK or Iran . . . and then not follow through.

That always goes over well

CDSmith · 10-01-2004, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by baddog
what could he do?

Only one way to find out.

Elect him :D

baddog · 10-01-2004, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
A treaty they signed? That's like the US bombing Canada and then forcing Canada to sign a contact that says we can move freely in and out of your country as we please. There is no such thing as a war when you have one country with military capabilities and another one that throws pebbles.

Yeah, they signed. Guess they shouldn't have invaded Kuwait, huh?

You play with fire, you will get burned

CamChicks · 10-01-2004, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by baddog
I think that is pretty funny to think that talking to NK is going to get them to say, "okay, we will get rid of them."

North Korea doesn't really want a nuclear arsenal to use, they want the political leverage and all the finanical benefits that come with it. Call it a bribe if you want, but that's what it boils down to. Through diplomacy, we'll eventually reach another agreement. (we had a positive arrangement, until Bush screwed that up) Getting up on our moral highhorse and turning this into an egodriven competition of will is ultimately not in anyones best interests. This policy of ignoring disenfranchised people until they finally blow something up to get our attention is a bad course to follow. Part of being the President means dealing with people you don't like. George doesn't understand that. (just look at all the ridiculous policies he's enacted against Cuba)

Rich · 10-01-2004, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by baddog
Yeah, like letting China apply the pressure. NK isn't going to sit down at the tables with us, especially not with Kerry.

Personally, I did not get the impression from that comment that he meant talks, although an hour later he did mention talks, which Bush scoffed at.

North Korea was sitting down with Clinton and they'll sit down with Kerry, Bush has made nothing but bad choices when it comes to that problem. What good is it to rely on China? Asking France and the UN for help is stupid, but asking a hostile human rights violating country for help is just plain smart. Makes sense.

Drake · 10-01-2004, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
Kerry won't be able to stop anybody from getting nukes any more than Bush could. If Bush could have ensured Korea wouldn't have nukes he would have made it that way.

This is also one reason why the US should be trying to make friends rather than enemies on the world stage. Nuclear technology is now out there and it's only a matter of time before every little two-bit country can get its hands on a nuke or create one. We'll pay heavily if one of those nations that despise us gets hold of a weapon.

Invading Korea would be idiocy and nobody is going to try that. I think you're worrying way too much. We don't invade countries that have deadly bombs. Remember where the home Communism was... in Russia and China. Have we ever gone to war directly with Russia or China??? No, but we went to Vietnam and we saction Cuba. Two little worthless nations that can't fight back economically or milirarily. It would also mean a very deadly war. Korea wants security and autonomy and that's what you get when you create your own deadly weapons or else you wind up getting bombs in your front window when a big country 'feels you're a threat'.

Drake · 10-01-2004, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CamChicks
North Korea doesn't really want a nuclear arsenal to use, they want the political leverage and all the finanical benefits that come with it. Call it a bribe if you want, but that's what it boils down to. Through diplomacy, we'll eventually reach another agreement. (we had a positive arrangement, until Bush screwed that up) Getting up on our moral highhorse and turning this into an egodriven competition of will is ultimately not in anyones best interests. This policy of ignoring disenfranchised people until they finally blow something up to get our attention is a bad course to follow. Part of being the President means dealing with people you don't like. George doesn't understand that. (just look at all the ridiculous policies he's enacted against Cuba)

That's correct. Once you have Nuclear weapons you're a power on the world stage. You become one of the 'elite' and you're respected and treated better by all the other countries that have nuclear weapons.

You can sit at the table with the best of the best get things you want through agreements and talks that you never would get if you didn't have nuclear weapons. It's pure politics. Korea has learned that this is the only way they are gauranteed independence as well as the possbility of opening their markets for greater trade between nations like the US.

BRISK · 10-01-2004, 02:39 AM

You could make the argument that N. Korea has actually been forced to acquire nuclear weapons as a result of America's actions.

N. Korea knows that if it wants to maintain its sovereignty, it needs nukes. America is a threat to N. Korean sovereignty, so it was forced to acquire nukes to protect itself.

The same is true with Iran.

CamChicks · 10-01-2004, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by baddog
Yeah, they signed. Guess they shouldn't have invaded Kuwait, huh?

You play with fire, you will get burned

It is an indisputed fact, recorded on tape, that Saddam (a historical ally) consulted the US embassy for permission before action was taken against Kuwait. The long-held official American position was that wthe USA had no opinion on Iraq's conflict with Kuwait, or any arab-arab conflicts, and this position was emphasized to Saddam just days before he moved his troops across the border.

Then Saudi Arabia objected and started pulling the strings of their puppet Bush Sr, and the rest is history . . .

Quote:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 22 -- On July 25,President Saddam Hussein of Iraq summoned the United States Ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, to his office in the last high-level contact between the two Governments before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on Aug. 2. Here are excerpts from a document described by Iraqi Government officials as a transcript of the meeting, which also included the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz. A copy was provided to The New York Times by ABC News, which translated from the Arabic. The State Department has declined to comment on its accuracy.

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

Quote:

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction.

the story continued:

Quote:

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

On August 2, 1990, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait. _____

Baghdad, September 2, 1990, U.S. Embassy

One month later, British journalists obtain the the above tape and transcript of the Saddam - Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Journalist 1 - Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)

Journalist 2 - You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasion. What were you thinking?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!

Journalist 1 - American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq?

(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.)

Drake · 10-01-2004, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BRISK
You could make the argument that N. Korea has actually been forced to acquire nuclear weapons as a result of America's actions.

N. Korea knows that if it wants to maintain its sovereignty, it needs nukes. America is a threat to N. Korean sovereignty, so it was forced to acquire nukes to protect itself.

The same is true with Iran.

Exactly. Korea knows that if they didn't have nukes we'd walk all over them. Having nukes gives them power and leverage they cannot get otherwise.

If Cuba had nuclear weapons, you'd see those sactions we've had on them for the psat 40 years removed faster than you can blink. We'd be trading everything we could with them. Castro and Bush would be close buddies.

That's just the way the world works.

Paul Markham · 10-01-2004, 02:52 AM

President Bush

Quote:

And I went there hoping that, once and for all, the free world would act in concert to get Saddam Hussein to listen to our demands. They passed the resolution that said, ?Disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences.? I believe, when an international body speaks, it must mean what it says.

Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming. Why should he? He had 16 other resolutions and nothing took place. As a matter of fact, my opponent talks about inspectors. The facts are that he was systematically deceiving the inspectors.

How do you disclose and disarm when you have not got them in the first place.

Saddam kept saying we do not have them and he was proved right.

Bush said he did have them and was proved wrong.

Or do we all still believe they are hidden in the sand or worse still in another country?

Quote:

You could make the argument that N. Korea has actually been forced to acquire nuclear weapons as a result of America's actions.

N. Korea knows that if it wants to maintain its sovereignty, it needs nukes. America is a threat to N. Korean sovereignty, so it was forced to acquire nukes to protect itself.

The same is true with Iran.

With America invading anywhere it feels like on any flimsy evidence it can muster would you feel safe without Nukes?

XP · 10-01-2004, 02:55 AM

You guys need to elect clinton again.
He got the balls, he is charismatic, US was supreme with him.
Too bad, he can't be elected 3rd time

alexg · 10-01-2004, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich
There's more to diplomacy than asking.

Also, there are ways to stop nuclear programs without invading countries.

oh yeah? what's that? sanctions?

I think almost every possible "diplomatic" sanction has been imposed on Iran. Do they get rid of the nukes?

yeah, the UN I can see is very successful with their diplomatic policy. Everybody listens to everything they say

Rich · 10-01-2004, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
Exactly. Korea knows that if they didn't have nukes we'd walk all over them. Having nukes gives them power and leverage they cannot get otherwise.

If Cuba had nuclear weapons, you'd see those sactions we've had on them for the psat 40 years removed faster than you can blink. We'd be trading everything we could with them. Castro and Bush would be close buddies.

That's just the way the world works.

Walk all over them? They have something like 8 million trained soldiers including reserves. Even without nukes they're not a country to fuck with.

CamChicks · 10-01-2004, 03:07 AM

I sorta feel bad for Saddam . . .

Bush: "Hand over your weapons of mass destruction!"

Saddam: "Uh... I don't have any. Wish I did, but I don't..."

Bush: "Do not lie to me evildoer, you threatened to kill my daddy!"

Saddam: "Yeah.. um.. your daddy was a prick... but, really, I ain't got nothin'"

Bush: "Show me your nukes or we'll bomb you!"

Saddam: "Dude! How can I give you something I don't have?! .. Look... ask those UN weapons inpectors you've had snooping around here..... they even published this report....."

Bush: "The UN are pussies! I bet their inspectors are lying to me too! Everyone is against me!"

Saddam: "Woah, man, and people say I'm crazy...."

Bush: "Gimmie! Gimmie! Gimmie! Gimmie! Gimmie!"

Saddam: "How can I prove I don't have something? It's completely illogical. What you are asking for is impossible...."

Bush: "DIE!!!!1111"

Rich · 10-01-2004, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by alexg
oh yeah? what's that? sanctions?

I think almost every possible "diplomatic" sanction has been imposed on Iran. Do they get rid of the nukes?

yeah, the UN I can see is very successful with their diplomatic policy. Everybody listens to everything they say

No America is doing a much better job policing the world.

baddog · 10-01-2004, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CamChicks
(just look at all the ridiculous policies he's enacted against Cuba)

such as?

baddog · 10-01-2004, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BRISK
You could make the argument that N. Korea has actually been forced to acquire nuclear weapons as a result of America's actions.

N. Korea knows that if it wants to maintain its sovereignty, it needs nukes. America is a threat to N. Korean sovereignty, so it was forced to acquire nukes to protect itself.

The same is true with Iran.

how were we a threat to NK? We haven't made gestures towards them since 1953 when we said you stay on your side and we will stay on our side.

TurboTrucker · 10-01-2004, 03:24 AM

Bush is right, we need China's leverage over NK.

CamChicks · 10-01-2004, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by baddog
such as?

Such as not allowing americans to visit family members who live there (in Cuba) .. opposing congressional efforts to lift food and medicine sanctions ... he has even criticized our own government officials for traveling there.

Is there anyone who seriously thinks Castro is still a threat? This is just more out of control power tripping and ego wanking. Bush acts like he'd rather encourage a bloody revolution against the elderly Fidel than let him fade out naturally. That revolution they've been waiting for all these years is never going to happen. George's whole perception of the world is just so .. off ... it's sadly comical.

CamChicks · 10-01-2004, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TurboTrucker
we need China's leverage over NK.

Nobody is arguing against that. But we should be more open too. That's what they want.

China's foreign minister has blamed the "mutual lack of trust" between the United States and North Korea for the impasse in six-nation talks on resolving the dispute over Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program.

Remember, George went before the world and labeled them the "Axis Of Evil";
that's all his diplomatic skills at work.

Paul Markham · 10-01-2004, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CamChicks

Remember, George went before the world and labeled them the "Axis Of Evil";
that's all his diplomatic skills at work.

One of the biggest mistakes people make is assuming other people in different lands and different cultures are scared of them.

Castro and Pooyang both use the threat of America to keep their country in the dark and under control.

Rich · 10-01-2004, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by baddog
how were we a threat to NK? We haven't made gestures towards them since 1953 when we said you stay on your side and we will stay on our side.

Think hard Baddog, why would Kim Jung Il be concerned about America invading his country? You're honestly telling me you can't think of anything that would cause him to reasonably assume that was a possibility?

Tam · 10-01-2004, 05:04 AM

Well at least he hasn't been in Office for 4 years and STILL saying "We are gonna, I am gonna, we have plans to, blah blah blah". I have never in my life heard one PRESIDENT say so many times "We are gonna" For god's sake, he's been in Office for 4 years and he is STILL "gonna"???? All he knows how to do is be a fucking redneck, illiterate, bully monkey!! He has no more of an idea about what he is GONNA do today than he did 4 years ago when he robbed that seat!

Sorry, but him and his illiterate garbage has really made me a bit pissy.... and to think I was ALL for him 4 years ago, NOW I just wish he'd go far far far away and never come back. Maybe we could trade HIM for the halt in Nuclear shit in Korea? They could take him and have their way with him in exchange for shutting down all that nuclear shit..... LMAO

10-01-2004, 01:47 AM	#1
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,089	So, you tell me, what did Kerry mean by this? From the debate ". . . . And meanwhile, North Korea has got nuclear weapons. Talk about mixed messages. The president is the one that said, ?We can?t allow countries to get nuclear weapons.? They have. I?ll change that." Is he suggesting that he is going to do something about NK having nukes?

10-01-2004, 01:51 AM	#3
BRISK Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 12,240	I'd say Kerry was attempting to make it look like Bush hasn't done anything about the N. Korea situation. __________________ I post on GFY so that when people ask me what I do, I can tell them that I work with the mentally retarded.

10-01-2004, 01:51 AM	#4
pornJester Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,138	He said he wants to move into bilateral talks with North Korea. __________________ FreshBucks \| Webmaster Vault \| GayAW Trusted Names in Adult. ICQ 9157.3698

10-01-2004, 01:54 AM	#6
corvette Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: scottsdale Posts: 7,880	he was pointing north korea out to show the obvious contrast to iraq and how much importance/attention each one gets __________________ If you need a good company for check writing services, then check out checkissuing, and for webhosting, check out Phoenix NAP

10-01-2004, 01:56 AM	#9
freeadultcontent Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: "evitcepsrep ruoy egnahc" Posts: 9,976	You also can come to agreements to dissmantle nukes. lil' kim may trade them for his own reality show and 3 b-grade actresses. __________________ Exclusive Ethnic & Microniche Sites

10-01-2004, 01:49 AM	#2
Rich So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 11,486	Of course he is. Good Presidents get things done, bad Presidents tell you they're doing things while they make things worse.

10-01-2004, 02:39 AM	#31
BRISK Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 12,240	You could make the argument that N. Korea has actually been forced to acquire nuclear weapons as a result of America's actions. N. Korea knows that if it wants to maintain its sovereignty, it needs nukes. America is a threat to N. Korean sovereignty, so it was forced to acquire nukes to protect itself. The same is true with Iran. __________________ I post on GFY so that when people ask me what I do, I can tell them that I work with the mentally retarded.

10-01-2004, 02:55 AM	#35
XP Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Thailand Posts: 384	You guys need to elect clinton again. He got the balls, he is charismatic, US was supreme with him. Too bad, he can't be elected 3rd time __________________ BP4L

10-01-2004, 03:07 AM	#38
CamChicks Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: godless northwest Posts: 1,552	I sorta feel bad for Saddam . . . Bush: "Hand over your weapons of mass destruction!" Saddam: "Uh... I don't have any. Wish I did, but I don't..." Bush: "Do not lie to me evildoer, you threatened to kill my daddy!" Saddam: "Yeah.. um.. your daddy was a prick... but, really, I ain't got nothin'" Bush: "Show me your nukes or we'll bomb you!" Saddam: "Dude! How can I give you something I don't have?! .. Look... ask those UN weapons inpectors you've had snooping around here..... they even published this report....." Bush: "The UN are pussies! I bet their inspectors are lying to me too! Everyone is against me!" Saddam: "Woah, man, and people say I'm crazy...." Bush: "Gimmie! Gimmie! Gimmie! Gimmie! Gimmie!" Saddam: "How can I prove I don't have something? It's completely illogical. What you are asking for is impossible...." Bush: "DIE!!!!1111" __________________ camchicks.com

10-01-2004, 03:24 AM	#42
TurboTrucker Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Phoenix Arizona Posts: 2,363	Bush is right, we need China's leverage over NK. __________________

10-01-2004, 05:04 AM	#47
Tam Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: In your face Posts: 8,488	Well at least he hasn't been in Office for 4 years and STILL saying "We are gonna, I am gonna, we have plans to, blah blah blah". I have never in my life heard one PRESIDENT say so many times "We are gonna" For god's sake, he's been in Office for 4 years and he is STILL "gonna"???? All he knows how to do is be a fucking redneck, illiterate, bully monkey!! He has no more of an idea about what he is GONNA do today than he did 4 years ago when he robbed that seat! Sorry, but him and his illiterate garbage has really made me a bit pissy.... and to think I was ALL for him 4 years ago, NOW I just wish he'd go far far far away and never come back. Maybe we could trade HIM for the halt in Nuclear shit in Korea? They could take him and have their way with him in exchange for shutting down all that nuclear shit..... LMAO