For All You John Kerry Lovers..... - GoFuckYourself.com

swoop · 10-02-2004, 07:36 PM

John Kerry wants lots and lots of countries to support us in the libreation and handling of of Iraq....

BUT, he wants a bi-lateral (US and N.Korea) situation regarding the Nuclear weapons in N.Korea..

Discuss....

Juicy D. Links · 10-02-2004, 07:37 PM

AndrewKanuck · 10-02-2004, 07:37 PM

A vote for Bush is a vote for Hitler.

swoop · 10-02-2004, 07:38 PM

so we are avoiding the post?

freeadultcontent · 10-02-2004, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by swoop
John Kerry wants lots and lots of countries to support us in the libreation and handling of of Iraq....

BUT, he wants a bi-lateral (US and N.Korea) situation regarding the Nuclear weapons in N.Korea..

Discuss....

Are you able to keep two seperate thought processes going on in your mind at same time?

AndrewKanuck · 10-02-2004, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
Are you able to keep two seperate thought processes going on in your mind at same time?

I have an attention defficit disHOLY SHIT THE INTERNET HAS PORN?

swoop · 10-02-2004, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
Are you able to keep two seperate thought processes going on in your mind at same time?

I'm still waiting for a good post

clickhappy · 10-02-2004, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by swoop

BUT, he wants a bi-lateral (US and N.Korea) situation regarding the Nuclear weapons in N.Korea..

bi-lateral talks worked under Clinton. neocons dont want them because it would be repeating something that the democrats have done that worked.

freeadultcontent · 10-02-2004, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AndrewKanuck
I have an attention defficit disHOLY SHIT THE INTERNET HAS PORN?

A.D.D. my ass, your the one confusing people with your new nic.

xclusive · 10-02-2004, 07:42 PM

Well this is because Iraq has been defeated and we just need the weaker countries to mop up the mess bush has left and he realizes that we need to show our strength against N.Korea and show that we will do whatever it takes to protect the U.S.A

freeadultcontent · 10-02-2004, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by swoop
I'm still waiting for a good post

Just asking a question.

If the answer is no. Then no point in giving an answer.

AndrewKanuck · 10-02-2004, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
A.D.D. my ass, your the one confusing people with your new nic.

I made a post about the name change, not my fault

swoop · 10-02-2004, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by clickhappy
bi-lateral talks worked under Clinton..

When? I'm not being a smartass, I'm just curious

korzon · 10-02-2004, 07:45 PM

bush says other countries dont set our foreign policy

except china and the other 3 nations involved in the N Korean talks

discuss

swoop · 10-02-2004, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
Just asking a question.

If the answer is no. Then no point in giving an answer.

Your first post was..um pointless.....

mardigras · 10-02-2004, 07:46 PM

I'm more voting against John Ashc-r-o-f-t and Donald Rumsfeld than I am voting for Kerry.

swoop · 10-02-2004, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mardigras
I'm more voting against John Ashc-r-o-f-t and Donald Rumsfeld than I am voting for Kerry.

You go girl!

clickhappy · 10-02-2004, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by swoop
When? I'm not being a smartass, I'm just curious

in 1994 the Clinton administration used bilateral talks to cut a deal with North Korea to end its nuclear program.

Lev · 10-02-2004, 07:53 PM

Those are two VERY different things. Negotiations are not the same as war. When countries negotiate, national interests are involved. So when we have a negotiation with N. Korea with the help of China, China will negotiate from its interests, it could care less of our country. So the best would be a direct link between us and N. Korea, so only the iterest of the two conflicting parties is discussed.
As for Iraq, of course it would not be good to let other nations get involved, since they would want a piece of the pie also. But all it matters to us are American deaths, so interests automatically are out of the game. I would not welcome other countries in Iraq, since next thing and they will be telling us what to do there, but American lifes are stakes.

swoop · 10-02-2004, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by clickhappy
in 1994 the Clinton administration used bilateral talks to cut a deal with North Korea to end its nuclear program.

And how's that working today...if we shut it down during Clinton's administration, why is it still a BIG problem today?

trouserrat · 10-02-2004, 09:09 PM

swoop, as I understand it (in typical John Kerry fashion) the answer to your question is Kerry kind of wants things both ways. He wants both bi-lateral AND multi-nation talks with North Korea to occur at the same time. He wants us to have our own dialogue going with them, but to prevent them from walking away from the table he wants especially China involved to apply pressure to them. The funny thing is, I don't like Kerry at all, yet I know the answer to a question about his foreign policy that all the idiots on here that think "Bush sux" is an intelligent post and crawl up Kerry's ass all the time don't know. Kind of shows who's informed on the issues and who just follows the typical liberal propaganda to form their ideas.

jawanda · 10-02-2004, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by swoop
And how's that working today...if we shut it down during Clinton's administration, why is it still a BIG problem today?

I believe the safeguards that were put in place during/through those bilateral talks were succesful in preventing N Korea from developing Nuclear Weapons, and it wasn't until Bush got into offce that those safeguards were abandoned. (a side-effect of ending the bi-lateral talks)
-p

LittleMack · 10-02-2004, 09:31 PM

I am an Independent, but I remember Madaline Albright saying they made a mistake with North Korea when we tried to negotiate with them. Kerry has alot of good points but seems to talk out both sides of his mouth. I am still torn on who to vote for in November.

kenny · 10-02-2004, 09:31 PM

I think I can do another bump..

50cc 3/4 gram... yea.. ok I am done

CamChicks · 10-02-2004, 10:01 PM

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102963/

Quote:

Bush Bargains Badly
Kim Jong-il outwits W. on nukes.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Friday, June 25, 2004, at 2:36 PM PT

This week, after 20 months of doing nothing about North Korea's drive to build nuclear weapons, President Bush finally put a proposal?a set of incentives for disarmament?on the negotiating table. The remarkable thing is, the deal is practically identical to the accord that President Clinton signed with Pyongyang in 1994?an accord that Bush condemned and scuttled from the moment he took over the White House.

It's good that Bush has at last realized that diplomacy is the only way to solve the crisis. But he's come a bit late to this epiphany. North Korea has greatly strengthened its hand in the interim. Two years ago, its 8,000 fuel rods were padlocked under international inspection. Now, they've been reprocessed into bomb-grade plutonium.

Had Bush made the offer back when he first had the chance, Kim Jong-il probably would have taken it. Kim may take it still; his closest allies, the Chinese, are urging him to. But if he behaves the way he usually behaves?the way any cunningly rational leader in his position would behave?he will up the ante, ask for more, and walk away with a shrug if Bush declines. And he knows that there's not much Bush can do about it.

Clinton's policies were working. We had cameras in there monitoring the facilities 24/7 and inspectors on the ground; but as soon as Bush took office he completely freaked out and refused to continue diplomacy, opting instead to insult them by including them in his insane "axis of evil" rant. As a result, all deals were off and North Korea went rogue and started building nukes.

foolio · 10-02-2004, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AndrewKanuck
A vote for Bush is a vote for Hitler.

FlyingIguana · 10-02-2004, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by swoop
so we are avoiding the post?

i don't think anyone loves kerry, they just hate bush

jawanda · 10-02-2004, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CamChicks
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102963/

Clinton's policies were working. We had cameras in there monitoring the facilities 24/7 and inspectors on the ground; but as soon as Bush took office he completely freaked out and refused to continue diplomacy, opting instead to insult them by including them in his insane "axis of evil" rant. As a result, all deals were off and North Korea went rogue and started building nukes.

Thanks for posting that article... was wondering about the details of that.

Goddamn, GEORGE BUSH IS A FUCKING IDIOT!

CamChicks · 10-02-2004, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LittleMack
I am an Independent, but I remember Madaline Albright saying they made a mistake with North Korea when we tried to negotiate with them.

Your memory is a little fuzzy then.

Quote:

Albright served as U.N. ambassador during President Clinton's first term and as secretary of state in the second Clinton administration. As secretary of state, she visited Pyongyang in October 2000. In this interview, she describes her visit and what it was like to negotiate with Kim Jong Il. She argues that holding direct talks with North Korea should not be considered appeasement, and tells FRONTLINE that the Bush administration, "has kind of dug its heels in and said anything that we did vis-a-vis North Korea is appeasement. Once you define it that way, it's very hard to unpaint yourself, and I think that's where we are now." This interview was conducted on March 27, 2003.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...im/interviews/

She's said BUSH made a mistake by cutting off relations.

Quote:

Although there was a sign of breakthrough during the last stage of the Clinton Administration, as a flurry of diplomatic efforts culminated in the unprecedented visit of Secretary of State Madeline Albright to North Korea, relations between the U.S. and North Korea nose-dived during the Bush Administration, to the lowest point in many years.

http://www.naka.org/news/news.asp?prmid=7

jawanda · 10-02-2004, 10:08 PM

CamChicks, you are on TOP of your shit!

-p

LittleMack · 10-02-2004, 10:09 PM

I am going by what she said b4 the Bush Admin. Like I said, I am not in favor of either, just stating that she did say the North Koreans tricked us. No, I do not have a quote to post.

trouserrat · 10-02-2004, 10:14 PM

Clinton was bamboozled by the North Koreans. What do you think Albright's going to say "Yes, we were morons."?

trouserrat · 10-02-2004, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jawanda
CamChicks, you are on TOP of your shit!

-p

Unfortunately, his "shit" is not correct as usual. It's simple to search out some random articles to prove your point, but it's another thing to actually know the true history. Clinton's bi-lateral talks were a failure. They led to the Agreed Framework plan which basically stated that North korea would freeze it's plutonium based nuclear program in exchange for certain "rewards" from the US like fuel and various other power supply resources. The problem was that the North Koreans DIDN'T stop their uranium enrichment program and instead carried it out covertly until it was discovered in 2002. This of course caused problems with the US and Clinton's plan began to fall apart (he also looked like a collossal fool because he'd basically been snookered by the North Koreans). North Korea then began it's plutonium program again as well. Instead of taking care of the problem, Clinton basically postponed it and now Bush is as usual getting the shit for it. Bush is not going to reward North Korea for re-complying with an agreement they broke years ago. Doing that would be like giving Saddam Hussein yet another chance after he broke a cease-fire agreement numerous times and ignored 12 years of resolutions.

phatzane® · 10-02-2004, 10:39 PM

law 2257 u dumb fucks! if bush wins, porn gets fxcked...

CamChicks · 10-02-2004, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by trouserrat
Unfortunately, his "shit" is not correct as usual. It's simple to search out some random articles to prove your point, but it's another thing to actually know the true history. Clinton's bi-lateral talks were a failure. They led to the Agreed Framework plan which basically stated that North korea would freeze it's plutonium based nuclear program in exchange for certain "rewards" from the US like fuel and various other power supply resources. The problem was that the North Koreans DIDN'T stop their uranium enrichment program and instead carried it out covertly until it was discovered in 2002. This of course caused problems with the US and Clinton's plan began to fall apart (he also looked like a collossal fool because he'd basically been snookered by the North Koreans). North Korea then began it's plutonium program again as well. Instead of taking care of the problem, Clinton basically postponed it and now Bush is as usual getting the shit for it. Bush is not going to reward North Korea for re-complying with an agreement they broke years ago. Doing that would be like giving Saddam Hussein yet another chance after he broke a cease-fire agreement numerous times and ignored 12 years of resolutions.

You are about to get owned.

Here, this is a PRO-BUSH/REPUBLICAN website.

see ads for bias:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...8/101820.shtml

Quote:

Thursday, March 8, 2001

President Bush startled South Korea's visiting president and reversed his own secretary of state Wednesday when he sprang a hard line toward Communist North Korea.
It left a bewildered Joseph R. Biden Jr., the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, musing:

"I still don't know if this is good cop, bad cop or confusion or what."

The Delaware senator isn't alone among those Bush had scratching their heads when he made the unexpected announcement that there will be no further United States arms negotiations with Pyongyang until he can verify that North Korea has actually stopped its development and export of weapons of mass destruction.

? At the top of the list of the puzzled was Bush's Oval Office guest-of-the-day, South Korea's President Kim Dae-jung, who had come to visit expecting support for his soft-ball approach to dealing with the North.

Kim was still operating under the let's-get-friendly approach to North Korea that the previous president, Bill Clinton, had fostered.

His domestic politics were geared to closer, warmer relations with the communist regime that has at its disposal one of the world's largest armies and, quite likely, nuclear missiles.

In short, Kim has been banking his political future on a continuation of the Clinton soft-line policy.

Bush dashed any hope of that in his meeting Wednesday with Kim and Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

? Powell, himself, was caught having to reverse his field from a soft-line position he had telegraphed just the day before.

On Tuesday, Powell announced:

"We do plan to engage with North Korea to pick up where President Clinton and his administration left off.

"We are not avoiding North Korea. Quite the contrary, we think we have a lot to offer that regime if they will act in ways that we think are constructive."

Powell promised the new Republican administration would examine "some promising elements left on the table."

Whatever those were, Bush swept them off the table when he told a "photo-op" news-maker in the presence of the uncomfortable Kim:

"Part of the problem in dealing with North Korea, there's not very much transparency. We're not certain as to whether or not they're keeping all terms of all agreements.

"We want to make sure that their ability to develop and spread weapons of mass destruction was, in fact, stopped."

That caused Powell to issue his own "clarification" of his earlier, contradictory explanation of the Bush-Cheney administration's policy on North Korea.

"There was some suggestion that imminent negotiations are about to begin," Powell said, without noting that he was the one who had suggested it. "That is not the case.

Bush's reversal shocked even Powell, his own Secretary Of State, as well as the South Korea's President. The sudden position shift was completely pulled out of his ass. Inexplicable to everyone else involved.

Note the date. Early 2001. So it had nothing to do with a "uranium enrichment program carried out covertly until it was discovered in 2002."

trouserrat · 10-02-2004, 11:39 PM

I didn't say Bush's position had anything to do with the US discovering the covert program in 2002. I said that the failure of Clinton's bi-lateral negotiations was shown in 2002 when the secret enrichment plan violating the agreement was found out. No doubt Bush already felt that a dictator like Kim Jong Il is not someone who should be rewarded and pandered to and he feels the need to have multi-national negotiations including especially China to make things work. The North Korean's bamboozlement of Clinton after he engaged in bi-lateral talks should only have served to prove this opinion to be correct, instead it has somehow convinced John Kerry that the same approach should be tried again (well, at least that's what he's saying this week or actually he's saying we should do both things at once

). Btw, since you apparently you aren't aware of this, Powell does disagree with quite a few of the policies of Bush. This is nothing new. Although you would be more than happy to lump Powell in with Bush when it suits you. Now, do you ever post anything out of your own knowledge or is it all about google search?

P.S. Thanks for owning me

Tell me, when Bush wins the election, will you just stomp your foot and cry or do you have plans to post some articles from moveon.org saying the election was fixed?

SL|M! · 10-02-2004, 11:58 PM

He said he wanted bilateral talks as well as the 6 country negotiation. In fact, Japan and China have asked the U.S to have bilateral talks with North Korea but the U.S refused. That should answer your question

CC · 10-03-2004, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CamChicks
You are about to get owned.

Yeah, copying and pasting is SO difficult. Way to go, man!

T[H]C · 10-03-2004, 01:09 AM

Quote:

The latest South Korean experiment took place two years before a nuclear crisis erupted on the divided Korean Peninsula, when the United States accused North Korea of running a secret uranium enrichment program.

North Korea denied the charge but withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in early 2003. It has also restarted plutonium facilities that were mothballed under a 1994 accord with Washington.

LINK

Now, you act as if it was a fact that North Korea did indeed have a secret enrichment plan. They were accused, but they denied it. I remember the bush admin accused Saddam of having WMD, and they were wrong there. The bush admin is about as inept as it can get. I am embarrassed that bush is my president. Did you watch that chump in the debates? Christ.

If you could google me a link that can actually support what you are saying and is not just more bush speculation, I would like to read it.

Rich · 10-03-2004, 02:05 AM

Ok, it's real simple. Remember how Bush kept talking about the 6 nation talks and saying the bi-lateral talks would put and end to that?

EVERY ONE OF THE OTHER NATIONS INVOLVED HAS REQUESTED THAT THE USA HAVE BI-LATERAL TALKS WITH NORTH KOREA.

Bush has denied the opportunity, despite repeated requests from China especially. This is well known to anyone who has read newspaper articles about this. It's amazing what Fox doesn't tell you.

Rich · 10-03-2004, 02:11 AM

This is great, camchicks is giving this guy a recent history lesson and he's responding with half a Rush Limbaugh rant and nothing to back up his assumptions and bs. Don't waste your time with that kid.

Rich · 10-03-2004, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by swoop
And how's that working today...if we shut it down during Clinton's administration, why is it still a BIG problem today?

Please tell me that newsmax article answered any doubts you may have had about the answer to that question. This is well known stuff.

Do you guys just forget what happend 3-4 years ago or were you not paying attention then?

NoCarrier · 10-03-2004, 04:53 AM

Bush actually made the situation horribly worse when he said that NK was part an "axis of Evil".

He invaded Iraq and is doing nothing with NK, only 6-way bullshit talks, no sanctions, nothing.

Bush is talking about mixed messages. I mean, NK has nuclear weapons and Iraq did not. Now countries know what to do to avoid being invaded.

So Bush should STFU. He failed doing something about the crisis. NK has reprocessed the fuel rods and they are building even more weapons as we speak.

benc · 10-03-2004, 05:30 AM

Once a country has nukes, its hard to bully them. That strengthens the argument to get rid of Saddaam before he got them, so we wouldn't have a situation like NK.

The 1994 plan was basically just an appeasement, and NK broke it. I don't know if its a problem that has a solution now.

Manowar · 10-03-2004, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by juicylinks

EviLSuperstaR · 10-03-2004, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by korzon
bush says other countries dont set our foreign policy

except china and the other 3 nations involved in the N Korean talks

discuss

You forget Saudi Arabia and Israel

EviLSuperstaR · 10-03-2004, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by benc
Once a country has nukes, its hard to bully them. That strengthens the argument to get rid of Saddaam before he got them, so we wouldn't have a situation like NK.

The 1994 plan was basically just an appeasement, and NK broke it. I don't know if its a problem that has a solution now.

In that case Bush should have focussed on North Corea and Iran instead of Saddam who wasn't even trying anymore to acquire nuclear weapons

sacX · 10-03-2004, 07:36 AM

Kerry wants bilateral talks AND multinational talks.

smack · 10-03-2004, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AndrewKanuck
A vote for Bush is a vote for Hitler.

EviLSuperstaR · 10-03-2004, 07:52 AM

No wonder Bush doesn't want to talk to other leaders.
Bush is so incompetent that he gets owned in every debate

10-02-2004, 07:36 PM	#1
swoop Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 3,903	For All You John Kerry Lovers..... John Kerry wants lots and lots of countries to support us in the libreation and handling of of Iraq.... BUT, he wants a bi-lateral (US and N.Korea) situation regarding the Nuclear weapons in N.Korea.. Discuss.... __________________ Earn 50 % Per Sale - Weekly Payments by check, wire, PayPal, or ePassporte

10-02-2004, 07:37 PM	#3
AndrewKanuck Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Cleveland & Atlanta Posts: 6,706	A vote for Bush is a vote for Hitler. __________________

10-02-2004, 07:38 PM	#4
swoop Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 3,903	so we are avoiding the post? __________________ Earn 50 % Per Sale - Weekly Payments by check, wire, PayPal, or ePassporte

10-02-2004, 07:42 PM	#10
xclusive Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Buffalo, NY Posts: 35,218	Well this is because Iraq has been defeated and we just need the weaker countries to mop up the mess bush has left and he realizes that we need to show our strength against N.Korea and show that we will do whatever it takes to protect the U.S.A __________________ I support MediumPimpin.com / Shemp's Outlawtgp.com /

10-02-2004, 07:45 PM	#14
korzon Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 1,524	bush says other countries dont set our foreign policy except china and the other 3 nations involved in the N Korean talks discuss __________________

10-02-2004, 07:37 PM	#2
Juicy D. Links So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: N.Y. -Long Island -- Posts: 122,992

10-02-2004, 07:46 PM	#16
mardigras Bon temps! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: down yonder Posts: 14,194	I'm more voting against John Ashc-r-o-f-t and Donald Rumsfeld than I am voting for Kerry. __________________ .

10-02-2004, 07:53 PM	#19
Lev Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 3,545	Those are two VERY different things. Negotiations are not the same as war. When countries negotiate, national interests are involved. So when we have a negotiation with N. Korea with the help of China, China will negotiate from its interests, it could care less of our country. So the best would be a direct link between us and N. Korea, so only the iterest of the two conflicting parties is discussed. As for Iraq, of course it would not be good to let other nations get involved, since they would want a piece of the pie also. But all it matters to us are American deaths, so interests automatically are out of the game. I would not welcome other countries in Iraq, since next thing and they will be telling us what to do there, but American lifes are stakes.

10-02-2004, 09:09 PM	#21
trouserrat Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 324	swoop, as I understand it (in typical John Kerry fashion) the answer to your question is Kerry kind of wants things both ways. He wants both bi-lateral AND multi-nation talks with North Korea to occur at the same time. He wants us to have our own dialogue going with them, but to prevent them from walking away from the table he wants especially China involved to apply pressure to them. The funny thing is, I don't like Kerry at all, yet I know the answer to a question about his foreign policy that all the idiots on here that think "Bush sux" is an intelligent post and crawl up Kerry's ass all the time don't know. Kind of shows who's informed on the issues and who just follows the typical liberal propaganda to form their ideas. Last edited by trouserrat; 10-02-2004 at 09:10 PM..

10-02-2004, 09:31 PM	#23
LittleMack www.pornkings.com Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Florida Baby!! Posts: 4,645	I am an Independent, but I remember Madaline Albright saying they made a mistake with North Korea when we tried to negotiate with them. Kerry has alot of good points but seems to talk out both sides of his mouth. I am still torn on who to vote for in November. __________________ [email protected]

10-02-2004, 09:31 PM	#24
kenny Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 7,245	I think I can do another bump.. 50cc 3/4 gram... yea.. ok I am done

10-02-2004, 10:08 PM	#30
jawanda Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 6,040	CamChicks, you are on TOP of your shit! -p

10-02-2004, 10:09 PM	#31
LittleMack www.pornkings.com Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Florida Baby!! Posts: 4,645	I am going by what she said b4 the Bush Admin. Like I said, I am not in favor of either, just stating that she did say the North Koreans tricked us. No, I do not have a quote to post. __________________ [email protected]

10-02-2004, 10:14 PM	#32
trouserrat Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 324	Clinton was bamboozled by the North Koreans. What do you think Albright's going to say "Yes, we were morons."?

10-02-2004, 10:39 PM	#34
phatzane® Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: canada Posts: 1,592	law 2257 u dumb fucks! if bush wins, porn gets fxcked... __________________ -PHATZANEXXX.COM-

10-02-2004, 11:39 PM	#36
trouserrat Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 324	I didn't say Bush's position had anything to do with the US discovering the covert program in 2002. I said that the failure of Clinton's bi-lateral negotiations was shown in 2002 when the secret enrichment plan violating the agreement was found out. No doubt Bush already felt that a dictator like Kim Jong Il is not someone who should be rewarded and pandered to and he feels the need to have multi-national negotiations including especially China to make things work. The North Korean's bamboozlement of Clinton after he engaged in bi-lateral talks should only have served to prove this opinion to be correct, instead it has somehow convinced John Kerry that the same approach should be tried again (well, at least that's what he's saying this week or actually he's saying we should do both things at once ). Btw, since you apparently you aren't aware of this, Powell does disagree with quite a few of the policies of Bush. This is nothing new. Although you would be more than happy to lump Powell in with Bush when it suits you. Now, do you ever post anything out of your own knowledge or is it all about google search? P.S. Thanks for owning me Tell me, when Bush wins the election, will you just stomp your foot and cry or do you have plans to post some articles from moveon.org saying the election was fixed?

10-02-2004, 11:58 PM	#37
SL\|M! Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: The BP4L Bunker Posts: 1,480	He said he wanted bilateral talks as well as the 6 country negotiation. In fact, Japan and China have asked the U.S to have bilateral talks with North Korea but the U.S refused. That should answer your question

10-03-2004, 02:05 AM	#40
Rich So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 11,486	Ok, it's real simple. Remember how Bush kept talking about the 6 nation talks and saying the bi-lateral talks would put and end to that? EVERY ONE OF THE OTHER NATIONS INVOLVED HAS REQUESTED THAT THE USA HAVE BI-LATERAL TALKS WITH NORTH KOREA. Bush has denied the opportunity, despite repeated requests from China especially. This is well known to anyone who has read newspaper articles about this. It's amazing what Fox doesn't tell you.

10-03-2004, 02:11 AM	#41
Rich So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 11,486	This is great, camchicks is giving this guy a recent history lesson and he's responding with half a Rush Limbaugh rant and nothing to back up his assumptions and bs. Don't waste your time with that kid.

10-03-2004, 04:53 AM	#43
NoCarrier We need more free porn Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Montreal Posts: 16,356	Bush actually made the situation horribly worse when he said that NK was part an "axis of Evil". He invaded Iraq and is doing nothing with NK, only 6-way bullshit talks, no sanctions, nothing. Bush is talking about mixed messages. I mean, NK has nuclear weapons and Iraq did not. Now countries know what to do to avoid being invaded. So Bush should STFU. He failed doing something about the crisis. NK has reprocessed the fuel rods and they are building even more weapons as we speak. __________________

10-03-2004, 05:30 AM	#44
benc Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 788	Once a country has nukes, its hard to bully them. That strengthens the argument to get rid of Saddaam before he got them, so we wouldn't have a situation like NK. The 1994 plan was basically just an appeasement, and NK broke it. I don't know if its a problem that has a solution now. __________________ Numerous Adult and Non Adult Domains For Sale Such as SlutVideos.com, FitWomen.com Listed on Sedo or can do direct sale

10-03-2004, 07:36 AM	#48
sacX Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Zealand Posts: 2,998	Kerry wants bilateral talks AND multinational talks.

10-03-2004, 07:52 AM	#50
EviLSuperstaR Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Location: Right next to you Posts: 804	No wonder Bush doesn't want to talk to other leaders. Bush is so incompetent that he gets owned in every debate