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?

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

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

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

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

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

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."

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

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

There's more to diplomacy than asking. :2 cents:

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?

what could he do?

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.

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.

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

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

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

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

bush didnt invade korea
i was refering to iraq

Exactly

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.

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

Iraq
North Korea
Iran
????

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

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.

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

Only one way to find out.


Elect him :D

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

You play with fire, you will get burned

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)

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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 . . .

the story continued:

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.

President Bush

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?

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

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 :ak47:

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 :1orglaugh

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.

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"

No America is doing a much better job policing the world. :eek7

such as?

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.

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

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.

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. :helpme :ugone2far

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.

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?

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