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....

http://www.cutefunnyanimals.com/Funny/101.jpeg http://www.cutefunnyanimals.com/Funny/101.jpeg http://www.cutefunnyanimals.com/Funny/101.jpeg

A vote for Bush is a vote for Hitler.

http://hsgm.free.fr/liens/hitler.jpg

so we are avoiding the post?

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?

I'm still waiting for a good post

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

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

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

Just asking a question.

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

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

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

bush says other countries dont set our foreign policy

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


discuss

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

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

You go girl!

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

I think I can do another bump..

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

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.

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

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

Goddamn, GEORGE BUSH IS A FUCKING IDIOT!

Your memory is a little fuzzy then. :winkwink:

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

CamChicks, you are on TOP of your shit!

-p

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.

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

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.

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

You are about to get owned.

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

see ads for bias:
http://www.newsmax.com/images/side_a...W_125x125o.gif

http://www.newsmax.com/images/side_a...er-125x125.gif

http://www.newsmax.com/images/side_ads/freedomhq.gif

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

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."

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 :1orglaugh ). 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 :1orglaugh 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?:helpme

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

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

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.

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. :helpme

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.

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?

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.

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.

:1orglaugh

You forget Saudi Arabia and Israel

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

Kerry wants bilateral talks AND multinational talks.

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