PDA

View Full Version : AP: U.S. to give Iran nuclear technology


Donger
06-06-2006, 10:01 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060606/ap_on_re_eu/iran_nuclear;_ylt=AluLkZIMzatwlwjYT.pkalas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

VIENNA, Austria - A package of incentives presented Tuesday to Iran includes a provision for the United States to supply Tehran with some nuclear technology if it stops enriching uranium — a major concession by Washington, diplomats said.

The offer was part of a series of rewards offered to Tehran by European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, according to the diplomats, who were familiar with the proposals and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were disclosing confidential details of the offer.

The package was agreed on last week by the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia — the five veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany, in a bid to resolve the nuclear standoff with Iran.

Taco John
06-06-2006, 10:03 AM
What? Do we have Carl Peterson doing these negotiations?

Donger
06-06-2006, 10:05 AM
What? Do we have Carl Peterson doing these negotiations?

No. Javier Solana.

patteeu
06-06-2006, 10:57 AM
What? Do we have Carl Peterson doing these negotiations?

Sounds more like Madeleine Albright and Jimmy Carter to me. If this kind of deal goes through, they better have better controls on the Iranian nuclear program than they did in North Korea or it will end up being just as much of a failure. I'm skeptical.

penchief
06-06-2006, 04:47 PM
Sounds more like Madeleine Albright and Jimmy Carter to me. If this kind of deal goes through, they better have better controls on the Iranian nuclear program than they did in North Korea or it will end up being just as much of a failure. I'm skeptical.

Funny you should say that. Seems to me that N. Korea didn't actually become a real nuclear threat to the U.S. until the Bushies started their sabre-rattling and their calculated undiplomacy. And then they allowed it to happen even with all their bluster surrounding Iraq's "so-called" nuclear capabilities. Go figure.

Iran has continued to grow as a threat for the same reason. For every ignorant blowhard decree and every shortsighted undiplomatic act this administration has executed it seems that the Axis of Evil continues to blossom as a threat.

Not only that, the list of America's enemies and critics also seems to be growing. What's wrong with this picture?

patteeu
06-06-2006, 05:00 PM
Funny you should say that. Seems to me that N. Korea didn't actually become a real nuclear threat to the U.S. until the Bushies started their sabre-rattling and their calculated undiplomacy. And then they allowed it to happen even with all their bluster surrounding Iraq's "so-called" nuclear capabilities. Go figure.

Iran has continued to grow as a threat for the same reason. For every ignorant blowhard decree and every shortsighted undiplomatic act this administration has executed it seems that the Axis of Evil continues to blossom as a threat.

Not only that, the list of America's enemies and critics also seems to be growing. What's wrong with this picture?

Funny you should think that the North Koreans were tame, well-intentioned members of the international community until Bush made them go rogue and develop nuclear weapons. You can't be serious.

penchief
06-06-2006, 05:01 PM
Funny you should think that the North Koreans were tame, well-intentioned members of the international community until Bush made them go rogue and develop nuclear weapons. You can't be serious.

Never said that. But the difference is pragmatism versus idiocy.

It can't be said that Bush & Cheney's approach hasn't created a worse situation than was necessary.

Baby Lee
06-06-2006, 05:07 PM
Seems to me that N. Korea didn't actually become a real nuclear threat to the U.S. until the Bushies started their sabre-rattling and their calculated undiplomacy.
Seems wrong. N. Korea has a 'real nuclear threat' when they developed the capability, as early as 93.
And then they allowed it to happen even with all their bluster surrounding Iraq's "so-called" nuclear capabilities.
It already happened in N. Korea, and Iraqs threat was of pending AQUISITION of nuclear capabilities. All the difference in the world.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.asp

penchief
06-06-2006, 05:14 PM
Seems wrong. N. Korea has a 'real nuclear threat' when they developed the capability, as early as 93.

Technically a threat? Yes. A real threat? No. That said, no one can deny that the threat hasn't increased greatly since Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech and his subseqent misguided "Shock and Awe" invasion of an Axis of Evil country that didn't attack us and had nothing to do with 9/11.

It already happened in N. Korea, and Iraqs threat was of pending AQUISITION of nuclear capabilities. All the difference in the world.

The threat of AQUISITION is pending everywhere in the world. That doesn't mean we can manufacture threats in order to serve our personal, economic, and political agendas.

Adept Havelock
06-06-2006, 08:24 PM
The threat of AQUISITION is pending everywhere in the world. That doesn't mean we can manufacture threats in order to serve our personal, economic, and political agendas.

Of course we can. Haven't you been watching it for years? ;)

Radar Chief
06-07-2006, 07:00 AM
Funny you should say that. Seems to me that N. Korea didn't actually become a real nuclear threat to the U.S. until the Bushies started their sabre-rattling and their calculated undiplomacy. And then they allowed it to happen even with all their bluster surrounding Iraq's "so-called" nuclear capabilities. Go figure.

Iran has continued to grow as a threat for the same reason. For every ignorant blowhard decree and every shortsighted undiplomatic act this administration has executed it seems that the Axis of Evil continues to blossom as a threat.

Not only that, the list of America's enemies and critics also seems to be growing. What's wrong with this picture?

:LOL: The lengths you’ll go to try’n to blame everything on teh Debil. ROFL

BucEyedPea
06-07-2006, 07:04 AM
:LOL: The lengths you’ll go to try’n to blame everything on teh Debil. ROFL


Of course...he is the 'cause of all sin. Hence the expression: The Debil made me do it.

Moooo
06-07-2006, 12:55 PM
Of course we can. Haven't you been watching it for years? ;)

Now THAT is funny...

Seriously though, if this does anything, it will give Iran the benefit of the doubt and make them show their cards. I'm sure the technology we give them will be VERY non-weapon specific, so even though there is a possibility of it blowing up in our face, I have a feeling this wouldn't be done if the benefits didn't outweigh the rewards...

Moooo

Frankie
06-07-2006, 01:55 PM
Funny you should say that. Seems to me that N. Korea didn't actually become a real nuclear threat to the U.S. until the Bushies started their sabre-rattling and their calculated undiplomacy. And then they allowed it to happen even with all their bluster surrounding Iraq's "so-called" nuclear capabilities. Go figure.

Iran has continued to grow as a threat for the same reason. For every ignorant blowhard decree and every shortsighted undiplomatic act this administration has executed it seems that the Axis of Evil continues to blossom as a threat.

Not only that, the list of America's enemies and critics also seems to be growing. What's wrong with this picture?
Great observation. :clap:

There were a lot of people in the heated pre-Elections debates of this forum who blatantly put the N. Korean nuclear barks against Bush on the Clinton administration's shoulder. Now I wanna see how they would spin it when Duhbya gives Iran "nucular" technology.

Frankie
06-07-2006, 01:57 PM
Funny you should think that the North Koreans were tame, well-intentioned members of the international community until Bush made them go rogue and develop nuclear weapons. You can't be serious.
That's a pretty farfetched conclusion you arrived at from his post. Are you sure YOU are serious?

Frankie
06-07-2006, 02:01 PM
:LOL: The lengths you’ll go to try’n to blame everything on teh Debil. ROFL
:LOL: I could've sworn RC was one of the afformentioned pre-elections Clinton blamers here on this forum.

Radar Chief
06-07-2006, 02:13 PM
:LOL: I could've sworn RC was one of the afformentioned pre-elections Clinton blamers here on this forum.

Some one wanna translate this to English please?

I’m sure this’ll come as a shock to you, Frankie, but I voted for Clinton his first term.

Radar Chief
06-07-2006, 02:15 PM
Great observation. :clap:

There were a lot of people in the heated pre-Elections debates of this forum who blatantly put the N. Korean nuclear barks against Bush on the Clinton administration's shoulder. Now I wanna see how they would spin it when Duhbya gives Iran "nucular" technology.

Um yea, Clinton gave nuclear fuel to NK without any substantial checks or safeties and they turned it into weapons.
Why am I not surprised blind ideologues like you and Penchief desparately need to spin this as some how Bushies fault? :rolleyes:

patteeu
06-07-2006, 06:42 PM
Now THAT is funny...

Seriously though, if this does anything, it will give Iran the benefit of the doubt and make them show their cards. I'm sure the technology we give them will be VERY non-weapon specific, so even though there is a possibility of it blowing up in our face, I have a feeling this wouldn't be done if the benefits didn't outweigh the rewards...

Moooo

Thats a lot like what the Clintonites were saying when we made a similar deal with North Korea (at least on it's face) and look how that one turned out. :shake:

patteeu
06-07-2006, 06:43 PM
Great observation. :clap:

There were a lot of people in the heated pre-Elections debates of this forum who blatantly put the N. Korean nuclear barks against Bush on the Clinton administration's shoulder. Now I wanna see how they would spin it when Duhbya gives Iran "nucular" technology.

Your wish has been granted:

Sounds more like Madeleine Albright and Jimmy Carter to me. If this kind of deal goes through, they better have better controls on the Iranian nuclear program than they did in North Korea or it will end up being just as much of a failure. I'm skeptical.

patteeu
06-07-2006, 06:44 PM
That's a pretty farfetched conclusion you arrived at from his post. Are you sure YOU are serious?

His post made no sense to anyone who understands the recent history of North Korea (in terms of it's nuclear program and our last two administrations' responses to it), but since you applauded it I don't expect you to understand that.

Frankie
06-07-2006, 08:24 PM
Um yea, Clinton gave nuclear fuel to NK without any substantial checks or safeties and they turned it into weapons.
Why am I not surprised blind ideologues like you and Penchief desparately need to spin this as some how Bushies fault? :rolleyes:
Oh you found the dictionaty. I take it the last post needs not be translated into English.
:rolleyes:

Logical
06-07-2006, 08:48 PM
Funny you should think that the North Koreans were tame, well-intentioned members of the international community until Bush made them go rogue and develop nuclear weapons. You can't be serious.I must admit that penchiefs rant there was misplaced. N. Korea has been out of control and a problem far longer than Bush has been in office.

Moooo
06-07-2006, 11:25 PM
Thats a lot like what the Clintonites were saying when we made a similar deal with North Korea (at least on it's face) and look how that one turned out. :shake:

Yeah, but we also aren't bothering to negotiate with him. He's only really started making the news since the whole "three-way negotiations or no negotiations" thing. I understand he's been a big problem since before then, but he really started opening his mouth whenever we invaded Afghanistan and Iran. He's probably thinks we're on some sort of "kill everyone who disagrees with us," sweep and probably thinks his country is next.

I'm actually giving Bush the benefit of the doubt... I seriously think he would hopefully learn from the mistakes that were made with North Korea and go from there. I know they're two entirely different people, but the personality of someone who is a Dictator is usually pretty uniform.

Moooo

penchief
06-07-2006, 11:54 PM
I must admit that penchiefs rant there was misplaced. N. Korea has been out of control and a problem far longer than Bush has been in office.

I never said that NKorea wasn't a problem before. However, there were genuine efforts underway to deal with them. My point is that this administration took a completely unproductive approach to dealing with them. All diplomacy was abondoned and replaced with contempt.

Hmmmm.....let's see now......First we'll call them out in front of the entire world during a state of the union address......We'll start by saying that they are evil.......then we'll invade and occupy another country that we also called evil........then we'll talk about developing new and improved nuclear weapons.......Then when they start building nuclear weapons in earnest we'll act like we can't do anything about it.......

Seems to me that as soon these boys took the White House they were picking a fight with North Korea. Things have been stupid ever since. Since Bush has been in office, NK removed all international monitering equipment from their nuclear facilites. Then they kicked out the international inspectors. Then they started production of nuclear weapons. None of this should be lost on the fact that Iran is mirroring North Korea. Coincidence? Or Clinton's fault?

I'm thinking that all the above crap happened on Bush's watch, not Clinton's. It's one thing to criticize the prior president for what you think he should or shouldn't have done back then but it is entirely another to place the current president's idiocy onto Clinton just because North Korea was also a problem before Bush got in.

IMO, they're a hell of a lot worse problem now because of this administration's ignorance.

Radar Chief
06-08-2006, 06:39 AM
Oh you found the dictionaty. I take it the last post needs not be translated into English.
:rolleyes:

Did I say that your last post needed translation? :spock: Seriously Frankie, drop the crack pipe, you're make’n less sense the more you post.

Radar Chief
06-08-2006, 10:48 AM
I never said that NKorea wasn't a problem before. However, there were genuine efforts underway to deal with them. My point is that this administration took a completely unproductive approach to dealing with them. All diplomacy was abondoned and replaced with contempt.

Hmmmm.....let's see now......First we'll call them out in front of the entire world during a state of the union address......We'll start by saying that they are evil.......then we'll invade and occupy another country that we also called evil........then we'll talk about developing new and improved nuclear weapons.......Then when they start building nuclear weapons in earnest we'll act like we can't do anything about it.......

Seems to me that as soon these boys took the White House they were picking a fight with North Korea. Things have been stupid ever since. Since Bush has been in office, NK removed all international monitering equipment from their nuclear facilites. Then they kicked out the international inspectors. Then they started production of nuclear weapons. None of this should be lost on the fact that Iran is mirroring North Korea. Coincidence? Or Clinton's fault?

I'm thinking that all the above crap happened on Bush's watch, not Clinton's. It's one thing to criticize the prior president for what you think he should or shouldn't have done back then but it is entirely another to place the current president's idiocy onto Clinton just because North Korea was also a problem before Bush got in.

IMO, they're a hell of a lot worse problem now because of this administration's ignorance.

Right, the psycho dictator ruthlessly oppress’n his own people was just play’n nicey nice ‘till mean ole Bushy cam along.
Do you actually read what you type before hit’n the “Submit Reply” button? :spock:
Here’s a hint, Penchief, NK never stopped their quest for nukes!

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/nk-fact-sheet.cfm#1

penchief
06-08-2006, 11:45 AM
Right, the psycho dictator ruthlessly oppress’n his own people was just play’n nicey nice ‘till mean ole Bushy cam along.
Do you actually read what you type before hit’n the “Submit Reply” button? :spock:
Here’s a hint, Penchief, NK never stopped their quest for nukes!

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/nk-fact-sheet.cfm#1

I never said I thought this administration's approach was mean, just idiotic. North Korea's "quest for nukes" has only moved forward by leaps and bounds because of this administration's shortsightedness and their arrogant bluster. Who was it that cut off diplomacy? Who was it that threatened whom? Who was it that made up a long list of phony justifications to invade another sovereign nation? Who was it that trashed a few arms treaties upon entering the White House? Who was that boasted about wanting to create a new breed of tactical nuclear weapons shortly after poo-pooing those treaties?

I really am torn, though. It is still hard for me to watch the patterns that have been so deeply ingrained by this administration and still believe that it is stupidity and not intentional.

And yes, I do believe what I type. What I find amazing is that people can watch this stuff as it happens and not recognize the patterns or not see how counterproductive it has proven to be. They approach everything with that same aggressive, contemptuous, and destructive approach that they use to undermine anything that stands in the way of their narrow and self-serving political agenda, at home and abroad.

Radar Chief
06-08-2006, 01:09 PM
That’s it, when directly countered, deflect. :thumb: Your ideology must be save above all, even at the sacrifice of any shred of credibility. ROFL
This is exactly why you crack me up, Penchief.

I never said I thought this administration's approach was mean, just idiotic. North Korea's "quest for nukes" has only moved forward by leaps and bounds

Cause of nuclear fuel provided by Clinton? :shrug:
Which is what started this entire line of conversation. :rolleyes:

Who was it that cut off diplomacy?

Who wasn’t live’n up to their end of the bargin?

Who was it that threatened whom?

Who was it that popped off a bottle rocket over Japan, or main ally in the region, in ’98? And has since shot one off that landed in Alaska?

Who was it that made up a long list of phony justifications to invade another sovereign nation?

Ah yea, there we go. Blind hatred of “this administration” that leads to you deflect’n with opinions unrelated to NK and has you defending a ruthless dictator hold’n his one people hostage. :shake:

penchief
06-08-2006, 02:31 PM
That’s it, when directly countered, deflect. :thumb: Your ideology must be save above all, even at the sacrifice of any shred of credibility. ROFL
This is exactly why you crack me up, Penchief.



Cause of nuclear fuel provided by Clinton? :shrug:
Which is what started this entire line of conversation. :rolleyes:



Who wasn’t live’n up to their end of the bargin?



Who was it that popped off a bottle rocket over Japan, or main ally in the region, in ’98? And has since shot one off that landed in Alaska?



Ah yea, there we go. Blind hatred of “this administration” that leads to you deflect’n with opinions unrelated to NK and has you defending a ruthless dictator hold’n his one people hostage. :shake:

Okay? If this administration is merely the victim of Clinton's bad policy how do you explain that Iran is taking the exact same track as NKorea?

How is it that all three members of the "Axis of Evil" have grown enormously as a threat since the "Axis of Evil" speech and the advent of Shock and Awe?

Was the "Axis of Evil" speech a prophetic statement serving as a wonderful exception to this administration's amazing lack of forsight in nearly every arena?

Or was the "Axis of Evil" speech always intended to be a self-fullfilling prophecy because the "Axis of Evil" threat serves the advancement of their ideological and economic agendas?

Or is the fact that all three nations have grown as threats simply due to this administration's incompetence?

You can't have it both ways. You can't blame someone that you have blind hatred for (Clinton) and then turn around and ignore this administration's own disasterous policies which are driven by greed, corruption, and contempt for anything that stands in their way.

Radar Chief
06-08-2006, 02:56 PM
Okay? If this administration is merely the victim of Clinton's bad policy how do you explain that Iran is taking the exact same track as NKorea?

Iran isn’t driven by American political ideology. Clinton, Bush, it’s all the same. American. And America caved once before, under Clinton, why wouldn’t they cave again? And honestly, Bush appears to be cave’n to me, if he’s actually gonna provide nuke fuel to’em.
It’s an idiotic policy that’s a proven failure.

Edit: I just had to add how hilarious it is that teh Debil is proposing the exact same policy as your boy Clinton did, but he’s an idiot war monger for it. ROFL
That’s just priceless.

How is it that all three members of the "Axis of Evil" have grown enormously as a threat since the "Axis of Evil" speech and the advent of Shock and Awe?


How have they “grown”? Or is it that their shrill rhetoric, much like yours, is just get’n more press? :shrug:

You can't have it both ways. You can't blame someone that you have blind hatred for (Clinton) and then turn around and ignore this administration's own disasterous policies which are driven by greed, corruption, and contempt for anything that stands in their way.

Wait a minute. You’re the one try’n to exhonorate your boy, Clinton, while place’n all blame on Bush but I’m the one “try’n to have it both ways” with “blind hatred of Clinton”? :LOL: ROFL
You’re absolutely freak’n ridiculous.

Unlike you, Penchief, I have no brand loyalty. I have plenty of problems with Bush myself, but I don’t have to make them up, or displace blame from one POTUS to another to satisfy my rhetoric.
That’s why I’m get’n such a kick out of poke’n fun at your blind ideology.

Noticed you’re drop’n the orginal point, that Clinton provided nuke fuel that was turned into weapons. Conceding the point? :shrug:
I’d prefer you didn’t, it’s too funny watch’n ya squiggle. ;)

Baby Lee
06-08-2006, 02:58 PM
You can't have it both ways. You can't blame someone that you have blind hatred for (Clinton) and then turn around and ignore this administration's own disasterous policies which are driven by greed, corruption, and contempt for anything that stands in their way.
First off, never hated Clinton [I know you weren't addressing me, but I am responding to the post]
But doesn't the obverse hold, then? You can't forgive/explain away any Clinton shortcoming, and sh!t your glittering generalities over the Bush admin to suggest evil motive in each and every step they make?

penchief
06-08-2006, 03:46 PM
Iran isn’t driven by American political ideology. Clinton, Bush, it’s all the same. American. And America caved once before, under Clinton, why wouldn’t they cave again? And honestly, Bush appears to be cave’n to me, if he’s actually gonna provide nuke fuel to’em.
It’s an idiotic policy that’s a proven failure.

Edit: I just had to add how hilarious it is that teh Debil is proposing the exact same policy as your boy Clinton did, but he’s an idiot war monger for it. ROFL
That’s just priceless.



How have they “grown”? Or is it that their shrill rhetoric, much like yours, is just get’n more press? :shrug:



Wait a minute. You’re the one try’n to exhonorate your boy, Clinton, while place’n all blame on Bush but I’m the one “try’n to have it both ways” with “blind hatred of Clinton”? :LOL: ROFL
You’re absolutely freak’n ridiculous.

Unlike you, Penchief, I have no brand loyalty. I have plenty of problems with Bush myself, but I don’t have to make them up, or displace blame from one POTUS to another to satisfy my rhetoric.
That’s why I’m get’n such a kick out of poke’n fun at your blind ideology.

Noticed you’re drop’n the orginal point, that Clinton provided nuke fuel that was turned into weapons. Conceding the point? :shrug:
I’d prefer you didn’t, it’s too funny watch’n ya squiggle. ;)

I never once tried to exhonerate Clinton. What'd I've tried to do is point out how this administration has made a mess of everything they've touched because of ideological zeal and arrogance. Korea is where it is today no thanks to a policy that employs provocation and aggression over diplomacy and coercion.

Their patterns have been clear. They treat all those who stand in the way of their agenda with contempt and they seek to undermine that with which they disagree. This unmistakable pattern has also been the biggest contributing factor to our declining international reputation and to our increased divisiveness at home.

While you may think they really care about you and this country more than their own agenda I think they have done more than enough to dispell that belief. Today, North Korea is a much bigger problem, as is Iran and Iraq, thanks to this administration's incompetence, their blowhard rhetoric, and their divide-and-conquer strategy which promotes fear and resentment.

penchief
06-08-2006, 05:33 PM
sh!t your glittering generalities over the Bush admin to suggest evil motive in each and every step they make?

I wish they would prove me wrong. But they keep pushing their counterproductive ideological agenda at our expense.

And by the way, they are the ones that are the pros at using glittering generalities. I mean, c'mon........they thrive on reducing everything to a glittering soundbite that defies the reality and the logic of any issue. Their "either-or" approach to consolodating power may ultimately be the downfall of our free society.

Radar Chief
06-09-2006, 10:10 AM
I never once tried to exhonerate Clinton.

Yes you did, and you continue do’n it in this very same paragraph by displace’n all blame to teh Debil.

What'd I've tried to do is point out how this administration has made a mess of everything they've touched because of ideological zeal and arrogance. Korea is where it is today no thanks to a policy that employs provocation and aggression over diplomacy and coercion.

:LOL: Besides, “diplomacy and coercion” gave’em nuke fuel that they turned into weapons. Your way failed, miserably.

Their patterns have been clear.

As your “patterns have been clear”. When confronted with evidence, links, you’ll spin and squiggle to avoid accept’n any evidence counter to your ideology.
Case in point.

While you may think they really care about you and this country more than their own agenda I think they have done more than enough to dispell that belief.

Please quote where I’ve ever posted that any politician “care’s ‘bout me”.

Today, North Korea is a much bigger problem, as is Iran and Iraq, thanks to this administration's incompetence, their blowhard rhetoric, and their divide-and-conquer strategy which promotes fear and resentment.

Ya know, I’ve gone through and answered your questions one by one, why don’t you provide the same courtesy? Or can’t you answer my only question?
How have they become more of a problem ‘cause of teh Debil?

penchief
06-09-2006, 11:08 AM
Yes you did, and you continue do’n it in this very same paragraph by displace’n all blame to teh Debil.



:LOL: Besides, “diplomacy and coercion” gave’em nuke fuel that they turned into weapons. Your way failed, miserably.



As your “patterns have been clear”. When confronted with evidence, links, you’ll spin and squiggle to avoid accept’n any evidence counter to your ideology.
Case in point.



Please quote where I’ve ever posted that any politician “care’s ‘bout me”.



Ya know, I’ve gone through and answered your questions one by one, why don’t you provide the same courtesy? Or can’t you answer my only question?
How have they become more of a problem ‘cause of teh Debil?

The problem is that you are trying to say that I said something that I didn't. I'm not going to play that game. I will defend what I said. So put my words up there that you want me to explain. The problem is that you haven't addressed anything that I've said. A past president's failures do not excuse a current president's stupidity.

A pattern of behavior that has been employed by this administration when it comes to Iraq, Iran, and North Korea has produced the opposite results that most Americans would hope for. If you can't see that then I can understand why you continue to avoid my point and claim that I'm saying something I'm not. That is a deflection on your part, junior.

patteeu
06-09-2006, 11:24 AM
A pattern of behavior that has been employed by this administration when it comes to Iraq, Iran, and North Korea has produced the opposite results that most Americans would hope for. If you can't see that then I can understand why you continue to avoid my point and claim that I'm saying something I'm not. That is a deflection on your part, junior.

I'm pretty satisfied with how Iraq is turning out.

As for our situations in Iran and North Korea, the pattern of behavior among many in the anti-Bush, anti-war, and anti-American factions have made it difficult for us, but I'm confident we are better off than we'd have been if Al Gore were leading us into the post 9/11 world.

penchief
06-09-2006, 11:53 AM
Yes you did, and you continue do’n it in this very same paragraph by displace’n all blame to teh Debil.

No I didn't. Just because I think Bush has screwed the pooch and that Cheneyburton's policies and conduct might serve their agenda but not our country doesn't mean I'm trying to exhonerate Clinton for any mistakes he's made. I do believe he was a superior president than Bush. But you're misrepresenting my intent. Which is that this administration has approached the international community with the tact of a fifth grade bully and that fact has made the world a more dangerous place for everybody living in it.


:LOL: Besides, “diplomacy and coercion” gave’em nuke fuel that they turned into weapons. Your way failed, miserably.

See, this is one of my problems with right wing thought. Everything is black and white. But in reality, there are no absolutes. I never denied Clinton sold them the nuclear fuel nor have I ever said I thought it was a good idea. Yet you insist that I keep trying to exhonerate the Clinton Administration for that decision.

However, have you ever tried to understand their reasoning? Were they trying to help bring a savage people into the modern world? Were they trying to relieve the abject poverty that consumes nations with hatred? I don't know. Do you? At this point it looks like it was a bad move. But what does that say about Bush and Iran? Or what does it say about Bush's dealings with North Korea with the knowledge that they CAN make nuclear weapons?

On the other hand, the tact administered by this administration has been one of contempt and aggression. Who in their right mind wouldn't sit up and take notice? Iraq did. They tried to make us believe they could still defend themselves. North Korea did. They decided it was time to eliminate all international monitoring and inspections so they could revitalize nuclear weapons production. Iran did. They are currently taking the same path as North Korea.

The crazy thing is that you're accusing me of exhonerating Clinton by suggesting that none of what has happened on Bush's watch is Clinton's fault. Where is your sense of accountability?

As your “patterns have been clear”. When confronted with evidence, links, you’ll spin and squiggle to avoid accept’n any evidence counter to your ideology.
Case in point.

If you provide me with evidence that has nothing to do with the point I was making, why should I respond to it? The question is why are you changing the subject?

Please quote where I’ve ever posted that any politician “care’s ‘bout me”.

I never said you said that. Quit trying to make mountains out of mole hills. I said, "you may think he really cares about you." Operative words: may think. One can only assume that if you support this president so much that you resort to bashing his predecessor in his defense that you must believe he cares about those things that you care about. Which must mean that you may believe he cares about your concerns. Which must mean that you may believe he cares about you.

I never said you made a statement to that effect. So stop putting words in my mouth.

Ya know, I’ve gone through and answered your questions one by one, why don’t you provide the same courtesy? Or can’t you answer my only question?

Maybe I could be more considerate in responding to your posts but my first impression was that your answers were really not addressing my comments but rather deflecting. In fairness, I could be wrong. I'll go back and review some of your answers.

How have they become more of a problem ‘cause of teh Debil?

I've never called Bush "teh Debil." I hate what he's done to our country. I hate that he thinks that we're all idiots. I hate that he's using our government to cater to forces that betray what this country stands for. I hate their double-speak, their greedy intentions, and their dishonesty. I want to see the elements that have made up this bought-and-paid-for administration swept from the political landscape forever so that we can return to those ideals that this country was built on.

I think I answered your question with this entire post. Since the Axis of Evil speech and this administration's ensuing conduct, including the ill-advised Iraq invasion, all three of those nations have grown as threats. One is infested with terrorists and is consumed with sectarian violence while the other two have reconstituted nuclear weapons production.

On top of that, more of the world hates our guts more than ever before and our international influence is probably at an all time low. But, on the bright side, this president want's to change the American Constitution to discriminate against gays so he can appease his base.

chagrin
06-09-2006, 12:30 PM
Since the Axis of Evil speech and this administration's ensuing conduct, including the ill-advised Iraq invasion, all three of those nations have grown as threats. One is infested with terrorists and is consumed with sectarian violence while the other two have reconstituted nuclear weapons production.


yeah, it's all because of George and the Iraq invasion that North Korea has flexed their nuclear ambitions and made threats against South Korea and The United States...do you look at yourself each morning and say, "wow - what kind of douchebaggery am I going to write today on ChiefsPlanet?"

I really think you guys need to stop pretending to be politicians and just stick to what you really know, whatever that may be

penchief
06-09-2006, 12:41 PM
yeah, it's all because of George and the Iraq invasion that North Korea has flexed their nuclear ambitions and made threats against South Korea and The United States...do you look at yourself each morning and say, "wow - what kind of douchebaggery am I going to write today on ChiefsPlanet?"

I really think you guys need to stop pretending to be politicians and just stick to what you really know, whatever that may be

What does anything you said in your above comments have to do with anything that I said other than to make vague suggestions about your understanding of the situation or to make insults against me?

If you weren't paying attention as these events occurred or if you are too lazy to go back and review the historical timeline of events since this president took office, then I can't expect you to be fair about your analysis of the situation.

Radar Chief
06-09-2006, 01:51 PM
I think I answered your question with this entire post.

No, you haven’t. Repeat’n generalities is not providing answers, that’s just display’n the amount of rhetoric you can regurgitate.

One is infested with terrorists and is consumed with sectarian violence while the other two have reconstituted nuclear weapons production.

Both ME nations were already “infested with terrorists” and Iran and NK never stopped develop’n nukes. That you think they ever stopped is the illusion I’ve been try’n to point out to you since my first, apparently wasted, response to you.

I never said you said that. Quit trying to make mountains out of mole hills. I said, "you may think he really cares about you." Operative words: may think.

Right, indicating you’ve got some sort of insite into my thought processes. When it’s quite obvious you can’t comprehend anyone that doesn’t follow your exact ideology.

One can only assume that if you support this president so much that you resort to bashing his predecessor in his defense that you must believe he cares about those things that you care about.

That’s the problem with you left wing nut jobs, everythings black or white. ROFL
I’m not “bashing Clinton” as much as point’n out his failures, much the same way you claim to be do’n with teh Debil.
And, I’m not do’n it to “defend teh Debil”. If you bothered read’n past what’cha wanna know, you’d see that in post #31 I said.

Unlike you, Penchief, I have no brand loyalty. I have plenty of problems with Bush myself, but I don’t have to make them up, or displace blame from one POTUS to another to satisfy my rhetoric.

That is a deflection on your part, junior.

I've got’cher “junior” dangle’n, Penchief. 4321

penchief
06-09-2006, 04:26 PM
No, you haven’t. Repeat’n generalities is not providing answers, that’s just display’n the amount of rhetoric you can regurgitate.

I've given you my reasoning. The facts surrounding this administration's official statements and policies are on record for anyone who wishes to investigate. My reasoning is based on those statements and policies. I've stated them in short order. You choose not to digest them. Take a look at the historical timeline. Why can't you figure this out for yourself? There is probably a reason that your conservative cohorts are not jumping to your defense. That reason is because the points I've made about this administration's actions are, for the most part, factually correct.

Both ME nations were already “infested with terrorists” and Iran and NK never stopped develop’n nukes. That you think they ever stopped is the illusion I’ve been try’n to point out to you since my first, apparently wasted, response to you.

Okay, Dick Cheney. 99% of ME experts will tell us that Saddam was a secularist and bin Laden hated Saddam and wanted him overthrown. But that doesn't matter because what the experts say doesn't mean shit to an ideologue, just like science doesn't exist.

You can say all the shit you want because what you say doesn't jive with reality anymore than what this administration tries to shove down our throats. If you want to be a sheep for a government that disrepects you, me, and everything this country has ever stood for go right ahead but don't expect me to do the same.

Right, indicating you’ve got some sort of insite into my thought processes. When it’s quite obvious you can’t comprehend anyone that doesn’t follow your exact ideology.

You're wrong. I actually comprehend the conservative ideology quite well. In fact, I adhere to many conservative ideologies in both the political realm and in my personal life. The problem is that too many people are confusing this administration's perversion of conservatism with real conservative ideology.

That’s the problem with you left wing nut jobs, everythings black or white. ROFL
I’m not “bashing Clinton” as much as point’n out his failures, much the same way you claim to be do’n with teh Debil.
And, I’m not do’n it to “defend teh Debil”. If you bothered read’n past what’cha wanna know, you’d see that in post #31 I said.

I'm not a left-wing nut job. I'm an honest, hard-working American that has served my country. And I'm sick and tired of these phony-ass business suits that purchased their way into power telling me that I'm a ****in nutjob for speaking out against their bullshit policies designed to undermine the American ideals I grew up believing in, soley for the purpose of achieving their power-hungry goals

I've got’cher “junior” dangle’n, Penchief. 4321

Didn't you call me Jr. first? If not, I apologize because the only reason I responded in kind was because I could have sworn that you did. If you did, what is the purpose of this last comment? To one-up me? If you want me to take your ideas seriously it would help if you would leave out the childish insults to begin with.

patteeu
06-09-2006, 05:46 PM
No I didn't. Just because I think Bush has screwed the pooch and that Cheneyburton's policies and conduct might serve their agenda but not our country doesn't mean I'm trying to exhonerate Clinton for any mistakes he's made.

Then you shouldn't have any trouble telling us what mistake(s) you think Clinton made wrt North Korea. Be as specific as possible.

See, this is one of my problems with right wing thought. Everything is black and white.

Go ahead and lay some nuance on us even if you don't think we're cabable of digesting it.

penchief
06-09-2006, 09:28 PM
Then you shouldn't have any trouble telling us what mistake(s) you think Clinton made wrt North Korea. Be as specific as possible.



Go ahead and lay some nuance on us even if you don't think we're cabable of digesting it.

I know that Clinton handed Bush a hot potato. It started when Korea threatened to start building nuclear weapons. The Clinton administration made an agreement with NKorea that would give them the fuel for domestic nuclear use if they gave up their nuclear weapons programs. North Korea got pissed about something and started their nuclear weapons program anyway.

Enter George Bush.

At this point, IMO, Bush got handed a hot potato. But it was time to change president's anyway.

A thoughtful new president might weigh his options carefully and decide on a something clever. But true to his character, he started in with, "blah, blah, blah."

Yes, Clinton handed Bush a big problem. But Bush, as the new president, was clumsy, arrogant, and pushy.

A lot of people will tell you that the best way to deal with a bully is to humiliate him. That may be true but when bluster meets bluster, sometimes it just gets stupid.

patteeu
06-10-2006, 10:06 AM
I know that Clinton handed Bush a hot potato. It started when Korea threatened to start building nuclear weapons. The Clinton administration made an agreement with NKorea that would give them the fuel for domestic nuclear use if they gave up their nuclear weapons programs. North Korea got pissed about something and started their nuclear weapons program anyway.

Enter George Bush.

At this point, IMO, Bush got handed a hot potato. But it was time to change president's anyway.

A thoughtful new president might weigh his options carefully and decide on a something clever. But true to his character, he started in with, "blah, blah, blah."

Yes, Clinton handed Bush a big problem. But Bush, as the new president, was clumsy, arrogant, and pushy.

A lot of people will tell you that the best way to deal with a bully is to humiliate him. That may be true but when bluster meets bluster, sometimes it just gets stupid.


Your initial posts on this subject didn't come across (to me at least) as if you recognized that Clinton handed Bush a hot potato. Thanks for clarifying. All I can say is that we tried the negotiation/appeasement approach of Clinton and we tried the tough talk approach of Bush and both appear to have failed. It would have been nice if someone had thought of something clever, but I'm not sure what that would have been or who would have thought of it.

Radar Chief
06-12-2006, 07:42 AM
I've given you my reasoning. The facts surrounding this administration's official statements and policies are on record for anyone who wishes to investigate. My reasoning is based on those statements and policies. I've stated them in short order. You choose not to digest them.

This is a simple one, cause you’re try’n to present your opinion as fact and the more I call you on it the more you get angry that I’m not just take’n your word for it.
Sorry, but its just your opinion, ‘till you present actual facts to go along with’em. That’s just how it works. :shrug:

Why can't you figure this out for yourself? There is probably a reason that your conservative cohorts are not jumping to your defense.

:LOL: Right, like all your “LWNJ cohorts have been jump’n to your defense.” :rolleyes:
What do you think this is, a grade school playground square off? ROFL

Okay, Dick Cheney. 99% of ME experts will tell us that Saddam was a secularist and bin Laden hated Saddam and wanted him overthrown. But that doesn't matter because what the experts say doesn't mean shit to an ideologue, just like science doesn't exist.

“Ok, Micheal Moore.” You couldn’t even get 50% of the CIA to agree with that before we invaded, doubt even 20% would go along with that now with the evidence we’ve captured post invasion.
Hell, even the 911 Commission report debunked that piece of fantasy.
Though you are right, none of these facts will put a dent in your ideology, you’ve got your heals dug in way to deep to change direction now.

If you want to be a sheep for a government that disrepects you, me, and everything this country has ever stood for go right ahead but don't expect me to do the same.

:LOL: Says the guy fall’n for the most convenient conspiracy theory.

I'm not a left-wing nut job. I'm an honest, hard-working American that has served my country.

That is a direct response to you try’n to label me. You can embrace any label you choose, it’s your right to, but don’t try’n label me. I guarantee you whatever label you come up with won’t fit.
Unless that label is, “Gear head, acceleration junkie”. ;) That one’s actually pretty descriptive. :redface:

And I'm sick and tired of these phony-ass business suits that purchased their way into power telling me that I'm a ****in nutjob for speaking out against their bullshit policies designed to undermine the American ideals I grew up believing in, soley for the purpose of achieving their power-hungry goals.

Ah there, something we agree on. :thumb: Though were we part ways is when you want to believe one party is any better than the other. To me, they’re all the same. Politicians, much like lawyers ;), are a boil on the azz of society by way of the profession they’ve chosen. Maybe one day we can collectively lance that boil, but until such a Eutopian time our political system, and politicians in general, is what we’ve got to work with.

Didn't you call me Jr. first? If not, I apologize because the only reason I responded in kind was because I could have sworn that you did. If you did, what is the purpose of this last comment? To one-up me? If you want me to take your ideas seriously it would help if you would leave out the childish insults to begin with.

No, I didn’t. Save your apologies, I don’t care ‘bout’em.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 07:48 AM
until such a Eutopian time our political system, ....

What's that? :shrug:

Does that stand for a European Utopia? As in Eurotopia...but shortened more?

Radar Chief
06-12-2006, 07:50 AM
What's that? :shrug:

Does that stand for a European Utopia? As in Eurotopia...but shortened more?


Ok, if it works for ya, I’ll go along with it. ;)

Next time I’ll proof read a little closer there Ms. Spellcheck. :harumph:

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 07:55 AM
Ok, if it works for ya, I’ll go along with it. ;)

Next time I’ll proof read a little closer there Ms. Spellcheck. :harumph:
I'm just messin' with ya' for fun. o:-)

PS I actually thought, somewhat, there was a chance it coulda' been a new word.