Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hardknock
And you don't see anything wrong with ignoring the problem for the last 4 years so Dubya can settle the score for daddykins?
I dont care what happened during the Clinton years. We're in the HERE AND NOW. Not 8 years ago, not 50 years ago. It STILL amazes me that republicans are still blaming him for shit. The fact is that Bush want's to "spread freedom around the world" yet he constantly goes again his own statements when he goes after bullshit countries like Iraq.
And no one has still answered my question from a previous thread that asked, why haven't we gone after the other dictators that were an obvious threat first?
|
I generally don't reply to threads that delve into name calling, but I'll make an exception.
No, I don't see that we 'ignored' the NK problem. We were dealing with ANOTHER problem, which you may or may not agree needed dealing with. The fact is that foreign policy spans the globe and doesn't stop with one hotspot such as Korea.
As to Clinton, clearly NK was lying to the Clinton administration. Is that "blame" or simply stating the facts? (BTW, you assume I am a Republican when I am not.) But in any event, Clinton's way of dealing with the situation clearly didn't work, yet I am seeing several posts bemoaning the fact that Bush isn't 'engaging' the North Koreans, presumably like Clinton did.
It is obvious that part of Bush's strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq was to make it clear that the US
would respond to an attack such as 9/11 or if a regime refused to bow to international pressure regarding such things as WMD's (and please, don't start on the "he didn't have them" mantra...he had them in the past and wanted them again, which is fact).
As to "why we haven't gone after other dictators", my own belief is that people like you (both here and abroad) make it politically unfeasible.
Consider Iraq.
Here we have a man that was literally a burgeoning Hitler, complete with gassing his own civilians and invading his neighbors, yet it took arguing WMDs and defied sanctions to sell a war...not the atrocities that he had already committed, including the first Gulf War (Bush Sr. is on record as saying the major reason that we didn't go in the first time is because we
wouldn't have the support. How sick is that?)
But even with that, it is pointed out (with glee), that millions upon millions of people across the world don't support this war.
I can only imagine the firestorm of world wide protest if we really did go into NK without them breaking the armastice first (oh yeah, they've never signed a peace treaty...did you know that?)