Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-11-2006, 02:21 PM

Roach for their to be an agreement, wouldn't one party have to abide by it? NK didn't building off that, yes there was no nuclear device when the "last administration" was in office, they just managed to speed up and go about with their programs. I really don't see where Bush is "saber rattling" either, I mean seriously, name any instances where Bush or his administration has said anything that is "Saber rattling". Does staying committed to multi-lateral talks equate to saber rattling? Does not legitimizing NK with bi-lateral talks equate saber rattling? Do statements to the effect of we are not now, nor have we ever had the intentions of attacking North Korea? Tell me how Bush is the bad guy by not legitimizing or propping up a failed nation state such as North Korea? Clinton did both, his policy failed. When Bush stuck to the agreement signed, NK started getting pissy and threw a tantrum and here people such as you RB want to appease them, typical.

Bi-lateral talks amount to nothing, it is only another attempt to black mail the US, something which we shouldn't tolerate, again. It would also legitimize Kim Jong Il and his actions. "Oh yes little Kim you can do what ever you want, don't abide by your agreements, in fact come here to the grown table and sit and talk with us". One ought to approach the situation with the mentality of parents and a spoiled brat. If your kid is an ass and cussing you out and not obeying curfew, and doing drugs, and punting puppies while committing hate crimes, do you really try and talk to them at a level/manner where there behavior is legitimized and not addressed? No, you crack their ass if you have, or hell give them the good ole' 86 and let them fend for themselves if it comes down to it. Besides I would think bringing in regional nations that have some stake in south east Asia might be nice, as NK is also their problem.

Back to the opening paragraph, on what is better the agreed upon agreement, or our current state of threats to a nation in gross violation of international and unprecedented saber rattling. Well again I state NK would actually have to be party to an agreement, and would actually have to follow it. They did not follow the agreement, as such when Bush cut them off, they pulled out of the agreement, there is no framework in that sense to work with.

10-11-2006, 02:21 PM	#101 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Roach for their to be an agreement, wouldn't one party have to abide by it? NK didn't building off that, yes there was no nuclear device when the "last administration" was in office, they just managed to speed up and go about with their programs. I really don't see where Bush is "saber rattling" either, I mean seriously, name any instances where Bush or his administration has said anything that is "Saber rattling". Does staying committed to multi-lateral talks equate to saber rattling? Does not legitimizing NK with bi-lateral talks equate saber rattling? Do statements to the effect of we are not now, nor have we ever had the intentions of attacking North Korea? Tell me how Bush is the bad guy by not legitimizing or propping up a failed nation state such as North Korea? Clinton did both, his policy failed. When Bush stuck to the agreement signed, NK started getting pissy and threw a tantrum and here people such as you RB want to appease them, typical. Bi-lateral talks amount to nothing, it is only another attempt to black mail the US, something which we shouldn't tolerate, again. It would also legitimize Kim Jong Il and his actions. "Oh yes little Kim you can do what ever you want, don't abide by your agreements, in fact come here to the grown table and sit and talk with us". One ought to approach the situation with the mentality of parents and a spoiled brat. If your kid is an ass and cussing you out and not obeying curfew, and doing drugs, and punting puppies while committing hate crimes, do you really try and talk to them at a level/manner where there behavior is legitimized and not addressed? No, you crack their ass if you have, or hell give them the good ole' 86 and let them fend for themselves if it comes down to it. Besides I would think bringing in regional nations that have some stake in south east Asia might be nice, as NK is also their problem. Back to the opening paragraph, on what is better the agreed upon agreement, or our current state of threats to a nation in gross violation of international and unprecedented saber rattling. Well again I state NK would actually have to be party to an agreement, and would actually have to follow it. They did not follow the agreement, as such when Bush cut them off, they pulled out of the agreement, there is no framework in that sense to work with. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.