Thank You, President Clinton!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
sactown1 wrote:
I see your point but why the hell are you quoting that nut job?

Her point is that we’ll never get anywhere trying to appease people like Kim ‘Dung’ Il by trying to buy them off. Further, if we vascillate and appear weak, this encourages aggressors to become steadfast and determined (which is what we SHOULD be doing — which makes the Libs call US the warmongers.)

Read her column. Annie is brilliant.

HH

Can you tell me where Clinton put those nuclear reactors. Because if you can’t, she wouldn’t be brilliant. She would be a lying bitch.

One of many places to begin your education:

Liberalism is simply evil, in its appeasement of evil.

HH

No, this is where your education starts.

The link you gave came up with this:
“The Clinton Administration announced tonight that United States and North Korean negotiators in Geneva had reached a broad agreement that would freeze North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and allow the resumption of international inspections. Administration officials said the agreement included some concessions by Washington, including arranging for American allies to build in North Korea two modern nuclear power plants valued at several billion dollars. The Administration also agreed to a delay in the inspection of two nuclear waste sites that were expected to reveal evidence of North Korea’s production of weapon-grades material.”

That was the agreement. The NK would allow international inspections and freeze their nuclear weapons programs. And we would build 2 modern nuclear power plants.
However, this plan was never put into action.
That’s what the lying bitch forgot to tell you. And you’re a gullible fool for believing her obvious lies.

The Agreed Framework between the United States of America and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was signed on October 21, 1994 between North Korea (DPRK) and the United States. The agreement largely broke-down by 2003.

Don’t be such a tool HH.[/quote]

Why’d the agreement ‘break down’? Why did some Republican senators ‘regard it as appeasement’? Think, before you post something and call others names. Don’t be so reckless!!

HH

22

[quote]danmaftei wrote:
What is your idea of “liberalism,” HH?[/quote]

Liberalism has its roots in the Marxist dictum: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Liberals believe that they may use government action to secure a better life for the members of a country, by taking from those with ability and giving to those in need.

There are so many problems with that scheme as to believe evil of Marx: Who determines if someone is working up to his ability? What if someone doesn’t want to work according to his ability? What if that person doesn’t WANT to help others? The only way to secure their ‘cooperation’ is with a brutal dictatorship, with force against unarmed victims.

Then, who determines what someones needs are? A gang of bandits?

This is why liberalism must eventually descend into fascism. Since liberals believe that force is practical, they simply follow that scheme to its logical conclusion.

23

[quote]The_Rabbi wrote:
Professor X wrote:

I sure do hope you all are signing up for military service since you obviously want war so badly. Hey, you guys even have kids! They’re signing up, right? Any nephews? I can give the Army recruiters your home address and you won’t even have to leave the house!! Who’s with me???

Actually, I am.

But anyway, do you see diplomacy working? Nobody wants war(at least nobody I know.) But how many concessions are you willing to make to get a temporary guarantee of peace?

[/quote]

However many will allow that peace to continue, regardless of how temporary it is. Do you have any concept of what you are pushing towards when you imply that you want war with these countries? How do you really think an all out WWIII would really turn out? America would be completely untouched? Are you willing to risk the safety of the people you love…people who think they are safe simply because they live in this country, for this? If not, then why push for it?

24

If we don’t start declaring more war on third world countries people will start to die you loon, because of terrorism and how quickly it spreads during peacetime.

Wow I don’t even know why we bother replying to you liberals, you guys disagree with us because you are all obviously out of touch with reality, because President George W. Bush is reality.

He has a strong backbone and he is also very religious, he said so. We have a country to defend from people that actually use UNLAWFUL violence against OTHER people, don’t you know how TERRIBLE that is?
IT’S TERRORISM YOU LIBERALS!
IT’S A ‘NEW GAME’!

We must use LAWFUL violence, i.e. dropping bombs on buildings that probably have terrorists in them who delight in strapping bombs to themselves and commiting acts of UNLAWFUL violence because they are cowards who hate democracy and won’t stop killing people! VIVA LA BUSH!

25

[quote]metalsluggx wrote:
If we don’t start declaring more war on third world countries people will start to die you loon, because of terrorism and how quickly it spreads during peacetime.

Wow I don’t even know why we bother replying to you liberals, you guys disagree with us because you are all obviously out of touch with reality, because President George W. Bush is reality.

He has a strong backbone and he is also very religious, he said so. We have a country to defend from people that actually use UNLAWFUL violence against OTHER people, don’t you know how TERRIBLE that is?
IT’S TERRORISM YOU LIBERALS!
IT’S A ‘NEW GAME’!

We must use LAWFUL violence, i.e. dropping bombs on buildings that probably have terrorists in them who delight in strapping bombs to themselves and commiting acts of UNLAWFUL violence because they are cowards who hate democracy and won’t stop killing people! VIVA LA BUSH![/quote]

Is this the Bayer Aspirin guy? Wow, wow, wow.

26

[quote]The_Rabbi wrote:
Coulter is moron, but she’s also telling the truth. We tried to make deals with NK in the past, and it hasn’t resulted in jack shit. They’re still acting like bastard commies.

Sanctions don’t do anything to a dictatorial regime when the dictator doesn’t care about whether or not his people starve to death.[/quote]

Yea, containment doesn’t work at all.

Just like that huge war we had with the Soviet Union back in the day that we started because we knew that they would never fall on their own and violence is the only way to change things.

Wait a second…

27

There isn’t going to be any fucking WW3 for all your war mongering twats.

China, Russia (the only sizeable threats) they don’t have the resources to wage war, let alone win it, the economical factors would lead to their economies collapsing. Particularly China who’s economy is based on export of goods to the west.

N.Korea, Iran, all these countries could be wiped out by the fucking Belgian Army if they wanted. The only thing that hinders actually winning wars these days is the fact you can’t just bomb everything like we did in WW2.

28

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
The_Rabbi wrote:
Coulter is moron, but she’s also telling the truth. We tried to make deals with NK in the past, and it hasn’t resulted in jack shit. They’re still acting like bastard commies.

Sanctions don’t do anything to a dictatorial regime when the dictator doesn’t care about whether or not his people starve to death.

Yea, containment doesn’t work at all.

Just like that huge war we had with the Soviet Union back in the day that we started because we knew that they would never fall on their own and violence is the only way to change things.

Wait a second… [/quote]

I love the way people think if some kick off with NK started, all the countries who have Beef with the States would just join in and wham…WW3. I think the worst case of apathy ever would be more like it.

The US could erradicate any country anywhere if there are no limits, that’s before the rest of Nato (hoping the others besides the UK join in) help out.

29

[quote]Dr. Stig wrote:
There isn’t going to be any fucking WW3 for all your war mongering twats.

China, Russia (the only sizeable threats) they don’t have the resources to wage war, let alone win it, the economical factors would lead to their economies collapsing. Particularly China who’s economy is based on export of goods to the west.

N.Korea, Iran, all these countries could be wiped out by the fucking Belgian Army if they wanted. The only thing that hinders actually winning wars these days is the fact you can’t just bomb everything like we did in WW2. [/quote]

But we want [b]BLOOD!!![/b]

COMMI BLOOD!

We must kill them all!!!

jesus christ fellas a sixth of the country died in the 90’s from famine. How much of a war could they attempt?

Ridiculous. Thank you, Headhunter, for another pointless thread about your loopy thoughts. Put this shit in your blog, and leave us all alone. Or email anne coulter about it, I’m sure she gives a fuck.

30

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Dr. Stig wrote:
There isn’t going to be any fucking WW3 for all your war mongering twats.

China, Russia (the only sizeable threats) they don’t have the resources to wage war, let alone win it, the economical factors would lead to their economies collapsing. Particularly China who’s economy is based on export of goods to the west.

N.Korea, Iran, all these countries could be wiped out by the fucking Belgian Army if they wanted. The only thing that hinders actually winning wars these days is the fact you can’t just bomb everything like we did in WW2.

But we want [b]BLOOD!!![/b]

COMMI BLOOD!

We must kill them all!!!

jesus christ fellas a sixth of the country died in the 90’s from famine. How much of a war could they attempt?

Ridiculous. Thank you, Headhunter, for another pointless thread about your loopy thoughts. Put this shit in your blog, and leave us all alone. Or email anne coulter about it, I’m sure she gives a fuck.[/quote]

C’mon Irish, is THINKING that painful for you? I thought this caused a fine debate, with a minimum of flaming.

I would like to hunt down where Annie got the $4 billion figure and Clinton’s role. Maybe I WILL e-mail her.

HH

31

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Dr. Stig wrote:
There isn’t going to be any fucking WW3 for all your war mongering twats.

China, Russia (the only sizeable threats) they don’t have the resources to wage war, let alone win it, the economical factors would lead to their economies collapsing. Particularly China who’s economy is based on export of goods to the west.

N.Korea, Iran, all these countries could be wiped out by the fucking Belgian Army if they wanted. The only thing that hinders actually winning wars these days is the fact you can’t just bomb everything like we did in WW2.

But we want [b]BLOOD!!![/b]

COMMI BLOOD!

We must kill them all!!!

jesus christ fellas a sixth of the country died in the 90’s from famine. How much of a war could they attempt?

Ridiculous. Thank you, Headhunter, for another pointless thread about your loopy thoughts. Put this shit in your blog, and leave us all alone. Or email anne coulter about it, I’m sure she gives a fuck.

C’mon Irish, is THINKING that painful for you? I thought this caused a fine debate, with a minimum of flaming.

I would like to hunt down where Annie got the $4 billion figure and Clinton’s role. Maybe I WILL e-mail her.

HH

[/quote]

The UK sold arms to Iraq, loads of them, the SAS trained Bin Laden’s mates etc etc.

The French sold the Argentinians weapons they used in the Falklands against the UK.

oh, and Best Buy or whatever its called sold all you internet war mongerers PC’s which is a more serious crime.

32

[quote]Dr. Stig wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Dr. Stig wrote:
There isn’t going to be any fucking WW3 for all your war mongering twats.

China, Russia (the only sizeable threats) they don’t have the resources to wage war, let alone win it, the economical factors would lead to their economies collapsing. Particularly China who’s economy is based on export of goods to the west.

N.Korea, Iran, all these countries could be wiped out by the fucking Belgian Army if they wanted. The only thing that hinders actually winning wars these days is the fact you can’t just bomb everything like we did in WW2.

But we want [b]BLOOD!!![/b]

COMMI BLOOD!

We must kill them all!!!

jesus christ fellas a sixth of the country died in the 90’s from famine. How much of a war could they attempt?

Ridiculous. Thank you, Headhunter, for another pointless thread about your loopy thoughts. Put this shit in your blog, and leave us all alone. Or email anne coulter about it, I’m sure she gives a fuck.

C’mon Irish, is THINKING that painful for you? I thought this caused a fine debate, with a minimum of flaming.

I would like to hunt down where Annie got the $4 billion figure and Clinton’s role. Maybe I WILL e-mail her.

HH

The UK sold arms to Iraq, loads of them, the SAS trained Bin Laden’s mates etc etc.

The French sold the Argentinians weapons they used in the Falklands against the UK.

oh, and Best Buy or whatever its called sold all you internet war mongerers PC’s which is a more serious crime.[/quote]

Good God, don’t BS. The British sold stuff to Bin Laden and his crew during the Soviet crisis there. We did too. The French can go to hell. The main reason the world hates us in Iraq is cause the French didn’t sign on, and you know why they didnt sign on??? CAUSE THEY SOLD THEM BLOODY TECHNOLOGY AND WEAPONS. THEY WERE TOO DAMN PUSSY TO STAND UP TO THEM. THY HAD THEIR HANDS IN THEIR POCKETBOOKS INSTEAD OF ON THEIR GUNS.

33

[quote]Dr. Stig wrote:
The UK sold arms to Iraq, loads of them, the SAS trained Bin Laden’s mates etc etc.

The French sold the Argentinians weapons they used in the Falklands against the UK.

oh, and Best Buy or whatever its called sold all you internet war mongerers PC’s which is a more serious crime.[/quote]

To even jokingly compare selling weapons to buying computers is an even more serious crime.

What’d you expect when you signed on to a Politics forum? Jokes such as: my mother is Welsh and my father is Hungarian…so, I’m well-hung.

Go take a pill, Junior, and lie down.

HH

34

[quote]blck1jack wrote:
Dr. Stig wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Dr. Stig wrote:
There isn’t going to be any fucking WW3 for all your war mongering twats.

China, Russia (the only sizeable threats) they don’t have the resources to wage war, let alone win it, the economical factors would lead to their economies collapsing. Particularly China who’s economy is based on export of goods to the west.

N.Korea, Iran, all these countries could be wiped out by the fucking Belgian Army if they wanted. The only thing that hinders actually winning wars these days is the fact you can’t just bomb everything like we did in WW2.

But we want [b]BLOOD!!![/b]

COMMI BLOOD!

We must kill them all!!!

jesus christ fellas a sixth of the country died in the 90’s from famine. How much of a war could they attempt?

Ridiculous. Thank you, Headhunter, for another pointless thread about your loopy thoughts. Put this shit in your blog, and leave us all alone. Or email anne coulter about it, I’m sure she gives a fuck.

C’mon Irish, is THINKING that painful for you? I thought this caused a fine debate, with a minimum of flaming.

I would like to hunt down where Annie got the $4 billion figure and Clinton’s role. Maybe I WILL e-mail her.

HH

The UK sold arms to Iraq, loads of them, the SAS trained Bin Laden’s mates etc etc.

The French sold the Argentinians weapons they used in the Falklands against the UK.

oh, and Best Buy or whatever its called sold all you internet war mongerers PC’s which is a more serious crime.

Good God, don’t BS. The British sold stuff to Bin Laden and his crew during the Soviet crisis there. We did too. The French can go to hell. The main reason the world hates us in Iraw is cause the French didn’t sign on, and you know why they didnt sign on??? CAUSE THEY SOLD THEM BLOODY TECHNOLOGY AND WEAPONS. THEY WERE TOO DAMN PUSSY TO STAND UP TO THEM. THY HAD THEIR HANDS IN THEIR POCKETBOOKS INSTEAD OF ON THEIR GUNS. [/quote]

No need to shout boyo, BTW where is Iraw?

35

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Dr. Stig wrote:
The UK sold arms to Iraq, loads of them, the SAS trained Bin Laden’s mates etc etc.

The French sold the Argentinians weapons they used in the Falklands against the UK.

oh, and Best Buy or whatever its called sold all you internet war mongerers PC’s which is a more serious crime.

To even jokingly compare selling weapons to buying computers is an even more serious crime.

What’d you expect when you signed on to a Politics forum? Jokes such as: my mother is Welsh and my father is Hungarian…so, I’m well-hung.

Go take a pill, Junior, and lie down.

HH

[/quote]

Sorry Grandad.

36

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
danmaftei wrote:
What is your idea of “liberalism,” HH?

Liberalism has its roots in the Marxist dictum: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Liberals believe that they may use government action to secure a better life for the members of a country, by taking from those with ability and giving to those in need.

There are so many problems with that scheme as to believe evil of Marx: Who determines if someone is working up to his ability? What if someone doesn’t want to work according to his ability? What if that person doesn’t WANT to help others? The only way to secure their ‘cooperation’ is with a brutal dictatorship, with force against unarmed victims.

Then, who determines what someones needs are? A gang of bandits?

This is why liberalism must eventually descend into fascism. Since liberals believe that force is practical, they simply follow that scheme to its logical conclusion.

[/quote]

Interesting view, but you put a negative twist on things. For one, you can leave this country. No one is forcing you to stay and “cooperate.” On a smaller scale, you can head off to a nearby state with a more republican government. No matter what anyone says, states do and will forever have a huge influence on daily life, down to the local level. Local and state laws play into my daily life more than federal laws.

The other negative twist is your idea of re-distribution of wealth. Likewise there was a case, dubbed the Claremont Decision, here in New Hampshire, which essentially increased property taxes, using this extra revenue to help Claremont, a filthy poor city (with restrictions, of course, which, of course, were poorly enforced and Claremont ended up splurging on shit they shouldn’t have).

I don’t see liberalism in the same way the guys who passed the Claremont Decision do. It’s not a Robin Hood, steal from the rich, give to the poor ideal. It’s a method of higher taxes into increasing government size so it can provide basic human rights to everyone.

On that note, you’re not distinguishing correctly between good and bad. I don’t want to see a guy who made millions in the stock market have to pay half his fortunes in taxes to some bum on the street who got there through a gambling addiction. No one is telling anyone what’s right and what’s wrong. But there are universal standards of living that all human rights should have access to.

And that’s why spending money on education, on eliminating poverty (and by this I don’t mean throwing cash around in the city), on providing better healthcare, etc. Everyone, no matter what their financial situation, should be able to have access to those most basic of needs.

For the record, I have many “republican” views. For example, I believe in state rights over big government, in which regard I’m a lot more moderate than “liberal.” Off the top of my head, that’s the most major one, but you’ll find in many issues I’m quite moderate, if not leaning towards the right. That said, I fucking hate dividing people into liberals and republicans. We all want what’s best for the country. I’m not “evil incarnate” because I believe in higher taxes.

37

[quote]metalsluggx wrote:
If we don’t start declaring more war on third world countries people will start to die you loon, because of terrorism and how quickly it spreads during peacetime.

Wow I don’t even know why we bother replying to you liberals, you guys disagree with us because you are all obviously out of touch with reality, because President George W. Bush is reality.

He has a strong backbone and he is also very religious, he said so. We have a country to defend from people that actually use UNLAWFUL violence against OTHER people, don’t you know how TERRIBLE that is?
IT’S TERRORISM YOU LIBERALS!
IT’S A ‘NEW GAME’!

We must use LAWFUL violence, i.e. dropping bombs on buildings that probably have terrorists in them who delight in strapping bombs to themselves and commiting acts of UNLAWFUL violence because they are cowards who hate democracy and won’t stop killing people! VIVA LA BUSH![/quote]

What in the fuck does North Korea have to do with terrorism being committed against the US?

38

[quote]Professor X wrote:
The_Rabbi wrote:

However many will allow that peace to continue, regardless of how temporary it is. Do you have any concept of what you are pushing towards when you imply that you want war with these countries? How do you really think an all out WWIII would really turn out? America would be completely untouched? Are you willing to risk the safety of the people you love…people who think they are safe simply because they live in this country, for this? If not, then why push for it?[/quote]

Foolish. You want to get yourself some peace and leave it for your grandchildren to fight out the consequences. Well, not I.

Hitler didn’t stop at Poland. When you’re dealing with a dictator, as it certainly appears Kim Jong Il is, concessions and appeasement only beget more envelope pushing.

You’re willing to sell out the United States and our prosperity to avoid facing an enemy? Make no mistake, if we fail in Iraq and fail to deal with our other enemies, it is over for us as a superpower. Maybe this is what you want, but I don’t want my descendents to have to live in a place anything like Europe. If that means I have to go to Korea, so be it.

At any rate, all we need to do is get rid of Kim and his lackeys. South Korea went from a third world nation of peasants to one of the leaders in technology in the span of 50 years. With the Communists in power gone, the North Koreans should be able to advance quite a bit from their current dire situation.

It’s not like the North Koreans are going to fight to death for the piece of shit that’s starving them to death. You’re mad if you think they want to be Communists. All we need is to get China’s permission to take him out, or at the least ensure they don’t jump into the fold like last time.

At any rate, the one thing we cannot do is nothing, because nothing will result in a much bigger war than the one we possibly face right now. We do not want to wait until our enemies become any more powerful. What sense does that make? Why should we let them stall until they have more weaponry, thus making the job a bloodier and more gruesome one that it already is?

39

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Yea, containment doesn’t work at all.

Just like that huge war we had with the Soviet Union back in the day that we started because we knew that they would never fall on their own and violence is the only way to change things.

Wait a second… [/quote]

North Korea is not the Soviet Union. Kim is not Khrushchev or Gorbachev. During the Cold War, we could count on the fact that Soviets disliked the idea of eradicating civilization with nuclear war just as much as we did.

From what we’ve seen, it appears that the top guys in North Korea don’t really give a damn. Now, maybe this is because we have not articulated the consequences well enough, or maybe it’s because they’re suicidal. For whatever reason, they don’t seem to be taking us seriously. They keep pulling stupid shit and then asking for talks. It’s just like with the Arabs. Attack, and then call for a ceasefire to extort more loot in the truce negotiations.

Maybe I’m wrong, but if I am, North Korea needs to realize that we aren’t fucking around. How are we going to accomplish that? By giving them what they want?

40

[quote]The_Rabbi wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Yea, containment doesn’t work at all.

Just like that huge war we had with the Soviet Union back in the day that we started because we knew that they would never fall on their own and violence is the only way to change things.

Wait a second…

North Korea is not the Soviet Union. Kim is not Khrushchev or Gorbachev. During the Cold War, we could count on the fact that Soviets disliked the idea of eradicating civilization with nuclear war just as much as we did.

From what we’ve seen, it appears that the top guys in North Korea don’t really give a damn. Now, maybe this is because we have not articulated the consequences well enough, or maybe it’s because they’re suicidal. For whatever reason, they don’t seem to be taking us seriously. They keep pulling stupid shit and then asking for talks. It’s just like with the Arabs. Attack, and then call for a ceasefire to extort more loot in the truce negotiations.

Maybe I’m wrong, but if I am, North Korea needs to realize that we aren’t fucking around. How are we going to accomplish that? By giving them what they want?
[/quote]

Hell no ! ! !

And I’ve got just the plan for you. Instead of rotating the units out of Iraq to the US, we could send them to North Korea instead. If they wanted a change of scenery, they got it ! ! !

Like you said, Hitler didn’t stop at Poland and we shouldn’t stop at Iraq.

I’M WITH YOU ALL THE WAY ! ! !