I think the video oversimplifies the situation a little too much. I'd agree that the US's foreign policy could be improved; I'd even agree that our foreign policy is a source of anti-American sentiment in some regions of the world.
But the video makes it seem black and white, that Bush and his conservative buddies are the ones to blame and the DPRK is just protecting itself. However, if North Korea was all good and dandy and a peaceful nation before Bush dubbed NK, Iraq, and Iran the "Axis of Evil," what would have prompted him to include North Korea in that grouping in the first place? My point is simply that the DPRK is not some victim, here...
Don't fool yourself....North Korea was just as much of a thorn when Clinton was president. Clinton was just adept at making it LOOK like he was accomplishing something. Like promising light water reactors that wouldn't even be close to construction until NK was some other president's problem. Not to mention 'Team Spirit' and NK's little submarine suicide squad.
Is anyone else scared, im so scared! not of terrorists because they dont have the guts to tell us they are about to kill innocents they just sit there hoping no one notices! united 93 i believe! i hope someone saves us all- soon
So true. The world has become unstable as a result of Bush policies. Funny thing is, every time I reach the 5 year mark of my 5 year plan, somebody has already changed things so much that I need to start all over again.
You are welcome to your opinion, but consider this Our current enemy is a group of religious fanatics. Does it make sense that propaganda from our enemies today would be aimed at puting a negative light on christianity? By labeling our leaders such things as "far-right messianic-christian republicans or neo-cons"
I believe that religion and politics is often a dangerous mix, be it muslim or christian. When the two coincide as they seem to more than ever, sparks will fly. I think both sides need to take a step back and as the US is the country that has actually moved into the other's territory, it has the greater responsibility to retreat.
I'm not an expert on all of those wars. What I really meant to say was that the new breed of far-right messianic-christian republicans or neo-cons, are real problem. I believe the world is far more unstable since their rise to power and arrogant foreign policy.
CLINTON, GHW BUSH, GW bush 2.165.000 deth + 760.000 wounded. 1991-2003 almous 500 000 of them were children. Iraq WMD lie 1991-20?? Hussein Kamel testimony to CIA 1995. I destroyed all WMD's. 14-16 million in 60 years. HAT NUMBERS ARE YOURS?
Yes and no, JFK was at the right place at the right time... but so was Reagan... they both prevented a nuclear war, and you have to agree with me there and take back your words. (-: Carter set us back because he had no spine and was an appeaser to aggression. JFK made a secret deal to avoid war during the Cuban M.C. details declassified only a couple of years ago
The Soviets collapsed internally trying to compete for world power with the USA on a faulty market system known as 'communism' Not by appeasement at all. Please believe that, it was NOT appeasement. Dialog yes, but not appeasement.
You twisted anti Christian bigot. The govt of N Korea is utterly evil and somehow you present the USA to be the wrong one here. Listen you uneducated liberal: Appeasing the aggressor doesn't work. Study your history. Clinton was soft... and you think they started working on their nuclear program AFTER President G W Bush got elected??? Think again o' wise one!
Was the USSR won over by aggression or appeasement ? If bush had been around in 1963, the button would have been pushed, that I'm sure of. Just another example of how the democrats can be trusted in power more than the republicans, who basically f##k things up, like in Iraq.
it's basically saying that to win over a dangerous dictator the only option is negotiation and concession. a threatening foreign policy will make kim turn further inwards and start an arms race that nobody needs.
i think america is learning this, but the original neo-con policy was hell-bent upon power politics and american supremacy.
First of all Iraq had the 3rd biggest/well equipped army in the world. Second, how is giving Korea a NUCLEAR powerplant handling things with care lmao! Yes its not the exact same as giving them a nuclear bomb but you are giving them pre-cursers to making one. Radioactive substances, nuclear technology, omg, N Korea doesn't make enough money to feed a third of its population, and now all of a sudden they have nuclear bombs,hmm...wonder how that happened... THANKS BILL!
once the nuclear cat was out of the bag, the non proliferation treaty said that it was acceptable for states to make energy, so long as they were supervised. better monitored than not.
this is what n.korea did, and almost every other country. before 1979, america made reactors for iraq.
if the superpowers want to set an example, why does america not get rid of some of its 7,000 warheads, enough to destroy every species on earth !
Every country has reactors? LOL, 30/194 do, 15% of countries have them, please. In 1979 Iraq wasn't a threat, so who cared if it gave them those reactors. When Bill Clinton gave N. Korea them, it was well known how threatening N. Korea was. That's what this video makes clear 'Reclusive, Paranoid Dictator, with Appalling Human Rights Record' and you give them NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES??? That's like giving a serial killer a wad of 100s and a gun and hoping he'll stop being a criminal!
Ok, Bill did not 'LET' them do it, he 'GAVE' them it. GAVE!... N. Korea was, and still is an impoverished nation, they didn't have the oil money that Iran does(who finance their own), too build their own nuclear power station, fuckin Bill 'GAVE IT TO THEM', STUPID!!! Nothing to do with 'regulating' WHATSOEVER. Going nuclear only INCREASES chances of being attacked by the US, DUH! They're making Weapons of Mass Destruction, 1 of the MAIN reasons we 'pre-emptivly' struck Iraq!
but there is money to spend on the wrong things - arms, etc. i don't have the facts, but they probably could have moved to nuclear power without american help
"weapons of mass destruction", but who gave iraq chemical and biological weapons - america.
I see a double standard - america is using terrible weapons in iraq, white phosphorus and depleted uranium.
america has been the only country to use nuclear bombs. "it ended the war" - ok, but they didn't need to drop it on two cities !
N Korea is a third world country, how many times do have to repeat this? (once again, only 30 countries in the world have nuclear power). They were nowhere near affording that technology(can't even feed a 1/3 of their people), even if they could, why would you knowlingly ARM a PARANOID DICTATOR with that? Why? To stop them from missile testing? 'Here, I'll make you a deal, to stop you from firing guns, how about we give you a bunch of ammo, cool?'.
White phospherus was a bad move, and even though they did it on ENEMY COMBATANTS they were close to civilian population, so yes its bad. But Saddam killed thousands, ALL CIVILIANS with his tests of biological weapons. Depleted uranium was used in Gulf War, its only use in Iraq has been TANK ARMOR. Comparing our use of White Magnesium, too nuclear bombs in the hands of a radical dictator are absurdly skewed. This video is comical in promoting nuclear power as an incentive.
a nuclear bomb is obviously much worse, but look at cumulative death rates
people focus on one-off acts of terror, like 911, a brilliant piece of theatre that has imprinted on the us psyche.
3,000 deaths don't compare to the hundreds of thousands in iraq and afghanistan. also the daily horrors of palestine and the events in lebanon (us backed)
the mid east see the irony of america castigating those working towards a wmd when usa's cumulative record on killing is appalling.
Who was the aggressor when we used the Nuclear bomb? The firebombing of Japan had more cumulative deaths then both the nuclear bombs combined! What is a country supposed to do in war? How do you defend Japan in WW2, do you support the Nazis too? The Japanese fought to the last man, in the face of total annihilation, what? Just forfeit technological advantage, and lose thousands of men just to fight 'fairly'. You think the Japanese wouldn't have used nuclear bombs if they could?
Since US is worse then the Japanese. Ever heard of the nanking massacre? you want to play the numbers game, over 300,000 civlians killed as opposed to 214,000 combined nuclear attacks, 20,000 women GANG RAPED. Men made to rape their own daughters and sisters while their family watched. Then they did gruesome experiments on the them much like the Germans did to the Jews. You actually think the US is worse in WW2, lmao!
point taken, you seem to know your WWII facts better than me.
but remember that in the current conflicts, the numbers killed by war far far outweigh any terrorist action.
I am also biased because I came to the conclusion that 911 was an inside job - call me nuts if you like, but 911 has been the basis for every us foreign intervention since.
until america cuts its reliance on the arms industry (1/5 of its total GDP), I will have my suspicions.
Kim is just like a hijacker,while his people and neighbour countries are hostages. Now what US the police should do is not to drive Kim into corner, but to give him a hope or an offer good enough to release his hostages.
Hey, that's a great Idea! 'Wait! Lets not back the hijacker into a corner, lets actually give him a 100 million and a helicopter' When was the last time a hostage negotiator actually submitted to a hijacker? HMM...SWORD FISH THE MOVIE! Retarded analogy, nuf sed.
It's not democrat or republican. Our Government is constantly doing these things to insure the destruction of the United States. What good have our presidents done for the people of the USA ? They lowered taxes once but other than that, nothing. They've cut welfare. Cutting welfare hurts the poor. They've only made things harder on the middle and lower classes.
Go live in China, or better yet, North Korea. You seem to like communism. Cutting welfare forces people to work. That's what life is about. Work. If you can't work, then welfare is good. But as it stands now, the welfare program is over-abused and needs to be reformed.
Hold on, so its OKAY for the government to steal money from the people WHO WORK FOR IT, then give it to the lazy slobs who mooch off the people who actually work?
You lazy fucking pigs these days, GET A FUCKING JOB.
we were getting somewhere up to 2000 with clinton. I don't think that the american reactors were ever made (must look this up) and this was one of korea's complaints.
I have set out in the video how america's foreign policy has become more threatening since bush, and both iran and north korea are feeling the heat. gadaffi gave in and made friends.
You must accept that america has done a lot of sabre-rattling since bush. It may be bold to sabre-rattle, but it's also dangerous.
We played that game, we said, you want nuclear power? Here have these two reactors. He took them and then turned them into nuclear weapons. If asking him to stop threating the peace is battering him with a stick, wait till he actually gets a stick dropped on him. Mad pit-bull? Not hardly.
Actually, the reactors that were given to him were light-water reactors and incapable of producing the radioactive products produced by heavy-water reactors. I do, however, agree with your position. North Korea is a rogue state and they have had the intent of obtaining nuclear weapons for quite sometime. To say that the opening of diplomatic relations by North Korea signified their will to step down (as this video suggests) is poppy-cock.
So Kim was forced to make nukes by Americans? Even if Kim could make enough nukes, and he could some how get them to the United States, does anyone honestly think that his country would survive? Oh wait, he doesn't care if his country would survive. He's a Commie, and is only looking out for #1. Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't work for those who are mentally insane.
Kim is a mad pit-bull? Give them aid and thy will magically reform internally? Get a brain. Do you have any idea how the N. Koreans children are taught in schools? Two main things: 1) Kim is a near God, all hail to Kim; and 2) America is evil and is the root of all the worlds problems. If you agree with that, why don't you move to North Korea-you'd feel right at home.
you have your opinion and i have mine, but always beleive that the way forward in a difficult situation in through concessions (yes, maybe food aid bribes in return for reform) and negotiations. under these circumstances we could send back the inspectors, etc. this is how the soviet deadlock was broken.
what bush has done is taunted a man who is just about to jump off the edge of a tower block and take his family with him. we'll see if it works.
The fact that North Korea was developing nuclear technology before is exactly why Bush's "axis of evil" speech was a bad idea. You shouldn't antagonize a country that has nuclear weapons.
Appeasement took us to 9/11. Good job Bill Clinton. By the way, the Koreans have been developing nuclear weapons for over a decade. But let's blame Bush anyways.
This has been flagged as spam show
angel of god
my guardian dear
to whom his love
commits me here
ever this day
be at my side
to light and guard
to rule and guide
Amen
bass109 2 years ago
I hope they nuke the fuck out of Amerikkka.
What goes around comes around !!!
Termin888 2 years ago
Should have known it is all Americas.
golfprobro4eagles 2 years ago
Sorry, those two messages got posted in the wrong order.
deltajuliet 4 years ago
I think the video oversimplifies the situation a little too much. I'd agree that the US's foreign policy could be improved; I'd even agree that our foreign policy is a source of anti-American sentiment in some regions of the world.
deltajuliet 4 years ago
But the video makes it seem black and white, that Bush and his conservative buddies are the ones to blame and the DPRK is just protecting itself. However, if North Korea was all good and dandy and a peaceful nation before Bush dubbed NK, Iraq, and Iran the "Axis of Evil," what would have prompted him to include North Korea in that grouping in the first place? My point is simply that the DPRK is not some victim, here...
deltajuliet 4 years ago
but you don't poke a rottweiler with a stick, and that was my point.
adrianallan 4 years ago
Don't fool yourself....North Korea was just as much of a thorn when Clinton was president. Clinton was just adept at making it LOOK like he was accomplishing something. Like promising light water reactors that wouldn't even be close to construction until NK was some other president's problem. Not to mention 'Team Spirit' and NK's little submarine suicide squad.
cthulufunk 4 years ago
Is anyone else scared, im so scared! not of terrorists because they dont have the guts to tell us they are about to kill innocents they just sit there hoping no one notices! united 93 i believe! i hope someone saves us all- soon
ThePelican21 5 years ago
So true. The world has become unstable as a result of Bush policies. Funny thing is, every time I reach the 5 year mark of my 5 year plan, somebody has already changed things so much that I need to start all over again.
cuv4xd 5 years ago
You are welcome to your opinion, but consider this Our current enemy is a group of religious fanatics. Does it make sense that propaganda from our enemies today would be aimed at puting a negative light on christianity? By labeling our leaders such things as "far-right messianic-christian republicans or neo-cons"
OverSword 5 years ago
I believe that religion and politics is often a dangerous mix, be it muslim or christian. When the two coincide as they seem to more than ever, sparks will fly. I think both sides need to take a step back and as the US is the country that has actually moved into the other's territory, it has the greater responsibility to retreat.
adrianallan 5 years ago
adrianallan, are you sure it's republicans who f##k things up? Let's tale a stroll down memory lane shall we?
WW1 wilson = democrat
WW2 roosevelt = democrat
Korea truman = democrat
vietnam kennedy = democrat
desert storm bush sr. = republican dead numbered in hundreds
iraq bush jr. = 3000 in 3 years
OverSword 5 years ago
I'm not an expert on all of those wars. What I really meant to say was that the new breed of far-right messianic-christian republicans or neo-cons, are real problem. I believe the world is far more unstable since their rise to power and arrogant foreign policy.
adrianallan 5 years ago
CLINTON, GHW BUSH, GW bush 2.165.000 deth + 760.000 wounded. 1991-2003 almous 500 000 of them were children. Iraq WMD lie 1991-20?? Hussein Kamel testimony to CIA 1995. I destroyed all WMD's. 14-16 million in 60 years. HAT NUMBERS ARE YOURS?
wwwPNACATTACKcom 5 years ago 2
Yes and no, JFK was at the right place at the right time... but so was Reagan... they both prevented a nuclear war, and you have to agree with me there and take back your words. (-: Carter set us back because he had no spine and was an appeaser to aggression. JFK made a secret deal to avoid war during the Cuban M.C. details declassified only a couple of years ago
alisar7 5 years ago
The Soviets collapsed internally trying to compete for world power with the USA on a faulty market system known as 'communism' Not by appeasement at all. Please believe that, it was NOT appeasement. Dialog yes, but not appeasement.
alisar7 5 years ago
You twisted anti Christian bigot. The govt of N Korea is utterly evil and somehow you present the USA to be the wrong one here. Listen you uneducated liberal: Appeasing the aggressor doesn't work. Study your history. Clinton was soft... and you think they started working on their nuclear program AFTER President G W Bush got elected??? Think again o' wise one!
alisar7 5 years ago
Was the USSR won over by aggression or appeasement ? If bush had been around in 1963, the button would have been pushed, that I'm sure of. Just another example of how the democrats can be trusted in power more than the republicans, who basically f##k things up, like in Iraq.
adrianallan 5 years ago
hmm, i kinda see what this is trying to say, but still, i don't think its entirely right...
hata12345 5 years ago
it's basically saying that to win over a dangerous dictator the only option is negotiation and concession. a threatening foreign policy will make kim turn further inwards and start an arms race that nobody needs.
i think america is learning this, but the original neo-con policy was hell-bent upon power politics and american supremacy.
It was a dangerous path to take...
adrianallan 5 years ago
Dont shake the bees nest :D just like our isolation policy before world war II :D
Pvic 5 years ago
First of all Iraq had the 3rd biggest/well equipped army in the world. Second, how is giving Korea a NUCLEAR powerplant handling things with care lmao! Yes its not the exact same as giving them a nuclear bomb but you are giving them pre-cursers to making one. Radioactive substances, nuclear technology, omg, N Korea doesn't make enough money to feed a third of its population, and now all of a sudden they have nuclear bombs,hmm...wonder how that happened... THANKS BILL!
botchalism 5 years ago
once the nuclear cat was out of the bag, the non proliferation treaty said that it was acceptable for states to make energy, so long as they were supervised. better monitored than not.
this is what n.korea did, and almost every other country. before 1979, america made reactors for iraq.
if the superpowers want to set an example, why does america not get rid of some of its 7,000 warheads, enough to destroy every species on earth !
adrianallan 5 years ago
Every country has reactors? LOL, 30/194 do, 15% of countries have them, please. In 1979 Iraq wasn't a threat, so who cared if it gave them those reactors. When Bill Clinton gave N. Korea them, it was well known how threatening N. Korea was. That's what this video makes clear 'Reclusive, Paranoid Dictator, with Appalling Human Rights Record' and you give them NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES??? That's like giving a serial killer a wad of 100s and a gun and hoping he'll stop being a criminal!
botchalism 5 years ago
If they are intent on developing them, you have 2 choices:
1. let them develop them but regulate them through the nnpt
2. break off diplomatic relations, and they develop them unchecked.
the only other option is declaring war unless they stop development.
if they are going to develop them anyway, at least option one gives scope for negotiation.
can't you see that bush has increased the urgency for rogue states to go nuclear after the pre-emptive iraq war.
adrianallan 5 years ago
Ok, Bill did not 'LET' them do it, he 'GAVE' them it. GAVE!... N. Korea was, and still is an impoverished nation, they didn't have the oil money that Iran does(who finance their own), too build their own nuclear power station, fuckin Bill 'GAVE IT TO THEM', STUPID!!! Nothing to do with 'regulating' WHATSOEVER. Going nuclear only INCREASES chances of being attacked by the US, DUH! They're making Weapons of Mass Destruction, 1 of the MAIN reasons we 'pre-emptivly' struck Iraq!
botchalism 5 years ago
but there is money to spend on the wrong things - arms, etc. i don't have the facts, but they probably could have moved to nuclear power without american help
"weapons of mass destruction", but who gave iraq chemical and biological weapons - america.
I see a double standard - america is using terrible weapons in iraq, white phosphorus and depleted uranium.
america has been the only country to use nuclear bombs. "it ended the war" - ok, but they didn't need to drop it on two cities !
adrianallan 5 years ago
N Korea is a third world country, how many times do have to repeat this? (once again, only 30 countries in the world have nuclear power). They were nowhere near affording that technology(can't even feed a 1/3 of their people), even if they could, why would you knowlingly ARM a PARANOID DICTATOR with that? Why? To stop them from missile testing? 'Here, I'll make you a deal, to stop you from firing guns, how about we give you a bunch of ammo, cool?'.
botchalism 5 years ago
White phospherus was a bad move, and even though they did it on ENEMY COMBATANTS they were close to civilian population, so yes its bad. But Saddam killed thousands, ALL CIVILIANS with his tests of biological weapons. Depleted uranium was used in Gulf War, its only use in Iraq has been TANK ARMOR. Comparing our use of White Magnesium, too nuclear bombs in the hands of a radical dictator are absurdly skewed. This video is comical in promoting nuclear power as an incentive.
botchalism 5 years ago
a nuclear bomb is obviously much worse, but look at cumulative death rates
people focus on one-off acts of terror, like 911, a brilliant piece of theatre that has imprinted on the us psyche.
3,000 deaths don't compare to the hundreds of thousands in iraq and afghanistan. also the daily horrors of palestine and the events in lebanon (us backed)
the mid east see the irony of america castigating those working towards a wmd when usa's cumulative record on killing is appalling.
adrianallan 5 years ago
Who was the aggressor when we used the Nuclear bomb? The firebombing of Japan had more cumulative deaths then both the nuclear bombs combined! What is a country supposed to do in war? How do you defend Japan in WW2, do you support the Nazis too? The Japanese fought to the last man, in the face of total annihilation, what? Just forfeit technological advantage, and lose thousands of men just to fight 'fairly'. You think the Japanese wouldn't have used nuclear bombs if they could?
botchalism 5 years ago
Since US is worse then the Japanese. Ever heard of the nanking massacre? you want to play the numbers game, over 300,000 civlians killed as opposed to 214,000 combined nuclear attacks, 20,000 women GANG RAPED. Men made to rape their own daughters and sisters while their family watched. Then they did gruesome experiments on the them much like the Germans did to the Jews. You actually think the US is worse in WW2, lmao!
botchalism 5 years ago
point taken, you seem to know your WWII facts better than me.
but remember that in the current conflicts, the numbers killed by war far far outweigh any terrorist action.
I am also biased because I came to the conclusion that 911 was an inside job - call me nuts if you like, but 911 has been the basis for every us foreign intervention since.
until america cuts its reliance on the arms industry (1/5 of its total GDP), I will have my suspicions.
adrianallan 5 years ago
nice video, good facts!
waeilpepsi 5 years ago
Kim is just like a hijacker,while his people and neighbour countries are hostages. Now what US the police should do is not to drive Kim into corner, but to give him a hope or an offer good enough to release his hostages.
ralphcn 5 years ago
Hey, that's a great Idea! 'Wait! Lets not back the hijacker into a corner, lets actually give him a 100 million and a helicopter' When was the last time a hostage negotiator actually submitted to a hijacker? HMM...SWORD FISH THE MOVIE! Retarded analogy, nuf sed.
botchalism 5 years ago
Nice editing! I like the music too.
411314 5 years ago
Thank you for your refreshing point of view on the subject...I hope it pisses off a lot of Neo-Cons. ^__^
Korea4Me 5 years ago
It's not democrat or republican. Our Government is constantly doing these things to insure the destruction of the United States. What good have our presidents done for the people of the USA ? They lowered taxes once but other than that, nothing. They've cut welfare. Cutting welfare hurts the poor. They've only made things harder on the middle and lower classes.
theredpill99 5 years ago
Go live in China, or better yet, North Korea. You seem to like communism. Cutting welfare forces people to work. That's what life is about. Work. If you can't work, then welfare is good. But as it stands now, the welfare program is over-abused and needs to be reformed.
Astrosausage 5 years ago
Hold on, so its OKAY for the government to steal money from the people WHO WORK FOR IT, then give it to the lazy slobs who mooch off the people who actually work?
You lazy fucking pigs these days, GET A FUCKING JOB.
AK76239 5 years ago
we were getting somewhere up to 2000 with clinton. I don't think that the american reactors were ever made (must look this up) and this was one of korea's complaints.
I have set out in the video how america's foreign policy has become more threatening since bush, and both iran and north korea are feeling the heat. gadaffi gave in and made friends.
You must accept that america has done a lot of sabre-rattling since bush. It may be bold to sabre-rattle, but it's also dangerous.
adrianallan 5 years ago
We played that game, we said, you want nuclear power? Here have these two reactors. He took them and then turned them into nuclear weapons. If asking him to stop threating the peace is battering him with a stick, wait till he actually gets a stick dropped on him. Mad pit-bull? Not hardly.
cyberdoo78 5 years ago
Actually, the reactors that were given to him were light-water reactors and incapable of producing the radioactive products produced by heavy-water reactors. I do, however, agree with your position. North Korea is a rogue state and they have had the intent of obtaining nuclear weapons for quite sometime. To say that the opening of diplomatic relations by North Korea signified their will to step down (as this video suggests) is poppy-cock.
karxmarl 5 years ago
So Kim was forced to make nukes by Americans? Even if Kim could make enough nukes, and he could some how get them to the United States, does anyone honestly think that his country would survive? Oh wait, he doesn't care if his country would survive. He's a Commie, and is only looking out for #1. Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't work for those who are mentally insane.
cyberdoo78 5 years ago
so we should have tempted him with small concessions, like food aid in return for internal reform, as happened in the USSR.
But instead we battered them with a stick, and we are surprised now that the mad pit-bull is lashing out.
adrianallan 5 years ago
Kim is a mad pit-bull? Give them aid and thy will magically reform internally? Get a brain. Do you have any idea how the N. Koreans children are taught in schools? Two main things: 1) Kim is a near God, all hail to Kim; and 2) America is evil and is the root of all the worlds problems. If you agree with that, why don't you move to North Korea-you'd feel right at home.
Astrosausage 5 years ago
How do you know what North Koreans are taught in their schools?
411314 5 years ago
You asked for it. Here you go:
http://wwwdotfreerepublicdotcom/focus/f-news/1690685/posts
Astrosausage 5 years ago
What would make a country paranoid , a nuclear super power invading other countries perhaps, the destroyer of cities maybe making threats?
warren25 5 years ago
Stopid Bush destroy the hard work of clinton,and push korea 2 make nukes.
nimamafia 5 years ago
Clinton's "hard" work was in the oval office. N. Korea was developing nuclear technology then too, but blame Bush you ignoramous.
Astrosausage 5 years ago
you have your opinion and i have mine, but always beleive that the way forward in a difficult situation in through concessions (yes, maybe food aid bribes in return for reform) and negotiations. under these circumstances we could send back the inspectors, etc. this is how the soviet deadlock was broken.
what bush has done is taunted a man who is just about to jump off the edge of a tower block and take his family with him. we'll see if it works.
adrianallan 5 years ago
The fact that North Korea was developing nuclear technology before is exactly why Bush's "axis of evil" speech was a bad idea. You shouldn't antagonize a country that has nuclear weapons.
411314 5 years ago
So we should have said nothing? What is YOUR solution? I'd love to hear it.
Astrosausage 5 years ago
Appeasement took us to 9/11. Good job Bill Clinton. By the way, the Koreans have been developing nuclear weapons for over a decade. But let's blame Bush anyways.
Astrosausage 5 years ago
My point was that by cornering and threatening N Korea, they are only going to become more aggressive, which is what has happened.
adrianallan 5 years ago
You're point is well taken. What would you suggest we do? It's not like they're going to stop their nuclear program if we just do nothing.
Astrosausage 5 years ago