Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sylvester80 who wrote (184632)	4/5/2006 12:12:49 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

On the other hand North Korea, now with WMDs, has been off limits for lying coward Bush. Talk about obtuse.. Exactly HOW did N. Korea obtain nuclear weapons?? Might it be because the Clinton administration, cock-blocked by that idiot Jimmie Carter, locked themselves into a political "drug deal" with Kim Il Sung that Kim's son was not willing to honor?? This policy of bi-lateral negotiations with Kim Jong Il that the democrats have advocated is ridiculous. All along, just as with Iraq, Bush sought to build a multi-national consensus through the UNSC. And he achieved that when they unanimously agreed that Iraq was in material breach of its binding resolutions. Thus, THEY ALL AGREED UNANIMOUSLY THAT NO ONE COULD BE CERTAIN THAT SADDAM DIDN'T HAVE WMDS, AND THAT UNCERTAINLY REPRESENTED A MATERIAL BREACH OF UNSC BINDING RESOLUTIONS Why that is so hard for you to get through that Cranial Concrete you call a skull, I don't know. Now maybe the UNSC members, primarily France and Russia because of their corrupt economic and political ties with Saddam, did not agree that military force was required to bring him into compliance. But that's does not nullify the fact that NO ONE KNEW what the REAL STATUS of Saddam's WMD programs really were. Returning to N. Korea once more, Bush has established a multi-national committee, representing all the countries neighboring N. Korea, to motivate them to eliminate their WMD program. Do you have something against multi-lateral negotiations? Do you want to put the US in the position of, once again, being solely responsible for permitting Kim Jong Il's intransigence to stand? Or is it better to involve ALL THE NATIONS with an interest in eliminating N. Korea's WMD programs in confronting him?? Just exactly what problem do you have with pursuing a multi-lateral approach with N. Korea?? Hawk