SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (390795)6/13/2008 5:21:26 AM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1588988
 
RMF, > It's NOT cheap to attack Bush for his "mishandling" of N. Korea.

Like I said, without calling into account the negligence of Carter and Clinton to do anything about the North Korean nuclear threat, you're just asking for the same treatment if Obama finds himself in a worse mess than Bush.

Tenchusatsu



To: RMF who wrote (390795)6/13/2008 6:45:31 AM
From: steve harris  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1588988
 
You still trying to sell the idea we were a lot safer when NK had two nukes instead of ten?

Btw, I would question why you accept as fact the idea that NK only had two nukes and now has ten. It's all conjecture.



To: RMF who wrote (390795)6/13/2008 9:25:16 AM
From: i-node  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1588988
 
The FACTS of the matter are that N. Korea had 2 nukes when Bush came in and they will probably have 10 nukes when Bush goes out. That's QUITE a record for 8 years in office.

The FACTS are that it was Clinton's failed policy with respect to NK that allowed them to get however many nukes they have -- not Bush's.

You guys should learn from the mistake. The first nuke is the only one that matters.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News