North Korea said Monday it has performed its first-ever nuclear weapons test. The country’s official Korean Central News Agency said the test was performed successfully and there was no radioactive leakage from the site.
Clearly the appropriate response is for us to invade Iran.
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
. . . because there are no good targets in North Korea. Right?
Shorter trolls: Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton!
Personal responsibility?
I think the “appropriate ” response being pushed for by the Cheney Misadministration is the “liberation” of Venezuela.
We can’t attack North Korea, because it does have a working nuke. It could hit us back or, more likely, it could send a nuke into Seoul or Tokyo as we invade.
That’s why we must invade Iran. It can’t nuke back. Now, if Iran successfully tests a nuke, we need to switch targets, say, Syria.
To echo that old Chinese curse, are the times we’re living in interesting enough yet?
Not too far off either…
Bush’s plan has been to use a show of force against one dictator to bring peace to the region and to intimidade other dictators to fall in line. His plan has, by any objective measure (objective measures are, of course, verboten in this administration) been such a catastrophic failure that it has had pricesely the opposite effect. And yet to the right, the fact that their plan has created more of the problem that the plan was created to solve, is simply proof of how great they need the plan.
You have bitemarks all over your arm from your pitbull, which shows how in danger you are, which is proof that you need to be protected by the pitbull, and how much you need to keep it around. Is this the appropriate analogy or have I missed anything?
rex,
Please. Did you just say ‘by any objective measure’ it has been a catastrophic failure?
Is that one of those things that progressives say that is ridiculously untrue and out of touch reality, but which the rest of mankind is supposed to wink at and say: “well that’s just the way progressives talk.”
The jury is till out on Afghanstan and Iraq. We don’t know if either is a success or failure – there have been some of both. But the jury was still out on WWII in early 1944.
Otherwise. What exactly would progressives do re N Korea? Last time we had this kind of discussion there was sentiment for getting out of Iraq and invading Pakistan. Hopefully somebody on the left has a better alternative for N Korea – but I haven’t heard it.
Its easy to criticize the doers when you are doing nothing.
Even in your world Dugger, the fact that the jury is still out on Afghanistan and Iraq should clue you into something considering North Korea and Iran have been allowed to run unchecked.
Again, you are looking to the left to solve problems that Bush allowed to fester. The North Korea problem should have been dealt with by now. As a matter of fact if Bush had maintained what Clinton had in place instead of driving North Korea towards Nukes, there would be no problem.
Dugger, I’ve been saying as long as I can remember that I have been that N Korea and Iran are, in point of fact, where our attentions should have been focused rather than Iraq. On account of, as we see now, them being a greater and, and this bit I think is important, ACTUAL THREAT to Americans, where as Iraq was known not to be, and only now after our intervention, is becoming one. To pretend otherwise is both intellectually dishonest and typical of you. You are free to inhale my phallus.
Still though, nice of you to drop a post with a Trifecta of Dugger Classics: “Thats the sort of thing I say you always say so I dont have to challenge you saying it”; “Iraq is totally like WWII, in spite of the myriad differences between the two”; and the Always classic “Evidence which I refuse to acknowledge doesnt count in your favor so there”
All we’re missing is “It wasnt technically a lie because you dont know what he know, only what he should have known” and “But more people were murdered in LA than in Baghdad, so those numbers out of context therefore make Iraq a safer place to live than California.” and we’d have a K-Tel Greatest Hits compilation.
Or wait, is there an objective measure yet that says Iraq is improving and I just havent heard it? Enlighten me, professor.
2,700 Americans are dead for no reason. Iraq is already a failure.
“Its easy to criticize the doers when you are doing nothing.”
The doers? The reason why were in this situation we’re in now vis-a-vis North Korea is that the Bush administration has done absolutely NOTHING to deal with the problem since they came into office except exploit the crisis to drum up support for its missile defense policy. Which is itself a massive boondoggle.
The doers. Hilarious.
I think by “doers” he means groups of people who stand around pointing in the distance shouting “LOOK OVER THERE!”
I’ve had enough of these “doers”, thank you very much. They tend to “do” exactly the opposite of what’s required of them.
Clean Water Act
Clean Air Act
No Child Left Behind
etc.
“Again, you are looking to the left to solve problems that Bush allowed to fester”
Nope. The left wants power. You have to have some ideas other than knowing who you hate to warrant the people giving you power. For the record, I think three is very little we can do about N Korea – other than alerting Japan and China that this juvenile delinquent is your neighborhood. Whatever else, those weren’t N Koreans murdering innocents in the Towers.
OW, Thats idiotic. Saddam is gone. the death rate is lower than under Saddam. There is a constitution.
And as before, not one sane progressive has put forth a workable alternative for N Korea or iraq. Like I sadii ther are the doers and the do-nothings. You know which side you’re on.
I can tell you stuff, rex, but I don’t know about the enlightening. There have to be receptors, you know. When I hear you getting nasty, i realize theya re turned off and you are going into the hate mode.
For instance, why shoulrd we be focused on N Korea – when China and Japan are closer and have astronger vested interest? Answer that.And I’m out of time.
And what makes you think China is threatened by NK? Even if this admin. was bat-shit crazy enought to start something with Kim Jong Il, don’t you think that China would probably not take our side?
Will somebody please tell me why this idiotic “What would the left do?” defense gets so much play?
All it amounts to is that the Republicans create a clusterfuck and then somehow use that clusterfuck as a weapon to bludgeon Democrats for their failure to fix the Republican clusterfuck. It’s the sort of argument you could expect from a gradeschooler:
“Mrs. Johnson, I broke Bradley’s action figure and then I let the dog chew on it, and then I hit him over the head with the pieces, and now he can’t fix it! You should give him detention!”
“…if Bush had maintained what Clinton had in place instead of driving North Korea towards Nukes, there would be no problem.”
Uh, pidge? Are you serious? Are you saying that DPRK was complying with the agreement with the “he that must not be mentioned” administration? You know- back when we helped them with nuclear energy in exchange for…
Thats right, they were Iraqi.
But fine then Dugger, if youre afraid I will refuse to be enlightened because I’m going into hate-mode, as evidinced by me getting nasty (”Inhale my Phallus”… at least I think thats what you meant, you might have been referring to me pointing out how repetitive you can get) then just throw facts at me if you can. In the face of the NIE, Woodward’s book, September having the highest soldier casualty rate since Fallujah in Nov 04, the Iraqi Police literally drowning in shit and the police themselves being poisoned en masse, NATO saying we’re about to lose Afghanistan, and the evident collusion between Iraqi and Afghani insurgents, what, I prithee, is the good news? They held an election for a government that cannot sustain order? They havent had a civil war as specifically we wish to define it? Please, oh please, oh please say painted schools.
Oh, and as I think I tried to argue before, the death rate is actually higher than under Saddam, the “lower-than” avarage for saddam includes the war where he took power 30 years ago or so, with massive casualties, However, since Bush Sr.s war, the death rate has been about 16,000 per year, whereas currently its around 15,000 dead iraqi civilians (a number that has been growing since day one) per year, based on all reliable (and unreliable) estimates, though I’m not in a position to do a study. yes, 15 is less than 16, but given that the number is steadily increasing, its not going to be less than for much longer, and certainly not in the face of what all else our opposition has managed to accomplish over there.
Will somebody please tell me why this idiotic “What would the left do?” defense gets so much play?
no
Worst Foreign Policy president ever. Bar none.
Chinese Spy Plane
Taiwan Slush Fund
Iraq
Undermined the CWTO
Funded the Taliban and Al Qaeda
North Korea
Iran
Venezuela
Harbors terrorists over Cuban and Argentinian objections.
Secret Prisons in Europe
Torturing prisoners
Exposing Undercover CIA agents
Exposing Al Qaeda double agents
and the list goes on.
Rex,
Its the Internet. Whats to be afraid of. I’m not an Andrew McCrae and hopefully you’re not either. If hyperventilating, anti-intellectual, nasty name calling scared me and or was winning debates, I would have surrednerd to frame long ago. The terrorists were from that part of the world. Hence, we have a vested interest in that part of the world – maybe moreso than the far east.
And not matter what, long term, the total death rate under Saddam was about three times higher. Its not particularlry close if you take middle of the road sources like IBC, etc.
As to shorter term statistics, they are easy to manipulate. For instance if you now have a sort term spike up, then earlier there was (had to be) a short term spike down (for the average to be correct). It would make no sense to go by either short term indication.
Nice, Dugger, you remain the voice of “reason.”
Will somebody please tell me why this idiotic “What would the left do?” defense gets so much play?
Because it absolves the right from taking responsibility from their clusterfuck.
Thanks, Dugger. I’m glad that even when I ask a question rhetorically, you’re there to tell me what I can and can’t know.
You keep claiming that more people were dying under Hussein. 3 times more now. Thats great. How many Iraqis died under Hussein in say 2000? 1999? 1998? Get the picture.
In fact I would guess 3 times more Iraqis are dying now than they were under the last 10 years of Husseins regime.
“If hyperventilating, anti-intellectual, nasty name calling scared me and or was winning debates, I would have surrednerd to frame long ago.”
Dugger, it’s been clear for some time now that not even the facts have the power to change your opinion.
Case in point. Above, you wrote this: “For instance, why shoulrd we be focused on N Korea – when China and Japan are closer and have astronger vested interest? Answer that.”
The answer is clear but you’re not going to like it. We need to be concerned about North Korea for all the reasons we were told that we needed to be concerned about Iraq: They have nuclear weapons and technology that they might give to terrorist groups who would be willing to use them on the US.
Turns out Iraq had no such capability but North Korea did. Interestingly enough, our focus on Iraq did two things. It limited our ability to craft an effective policy towards North Korea while encouraging North Korea to pursue a more belligerent stance. By invading Iraq, which had no weapons of mass destruction, we essentially sent North Korea the message that they should ramp up their nuclear program as a deterrent.
That’s just one of the many reasons why Bush’s war on terror in Iraq has made the world less safe.
But what to do now? Well, the only thing we can do: apply food and economic sanctions until the North Korean regime says uncle, then, be willing to give them aid if and when they meet our demands.
The main thing, however, is that we also have to be honest brokers
ourselves:
In applying it’s 1 percent doctrine to North Korea the Bush administration deliberately sabotaged diplomatic efforts that could have worked all so Bush could appear tough.
What a bunch of “doers”.
Well now even I in the depths of my leftist mental disease wouldnt suggest the disparity to be that great, but my understanding (based on numbers which, I have to confess, I cant readily find at this moment) is that the numbers are about the same. This says to me at least that, if the safety of the Iraqis themselves were a critical reason for the necessity of this war, that we are failing to solve that problem. However, I note, dugger, that you have not really provided an objective measure by which we can evaulate the success of the war in/on iraq/terror, save this disparity, for which there is basically no simple count (I dont think Saddam liked census takers counting the people he killed or something) and which is, frankly, I feel weighted way to heavily given that it doesnt reflect simply his brutality to his own people but also includes the deaths in various wars, waged by and against him. As I point out, since the first gulf war the death rate is about equivalent with what it is now. Not a measurable improvement in my book. Perhaps you know of another?
Also, are you saying I’m a “hyperventilating, anti-intellectual, nasty name calling” type of person? Honestly, why? I havent called you a name, I dont believe I’m hyperventillating, and fail to see how I’m approaching this argument from anything other than an academic viewpoint, trying to weigh the facts against each other. Could you please show me where I have behaved this way? I am as ever, always eager to improve.
Here’s another hyperventilating, anti-intellectual, nasty name calling tip: If you’re a “doer,” try to get your advice from people who know what they’re
DOING.
frame,
The issue I addressed was focus – by which I mean a preponderance of of interest – as opposed to concern. We can be concerend about a lot, but what we focus on is more important. Again, the weight of the WW terorrist movement is Mideastern in origin, the Mideast is a key source of our oil; we have a special concern for Israel; and there is not another strong, responsible power close by in the Mideast who could do something from a position of strength. In the Far east, Japan and China are right there.
The calculation on Iraq is about 1,200,000 deaths under Saddam (Iran/Iraq war, genocide of Kurds, domestic exceutions) versus about 55,000 in Iraq after Saddam. Saddam became presdient in 1979. Do the math. If one is going to use deaths as a measure, better do your homework.
What exactly would progressives do re N Korea?
“Yes, we drove the car off the cliff, but I don’t hear anything from you except complaints! What’s your plan for getting us out of this mess?”
Pidge? Quaker? Frame? Factcheck? Rex? Oliver? Dr. A?Duros?
Usually you all have a snappy answer. But you’ve all seemed to have passed on my question. (And don’t blame me for invoking “he who must not be mentioned.” You can blame pidge for that.)
Anyone agree with pidge’s unseemly statement? Let’s try this again-
Pidge: “…if Bush had maintained what Clinton had in place instead of driving North Korea towards Nukes, there would be no problem.”
Uh, pidge? Are you serious? Are you saying that DPRK was complying with the agreement with the “he that must not be mentioned” administration? You know- back when we helped them with nuclear energy in exchange for…
D-I-P-L-O-M-A-C-Y.
Look it up.
Bush disengaged the US from diplomatic talks with North Korea, named them enemy and drove them into a frenzy to get nuclear weapons.
Marty wants to know what we got in return for helping N. Korea with nuclear energy, how about an absence of nuclear weapons. Doh!
So Dugger using your numbers, the last ten years under Hussein has been relatively peaceful compared to the post US invasion. Nice.
The Bush administration embraced a policy of not talking to North Korea, a policy that is both stupid and wrong at the same time. I’m not saying President Clinton’s diplomacy had the desired outcome, but its better than not talking to people until it gets to the point where we’re calmly discussing nuclear war.
“… the weight of the WW terorrist movement is Mideastern in origin …”
Um, Dugger, North Korea is deeply involved in the geo-politcs of the middle east. Pakistan and North Korea have a history of arms dealng that goes back
30 years[PDF from the Congressional Research Service]:
Ya, focus is important and the Bush administration has been focussed on the wrong players for five years.
“Are you saying that DPRK was complying with the agreement with the “he that must not be mentioned” administration?”
Um, Marty, try reading along again slowly:
What an idiot.
Marty, the NK nuclear material was under locks and UN observation.
Now, how long ago was it they threw out the inspectors? What has the current gang in DC done about it since then?
I mean, other than call ‘em names…
frame, I hate tro tell you this, but I don’t disgaree w/last post addressed to me.
Dugger Translation Service:
This
“Yes, we drove the car off the cliff, but I don’t hear anything from you except complaints! What’s your plan for getting us out of this mess?”
actually means:
I dunno.
frame, I hate to ruin your day, but I don’t disagree w/last post addressed to me. N Korea is very bad and undoubtedly a player in WW terroism. My other points tand and I don’t think Bush should go too heavy in the Far East. Let Japan wrestle with it – by necessity.
Shorter Dugger: Somebody else’s problem.
Shorter midge,
That damned elusive Dugger wins again.
“Let Japan wrestle with it – by necessity.”
Um, Dugger, the last time I checked Japan lacks any kind of offensive military power. That sort of lessens their ability to play the kind of hardball necessary to make diplomacy work.
Also, you seem to have completely forgotten that North Korea and our involvement there predates our troubles in Iraq. Remember we fought a war in Korea that has never been officially declared over? Remember that’s why we still have, you know, about 30,000 troops in South Korea?
To suggest that all of a sudden North Korea is someone else’s problem is sheer idiocy. Seriously.
BTW, Dugger, to suggest that Japan should take the lead in dealing with North Korea — “by necessity” — is to completely ignore the fact that the Japanese and Koreans have a history of not playing nice with one another.
Do I nee to remind you about Japan’s treatment of the Koreans during WWII:
And that’s from the South Koreans!
And did you forget about the abductions?
The idea that we should put Japan in charge of negotiating with the North Koreans — “by necessity” — makes no sense whatsoever.
Shorter Dugger:
Dugger got no points to make so Dugger will spout crap.
If you can’t understand that perfectly simple metaphor, translation service must be broken.
That damned elusive Dugger disappears from the thread when he’s proved to be totally wrong …