dirty dan - 02 July 2008 07:03 AM

Leon Trotsky - 01 July 2008 03:40 PM

dirty dan - 01 July 2008 02:47 PM

And I often wonder if your IQ exceeds 60.

Of course you would…

You’ve offered nothing more than your own opinion to back up your statement that we don’t have a military option in North Korea.

Anyone reasonably informed about our kindergarten foreign policy should be aware of our military unit deployment status.  I’m not surprised in the least that you’re not.

And yet you still just provide your opinion. Once again, thanks for the dullard view point!

dan, no need for the self-congratulatory antics.  We all appreciate your unique role here without your having to thank yourself.  I hate to see anyone, even you dan, going the way of Hardy Parkerson.

dirty dan - 02 July 2008 06:59 AM

BuyUpolitics - 01 July 2008 03:06 PM

Point is that we didn’t need a military option. It was resolved by have muti-lateral talks(Appeasement for republicans). Which could and should be until all other options run out.

That’s fine. Contrary to what they tell you on KOS, Republicans don’t love war.
Now, back to North Korea…
We were told the situation was fixed back in 1994 when Bill Clinton paid them 4 billion of our tax dollars along with free oil, technology, diplomatic recognition, etc… Then in 2002, it became clear that North Korea had circumvented the de-nuclearization agreement.
So it all looks good right now, but why would you now trust the same Kim Jong il that broke the prior agreement? What happens when down the road we once again learn that North Korea is building nuclear weapons? I’m not advocating any attack at this point, but how many nuclear weapons do you think we should allow them to build before we put our foot down with a military option?

So why do you think Bush, like your nemesis Bill Clinton, chose the appeasment route and not the “dirty dan nuke ‘em” route or the “dirty dan deploy nonexistent brigades” route?

Leon Trotsky - 02 July 2008 10:00 AM

dirty dan - 02 July 2008 06:59 AM

BuyUpolitics - 01 July 2008 03:06 PM

Point is that we didn’t need a military option. It was resolved by have muti-lateral talks(Appeasement for republicans). Which could and should be until all other options run out.

That’s fine. Contrary to what they tell you on KOS, Republicans don’t love war.
Now, back to North Korea…
We were told the situation was fixed back in 1994 when Bill Clinton paid them 4 billion of our tax dollars along with free oil, technology, diplomatic recognition, etc… Then in 2002, it became clear that North Korea had circumvented the de-nuclearization agreement.
So it all looks good right now, but why would you now trust the same Kim Jong il that broke the prior agreement? What happens when down the road we once again learn that North Korea is building nuclear weapons? I’m not advocating any attack at this point, but how many nuclear weapons do you think we should allow them to build before we put our foot down with a military option?

So why do you think Bush, like your nemesis Bill Clinton, chose the appeasment route and not the “dirty dan nuke ‘em” route or the “dirty dan deploy nonexistent brigades” route?

Because Bush thinks, and I agree, that diplomacy is still workable at this point. Regarding North Korea, I’ve never said otherwise. Please try to keep up.
You’re the idiot that wrote that the US isn’t capable of mounting a military attack if we need to. And you’re still wrong about that.

Now are you going to answer my questions or are you going to act like your girlfriend DM and just keep posting your stupidity?

dirty dan - 02 July 2008 10:51 AM

Leon Trotsky - 02 July 2008 10:00 AM

dirty dan - 02 July 2008 06:59 AM

BuyUpolitics - 01 July 2008 03:06 PM

Point is that we didn’t need a military option. It was resolved by have muti-lateral talks(Appeasement for republicans). Which could and should be until all other options run out.

That’s fine. Contrary to what they tell you on KOS, Republicans don’t love war.
Now, back to North Korea…
We were told the situation was fixed back in 1994 when Bill Clinton paid them 4 billion of our tax dollars along with free oil, technology, diplomatic recognition, etc… Then in 2002, it became clear that North Korea had circumvented the de-nuclearization agreement.
So it all looks good right now, but why would you now trust the same Kim Jong il that broke the prior agreement? What happens when down the road we once again learn that North Korea is building nuclear weapons? I’m not advocating any attack at this point, but how many nuclear weapons do you think we should allow them to build before we put our foot down with a military option?

So why do you think Bush, like your nemesis Bill Clinton, chose the appeasment route and not the “dirty dan nuke ‘em” route or the “dirty dan deploy nonexistent brigades” route?

Because Bush thinks, and I agree, that diplomacy is still workable at this point. Regarding North Korea, I’ve never said otherwise. Please try to keep up.
You’re the idiot that wrote that the US isn’t capable of mounting a military attack if we need to. And you’re still wrong about that.

Now are you going to answer my questions or are you going to act like your girlfriend DM and just keep posting your stupidity?

Bush has never used diplomacy as a means to an end.  What makes you think he is “thinking” about anything now, much less that “diplomacy is still workable at this point,” in light of the fact that diplomacy was more successful with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq than at any time with Kim Jong Il’s North Korea?

We are not going to nuke NK for various reasons, China being one of them and South Korea being the other, so that option is effectively off the table, barring North Korea launching an expeditionary force to the shores of the Western United States in the future.

We are not going to fight a conventional war with the NK army with less than 60 thousand troops.  Nor can we readily swap brigades from Iraq and Afghanistan unless there is a policy decision to revamp our presence in either of those two countries, which this president has painfully avoided doing, lest it tarnish the already rusted legacy he will be leaving us next January.

Without a draft (or a rush to the recruiting depot by your children, which we have already established won’t happen in other threads), a rework of our present foreign policy, or the decision to deploy nuclear weapons, we have no practical military option with North Korea other than what we’ve had for the past 50 years - the presence of less than 60k troops in the region.  That hasn’t exactly kept them from enriching uranium or testing ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads in the past, although it has likely kept them from invading South Korea.

Bush realizes that multilateral diplomacy is all we have now to deal with NK due to his disasterous foreign policy in other parts of the world.  He is showing the first signs of realism seven and one half years into his presidency. 

Just think what could have happened if he had shown a willingness to press Saddam’s Iraq with a strong multilateral contigent of nations, rather than the joke that was the “coalition of the willing.” We could have proven there were no WMD with a fraction of the cost of the occupation of Iraq and we would not have given Iran carte blanche to assert hegemony in the region.  We could have finished the job of nation-buliding in Afghanistan and caught bin Laden.  We could have preserved our military for a confrontation with true threats to our national security - Iran and North Korea.  Oil would have remained a stable commodity, increasing at projected and planned intervals on growng supply pressures, giving consumers ample time to adjust.  The dollar would have not been so devalued through defecit spending on the bottomless occupation of a country that posed no threat whatsoever to us or the world after 9/11.  A fraction of the money that was spent on the Iraq war and occupation could have been spent on border and port security, domestic law enforcement, and international intelligence gathering/sharing with allies. 

I give credit to Bush for using multilateral diplomacy to deal with NK, but it is a shame that he discovered that his office afforded him such powers seven and one half years into his eight year presidency.  What’s an even greater shame is that he’s put our country into a position where we have nothing to fall back on if his diplomacy does not work.

Military Chief: US Doesn’t Have Enough Troops To Send To Afghanistan

The nation’s top military officer said yesterday that more U.S. troops are needed in Afghanistan to tamp down an increasingly violent insurgency, but that the Pentagon does not have sufficient forces to send because they are committed to the war in Iraq.

Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said insurgent Taliban and extremist forces in Afghanistan have become “a very complex problem,” one that is tied to the extensive drug trade, a faltering economy and the porous border with Pakistan. Violence in Afghanistan has increased markedly over recent weeks, with June the deadliest month for U.S. troops since the war began in 2001.

“I don’t have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach, to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq,” Mullen told reporters at the Pentagon. “Afghanistan has been and remains an economy-of-force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there.”

***Source

Interesting stuff, dan.  Knowing your instinct to attack the source as “MSM” or “liberal,” you can click here and watch Adm. Mullen essentially say everything you’ve stated in this thread is an illusion.  I guess appeasment of North Korea was really Bush’s only option since he broke the military in the costly diversion that is Iraq.

So you feel the military is “broke”??

fred - 03 July 2008 10:53 AM

So you feel the military is “broke”??

fred, I don’t know how you would define “not-broke,” but an inability to effectively function outside of Iraq and Afghanistan (and we see from Adm. Mullen that even this is called into question) and to respond to the rise of Russia, China, the belligerence of North Korea and Venezuela; this wouldn’t be how I would define “not-broke.”

But you didn’t answer. Do you feel the military is broke?

fred - 03 July 2008 12:22 PM

But you didn’t answer. Do you feel the military is broke?

Sure he “feels” because he isn’t capable of thinking.

Leon Trotsky - 02 July 2008 11:17 AM

dirty dan - 02 July 2008 10:51 AM

Leon Trotsky - 02 July 2008 10:00 AM

dirty dan - 02 July 2008 06:59 AM

BuyUpolitics - 01 July 2008 03:06 PM

Point is that we didn’t need a military option. It was resolved by have muti-lateral talks(Appeasement for republicans). Which could and should be until all other options run out.

That’s fine. Contrary to what they tell you on KOS, Republicans don’t love war.
Now, back to North Korea…
We were told the situation was fixed back in 1994 when Bill Clinton paid them 4 billion of our tax dollars along with free oil, technology, diplomatic recognition, etc… Then in 2002, it became clear that North Korea had circumvented the de-nuclearization agreement.
So it all looks good right now, but why would you now trust the same Kim Jong il that broke the prior agreement? What happens when down the road we once again learn that North Korea is building nuclear weapons? I’m not advocating any attack at this point, but how many nuclear weapons do you think we should allow them to build before we put our foot down with a military option?

So why do you think Bush, like your nemesis Bill Clinton, chose the appeasment route and not the “dirty dan nuke ‘em” route or the “dirty dan deploy nonexistent brigades” route?

Because Bush thinks, and I agree, that diplomacy is still workable at this point. Regarding North Korea, I’ve never said otherwise. Please try to keep up.
You’re the idiot that wrote that the US isn’t capable of mounting a military attack if we need to. And you’re still wrong about that.

Now are you going to answer my questions or are you going to act like your girlfriend DM and just keep posting your stupidity?

Bush has never used diplomacy as a means to an end. What makes you think he is “thinking” about anything now, much less that “diplomacy is still workable at this point,” in light of the fact that diplomacy was more successful with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq than at any time with Kim Jong Il’s North Korea?...

So in your mind now, we haven’t been using diplomacy in this dispute with North Korea? “Bush has never used diplomacy”? You’re an F-N idiot Leon.
Tell the truth, are you a high school student?

dirty dan - 03 July 2008 02:28 PM

Leon Trotsky - 02 July 2008 11:17 AM

dirty dan - 02 July 2008 10:51 AM

Leon Trotsky - 02 July 2008 10:00 AM

dirty dan - 02 July 2008 06:59 AM

BuyUpolitics - 01 July 2008 03:06 PM

Point is that we didn’t need a military option. It was resolved by have muti-lateral talks(Appeasement for republicans). Which could and should be until all other options run out.

That’s fine. Contrary to what they tell you on KOS, Republicans don’t love war.
Now, back to North Korea…
We were told the situation was fixed back in 1994 when Bill Clinton paid them 4 billion of our tax dollars along with free oil, technology, diplomatic recognition, etc… Then in 2002, it became clear that North Korea had circumvented the de-nuclearization agreement.
So it all looks good right now, but why would you now trust the same Kim Jong il that broke the prior agreement? What happens when down the road we once again learn that North Korea is building nuclear weapons? I’m not advocating any attack at this point, but how many nuclear weapons do you think we should allow them to build before we put our foot down with a military option?

So why do you think Bush, like your nemesis Bill Clinton, chose the appeasment route and not the “dirty dan nuke ‘em” route or the “dirty dan deploy nonexistent brigades” route?

Because Bush thinks, and I agree, that diplomacy is still workable at this point. Regarding North Korea, I’ve never said otherwise. Please try to keep up.
You’re the idiot that wrote that the US isn’t capable of mounting a military attack if we need to. And you’re still wrong about that.

Now are you going to answer my questions or are you going to act like your girlfriend DM and just keep posting your stupidity?

Bush has never used diplomacy as a means to an end. What makes you think he is “thinking” about anything now, much less that “diplomacy is still workable at this point,” in light of the fact that diplomacy was more successful with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq than at any time with Kim Jong Il’s North Korea?...

So in your mind now, we haven’t been using diplomacy in this dispute with North Korea? “Bush has never used diplomacy”? You’re an F-N idiot Leon.
Tell the truth, are you a high school student?

It’s funny; you highlighted the entire sentence, but attempted (pathetically) to dismiss what I said by ignoring the second-half of the sentence you highlighted.  If you could see through the drool on your computer screen, you would see that I stated that Bush is only using diplomacy now with North Korea because he has no other options.

When Bush had options (before he broke the military in Iraq), diplomacy was not a means to an end.  It was “sissy,” which is Texan for complex.

It’s not the military that’s broke lev, it’s your brain.

fred - 03 July 2008 03:01 PM

It’s not the military that’s broke lev, it’s your brain.

Right.  I see fred’s friend, ad hominem, has come out to play in the face of the rightwing brain fart fred is having.

BTW, Did you listen to Adm. Mullen today?

What high school do you attend Leon? And how’s summer school going for you? Do you think you’ll pass this time?

dirty dan - 03 July 2008 07:29 PM

What high school do you attend Leon? And how’s summer school going for you? Do you think you’ll pass this time?

I see dan too has hit a wall and sunk to his usual low in the face unpleasant facts.