Boy, those people sure sound like idiots. Could you provide some links to articles or sources about these people "condemning Bush for not invading, or at least Nuking North Korea."? (It is interesting how you consider nuking a country somehow the "least" of those two options) It would also be helpful if you could corroborate your claim that whoever these nutcases are also "condemned Bush for Iraq".

Or are you just tilting at windmills?

(It is interesting how you consider nuking a country somehow the "least" of those two options)

Which would "you" say is the lesser of the 2 evils? Invade.....or nuke?

Could you provide some links to articles or sources about these people "condemning Bush for not invading, or at least Nuking North Korea."?

Since you are new, I will provide one on JU. https://forums.joeuser.com/?forumid=3&aid=132921#1027271

But next time, do your own googling.  I hate lazy readers.

Which would "you" say is the lesser of the 2 evils? Invade.....or nuke?

Again you pick out a parenthetical comment to quibble with, while missing the larger point.

But, since you asked, I can say unequivocally that invasion is a lesser evil than detonating a nuclear bomb. This isn't 1945. I don't intend to defend this statement any further, and I hope you can set aside dislike for me and my opinions long enough to think about what I consider a moral absolute on your own terms. The whole discussion, after all, is about the fact that a nation has availed themselves of this very weaponry. North Korea, and every nation in the world, has and has had the capability to "invade". The issue now is they have the capability to "nuke", which is a completely different level of potential evil.

Which would "you" say is the lesser of the 2 evils? Invade.....or nuke?

Dont ask him.  He is one of which I spoke.  Clueless and ready to damn and be damned. To any that disagree with him.  Typical.

But, since you asked, I can say unequivocally that invasion is a lesser evil than detonating a nuclear bomb.

So to you, American lives are cheaper than others?  Should have known.  There is no arguement that would satisfy you.  To you, the only good American is a dead american.

Thanks for showing your colors.

All I have seen is "blame Bush". What is the liberal/democratic plan for North Korea? Negotiations and appeasement do not work with someone like this, so what is the best solution?

All I have seen is "blame Bush". What is the liberal/democratic plan for North Korea? Negotiations and appeasement do not work with someone like this, so what is the best solution?

You said it in the first few words.  Blame Bush.

But next time, do your own googling. I hate lazy readers.

You know what? Screw you. I hate lazy thinkers. I may be new, but that just means you have fewer posts of mine to go through to see that I google the hell out of things and provide sources for my assertions.

What google query would you have formed to find that piddling JoeUser blog? Which, by the way has no relevance to your claims.

Where does anyone there "[condemn] Bush for not invading, or at least Nuking North Korea."? They are merely pointing out that before the invasion of Iraq there were several members of this "Axis of Evil", and that perhaps Iraq was not the one, in hindsight, that posed the greatest threat.

My being new did force me into one error, paying attention to you at all. Most people, evidently, have already learned to ignore you altogether.

You know what? Screw you. I hate lazy thinkers. I may be new, but that just means you have fewer posts of mine to go through to see that I google the hell out of things and provide sources for my assertions. What google query would you have formed to find that piddling JoeUser blog? Which, by the way has no relevance to your claims. Where does anyone there "[condemn] Bush for not invading, or at least Nuking North Korea."? They are merely pointing out that before the invasion of Iraq there were several members of this "Axis of Evil", and that perhaps Iraq was not the one, in hindsight, that posed the greatest threat. My being new did force me into one error, paying attention to you at all. Most people, evidently, have already learned to ignore you altogether.

You know, I did not say screw you.  But this is my blog and you called the first name because your arguement was laid bare as stupid.  So consider this your last post on this thread.  If you want to discuss this in an adult manner, fine, do so.  Otherwise, KMA10-4.

Reply By: rabidrobotPosted: Monday, October 09, 2006

Told you.  Better learn the rules.

Could you provide some links to articles or sources about these people "condemning Bush for not invading, or at least Nuking North Korea."? Since you are new, I will provide one on JU. https://forums.joeuser.com/?forumid=3&aid=132921#1027271

that's a link to an article posted by a person who's condemning bush (and condemnation is exactly what's deserved in this case) for having wrecklessly and foolishly helped to create a living nightmare for us all.

north korea's nuclear ambitions were effectively in check until bush and his lack-of-brain trust decided to 'fix' things. by invoking an 'axis of evil' he brought it into being. this administration refused to talk directly to north korea and iran. it has nothing to do with appeasement...but everything to do with incompetence.

Reply #12 Could you provide some links to articles or sources about these people "condemning Bush for not invading, or at least Nuking North Korea."? Since you are new, I will provide one on JU. https://forums.joeuser.com/?forumid=3&aid=132921#1027271 that's a link to an article posted by a person who's condemning bush (and condemnation is exactly what's deserved in this case) for having wrecklessly and foolishly helped to create a living nightmare for us all. north korea's nuclear ambitions were effectively in check until bush and his lack-of-brain trust decided to 'fix' things. by invoking an 'axis of evil' he brought it into being. this administration refused to talk directly to north korea and iran. it has nothing to do with appeasement...but everything to do with incompetence.

Pure nonsense. N Korea's nuclear ambitions were in check? How so? Their nuclear program was well under way far before Bush was elected. Even Clinton identified it as a problem.

We, as a nation, do not talk directly with N Korea or Iran because we cut off diplomatic relations with both of those countries well before Bush was elected. Lets try to stick to reality here, shall we?

Their nuclear program was well under way far before Bush was elected. Even Clinton identified it as a problem

how many nuclear weapons did nk produce prior to 2001? whatever faults the agreed framework may have had, at least there was some access and oversight, used fuel rods weren't being reprocessed for plutonium and we coulda dragged out construction of that other reactor for a lot longer.

kim jung il is 61 years old. how difficult would it have been to string him along for another 10-20 years, playing carrot and stick (with or without china and south korea being in on the game)?

on top of that, trivializing the non-proliferation treaty hadda surely be the most devastatingly stupid, counter-productive, self-destructive thing we coulda done outside of loudly and arrogantly trivializing it (as jed clampett used to say, 'nothin better than a baked possum...except 2 of em').

We, as a nation, do not talk directly with N Korea or Iran because we cut off diplomatic relations with both of those countries well before Bush was elected.

yeah i remember how reagan and daddy bush didn't talk to iran. we've been talking to nk indirectly for years. how does insisting on 4 other parties to the discussion make a difference?

my article--which drguy so kindly (if cluelessly) provided a link--is very little more two questions and responses drawn from the first 2004 presidential debate. i remembered them very clearly. when i heard nk had just joined the nuclear club, i just wanted to be sure everyone hadda chance to see who helped open that door.

this administration refused to talk directly to north korea and iran

You are right.  He has insisted upon a multilateral talks, just as all the democrats are demanding.  So he does what they want, and he is damned.  Bush did not cause this fiasco.  Clinton and NosoBright did with their policies of appeasement.  Bush INherited it from them.  Regardless of what he did, he would be and is being slammed for it.