Korea Threatens Attack

[Phantasmal]

Don't be a dumbass oops sorry you can't help it, Clintons weakness when not taking Osama when he had the chance was what Osama saw as a weakness.

Clinton did a lot of things that I didn't like, but spreading misinformation is wrong.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

Whenever he went after the terrorists, he was accused of wagging the dog, he was damned if he did, damned if he didn't which is what Republicans like to do. Good when a Republucan does it, bad when a Democrate does it. I did not agree with some of his actions, but I woud think a Republucan would love them, but they didn't.

The Bush administration basically ignored Osama until he struck, so please just shut up about Clinton's failures or perceived failures.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I must have missed it, too. If they attack us, it wouldn't be pre-emptive to respond to that with military force.

Is that what you were trying to imply?

No, it is not.

Lets have a race... which one of you can figure out the error first. Keep in mind, I think Jarod is an idiot. Thus a tad more pressure on you to come in first. Go.

 

[Auster]

a wacko right wing blog

... were you TRYING to prove my point, or was it accidental?

You try to discredit this source based on who thinks this instead of evidence against it.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

No, it is not.

Lets have a race... which one of you can figure out the error first. Keep in mind, I think Jarod is an idiot. Thus a tad more pressure on you to come in first. Go.

I'm not going to play "riddle me that" with you. Stop being coy & just explain it. You can call me stupid afterwards for not getting it, because right now, I don't.

 

[maineman]

You try to discredit this source based on who thinks this instead of evidence against it.

it's an op-ed piece masquerading as news.... ::yawn::

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

actually. Clinton had no basis to take custody of OBL - a foreign national on foreign soil - when the Sudan supposedly offered him up.

Um... yes, he did. Osama was implicated in the bombings of the embassies in Africa.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Ignore the tiny weakling, strengthen our defenses and move forward. Dont give this pittafull government the attention they are desperatly seeking.

If they take any agressive action toward us (not just words), take it as an excuse to finally end the Korean War.

Certantly do not promote or start a pre-emptive war again.

I hope the Bush doctrine on Pre-Emptive war is DEAD!

I'm not going to play "riddle me that" with you. Stop being coy & just explain it. You can call me stupid afterwards for not getting it, because right now, I don't.

Jarod proclaimed that if he acted we could finally end the Korean War... which is correct, the war never ended. A ceasefire was agreed upon. A ceasefire that Kim Jong Un has declared null and void (granted this is the second time he has done so)

There cannot be a pre-emptive war. For as Jarod stated, the Korean War never ended and the cease fire is currently considered null and void as declared by the leader of North Korea. As of now, they are technically at war already.

 

[Phantasmal]

I think you missed the obvious error in your post. That is what I think. Read the bolded portions again... tell us what is wrong with those two statements being together.

They were two different statement, he first said if they attack, in the next sentence he stated we should not attack first.

Nothing wrong here, not as you perceive it, anyway.

 

[maineman]

Um... yes, he did. Osama was implicated in the bombings of the embassies in Africa.

what were the dates of the embassy bombings in Africa... and what month/year did OBL leave the Sudan for Afghanistan?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Jarod proclaimed that if he acted we could finally end the Korean War... which is correct, the war never ended. A ceasefire was agreed upon. A ceasefire that Kim Jong Un has declared null and void (granted this is the second time he has done so)

There cannot be a pre-emptive war. For as Jarod stated, the Korean War never ended and the cease fire is currently considered null and void as declared by the leader of North Korea. As of now, they are technically at war already.

That's factual, but a rather hairsplitting point - if we attacked N. Korea without real provocation, the vast majority of sane people would view it as pre-emptive. Anyone citing the non-existent ceasefire would be ridiculed, imo.

 

[Phantasmal]

Jarod proclaimed that if he acted we could finally end the Korean War... which is correct, the war never ended. A ceasefire was agreed upon. A ceasefire that Kim Jong Un has declared null and void (granted this is the second time he has done so)

There cannot be a pre-emptive war. For as Jarod stated, the Korean War never ended and the cease fire is currently considered null and void as declared by the leader of North Korea. As of now, they are technically at war already.

Okay, I see your point, SF one.

 

[Timshel]

No, it is not.

Lets have a race... which one of you can figure out the error first. Keep in mind, I think Jarod is an idiot. Thus a tad more pressure on you to come in first. Go.

I don't know what the hell you are talking about either. He expressed different points and seperated them clearly with his sturcture. In the first sentence he said we should respond if attacked. In the second he indicated that we should not start any preemptive wars, i.e., we should not strike first.

I will say this is a little different than Bush's doctrine of preemptive war. They are making threats. Iraq had not threatened us in such a way. If we thought the NKoreans threats credible or imminent we would have every right to respond. But I don't think they are credible.

 

[NOVA]

when he did go after OBL the right screamed WAG THE DOG

The "wag the dog" issue was when he started bombing Saddam and his never ending whining about WMD .....your history is as selective as mm's.

 

[maineman]

The "wag the dog" issue was when he started bombing Saddam and his never ending whining about WMD .....your history is as selective as mm's.

selective? you mean, "factual". Clinton viewed islamic terrorism as a very real threat and structured his foreign policy accordingly. Bush did not, and, similarly, did not. Islamic terrorism was so last century for Dubya.... until 9/11, that is. His thrust was Star Wars and the war on porn.

 

[NOVA]

selective? you mean, "factual". Clinton viewed islamic terrorism as a very real threat and structured his foreign policy accordingly. Bush did not, and, similarly, did not. Islamic terrorism was so last century for Dubya.... until 9/11, that is. His thrust was Star Wars and the war on porn.

I didn't say is wasn't factual, I said it was selective....Clinton's approach was the same as Bush's....they both expected any terrorists attacks to be overseas....because
thats exactly where most of the action was....

February 26, 1993, World Trade Center
April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City
June 25, 1996, Khobar Towers
July 17, TWA Flight 800
August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania,
October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole

When it comes to Bill Clinton’s record on terrorism, there’s no need to invent fictional scenarios to show how ineffective he was; the truth is bad enough.

And then is was 2001...almost nine years after the first wtc attack....
Bush could no more stop 9/11 than Clinton could stop the first attack in 1993....only a partisan hack, like yourself, would claim otherwise.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's factual, but a rather hairsplitting point - if we attacked N. Korea without real provocation, the vast majority of sane people would view it as pre-emptive. Anyone citing the non-existent ceasefire would be ridiculed, imo.

Funny how you always try to preempt those who would disagree by saying 'the vast majority of sane people' meaning that if you dare disagree you are likely insane.

Comical.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

what were the dates of the embassy bombings in Africa... and what month/year did OBL leave the Sudan for Afghanistan?

I stand corrected... I thought they both were in 98... but the Sudan thing was in 96.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I don't know what the hell you are talking about either. He expressed different points and seperated them clearly with his sturcture. In the first sentence he said we should respond if attacked. In the second he indicated that we should not start any preemptive wars, i.e., we should not strike first.

In the first he acknowledged that the Korean War had never ended. In the second he said we should not start a pre-emptive war.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Funny how you always try to preempt those who would disagree by saying 'the vast majority of sane people' meaning that if you dare disagree you are likely insane.

Comical.

Don't be such a stubborn idiot.

Are you really saying, with a straight face, that if we attacked North Korea without provocation right now, it would NOT be a pre-emptive strike because there was never "officially" a ceasefire?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Don't be such a stubborn idiot.

Are you really saying, with a straight face, that if we attacked North Korea without provocation right now, it would NOT be a pre-emptive strike because there was never "officially" a ceasefire?

1) to say there has been no provocation is something you cannot do with a straight face
2) there was officially a ceasefire
3) If the ceasefire was in place, then yes, it would be pre-emptive. But Kim Jong Un removed the ceasefire, putting the two Koreas back into a state of war.
4) If you asking if it is a pre-emptive strike... then yes. But Jarod was referring to a pre-emptive WAR. Are you deliberately moving the goal posts or was it just an accident?