user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
What is your deal man? You need help. Sorry, but reading your ballots and it seems you have some sort of unhealthy obsession. So can you list here who has claimed that Bush's overt agression towad North Korea led to NK making nuclear weapons? I haven't heard many, if any people saying that. But admit it, the President of the United States calling them part of an Axis of Evil was just stupid and did not at all help matters. You seem to want to pan this off on others, and others being the opposing party, or so it seems. But why? Bush is President now. Bush is the Commander-in-Chief and as such, he is expected to not make the situation worse. Face it, the "leader of the free world" using words like "evil doers" and "axis of evil" on television did not help matters.
Piece of advice? Stop trying to turn everything into a right versus left thing and address the issues at hand. You seem more obsessed with defending Bush out of some freaky obsession than you do it actually looking at the issue objectively
And whether you like it or not the fact that the moron Bush invaded Iraq on all lies has not helped our position in the world, which included dealing with North Korea. Youre also going to have to fact the facts that at no time have we been this hated in the world and that is Bush's fault. Try being an American instead of a Neocon
'So can you list here who has claimed that Bush's overt agression towad North Korea led to NK making nuclear weapons?'
Why yes, yes I can.
' But admit it, the President of the United States calling them part of an Axis of Evil was just stupid and did not at all help matters.'
Didn't help, didn't hurt.
They started in the 60s, continued working through the 90s, violating their promises to stop, and finally finished it in 2006. In the scheme of things calling them names had no impact on this outcome. Throwing water baloons at kim il jong wouldn't help matters, but I doubt it would force him to start up a nuclear program if he wasn't already intent on having one.
'You seem to want to pan this off on others, and others being the opposing party, or so it seems.'
I blame the North Koreans for this problem. I am criticized for pointing out that this did not happen entirely under bushs watch, as some would like to claim. So essentially I am accused of trying to blame this all on the other side by stopping the other side of blaming it all on mine. It'd be funny if you weren't so sincere, that's what makes it sad.
Now, if you could honestly state for the record that this has not ever been politicized by the left, that there are no users on this site who have tried to push the entire blame for this on to bush, and that your comments actually did relate to the question asked that'd be super.
So then list those people here Herzog. Instead of making your typical baseless statements go right ahead and list the names of those people and some of their direct quotes. If you're going to claim it prove it.
Whats sad is that you are what is commonly known as an enabler. You love to be the underdog and the put upon thats pretty obvious. Poor Herzog with "So essentially I am accused of trying to blame this all on the other side by stopping the other side of blaming it all on mine. It'd be funny if you weren't so sincere, that's what makes it sad."
On your side? What is your side? Thats the problem. You have a side in this. You see this like almost all issues from what i've observed as being black and white. For you its all about dometic politics in your right versus left obsession. Its pathological. Bush is in the Oval office right now Herzog so maybe many of us see that looking at the past is usless. The threat is here and now. Just because youre so driven with right versus left doesn't mean we all are. If you weren't so paranoid and feeling so persecuted all the time you might consider that if Gore was in the White House now we'd have the same issues. So I guess you're right that its not Bush's fault that the situation has deteriorated under his watch and we should all just let your leader off the hook, for the sake of politics of course and just what? What do you suggest?
You need to get a freaking clue dude. Your last line in your comment is your typical bullshit response. My comment totally relate to the ballot Read them and deal with it. Its freaking pathtetic how predictable you are
Ok. So you're another cranky, possibly an alias, possibly just another person who thinks the same way.
You can't answer the question and instead launch in to tirades against me.
"There are those who criticize him for invading Iraq over wmds, but not threatening to invade North Korea for the same reasons. Too lenient. "
And to help you out I'll call attention to your quote here. Give it some thought my man and tell us you cant see the issue with that. Hint: Rhetorid and a personal agenda drove Bush to invade Iraq, killing tens upon tens of thousands and what happened? There were no fucking WMD's were there? Then blowing his wad on Iraq and being the jackass that cried wolf we now find ourselves with two countries, Iran and NK that really do have seriously kick-ass WMD's and he acts like a freaking idiot using words like "axis of evil" Only problem is he's like the boy who cried wolf and almost all of the world views us as the agressor. So yeah guy, many of us do have an issue with that. You know, since Bush is supposed to be our leader and all. But no we'll just soothe your fragile ego and let him off the hook since to you its once again a domestic political fight all about political party lines. The way you pose questions gives you away every time. If you're going to post a ballot making claims and statements of fact then be prepared for users to pick apart your logic. You're a man right? So you can handle it.
Ok. So you're another cranky, possibly an alias, possibly just another person who thinks the same way.
You can't answer the question and instead launch in to tirades against me.
by herzog on Mon Oct 16, 06 9:59pm
You're an idiot.
'So then list those people here Herzog'
Perhaps you could do the research yourself? THis isn't a private ballot, so it's not meant to attack or criticize other users (hint hint) so go ahead and do a search for related ballots and read the comments.
Perhaps that will give time to reflect on what is really bothering you and will allow you to calm down, think rationally, and actually answer one of the questions I've posed in my ballots.
Can't answer the question because the question is bogus. You want a cut and dry answer to an issue much more complex than yes or no, right or wrong. Dont blame me that you ask stupid questions.
Herzog, grow up. Sorry pal but Ive read enough of your ballots to know that you predictably fall to the same pre-packaged response when challenged. Namely to respond back with a bogus question that starts out with "so you don't, yadda, yadda, yadda" or to claim that the challenger is not answering the question, or that the challenger is a staker or an alias, or to tell the challenger to calm down, think rationally, yadda, yaddda, yadda. You over-used it champ, sorry. Anyway have fun playing little man. You're not enough of a challenge to make it worth my while
^ it's amazing that those users who claim I'm "not worth their time", "boring", "stupid", "pointless" or any other playground insults are the same users who end up following me around endlessly and commenting on every single one of my ballots.
Perhaps they're all masochists?
But prove me wrong tom, be the first one to actually make good on your threat and avoid my ballots from now on. You can do it!
^^ no, I just comment on ballot that I find biased and manipulative, or downright absurd.
funny how everytime I click on those links, I see your name there.
by LCD on Mon Oct 16, 06 10:26pm
[+]
Herzog is correct.
I have heard these contradictory claims also. It seems like they are just being contrary for the sake of it, which is why it is inconsistent at times.
I find the leftists on this site to be incredibly driven by doctrine rather than thinking for themselves. Rigth-wingers are probably the smae, yes, but there aren't many of them on this site, so I spend more time criticising the Left, knowing that there will be responses.
As to North Korea? herzog is correct. Their nuclear weapons programme was well under way before Bush. It is incredibly ignorant or bias to blame only Bush.
The accusations are not contradictory because, as usual, the issue is not a simplistic, homogeneous matter. He could well be perceived as being too harsh in some aspects, too lenient in others. But when you take the accusations out of context and try to make them objective, stand- alone statements, they lose their relevance.
Although, technically, I'd say neither accusation is really merited. Bush would have had to have had a foreign policy regarding North Korea in order to have it criticized or typified -- as it is, he mostly ignored NK and tried to foist responsibility onto other nations. It was obvious (at least to me) that he was far too focused on Iraq and the Middle East to have any interest in dealing with other foreign policy matters, no matter how important.
BTW, for you revisionist historians -- the NK pact was broken by Bush. They only restarted plutonium enrichment after Bush renegged on the Clinton deal.
Funny how you leave that part out and only foam about them 'going forward, anyway.'
Are you folks ignorant or just deceitful? I ask that only because you argue so forcefully and vehemently, completely misrepresenting the actual history and glossing over the things Bush did to bring us to this situation. If you are just ignorant -- no harm -- everyone has to learn. But know your facts before you spout off.
If you've just drunk too much of the Kool-Aid and/or are consumed by fear and/or hatred ... all we can do is pity you.
Uh oh cath, caught you in a blatant lie.
Previously you were willing to admit that the treaty was ended *AFTER* they were caught breaking it and developing nuclear weapons. Now you've gone back on that claim and maybe altered history just a little bit. It does look bad if you switch things around, the US broke the treaty for no apparent reason then NK began producing weapons. But in reality they broke it first, thus negating the contract.
For instance, if you were to say that the US firebombed dresden and then germany responded by declaring war we'd look like the bad guys wouldn't we? Unfortunately history is set in stone and as much as you'd like to change it you simply cannot. They broke the treaty, they negated it, they did not deal with clinton in good faith. Sorry, but your patron saint didn't handle this situation perfectly.
Now cath, a moment of honesty from you please: if north korea promised not to enrich uranium, and then broke that promise and started it up again, did they break the treaty?
I don't get why it's so hard for some people to believe that A) military dictators want weapons, B) people who are still technically at war with us might actually lie to the US to get weapons, C) some things aren't bushs fault and D) not everything clinton did was 100% perfect.
^^ no, I just comment on ballot that I find biased and manipulative, or downright absurd.
funny how everytime I click on those links, I see your name there.
by LCD
Forget to log in with the right alias did you?
And cath, I like your stance that both contradictory attacks are correct at the same time, very telling.
No doubt if you felt the need you could convince yourself that bush is both too tall and too short to be an effective leader, without bating an eye, and then you'd attack everyone who pointed out the inconsistencies as a mindless bush supporter.
Think about where your bias is leading you, you hate bush, fine, but at least try to have one iota of objectivity. You used to, what happened?
herzog: No, I did not lie, blatantly or otherwise.
The treaty was to stop enriching plutonium -- the preferred and most efficient fissionable material. NK honoured this part.
They did appear to get caught trying to enrich uranium -- a far inferior fissable material. While they were certainly not honoring the spirit of the treaty, they did not, in fact, break the treaty.
You are mistaken.
Further, while the Uranium actions were not good and should be addressed, it was asinine to ditch everything that had been accomplished, to date. Bush was looking for an excuse to get out of a treaty he never liked. Do you deny that?
Also, there was no immedaite danger -- any possible warhead with a uranium base would be decades away, even if they were successful and would be far inferior to the plutonium option.
BTW, their latest test appears to have used ... plutonoium. What a surprise.
herz: I contest that my stance is 'contradictory.' I suggest that it is merely because I have a more accurate perception and can discern (dare I say?) nuances that appear to escape you. 
Perhaps you didn't lie, but were instead misinformed.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are merely ignorant.
Read the treaty. Look on the link in wikipedia and read the actual agreement.
So you can't leap at the first sentence and ignore the rest I'll post the pertinent information: Besides aggreeing to seal certain reactors in exchange for bribes from the US they also agreed to
Both sides will work together to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.
1. The DPRK will remain a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and will allow implementation of its safeguards agreement under the Treaty.
Now, the NPT that five nations are allowed nuclear weapons, north korea isn't one of them.
They agreed to abide by this treaty, whether you think they should have nukes or not they agreed to it, and they broke it. Now, does blatantly breaking a treaty you sign effectively end the treaty and all obligations from the other party? For instance, I agree to sell you a car for a certain amount of money, you sign on the dotted line then refuse to give me the money, you have broken the treaty, am I still obligated to give you my car? Because if we were to use your logic on that deal then yes I would be, and if I didn't then I would be to blame for the transaction falling through, does that seem right cath?
And as far as your justification, that clinton was still a hero because they only built one type of nuke and not another, come on, that's pretty lame.
' Also, there was no immedaite danger -- any possible warhead with a uranium base would be decades away, even if they were successful and would be far inferior to the plutonium option.'
Decades. So if they started, say, in the 1960s, that would give them time to accomplish this?
Cathexis- "It was obvious (at least to me) that he was far too focused on Iraq and the Middle East to have any interest in dealing with other foreign policy matters, no matter how important."
- I have always said that Bush did ignore North Korea. He should have aggressively pushed for harsh economic sanctions. And I have always said that Bush's obsession with the Middle East is detrimetnal to the North Korea stand-off. So everything that you have said in that quote is stuff that I had already mentioned from before.
However, I must disagree with you that they only went through with their nuclear weapons program because Bush broke a treaty. The fact is, they had a secret nuclear weapon program going the whole time.
"3-5 October 02: On a visit to the North Korean capital Pyongyang, US Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly presses the North on suspicions that it is continuing to pursue a nuclear energy and missiles programme. Mr Kelly says he has evidence of a secret uranium-enriching programme carried out in defiance of the 1994 Agreed Framework. Under this deal, North Korea agreed to forsake nuclear ambitions in return for the construction of two safer light water nuclear power reactors and oil shipments from the US.
16 October: The US announces that North Korea admitted in their talks to a secret nuclear arms programme." (Source: Wikipedia)
- So there was evidence that they had indeed been enriching uranium and had a SECRET nuclear weapons programme that was not being inspected? Weapon's inspectors were only allowed access to certain places, all the while there were other facilities unchecked?
Also: Oct 20 2002 "It (North Korea) argues that the US has not kept to its side of the Agreed Framework, as the construction of the light water reactors - due to be completed in 2003 - is now years behind schedule." (Source: Wikipedia)
- Well, if it was 'years' behind schedule, that couldn't be all Bush's fault, he wasn't in office that long. So in other words, it seems that Clinton must have been starting to hesitate on building nuclear reactors for North Korea as well? Why would he do that? Was even he beginning to doubt the policy of appeasement? Good for him, if he indeed began to realise. Clinton must have realised toward the last years of his Presidency that appeasement wasn't working and he began to hesitate nuclear reactor contruction? Now, Cathexis, do you condemn Clinton for beginning to hesitate and have doubts about his policy?
|
|
