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:
It was implied but I didn't specifically mention the fact that LBJ was president in 1965.
And he had just taken over for Kennedy. So perhaps kennedy should recieve a good deal of the blame as well. We all know he was an ignorant american imperialist out to rule the world and who couldn't even find 'diplomacy' in a dictionary.
Right?
Dude you have left/right syndrom. You're totally obsessed with debasing everything down to political parties and their respective ideologies. This ballot is meaningless for many reasons. Do you know what those reason are.
^ Do you have any inkling of the implications of this ballot?
Hint; it is not to attack LBJ.
So tom, do you believe LBJ was to blame, or is it possible that these sort of dictators will have nuclear ambitions regardless of which president we have?
You know, like the question I asked.
Yes Einstein I have an inkling of the implications of this ballot. I also have an inkling as to your motives since this ballot is pretty much your tried-and-true pre-packaged approach. How did I know that when I came back to the ballot you'd have a reply to me that started out with "so, tom, do you" or "so tom, you don't" or "so tom, you think"
The question you ask is absurd. Its the typical let bush or any Republican off the hook since Face it you're what is known as an enabler. Its not working for you much lately is it?
Ok, so what answer is that? Is LBJ to blame or not tom? Why do you have such a difficult time with this question? It's pretty straight forward.
Once again your small mind requires a cut and dry answer to make you feel better. The question is stupid and if you can't see that then thats your issue not mine. I could easily argue that Truman or Eisenhower are to blame, couldn't I? Why does your brain feel the drive to ask questions that are bogus, to have a definitive answer? If some other user had posed this question I'd probably not have the same response. But you're pretty predictable so your ulterior motives are blatant. Boring
^ you're right tom, it is boring. So boring in fact that I suspect you will pass out if you ever came back to this ballot. So I expect this is the last we'll be hearing from you. Perhaps now I can get a response from someone who actually took the time to read the question.
Voted : No, perhaps these dictators do desire nuclear weapons for other reasons than self defense
Some nation-states want power, status and wealth. In this case, for North Korea it would be power, and probably a little bit of international status. Nation-states do not act purely out of defense.
Now, foreign leaders are also to blame IF they assisted North Korea's program. That would of course highlight China. American Presidents- not so much, except if they directly assisted the North Koreans with their nuclear sector for example. Failing to stop it is not something to blame on American Presidents. Actually contributing and speeding up North Korea's progress toward nnuclear weapons is much moer condemnable- such as building nuclear reactors forthem for example, or giving them aid and such based on unclear promises not to continue the nuclear program.
"Accountability."
It's a great concept. The Right should look it up, sometime.
Do you know how you all sound when you thrash around trying to find anyone else to blame for things that go down when your boys literally control the whole country?
Really ... it has gone way beyond pathetic.
Um cath, apparently you didn't get the ballot either.
The left has been claiming that North Koreas nuclear program was a response to bushs unilateral aggression, you've done so yourself on numerous occasions.
So if this were to hold up logically then they only would have started it in response to prior american aggression. So unless they have some magic 'what-if' machine and were able to see that bush would be president in 40 years then they must have been responding to the president of the day. So by your own logic LBJ must have harrassed these poor communists and forced them to set out in a massive nuclear project in self defense.
Of course I suspect you realized this but refused to answer on the grounds that you'd either be exposed as a hypocrite or forced to take back your previous claims.
That must hold true, unless of course these nations don't simply react to what america does and in fact desire nuclear weapons for their own reasons?
So which is it cath: do you stick with your old argument and thus likewise condemn LBJ using your own logic, or do you repent and acknowledge that perhaps communist dictators want nukes for their own sake and not in self-defense?
And yes, I do expect a yes/no answer from you, not more 'this is all bushs fault, somehow he's to blame for things that took place 40 years before he took office'.
Was LBJs reckless foreign policy the reason for North Koreas rearmament?
herz: You are not a dolt. You simply cannot be arguing that all factors in every interaction with North Korea over the ages are homogeneous and interchangeable. You can't! Not honestly and objectively.
My initial impulse -- although I am not really familiar with the details of the US-NK interactions during LBJ time, I would be surprised if they were perfectly analogous to our current time.
And I find the question to be ... beneath you. If you were honest -- with yourself, if not us, you'd acknowledge this is merely yet another Apologia attempt for Bush.
I will make things easy and accede to your question re: LBJ (since your unspoken premise is that all considerations are based on party affiliation) -- IF the conditions during the LBJ time were analogous to the times during Bush's and IF LBJ is guilty of the actions you ascribe, then yes ... I'd condemn his actions, as well.
Why is it so hard for you to see the utility of valuing Principle over Party/Person?
Now now cath, you're being dishonest.
You've claimed numerous times that the north koreans created a nuclear weapon as a response to bushs actions. So now you're going to claim that this does not hold true, that it was a different time, etc etc, when that same logic is applied to a democrat.
Let me ask you this, is it concievable that Kimmy boy wanted a nuke and he was going to get it regardless of who sat in the whitehouse?
So the question is, which so far only socrates has addressed, is: did north korea produce a nuclear weapons program solely in response to american aggression or did they want it for their own reasons.
No more diversions cath, no more lies or misleading attacks, just answer the question posed.
Cathexis- You have missed the point of the ballot entirely. Herzog was not claiming that LBJ is to blame. On the contrary, he is claiming that North Korea wanted nuclear weapons regardless of any specific US foreign policy.
Perhaps, you have gotten the wrong impression about us? Let me make it clear, we in the rest of the world do have our own elites, and they have their own agendas and desires as well. Not everything is an unfolding of a reaction to the USA, is it?
Socrates, while you explained it wonderfully I think you're wasting your time. Cathexis, and everyone else who read this ballot but shied away, knows exactly what I was asking. They simply cannot answer this question because then it would reduce their ability to blame bush on this one thing slightly, and they won't do anything to jeopordize that.
|
|
