Why not blame Bush?

[Technosoul]

It was President Bush who gave that famous Axes of Evil speech and claimed that North Korea and Iran should be on the list for elimination in his war to spread the democracy idealogy globally. They responded by doing things to prepare for our attacks, especially after he "went on his own" to attack Irag.

In order to perpare to fight off our attacks they had to upgrade to nuclear status, to insure a fair playing field. Now everyone is concerned about them getting into the nuclear business and we are told they wish to treaten us by doing that.

But is Bush not to blame? Did he not start his own private holy war upon nations that had nothing to do with 9-11? Did he not motivate them to respond by going nuclear?

Now I might be wrong, perhaps he was right in thinking that sooner or later they would be a future threat like Afganistan was. And that it is better we deal with that problem sooner then later when later might be too late?

So is Bush to blame for North Korea seeking nuclear abilities or is Bush some kind of visionary person that we should support as a wise leader?

Technosoul.

[tinybear]

You know what? I think that if even if big mouth Bush didn't coin that phrase "The Axis Of Evil", it wouldn't have made any difference to what Iran and North Korea are now doing.

[Digital Man]

Quote by: Technosoul It was President Bush who gave that famous Axes of Evil speech and claimed that North Korea and Iran should be on the list for elimination in his war to spread the democracy idealogy globally. They responded by doing things to prepare for our attacks, especially after he "went on his own" to attack Irag. In order to perpare to fight off our attacks they had to upgrade to nuclear status, to insure a fair playing field. Now everyone is concerned about them getting into the nuclear business and we are told they wish to treaten us by doing that.

Are you claiming they did NOT have nuclear aspirations until Bush made the "axis of Evil" statement?

Quote by: Technosoul But is Bush not to blame? Did he not start his own private holy war upon nations that had nothing to do with 9-11? Did he not motivate them to respond by going nuclear?

which of those countries are we at war with?

Quote by: Technosoul Now I might be wrong,

I agree

Quote by: Technosoul So is Bush to blame for North Korea seeking nuclear abilities or is Bush some kind of visionary person that we should support as a wise leader? Technosoul.

Who gave NK nuclear technology?

[Technosoul]

Tiny Bear - thanks for your input, N.K. had made some sort of pack or treaty not to develope nuclear bombs and kept ture to their word until Bush made what amounted to declaration of war agenst terrorism and naming them in his list.

Digital - the above answer should cover your questions. Also keep in mind that Bush has presently ordered a expanded military presence near N.K. to make a statement that we will not allow them to conduct nuclear bomb testing.

If we prepare for war that is a good sign of our intensions, especially now that President Bush has shown the world we would violate international rules about first strikes.

So I got two republicans responding, any democrats. Tech.

[The Analog Kid]

Even back in the 90's the Clinton admin believed N Korea was violating the agrement.


Information obtained from A.Q. Khan's nuclear program also suggests that N. Korea had a highly enriched uranium program since 1997.

To suggest these nations are acting solely because of Bush is nonsensical. These nations have a history of wanting to go nuclear long before Bush.
I suppose it's just too convenient.

Also, How do you explain India and Pakistan going nuclear during the Clinton administration?

[Logjam]

Quote by: Technosoul If we prepare for war that is a good sign of our intensions, especially now that President Bush has shown the world we would violate international rules about first strikes. So I got two republicans responding, any democrats. Tech.

Who says it's a violation of international rules to launch a first strike? I guess you want to wait for New York to be leveled before we launch a retaliatory strike?

How about, "As soon as we have the West Coast decimated we'll hit back."
As I recall that was Gore's plan.

No, we should destroy all serious enemy threats before they happen. Which is exactly what Bush did in Iraq.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Technosoul Tiny Bear - thanks for your input, N.K. had made some sort of pack or treaty not to develope nuclear bombs and kept ture to their word until Bush made what amounted to declaration of war agenst terrorism and naming them in his list. Tech.

Not so. The Clinton Administration made sure that NK got the means to build nuke weapons. They did promise not to build them.

They would have built nukes even if Kerry would have been elected. You are misreading the wild and crazy leadership in NK if you believe otherwise.

Think that the President's calling NK a member of the Axis of Evil motivated them to build a nuke weapon is incorrect. Kim, wants to dominate Southeast Asia. He figures the nuke will make him a major power in the region.

[fedfem]

Quote by: Technosoul Tiny Bear - thanks for your input, N.K. had made some sort of pack or treaty not to develope nuclear bombs and kept ture to their word until Bush made what amounted to declaration of war agenst terrorism and naming them in his list. Digital - the above answer should cover your questions. Also keep in mind that Bush has presently ordered a expanded military presence near N.K. to make a statement that we will not allow them to conduct nuclear bomb testing. If we prepare for war that is a good sign of our intensions, especially now that President Bush has shown the world we would violate international rules about first strikes. So I got two republicans responding, any democrats. Tech.

Well I am not a democrat but I don't blame Bush the man, I blame his administration, party and the foreign policy in general. I didn't support some of the shit that went down under Clinton either.

I think the assumption that this is a partisan issue or even an ideological one overall is flawed.

[Digital Man]

Quote by: Technosoul Digital - the above answer should cover your questions. Also keep in mind that Bush has presently ordered a expanded military presence near N.K. to make a statement that we will not allow them to conduct nuclear bomb testing.

Can you source this? Because the last I heard we were removing troops from South Korea.

link

On 06 October 2004 the Department of Defense announced that after several months of close consultations, the United States and the Republic of Korea had reached final agreement regarding the June 2004 US proposal to redeploy 12,500 US troops from Korea. The first phase was conducted in 2004 and included the 2nd Brigade Combat Team that was sent to Iraq in August 2004, and associated units. The redeployment in 2004 totaled about 5,000 troops. During the second phase, 2005-2006, the United States will redeploy a total of 5,000 troops (3,000 in 2005, 2,000 in 2006), comprising combat units, combat support and combat service support units, units associated with mission transfer areas, and other support personnel. In the third and final phase, 2007-2008, the United States will redeploy 2,500 troops consisting primarily of support units and personnel.

sounds like a long-term plan. And if you read the entire article, it's been a goal of many Presidents (since Nixon) to decrease the number of troops in SK. If Bush carries out the rest of his plan then he will have removed the largest number of troops in the past 30 years