From: "Gary Britt" 


"Geo."  wrote in message
news:41672cc8$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:4162b9dd$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>
> and bush's plan is lets ignore them and hope they go away.. or maybe "it's
> someone elses problem, they live closer than we do"?

No that is incorrect.  Bush's plan was not give in to North Korea's demands
for the failed bi-lateral talks that Clinton used to help NK build its
first nukes, but to get China and Russia involved.  China has very real
leverage over NK, and if Bush can get China to help in the negotiations
which he has begun to achieve then the chances of a real agreement that NK
will HAVE to keep is much better.  Its the difference between having the
strength not to give in immediately so a real agreement can be had (Bush
approach) and the weenie liberal approach lets do whatever they demand and
the pretend we are accomplishing something (Kerry approach).

>
> > On Iran the idiot Kerry stated he take the Clinton policy that helped
North
> > Korea go nuclear and apply to Iran by selling Iran the fuel rods and
other
> > technology they need.
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, if we don't then someone else will. We tend to
have
> more say in things if we are involved than if we are not involved.

Well that attitude certainly paid off with NK.  We sold them the stuff and
they made nukes right away.  And you are actually arguing we use this same
successful strategy with Iran.  I'm afraid that fails the definition of
idiocy.  Doing the same thing over and expecting a different result =
idiocy.  Time for a new approach, which is exactly what Bush is doing.  So
far on Iran Bush has taken the UN multi-lateral approach, while pressuring
our allies, etc.  Then if that doesn't work, at least with Bush we know
that either he or Israel will blow the fucking nuke development cites up,
if that's what it takes to keep them from going nuclear.  Kerry on the
other hand won't stop talking until the first Iranian nuke blows up in New
York City.  I think I'll prefer the Bush approach thanks.

>
> > more or less, which they proceeded to cheat and develop their nuclear
> > technology and first couple of bombs with.
>
> the concern was not that they wouldn't make a couple bombs, the fear was
that
> they might sell them to bad people.

Well if that was Clinton's concern then he was an idiot.  They can't sell
what they don't have.  Once they got them under Clinton, Bush did exactly
the right thing by including China in talks, because if China tells them
you better not sell any nukes NK has to listen.

>
> > According to McCain Saddam would have then fired up his WMD and nuke
> > programs again full bore, with more money because sanctions would be
gone.
>
> and as soon as that began the saudis and everyone else in the area would
have
> been begging for us to do something about it and we could have gone in
before
> he managed to develop anything and with the full support of that part of
the
> world.

LOL.  Geoge, I'm really surprised that a person as rational and logical as
you could even entertain the above as being accurate.  Just the opposite
would have happened as Saddam's neighbors would have been either explicitly
taken over, or Findlandized like the Soviets did to Findland.  Invite us
in. Hardly.  Just the opposite.


>
> Come on Gary, we knew back in 1991 that we would be back in 10 years
because we
> didn't finish it then. Bush didn't have to bullshit us and the rest of the
> world, he could have set things up like his old man did if Saddam was
really
> the reason, there was no need for the rush.

Given 9/11 and George "Slam Dunk" Tenet.  Yes he did have to rush.

Gary

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5