Started By
Message
locked post

In 1994, after the painfully stupid Jimmy Carter N. Korea deal, I called this

Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:01 pm
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:01 pm
I was talking to a liberal friend who was creaming over how smart Bill Clinton was to send Carter.

I laughed. I said, "they're still going to get nukes as fast as they ever were going to get nukes.........only now, we're going to help fund them. Heck, maybe we just sped the process up"

That dude really believed that Carter had achieved something as did almost all liberals.

Welp. Hello Liberals. Thank you for the shite sandwich you left behind.
Posted by PsychTiger
Member since Jul 2004
98766 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:02 pm to
If the post wasn't on TD, then it's not legit. TD not existing then is not a valid excuse.
Posted by The Maj
Member since Sep 2016
27061 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:03 pm to
People actually think Carter accomplished something?
Posted by Duke
Twin Lakes, CO
Member since Jan 2008
35606 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:04 pm to
Or we need to see a notarized statement with photographic evidence of you writing said statement.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89483 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:04 pm to
quote:

That dude really believed that Carter had achieved something as did almost all liberals.


Appeasement always works. Just ask Poland and all the European Jews...

Oh wait.
Posted by PsychTiger
Member since Jul 2004
98766 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:05 pm to
Carter did accomplish something. He gave Obama the blueprint to help Iran become a nuclear power.
Posted by Salmon
On the trails
Member since Feb 2008
83525 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:05 pm to
link?
Posted by Hawkeye95
Member since Dec 2013
20293 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:06 pm to
quote:

I laughed. I said, "they're still going to get nukes as fast as they ever were going to get nukes.........only now, we're going to help fund them. Heck, maybe we just sped the process up"


23 years huh.

Posted by TBoy
Kalamazoo
Member since Dec 2007
23659 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:07 pm to
Another tired weak propaganda piece by a "make it up as we go along republican."

Of course this is the fault of Clinton and Carter and no one else, except perhaps Obama. George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush have no involvement or responsibility because they were Republicans.

Be real. No U.S. president has judged that the potential benefits of military conflict with North Korea outweigh the risk and cost. Every president has reached the exact same conclusion.
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:08 pm to
quote:

23 years huh.


I know that sounds far to you, but, it was nothing. Here we are. A mere military career's length away.

That's the problem with liberalism. They think 20 years from now is forever.

It's not forever. In 23 years, my youngest child will barely be 30.

The fact liberals don't care about their stupid train wrecks because they don't have to politically live with them isn't terribly relevant.
Posted by indianswim
Plano, TX
Member since Jan 2010
18717 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:09 pm to
I thought you said you were going to the doctor this afternoon to check out your back. Must be killing you from all the patting you've been giving yourself while already injured.
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:10 pm to
quote:

Be real. No U.S. president has judged that the potential benefits of military conflict with North Korea outweigh the risk and cost. Every president has reached the exact same conclusion.

Putting off military conflict =/= avoiding military conflict.

AND.

Giving the other guy crap tons of money and resources which will be used to pay for the weapons that will be faced by the person you passed the buck too =/= avoiding military conflict
Posted by Bjorn Cyborg
Member since Sep 2016
26679 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:10 pm to
So the decisions made to get us to this point were correct, in your opinion?

And virtually every criticism I have seen has blasted Clinton the most, but Obama, both Bushes, etc., as secondary causes.
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:11 pm to
quote:

And virtually every criticism I have seen has blasted Clinton the most, but Obama, both Bushes, etc., as secondary causes.
Absolutely.

The appeasement deal of 1994 is just particularly egregious because basically, we funded this shite!

But, appeasement is appeasement.
Posted by Pettifogger
Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone
Member since Feb 2012
79120 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:12 pm to
I feel like a douche for "I told yall so" posts on here, much less conversations with random people from more than two decades ago that are entirely unverifiable
Posted by TBoy
Kalamazoo
Member since Dec 2007
23659 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:31 pm to
I just saw this on Wikipedia. Sounds like the payments and lifting of sanctions came under the Bush administration, which was a Republican administration.

quote:

February 13, 2007, agreement in the Six-Party Talks – among the United States, the two Koreas, Japan, China, and Russia – called for other actions besides a path toward a denuclearized Korean peninsula. It also outlined steps toward the normalization of political relations with Pyongyang, a replacement of the Korean Armistice Agreement with a peace treaty, and the building of a regional peace structure for Northeast Asia.[23]

In exchange for substantial fuel aid, North Korea agreed to shut down the Yongbyon nuclear facility. The United States also agreed to begin discussions on normalization of relations with North Korea, and to begin the process of removing North Korea from its list of state sponsors of terrorism.[24][25][26]

Implementation of this agreement has been successful so far, with US Chief Negotiator Christopher R. Hill saying North Korea has adhered to its commitments. The sixth round of talks commencing on March 19, 2007, discussed the future of the North Korean nuclear weapons program.

In early June 2008, the United States agreed to start lifting restrictions after North Korea began the disarming process. President Bush announced he would remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism after North Korea released a 60-page declaration of its nuclear activities. Shortly thereafter North Korean officials released video of the demolition of the nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, considered a symbol of North Korea's nuclear program. The Bush Administration praised the progress, but was criticized by many, including some within the administration, for settling for too little. The document released said nothing about alleged uranium enrichment programs or nuclear proliferation to other countries.


But I reiterate what I said before, every U.S. President from 1953 to today, Republican and Democrat, has chosen not to resume the war with North Korea.
Posted by troyt37
Member since Mar 2008
13315 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:31 pm to
quote:

Of course this is the fault of Clinton and Carter and no one else, except perhaps Obama. George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush have no involvement or responsibility because they were Republicans.


Blaming Bush 1 is ignorant. Might as well blame every president since the Korean war.

Did Bush 2, or even Obama make an arse-kissing, financially rewarding deal with the North Koreans also, or are you just attempting to smear them with Clinton's shite, since there is so much of it to go around regarding the deal he made with the North Koreans?

quote:

Be real. No U.S. president has judged that the potential benefits of military conflict with North Korea outweigh the risk and cost. Every president has reached the exact same conclusion.


No, you be real. Each US president has a different situation to assess and reach conclusions about. The situation with North Korea now includes them probably having missiles capable of reaching the continental US, and possibly having miniaturized nuclear devices for those missiles. With the parameters of the situation having changed so drastically, isn't it a given that the US president should reach a different conclusion? Wouldn't it be a serious problem if he did reach the same conclusion as his predecessors, given those facts?

Now the only question left is, are you such a zealot that the current president is wrong regardless of what he does, or are you really not concerned that a certifiable ding-dong quite possibly has the ability to nuke Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Seattle? And then, are you going to blame assholes such as yourself, if Trump does little to nothing, and Seattle disappears under a nuclear mushroom cloud?
This post was edited on 8/11/17 at 2:49 pm
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:33 pm to
quote:

I feel like a douche for "I told yall so" posts on here, much less conversations with random people from more than two decades ago that are entirely unverifiable

I don't really need anyone to verify the conversation.

It's indisputable that in 1994, liberals lauded the deal while conservatives said, "da frick, why are we funding this a-hole now"?
This post was edited on 8/11/17 at 2:35 pm
Posted by Pelican fan99
Lafayette, Louisiana
Member since Jun 2013
34656 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:34 pm to
And now history is repeating itself and liberals are creaming themselves over Obama/Hillary dealing with Iran. Surely that won't come back to haunt us 23 years from now
Posted by Pettifogger
Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone
Member since Feb 2012
79120 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:38 pm to
quote:

the Bush administration, which was a Republican administration.


You have a link for this?
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram