</sarcasm> Bush, dead set on invading Iraq no matter what, spurned a personal written letter from Kim Jong Il in November 2002 that might have spared this world a few nuclear weapons. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050622...n6Jc_Os0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-
On its surface, this seems to be disconcerting. But think about it. Do you really trust ANY assurances by that lunatic Kim Jong Il regarding nuclear weapons (or anything else?)
Of course he does. Being that Kim Jong Il will go to any lengths to uphold the Marxist ideal, in Rex's eyes, that makes him far more trustworthy than GWB.
I seriously doubt it. Remember the Koreans had already openly broken their agreement with President Clinton that they would forego nuclear weapons manufacture in return for foreign aid. Why would we reward Kim for that by agreeing to talk to him about the "new" arrangement he is demanding? He now demands more aid and wants to keep his nukes, too. That way he can blackmail us again in the future. Kim can't be trusted to hold to a treaty with us. That is why the US is insisting on a multi-nation treaty with all of North Korea's neighbors. Kim backed out of this arrangement and was trying to go around the diplomatic stalemate with a direct contact with Bush. Bush ignored Kim, as he should have. North Korea is hovering on the brink of economic and social collapse. Only the aid they get from China keeps their head above water. Still, millions have starved while Kim spends most of their resources on his military, including nuclear weapons he can't afford. We need to push him over that edge with trade sanctions and a possible blockade and hasten the internal collapse of North Korea, as we did the USSR. Kim must fall and then South Korea can work out an arrangement with his successors and US troops can go home after 60 years. Right now he has few nuclear weapons, few delivery systems, we know where they are, and we can deal with them. This situation will only get worse if we don't. The problem is that China still supports Kim economically and politically and would defeat any attempts at sanctions. In the end, I expect China's price for giving up North Korea will be for us to give up Taiwan.
How so? Because it opposes the ideals of the majority on this board? I'm sorry, but some need to be less sensitive when it comes to philosophical misalignment. THIS is an example of inflammatory posting... How are we ever supposed to hold logical, provokative conversation when people can't rise above calling someone who does not see things their way a commie? In my opinion, if that's all you want to do, FSA might not be the right place for you. If you are completely uninterested in engaging in a discourse of factual contention, why even bother?
provocative First of all, I completely agree with GMAN in it appears that Rex trusts Kim Jong Il (a commie) more than he trusts our president. Any posts stating (or even implying) as such are inflammatory, no matter what you think.
Inflammatory is a subjective term and is open to interpretation. So, determining if a post qualifies is actually dependent upon what people think. Siding w/ Kim Jong Il is funny and remarkably dumb, but not inflammatory, in my opinion.
