The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

[Jarhead]

By that logic you must believe that an invasion of North Korea is and has been 'necessary' for decades.

Who do you blame for not invading North Korea?

Thats a different situation, plus Saddam's violations of the Gulf War ceacefire agreement are only part of the problem. North Korea has not launched an invasion of another country in over 60 years. It did has not invaded and attacked four different neighboring countries like Saddam did. North Korea has not launched ballistic missiles at neighboring countries. North Korea has not used chemical weapons against another country on a large scale. North Korea does not sit in close proximity to much of the planets oil and natural gas supply.

In addition, military action against North Korea could very well lead to a war with China. The fact that North Korea has had a relatively conservative foreign policy compared to Saddam, holds Seoul South Korea's 10 million essentially hostage with its massive levels of artillery along the DMZ, and would likely be backed by China in any war, means that military action is largely off the table as a means of dealing with North Korea.

1. North Korea has violated the ceasefire agreement
2. North Korea has sought, and has, WMD's
3. North Korea has oppressed its own people
4. North Korea has given weapons to terrorists

Those were all the reasons we were told it was NECESSARY to invade Iraq. Now tell me why those same exact reasons do not equate to the necessity of invading North Korea.

The US has a ceasefire treaty with North Korea?

Are you sure?

 

[DiamondDave]

1. North Korea has violated the ceasefire agreement
2. North Korea has sought, and has, WMD's
3. North Korea has oppressed its own people
4. North Korea has given weapons to terrorists

Those were all the reasons we were told it was NECESSARY to invade Iraq. Now tell me why those same exact reasons do not equate to the necessity of invading North Korea.

you specifically asked what national interest was met by the war in Iraq. I answered. You then compared the answer to the N. Korean treaty...which has no similarity.

Now you are referring to the Bush administration talking points.

You are adjusting the debate so you can "win" the debate.

Stay on topic.

Since you cite nothing showing the lack of similarity, your post means nothing.

Actually, liar, he did.... You just keep dodging and weaving.. spewing lies and shifting around.. then you get caught giving bogus statistics and other lies, and you just come up with new ones... par for the course for you

 

[Jarhead]

1. North Korea has violated the ceasefire agreement
2. North Korea has sought, and has, WMD's
3. North Korea has oppressed its own people
4. North Korea has given weapons to terrorists

Those were all the reasons we were told it was NECESSARY to invade Iraq. Now tell me why those same exact reasons do not equate to the necessity of invading North Korea.

you specifically asked what national interest was met by the war in Iraq. I answered. You then compared the answer to the N. Korean treaty...which has no similarity.

Now you are referring to the Bush administration talking points.

You are adjusting the debate so you can "win" the debate.

Stay on topic.

Since you cite nothing showing the lack of similarity, your post means nothing.

I told you already...U2Edge already did......there is no reason to reiterrate what he wrote.

Why you ignored it is beyond me...

But it is par for the course for you.

 

[DiamondDave]

And even while posting in other threads.. Carby and Wrongwinger, caught with their lies, abandon the thread... laughable...

Gonna bookmark this one for the next time they spew the same shit or say that others are liars

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thats a different situation, plus Saddam's violations of the Gulf War ceacefire agreement are only part of the problem. North Korea has not launched an invasion of another country in over 60 years. It did has not invaded and attacked four different neighboring countries like Saddam did. North Korea has not launched ballistic missiles at neighboring countries. North Korea has not used chemical weapons against another country on a large scale. North Korea does not sit in close proximity to much of the planets oil and natural gas supply.

In addition, military action against North Korea could very well lead to a war with China. The fact that North Korea has had a relatively conservative foreign policy compared to Saddam, holds Seoul South Korea's 10 million essentially hostage with its massive levels of artillery along the DMZ, and would likely be backed by China in any war, means that military action is largely off the table as a means of dealing with North Korea.

1. North Korea has violated the ceasefire agreement
2. North Korea has sought, and has, WMD's
3. North Korea has oppressed its own people
4. North Korea has given weapons to terrorists

Those were all the reasons we were told it was NECESSARY to invade Iraq. Now tell me why those same exact reasons do not equate to the necessity of invading North Korea.

The US has a ceasefire treaty with North Korea?

Are you sure?

Given that Article II of the armistice ending hostilities in the Korea War is entitled Concrete Arrangements for CEASE-FIRE and Armistice, which of course you've never read or you wouldn't be stupid enough to make a post like the one above

I think the answer is self-evident.

 

[DiamondDave]

Actually.. for once, carby is correct.. there is no peace treaty, but there was a cease fire.. although NK did later state it did not recognize and did not have a need for the cease fire

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually.. for once, carby is correct.. there is no peace treaty, but there was a cease fire.. although NK did later state it did not recognize and did not have a need for the cease fire

I'm right 99% of the time.

Ok, so we've established that North Korea and Iraq both violated the ceasefire,

and in the case of Iraq that was one of the items included in making the case that war was necessary.

What's next? WMD's? lol. Anyone want to dispute the comparability of NK and Iraq on that one?

Oh, okay, you're right, they aren't comparable because Iraq didn't have any WMD's.

 

[U2Edge]

By that logic you must believe that an invasion of North Korea is and has been 'necessary' for decades.

Who do you blame for not invading North Korea?

Thats a different situation, plus Saddam's violations of the Gulf War ceacefire agreement are only part of the problem. North Korea has not launched an invasion of another country in over 60 years. It did has not invaded and attacked four different neighboring countries like Saddam did. North Korea has not launched ballistic missiles at neighboring countries. North Korea has not used chemical weapons against another country on a large scale. North Korea does not sit in close proximity to much of the planets oil and natural gas supply.

In addition, military action against North Korea could very well lead to a war with China. The fact that North Korea has had a relatively conservative foreign policy compared to Saddam, holds Seoul South Korea's 10 million essentially hostage with its massive levels of artillery along the DMZ, and would likely be backed by China in any war, means that military action is largely off the table as a means of dealing with North Korea.

1. North Korea has violated the ceasefire agreement
2. North Korea has sought, and has, WMD's
3. North Korea has oppressed its own people
4. North Korea has given weapons to terrorists

Those were all the reasons we were told it was NECESSARY to invade Iraq. Now tell me why those same exact reasons do not equate to the necessity of invading North Korea.

1. Yes, but it was in terms of brief border violations and occasional aggressive contact with South Korean forces over the years. The ceacefire agreement never made any restrictions on weapons levels or WMD. You don't go to war because a patrol went 100 meters into an area they were not supposed to be. You do go to war when a country is potentially amassing WMD that increases the threat to global energy supplies from the Persian Gulf.

2. Yes, North Korea has WMD, and so do many other countries. The difference is that Saddam has used this WMD not once, but multiple times killing thousands of people both in his own country and in foreign countries.

3. Yes, North Korea has oppressed its own people as have many governments around the world. Saddam did far more than oppress his own people. He invaded and annexed an independent country. The last time that happened was when HITLER did it in the early 1940s! The need to remove Saddam was not dependent on his actions against his own people. It based on his threat to the region, the United States and the world.

4. That might be true, but it has not been on a large scale enough to significantly threaten the security of any particular region let alone the world.

What I said before is true:

Thats a different situation, plus Saddam's violations of the Gulf War ceacefire agreement are only part of the problem. North Korea has not launched an invasion of another country in over 60 years. It did has not invaded and attacked four different neighboring countries like Saddam did. North Korea has not launched ballistic missiles at neighboring countries. North Korea has not used chemical weapons against another country on a large scale. North Korea does not sit in close proximity to much of the planets oil and natural gas supply.

In addition, military action against North Korea could very well lead to a war with China. The fact that North Korea has had a relatively conservative foreign policy compared to Saddam, holds Seoul South Korea's 10 million essentially hostage with its massive levels of artillery along the DMZ, and would likely be backed by China in any war, means that military action is largely off the table as a means of dealing with North Korea.

 

[U2Edge]

What were those threats specifically and why would they threaten the vital interests of the US?

Are you implying that we are so dependent on Middle East oil for our national security that we must start wars to protect that oil,

like we did in 1991?

And if that's the case, why did China get first dibs on developing Iraqi oil fields?

Funny how they used to howl when anyone called Iraq 'blood for oil', going back even to 1991,

but now they've latched onto it as one of the justifications for that disaster.

Well, until you understand the impact that energy has on the economy, your not going to understand the need to protect it. Energy impact everything, from your ability to connect to the internet and type this post, to driving a car, to the price you pay for the food that you put into your mouth!

 

[NYcarbineer]

And if that's the case, why did China get first dibs on developing Iraqi oil fields?

Funny how they used to howl when anyone called Iraq 'blood for oil', going back even to 1991,

but now they've latched onto it as one of the justifications for that disaster.

Well, until you understand the impact that energy has on the economy, your not going to understand the need to protect it. Energy impact everything, from your ability to connect to the internet and type this post, to driving a car, to the price you pay for the food that you put into your mouth!

So you're justifying wars of aggression as US energy policy. As in 1991, when we had no other interest in invading Iraq other than an assertion that our access to oil was in danger.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thats a different situation, plus Saddam's violations of the Gulf War ceacefire agreement are only part of the problem. North Korea has not launched an invasion of another country in over 60 years. It did has not invaded and attacked four different neighboring countries like Saddam did. North Korea has not launched ballistic missiles at neighboring countries. North Korea has not used chemical weapons against another country on a large scale. North Korea does not sit in close proximity to much of the planets oil and natural gas supply.

In addition, military action against North Korea could very well lead to a war with China. The fact that North Korea has had a relatively conservative foreign policy compared to Saddam, holds Seoul South Korea's 10 million essentially hostage with its massive levels of artillery along the DMZ, and would likely be backed by China in any war, means that military action is largely off the table as a means of dealing with North Korea.

1. North Korea has violated the ceasefire agreement
2. North Korea has sought, and has, WMD's
3. North Korea has oppressed its own people
4. North Korea has given weapons to terrorists

Those were all the reasons we were told it was NECESSARY to invade Iraq. Now tell me why those same exact reasons do not equate to the necessity of invading North Korea.

1. Yes, but it was in terms of brief border violations and occasional aggressive contact with South Korean forces over the years. The ceacefire agreement never made any restrictions on weapons levels or WMD. You don't go to war because a patrol went 100 meters into an area they were not supposed to be. You do go to war when a country is potentially amassing WMD that increases the threat to global energy supplies from the Persian Gulf.

2. Yes, North Korea has WMD, and so do many other countries. The difference is that Saddam has used this WMD not once, but multiple times killing thousands of people both in his own country and in foreign countries.

3. Yes, North Korea has oppressed its own people as have many governments around the world. Saddam did far more than oppress his own people. He invaded and annexed an independent country. The last time that happened was when HITLER did it in the early 1940s! The need to remove Saddam was not dependent on his actions against his own people. It based on his threat to the region, the United States and the world.

4. That might be true, but it has not been on a large scale enough to significantly threaten the security of any particular region let alone the world.

What I said before is true:

Thats a different situation, plus Saddam's violations of the Gulf War ceacefire agreement are only part of the problem. North Korea has not launched an invasion of another country in over 60 years. It did has not invaded and attacked four different neighboring countries like Saddam did. North Korea has not launched ballistic missiles at neighboring countries. North Korea has not used chemical weapons against another country on a large scale. North Korea does not sit in close proximity to much of the planets oil and natural gas supply.

In addition, military action against North Korea could very well lead to a war with China. The fact that North Korea has had a relatively conservative foreign policy compared to Saddam, holds Seoul South Korea's 10 million essentially hostage with its massive levels of artillery along the DMZ, and would likely be backed by China in any war, means that military action is largely off the table as a means of dealing with North Korea.

Then if we can deal with North Korea satisfactorily without going to war, then we could have dealt with Iraq satisfactorily without going to war.

You still haven't offered anything of substance that demonstrates the war with Iraq was necessary.

 

[U2Edge]

Actually.. for once, carby is correct.. there is no peace treaty, but there was a cease fire.. although NK did later state it did not recognize and did not have a need for the cease fire

I'm right 99% of the time.

Ok, so we've established that North Korea and Iraq both violated the ceasefire,

and in the case of Iraq that was one of the items included in making the case that war was necessary.

What's next? WMD's? lol. Anyone want to dispute the comparability of NK and Iraq on that one?

Oh, okay, you're right, they aren't comparable because Iraq didn't have any WMD's.

North Korea is not in violation of 15 United Nations Security Council results passed under Chapter VII rules. The restrictions and conditions on Saddam's Iraq were vast and were designed to contain Saddam in lieu of removing Saddam from power. So that is precisely why military action to remove Saddam is a necessity in this case.

Also UN, resolution 678 and resolution 1441 authorize the use of all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance. There has never been a resolution passed at the United Nations authorizing the use of all means necessary in response to North Korean violations of the ceacefire from 1953. That is why the United States started using military force against Iraq in 1992 and every year up until the invasion and removal of Saddam from power in 2003. The U.S. tried every thing it could to bring about compliance including limited military force, but it failed. The crumbling of the sanctions and weapons embargo were the last straws.

Iraq did not have WMD's in March 2003 when the US invaded, but they still had the means to produce them which was in violation of the cease fire and multiple UN resolutions. Also, unlike North Korea, Saddam has used WMD against other country's and his citizens multiple times. North Korea has not. In addition, the Korean War ceacefire and never stipulated that North Korea was not allowed to have WMD or any other kind of weapon!

 

[U2Edge]

1. North Korea has violated the ceasefire agreement
2. North Korea has sought, and has, WMD's
3. North Korea has oppressed its own people
4. North Korea has given weapons to terrorists

Those were all the reasons we were told it was NECESSARY to invade Iraq. Now tell me why those same exact reasons do not equate to the necessity of invading North Korea.

1. Yes, but it was in terms of brief border violations and occasional aggressive contact with South Korean forces over the years. The ceacefire agreement never made any restrictions on weapons levels or WMD. You don't go to war because a patrol went 100 meters into an area they were not supposed to be. You do go to war when a country is potentially amassing WMD that increases the threat to global energy supplies from the Persian Gulf.

2. Yes, North Korea has WMD, and so do many other countries. The difference is that Saddam has used this WMD not once, but multiple times killing thousands of people both in his own country and in foreign countries.

3. Yes, North Korea has oppressed its own people as have many governments around the world. Saddam did far more than oppress his own people. He invaded and annexed an independent country. The last time that happened was when HITLER did it in the early 1940s! The need to remove Saddam was not dependent on his actions against his own people. It based on his threat to the region, the United States and the world.

4. That might be true, but it has not been on a large scale enough to significantly threaten the security of any particular region let alone the world.

What I said before is true:

Thats a different situation, plus Saddam's violations of the Gulf War ceacefire agreement are only part of the problem. North Korea has not launched an invasion of another country in over 60 years. It did has not invaded and attacked four different neighboring countries like Saddam did. North Korea has not launched ballistic missiles at neighboring countries. North Korea has not used chemical weapons against another country on a large scale. North Korea does not sit in close proximity to much of the planets oil and natural gas supply.

In addition, military action against North Korea could very well lead to a war with China. The fact that North Korea has had a relatively conservative foreign policy compared to Saddam, holds Seoul South Korea's 10 million essentially hostage with its massive levels of artillery along the DMZ, and would likely be backed by China in any war, means that military action is largely off the table as a means of dealing with North Korea.

Then if we can deal with North Korea satisfactorily without going to war, then we could have dealt with Iraq satisfactorily without going to war.

You still haven't offered anything of substance that demonstrates the war with Iraq was necessary.

On the contrary, I have clearly explained the differences between Iraq and North Korea. It is because of those differences that removal of the leadership in Iraq was a necessity while not being so in the case of North Korea.

Being able to deal with some situations peacefully does not mean you will be able to deal with all situations peacefully.

I've explained what Saddam did while he was in power, his actions against Kuwait, what the US and its allies did in response, Why it was necessary, and how the United States tried in vain to contain Saddam instead of removing him. Technically, the United States was still at war with Iraq from 1991 to 2003. The United States bombed Iraq every year from 1991 to 2003. The United States invaded Iraq after it had exhausted all other means of dealing with Saddam short of regime change through invasion.

 

[U2Edge]

Funny how they used to howl when anyone called Iraq 'blood for oil', going back even to 1991,

but now they've latched onto it as one of the justifications for that disaster.

Well, until you understand the impact that energy has on the economy, your not going to understand the need to protect it. Energy impact everything, from your ability to connect to the internet and type this post, to driving a car, to the price you pay for the food that you put into your mouth!

So you're justifying wars of aggression as US energy policy. As in 1991, when we had no other interest in invading Iraq other than an assertion that our access to oil was in danger.

Defending the planets energy supply from seizure and sabotage is NOT a war of aggression. Iraq's invasion an annexation of Kuwait in 1990 cut off one of the worlds largest energy suppliers off from the global market. This helped to cause the 1990/1991 recesssion. The United States responded and removed Saddam's military from Kuwait because of the damage it had done to the global economy, the threat of more damage, as well as to reverse the illegal invasion, occupation and annexation of Kuwait, the first time that has happened since ADOLF HITLER did it in the early 1940s!

 

[DiamondDave]

Actually.. for once, carby is correct.. there is no peace treaty, but there was a cease fire.. although NK did later state it did not recognize and did not have a need for the cease fire

I'm right 99% of the time.

Ok, so we've established that North Korea and Iraq both violated the ceasefire,

and in the case of Iraq that was one of the items included in making the case that war was necessary.

What's next? WMD's? lol. Anyone want to dispute the comparability of NK and Iraq on that one?

Oh, okay, you're right, they aren't comparable because Iraq didn't have any WMD's.

Uh huh .. you were wrong and FLAT OUT LIED IN THIS VERY THREAD

There are potshots across the DMZ... not quite the same as the regime ordering fire against planes, etc... not quite like the regime trying to assassinate an ex president...

And there was a complete list of violations that justified the re-opening of hostilities against Iraq that should have been finished when we were there, ready to move, the first time... Yet you and your ilk repeat WMD over and over and over... there is much more than that.. simply read the resolution

They are not the same situation.. no hiding or preventing weapons inspections, etc... even though I am no fan of NK, there is no reason to invade and overthrow..

 

[DiamondDave]

Talk about a dupe. He turned NOTHING around. The unemployment went down because people quit looking. I am amazed you can feed yourself...

So losing 700,000 jobs a month vs. gaining 200,000 jobs a month is about people not looking for work?

lol, are you a mental retard?

Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject

Except that is not really true.. now is it???

Nor is WrongWinger's claim of 1MIL per month difference during his term....

Hmmm.. as stated.. not that many more employed now than when he took office.. and the labor participation rate is 0.1% above a 30 year low

Care to retract, liar??

And the link http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rate-since-world-war-ii-is-4.html#post7369212 so people (or you) can see the snapshot of the real numbers

 

[The Rabbi]

So losing 700,000 jobs a month vs. gaining 200,000 jobs a month is about people not looking for work?

lol, are you a mental retard?

Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject

Except that is not really true.. now is it???

Nor is WrongWinger's claim of 1MIL per month difference during his term....

Hmmm.. as stated.. not that many more employed now than when he took office.. and the labor participation rate is 0.1% above a 30 year low

Care to retract, liar??

And the link http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rate-since-world-war-ii-is-4.html#post7369212 so people (or you) can see the snapshot of the real numbers

You'll get crickets. Until the next thread when he will repeat the exact same lies as if this conversation never took place.
Libs have trouble learning. That's why they stay in school so long.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So losing 700,000 jobs a month vs. gaining 200,000 jobs a month is about people not looking for work?

lol, are you a mental retard?

Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject

Except that is not really true.. now is it???

Nor is WrongWinger's claim of 1MIL per month difference during his term....

Hmmm.. as stated.. not that many more employed now than when he took office.. and the labor participation rate is 0.1% above a 30 year low

Care to retract, liar??

And the link http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rate-since-world-war-ii-is-4.html#post7369212 so people (or you) can see the snapshot of the real numbers

You want me to retract something I didn't say?

Let's look at the proof of the accuracy of what I did say:

The payroll numbers:

The GDP numbers:

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Yes, but it was in terms of brief border violations and occasional aggressive contact with South Korean forces over the years. The ceacefire agreement never made any restrictions on weapons levels or WMD. You don't go to war because a patrol went 100 meters into an area they were not supposed to be. You do go to war when a country is potentially amassing WMD that increases the threat to global energy supplies from the Persian Gulf.

2. Yes, North Korea has WMD, and so do many other countries. The difference is that Saddam has used this WMD not once, but multiple times killing thousands of people both in his own country and in foreign countries.

3. Yes, North Korea has oppressed its own people as have many governments around the world. Saddam did far more than oppress his own people. He invaded and annexed an independent country. The last time that happened was when HITLER did it in the early 1940s! The need to remove Saddam was not dependent on his actions against his own people. It based on his threat to the region, the United States and the world.

4. That might be true, but it has not been on a large scale enough to significantly threaten the security of any particular region let alone the world.

What I said before is true:

Thats a different situation, plus Saddam's violations of the Gulf War ceacefire agreement are only part of the problem. North Korea has not launched an invasion of another country in over 60 years. It did has not invaded and attacked four different neighboring countries like Saddam did. North Korea has not launched ballistic missiles at neighboring countries. North Korea has not used chemical weapons against another country on a large scale. North Korea does not sit in close proximity to much of the planets oil and natural gas supply.

In addition, military action against North Korea could very well lead to a war with China. The fact that North Korea has had a relatively conservative foreign policy compared to Saddam, holds Seoul South Korea's 10 million essentially hostage with its massive levels of artillery along the DMZ, and would likely be backed by China in any war, means that military action is largely off the table as a means of dealing with North Korea.

Then if we can deal with North Korea satisfactorily without going to war, then we could have dealt with Iraq satisfactorily without going to war.

You still haven't offered anything of substance that demonstrates the war with Iraq was necessary.

On the contrary, I have clearly explained the differences between Iraq and North Korea. It is because of those differences that removal of the leadership in Iraq was a necessity while not being so in the case of North Korea.

Being able to deal with some situations peacefully does not mean you will be able to deal with all situations peacefully.

I've explained what Saddam did while he was in power, his actions against Kuwait, what the US and its allies did in response, Why it was necessary, and how the United States tried in vain to contain Saddam instead of removing him. Technically, the United States was still at war with Iraq from 1991 to 2003. The United States bombed Iraq every year from 1991 to 2003. The United States invaded Iraq after it had exhausted all other means of dealing with Saddam short of regime change through invasion.

Saddam didn't have WMD's. Even Bush has admitted that.

There is absolutely no evidence that Saddam in 2003 posed a sufficient threat to the national security of the United States to justify invasion. The war was not necessary.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually.. for once, carby is correct.. there is no peace treaty, but there was a cease fire.. although NK did later state it did not recognize and did not have a need for the cease fire

I'm right 99% of the time.

Ok, so we've established that North Korea and Iraq both violated the ceasefire,

and in the case of Iraq that was one of the items included in making the case that war was necessary.

What's next? WMD's? lol. Anyone want to dispute the comparability of NK and Iraq on that one?

Oh, okay, you're right, they aren't comparable because Iraq didn't have any WMD's.

North Korea is not in violation of 15 United Nations Security Council results passed under Chapter VII rules. The restrictions and conditions on Saddam's Iraq were vast and were designed to contain Saddam in lieu of removing Saddam from power. So that is precisely why military action to remove Saddam is a necessity in this case.

Also UN, resolution 678 and resolution 1441 authorize the use of all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance. There has never been a resolution passed at the United Nations authorizing the use of all means necessary in response to North Korean violations of the ceacefire from 1953. That is why the United States started using military force against Iraq in 1992 and every year up until the invasion and removal of Saddam from power in 2003. The U.S. tried every thing it could to bring about compliance including limited military force, but it failed. The crumbling of the sanctions and weapons embargo were the last straws.

Iraq did not have WMD's in March 2003 when the US invaded, but they still had the means to produce them which was in violation of the cease fire and multiple UN resolutions. Also, unlike North Korea, Saddam has used WMD against other country's and his citizens multiple times. North Korea has not. In addition, the Korean War ceacefire and never stipulated that North Korea was not allowed to have WMD or any other kind of weapon!

Iraq did not have WMD's. That was all made up.