Setting the stage for WWIII...Obama as Chamberlain.....Armageddon coming?

[Eddie Coyle]

Yes, he's a third rate hack who is regarded as a joke by most in his profession.  Such an accomplishment.

    Which professor inculcated that into your mushy skull? You've indicated various times here that you're merely repeating their doctrinaire diktats.

[Quick Karl]

Sol, North Korea getting nuclear weapons, to the degree that they have them, was the fault of the treaty between the Clinton Admin and North Korea, but was not the fault of the U.S admin that was actually in power at the time the North Koreans got them.  I see.

As I said, Quick (Slow) Karl logic - nonexistent.

Obviously, said Clinton Administration treaty was about as tangible as your cognitive inabilities.

[ItsOver]

Have you noticed that there is always an administration apologist on every site that allows comments?  Regardless of administration.

I feel honored Susan Rice is taking time out of her busy schedule to post at BellGab.

[136 or 142]

Obviously, said Clinton Administration treaty was about as tangible as your cognitive inabilities.

It's not the fault of the Clinton Administration that its successor failed to enforce the treaty.

[136 or 142]

    Which professor inculcated that into your mushy skull? You've indicated various times here that you're merely repeating their doctrinaire diktats.

Actually, I quoted one professor once on a point that wasn't even the main point of the discussion. But, I'm not surprised that a fan of Stupid Steyn can't read properly, indeed it's the only way one can be a fan of his.

[albrecht]

Convenient of you to leave out that it was under the Cheney Administration when North Korea finished assembling its nuclear weapons, to the degree that they have nuclear weapons.  They accomplished this in September 2003, almost certainly as a reaction to the U.S illegal, stupid naive and downright dangerous invasion of Iraq.

The help we gave N.Korea made them able to develop and test the weapon(s.) Of course it takes time to develop an operational weapon. Nobody (or at least I'm not saying) says Obama simply is allowing Iran to make a weapon tomorrow. They will likely (barring Isreali action etc) develop one in several years- probably under a Republican President- so he can be blamed. That could, even, be a reason for the deal. (Obama gets some accolades now and the bonus that a Republican will be blamed once Iran has some.) But Clinton's, with the champagne swilling Albright's help, "Agreed Framework" gave N.Korea the time, technology, and took pressure off the regime with all the energy, tech, and food aide that allowed them to develop the weapon(s.)

ps: it was the "Shah" that we brought to power, and then abandoned in favor of more radical leadership, in Iran- not the "Shaw," as you call him.

pps: I still am more comfortable with Persians, in general, than our supposed allies and close friends (especially of Bushes- but also to the ever-bowing Obama) in other Sunni Gulf states that export even more radical Islam which destabilize the world with their export of it and funding. Not that I like any Muslims, really. Much rather they fight each other, than emigrate to our countries.

[ACE of CLUBS]

  We Canadians can be irritating self-righteous dickheads at times ...... never tending to our own messes, but so expert at critiquing others of lesser intelligence ....... 

"We may be lost, but ......
we're making good time" .....

[Eddie Coyle]

Actually, I quoted one professor once on a point that wasn't even the main point of the discussion. But, I'm not surprised that a fan of Stupid Steyn can't read properly, indeed it's the only way one can be a fan of his.

    You cunty liberal Canadian spambot shitball. You've never uttered an original opinion, you're a cum dumpster of Soros bullshit. You're a teenaged twat without a single achievement in your wretched existence. You worthless shitstain.

[136 or 142]

    You cunty liberal Canadian spambot shitball. You've never uttered an original opinion, you're a cum dumpster of Soros bullshit. You're a teenaged twat without a single achievement in your wretched existence. You worthless shitstain.

Did I post something that you took personal?

[136 or 142]

We Canadians can be irritating self-righteous dickheads at times ...... never tending to our own messes, but so expert at critiquing others of lesser intelligence ....... 

"We may be lost, but ......
we're making good time" .....

Well, we will soon remove Harper from power, so that's one mess we're going to take care of.

[136 or 142]

The help we gave N.Korea made them able to develop and test the weapon(s.) Of course it takes time to develop an operational weapon. Nobody (or at least I'm not saying) says Obama simply is allowing Iran to make a weapon tomorrow. They will likely (barring Isreali action etc) develop one in several years- probably under a Republican President- so he can be blamed. That could, even, be a reason for the deal. (Obama gets some accolades now and the bonus that a Republican will be blamed once Iran has some.) But Clinton's, with the champagne swilling Albright's help, "Agreed Framework" gave N.Korea the time, technology, and took pressure off the regime with all the energy, tech, and food aide that allowed them to develop the weapon(s.)

ps: it was the "Shah" that we brought to power, and then abandoned in favor of more radical leadership, in Iran- not the "Shaw," as you call him.

pps: I still am more comfortable with Persians, in general, than our supposed allies and close friends (especially of Bushes- but also to the ever-bowing Obama) in other Sunni Gulf states that export even more radical Islam which destabilize the world with their export of it and funding. Not that I like any Muslims, really. Much rather they fight each other, than emigrate to our countries.

The argument that North Korea would not have developed nuclear weapons were it not for the agreement is counterfactual and I highly doubt there is any validity to it.


Did I write "Shaw"?  Well, I do own stock in Shaw Communications and use their internet server.

[Eddie Coyle]

Did I post something that you took personal?

    Nope. I just wish your mother was aborted via rusty coat hanger.

[136 or 142]

    Nope. I just wish your mother was aborted via rusty coat hanger.

Typical response from a fan of Stupid Steyn.  To be fair, I suspect (well actually more than suspect) that you are completely inebriated.

[albrecht]

The argument that North Korea would not have developed nuclear weapons were it not for the agreement is counterfactual and I highly doubt there is any validity to it.


Did I write "Shaw"?  Well, I do own stock in Shaw Communications.

Well sure. One can't "prove" an alternative outcome but I think giving technology, feeding their people, and providing them energy likely stabilized the regime and sped up their progress. It certainly would not have have SLOWED it down. That is just logic and probably reasonable. I could imagine Clinton could argue that our help (food, energy, technology) avoided a regime collapse and then a war, that while not being nuclear, could've devastated the region. Similar to Obama's Iran "deal," likely. Delay, delay, delay, and then "it is not my problem," or, giving them a benefit of the doubt, hope that the regime/society will change during the time it takes to develop the nuke and delivery system so that by the time the technology is developed the leader, government, or society will be more benign and not a threat. I'm not saying appeasement NEVER works but it seems not to have a great track record recently (especially against dictators.)

ps: Yes, you wrote Shaw but typos are understandable on message boards, especially if "Shaw" was on your mind vis-a-vis investments.

[Eddie Coyle]

Typical response from a fan of Stupid Steyn.  To be fair, I suspect (well actually more than suspect) that you are completely inebriated.

   I not a fan of his, really. I despise interventionism and the idea of America being "The Greatest...'

   That said, drunk or sober, I wish your grandparents were strangled and dismembered before shitting out your parents.

[ACE of CLUBS]

Well, we will soon remove Harper from power, so that's one mess we're going to take care of.

Justin Trudeau ..... eastern schoolteacher.
Thomas Mulcair .....eastern lawyer.
Stephen Harper .... Masters Degree in Economics.
Canada's a big business ..... just in case you haven't noticed.

Tell me how Harper will be replaced, and by who .......
You should stick American politics ....... maybe become an American so you can enlighten everyone. 
Others probably think that you're a dumbfuck .........

[136 or 142]

Well sure. One can't "prove" an alternative outcome but I think giving technology, feeding their people, and providing them energy likely stabilized the regime and sped up their progress. It certainly would've have SLOWED it down. That is just logic and probably even reasoning. I could imagine Clinton could argue that our help (food, energy, technology) avoided a regime collapse and then a war, that while not being nuclear, could've devastated the region. Similar to Obama's Iran "deal," likely. Delay, delay, delay, and then "it is not my problem," or, giving them a benefit of the doubt, hope that the regime/society will change during the time it takes to develop the nuke and delivery system so that by the time the technology is developed the leader, government, or society will be more benign and not a threat. I'm not saying appeasement NEVER works but it seems not to have a great track record recently (especially against dictators.)

ps: Yes, you wrote Shaw but typos are understandable on message boards, especially if "Shaw" was on your mind vis-a-vis investments.

Most, if not all, of North Korea's nuclear technology and materiel came from Pakistan (though the Pakistani government lies that they had nothing to do with it and it was the result of the rogue A Q Khan).  I have no doubt that North Korea had the money to pay for this irrespective of the sanctions.


This happened under Clinton (1998) but it was in September of 2003 when North Korea finalized their bomb, after the U.S invaded Iraq and almost certainly at least partly as a response to that invasion.


I don't disagree that 'appeasement' has had a mixed track record, but war has had a much worse track record.  Care to come up with another option?

[136 or 142]

Justin Trudeau ..... eastern schoolteacher.
Thomas Mulcair .....eastern lawyer.
Stephen Harper .... Masters Degree in Economics.
Canada's a big business ..... just in case you haven't noticed.

Tell me how Harper will be replaced, and by who .......
You should stick American politics ....... maybe become an American so you can enlighten everyone. 
Others probably think that you're a dumbfuck .........

Harper does have a masters degree in economics (as do thousands of other Canadians) but he never worked as an economist or taught it (although he may have been a 'lecturer' for one or two terms) and barely researched it (other than for his masters which was actually on something extremely obscure). His Masters was also from the University of Calgary, which is basically the Canadian version in economics of the University of Chicago, so it's more than a little dubious.  I've also taken a number of courses in economics and years after he did, and there were considerable changes in economics theory after he received his masters that limits the value of his education, and as somebody who is knowledgeable in economics I can assure you that there is nothing his corrupt and dishonest government has done that is in agreement with economic theory.  So, in regards to Harper and his supposed education: garbage in, garbage out.


I note you that while you listed the occupations of the other two leaders, you were unable to do so for Harper and had to list his education.  Could that be because Harper has never had a real job outside of politics?


Harper will be replaced by these things we hold called 'elections.'  I know the Conservative Party is trying to make it impossible for anybody but their supporters to vote, but we still have them.

Trudeau actually was a school teacher in British Columbia.  I assume even you know enough about Canadian geography to know that isn't in the east.


BTW, It's Stupid Steyn who is the dumbfuck.

[Curandero81]

I think that we should apply Obama's Iran philosophies to our prison system - we should negotiate terms with all prisoners and get them to sign pieces of paper swearing that they won't do criminal shit anymore, and we'll invent some cock-and-bull story about monitoring them but we will give them advance notice when we want to come and check them out, and we will let them decide when we can come and check them out, and tell us where we can search, or not, and then just let them all out of prison and cross our fingers that now that we have treated them with liberal genius and intellectual superiority, they will turn into nice docile democrats that just want to smoke pot and masturbate to internet porn all day, and won't do any more crimes...

I LOVE THIS POINT....
I might also add....ANYBODY wishing to inflict harm on another person be given a baseball bat and put on an island...to "go at it"....BUT LEAVE EVERYONE ELSE OUT !!!

[Curandero81]

Sometimes the simple solutions are the best solutions....

[albrecht]

Most, if not all, of North Korea's nuclear technology and materiel came from Pakistan (though the Pakistani government lies that they had nothing to do with it and it was the result of the rogue A Q Khan).  I have no doubt that North Korea had the money to pay for this irrespective of the sanctions.


This happened under Clinton (1998) but it was in September of 2003 when North Korea finalized their bomb, after the U.S invaded Iraq and almost certainly at least partly as a response to that invasion.


I don't disagree that 'appeasement' has had a mixed track record, but war has had a much worse track record.  Care to come up with another option?

Here's a crazy idea. "Fortress North America," Ill call it.

No more wars without direct, actual national interest (self-defense.) Zero, no foreign aid, humanitarian or otherwise, and zero/no trade with countries not aligned with our Western values. No selling weapons to "bad" countries. No "free trade" deals with 3rd world or corrupt countries but actual "free" trade amongst decent nations between companies and individuals but tariffs and ban trade from other "bad" countries. Fortress North America, even, for a time being (we have plenty of resources and land, especially without immigration. Prices will rise but employment will go up and think of savings from no more foreign wars or social spending on immigrants.) But trade also with Europe, Australia, New Zealand, UK, etc and maybe, if they can get their act together, even Russia (lots of minerals etc there and they share some historical links with European religion and culture and have an enemy in Islam and, used to be- until we screwed that up- China.) Kick out immigrants and do not accept anymore from "bad" countries. Secure the borders and our oceans, and the fishing waters, mineral rights, oil&gas, etc from foreign, or non-aligned nations. No buying, or selling, of technology to those countries, bring back that here (for security reasons if not also for jobs.) Other countries, mainly common-wealth nations, or developed countries like Japan, etc can be traded with also as the trading bloc expands but immigration, even from them, will be limited.

Let the others waste away by war, disease, and famine with their corruption, inter-cine religious and ethnic warfare, and general backwardness. Or, maybe, they will grow up and join the modern, or at least 19th century, world and we can trade and have relations with them also (but no immigration for at least a century or two.)

[Curandero81]

I LOVE IT !
Again I type....
Sometimes the simple solutions are the best solutions....

[136 or 142]

Here's a crazy idea. "Fortress North America," Ill call it.

No more wars without direct, actual national interest (self-defense.) Zero, no foreign aid, humanitarian or otherwise, and zero/no trade with countries not aligned with our Western values. No selling weapons to "bad" countries. No "free trade" deals with 3rd world or corrupt countries but actual "free" trade amongst decent nations between companies and individuals but tariffs and ban trade from other "bad" countries. Fortress North America, even, for a time being (we have plenty of resources and land, especially without immigration. Prices will rise but employment will go up and think of savings from no more foreign wars or social spending on immigrants.) But trade also with Europe, Australia, New Zealand, UK, etc and maybe, if they can get their act together, even Russia (lots of minerals etc there and they share some historical links with European religion and culture and have an enemy in Islam and, used to be- until we screwed that up- China.) Kick out immigrants and do not accept anymore from "bad" countries. Secure the borders and our oceans, and the fishing waters, mineral rights, oil&gas, etc from foreign, or non-aligned nations. No buying, or selling, of technology to those countries, bring back that here (for security reasons if not also for jobs.) Other countries, mainly common-wealth nations, or developed countries like Japan, etc can be traded with also as the trading bloc expands but immigration, even from them, will be limited.

Let the others waste away by war, disease, and famine with their corruption, inter-cine religious and ethnic warfare, and general backwardness. Or, maybe, they will grow up and join the modern, or at least 19th century, world and we can trade and have relations with them also (but no immigration for at least a century or two.)

Jobs would actually decline considerably from the loss of foreign trade.  Also, the loss of rare earth minerals from China would be devastating to much of the high tech industry.


Turning inward was also very bad for China from the 1400s to the 1900s, though you haven't suggested entirely turning inward, and China turned its back on progress entirely, which you also don't suggest.


I also don't see how this would prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon if it desired.

None the less, according to Noory, your writing of this today can't be a coincidence, as one person who likely agrees with virtually everything you wrote, Gerald Celente will be on Coast to Coast tonight, unless, of course, Noory has suddenly changed his economics adviser. 


(If anybody takes that literally, and I actually think most people get my 'joke',  I'm fully aware that Noory has four 'economics advisers' who appear seemingly at random on his show: Celente, Fitts, Egleshon and Shedlock.)


Were you aware that Celente would be on tonight?  I have to say I'd be surprised if you were.

[21st Century Man]

Hah, what would be the point of the bet? If you're right you can't collect.


To quote the supporters of this 'treaty' what's your alternative?  Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran?

No. I'm not going to defend McLame though I did find his parody amusing.  I would only sanction bombing if there was clear evidence of their imminent possession of nuclear weapons. I would just continue the previous policy.  I know it is not a good policy but cutting them off from as much help as possible is preferable.

[ACE of CLUBS]

Harper's 'job' has been running Canada, or didn't you notice ?

You didn't tell the world who would replace Harper ....
Reading your left-wing babble in the above thread, and that you're from British Columbia ........ Mad-Dog Mulcair. 
NDP ...... their collective heads have been up their asses for so long they think that atmosphere is 'normal' .....
Are you on welfare ?
Have you ever been employed ?

[Quick Karl]

I feel honored Susan Rice is taking time out of her busy schedule to post at BellGab.

[136 or 142]

No. I'm not going to defend McLame though I did find his parody amusing.  I would only sanction bombing if there was clear evidence of their imminent possession of nuclear weapons. I would just continue the previous policy.  I know it is not a good policy but cutting them off from as much help as possible is preferable.

It hasn't stopped Iran from developing its nuclear weaponry one bit.  In general, something is better than nothing though I agree there are flaws in this agreement.

BTW, bombing will do nothing.  Iran has technology and has placed their laboratories so deep that can't be penetrated by even so-called bunker busting missiles.


This is nothing new. In World War II the Allies basically destroyed Germany, but until late 1944 German munitions and materiel output actually increased each year.  I realize that war technology has changed a great deal since then, but it has both offensively and defensively, and in general, and in the specific case of Iran, the defense usually has the advantage.

If you don't like this deal, and you want to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, you're going to have to invade Iran and cause regime change.  Or, in the immortal words of Captain (formerly Admiral) Kirk, "Khan, you're going to have to come down here."


BTW, how exactly did Khan leave the planet he was imprisoned on and take possession of that space ship?

[Quick Karl]

    You cunty liberal Canadian spambot shitball. You've never uttered an original opinion, you're a cum dumpster of Soros bullshit. You're a teenaged twat without a single achievement in your wretched existence. You worthless shitstain.

  5-grins! The most I have ever given!

[136 or 142]

Harper's 'job' has been running Canada, or didn't you notice ?

You didn't tell the world who would replace Harper ....
Reading your left-wing babble in the above thread, and that you're from British Columbia ........ Mad-Dog Mulcair. 
NDP ...... their collective heads have been up their asses for so long they think that atmosphere is 'normal' .....
Are you on welfare ?
Have you ever been employed ?

I believe you meant to say: Harper's 'job' has been ruining Canada, or didn't you notice ?  Likely just a typo.

I am actually a long time supporter of the Federal Liberal Party though I would vote for anybody who had the best chance of beating Sleazy Stephie's (AKA he who cowers in closets) Party, even Calm Tom's NDP.

Typical right wing bullying that anybody who doesn't support the CONS must be on welfare.  You are a dimwitted Canadian Rethuglic (though in Canada even a slim majority of Conservative voters would vote for Obama/Democratic.  Hillary Rodham Clinton has over 80% support of Canadians to something like 15% for the highest backed Republican Jeb Bush.)  I am truly ashamed that you are a citizen of Canada.

I have a full time job.  Are you employed? and have you ever been on welfare?

[Quick Karl]

That said, drunk or sober, I wish your grandparents were strangled and dismembered before shitting out your parents.

Caustic, but I like it!