HAS a nuclear program, HAD a nuclear program, who cares? bomb em

[Michchamp]

White House corrects twitter "typo."

honestly, after Libya I'd imagine no country even remotely near our list of "places we can casually bomb" would be smart to get rid of its nuclear program.

John Bolton mentioning "Libya" as an example of someone who gave up their nuclear program when discussing North Korea's peace initiative was intentionally done to spook the North Koreans & sabotage the process.

Peace is bad for business!

 

[Michchamp]

link to Bolton's statement:

BOLTON: Yes, I think that's what denuclearization means. We have very much in mind the Libya model from 2003, 2004. There are obviously differences. The Libyan program was much smaller, but that was basically the agreement that we made.​

Yes, that worked out really well for the Libyan government and people...

 

[turok]

link to Bolton's statement:

BOLTON: Yes, I think that's what denuclearization means. We have very much in mind the Libya model from 2003, 2004. There are obviously differences. The Libyan program was much smaller, but that was basically the agreement that we made.​

Yes, that worked out really well for the Libyan government and people...

Surely you're not expecting Brushtashe Bolton to have a lick of common sense?

He will be a guest on Faux Ruse Sunday...say no more...say no more.

I'm guessing that NK might agree to ceasing all further development of more powerful and versatile nukes, but would they agree to observation of the total elimination and abandonment of what they already have?

 

[TheVictors]

Bolton.


Now there's a man in desperate need of a blowjob.

 

[Spartanmack]

link to Bolton's statement:

BOLTON: Yes, I think that's what denuclearization means. We have very much in mind the Libya model from 2003, 2004. There are obviously differences. The Libyan program was much smaller, but that was basically the agreement that we made.​

Yes, that worked out really well for the Libyan government and people...

Are you saying the Arab Spring and the overthrow of Qaddafi happened because they abandoned their nuclear program? yeah, if not for them giving up their nucs, Qaddafi would probably still be in charge since he'd probably use them on his own people in his own country. And too bad all those rogue tribal maniacs killing each other for control of the country didn't get to raid a cache of nucs when the deposed and killed Qaddafi. It would be so much better if another rogue state had nucs because how else are we going to bring geopolitical balance and keep rest of the world, the US in particular, in check?

 

[Michchamp]

We invaded Libya and attacked Gaddafi's forces, and cheered when he was killed.

I know this happened under Obama's watch, and by some accounts was pushed by then secretary of state Hillary Clinton. it was a horrible decision, and bad. Obama's foreign policy was generally awful, though nowhere near his predecessor or successor.

and she would've been a bad president. Her foreign policy would've represented the same psychotic aggressive, reckless foreign policy all "centrists" in DC advocate.

Libyans are much worse off now. How bad? The country is so lawless and violent they have open slave markets.

Unlike you... I can criticise both parties.

 

[Michchamp]

Invading countries is bad.

Even if they're ruled by a dictator who tortures and kills his own people.

It may have been excusable to think otherwise in 2002. At the time, I thought the invasion of Iraq might not be so bad, and would leave the country better off.

But now? as the War On Terror has been going on for 17 years and we've left multiple countries in ruins, at least a million people dead, and millions more displaces? how can anyone think otherwise?

When we invade other countries we will also kill their people - lots of them, AND torture them! We do that too now, thanks to Bush!

And then we leave the countries we invade in worse shape, having completely removed any semblence of law and order when we removed the government, and in the process bombed their electrical grid, hospitals, water plants, roads, bridges, dams, markets, etc. All of that is bad!

can you imagine how bad it would be if another country did that to us? That's how bad it is for them! You are capable of empathy, right?

 

[Spartanmack]

We invaded Libya and attacked Gaddafi's forces, and cheered when he was killed.

I know this happened under Obama's watch, and by some accounts was pushed by then secretary of state Hillary Clinton. it was a horrible decision, and bad. Obama's foreign policy was generally awful, though nowhere near his predecessor or successor.

and she would've been a bad president. Her foreign policy would've represented the same psychotic aggressive, reckless foreign policy all "centrists" in DC advocate.

Libyans are much worse off now. How bad? The country is so lawless and violent they have open slave markets.

Unlike you... I can criticise both parties.

I criticize Republicans all the time, the difference is I don't revise history. Whether the status quo was maintained or Obama and Hillary helped depose Qaddafi (that was arguably going to happen with or without our help), the rest of the world is better off than it would be if Libya had nucs.

Also, it's legitimately delusional to think Obama's foreign policy wasn't light years worse than Bush's.

 

[Spartanmack]

Invading countries is bad.

Even if they're ruled by a dictator who tortures and kills his own people.

It may have been excusable to think otherwise in 2002. At the time, I thought the invasion of Iraq might not be so bad, and would leave the country better off.

But now? as the War On Terror has been going on for 17 years and we've left multiple countries in ruins, at least a million people dead, and millions more displaces? how can anyone think otherwise?

When we invade other countries we will also kill their people - lots of them, AND torture them! We do that too now, thanks to Bush!

And then we leave the countries we invade in worse shape, having completely removed any semblence of law and order when we removed the government, and in the process bombed their electrical grid, hospitals, water plants, roads, bridges, dams, markets, etc. All of that is bad!

can you imagine how bad it would be if another country did that to us? That's how bad it is for them! You are capable of empathy, right?

there you go virtue signaling again to try to claim yours is the moral position. you can't argue facts so make the other side look like bad guys, call them racist, unsympathetic or whatever bogeyman fits your narrative.

That fact is, Iraq is a mess because Obama pulled out when the country wasn't prepared to manage its own security. Syria was a shit storm and would likely be as bad or worse than it is now. Personally, I'd prefer we never got involved in Syria, but that's 100% on Obama. Lybia is probably the same - the rebels were already fighting Qaddafi and had set up a provisional government before the US got involved, that wasn't likely to end well for Qaddafi either way.

Just because I don't blame the US for all the problems that have been plaguing the middle east for decades doesn't make me un-empathetic just like hating the US and blaming it for everything doesn't make your position the moral one.

 

[turok]

The Neocons stated that "Operation Iraqi Liberation" would be short, US troops would be greeted as liberators, and that it would "pay for itself". The US troop withdrawal was negotiated with the provisional Iraqi government before Obama took office.

Both the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and occupations, the latter which began almost a year and a half earlier, should have been successfully completed by the last half of Bush's second term. Bush's foreign policy was just as piss-poor as his domestic and economic policy, as vividly demonstrated by Katrina and the deep recession that began in late '07. The costs of all combat-related alone having been estimated @ as much as $$$8 trillion when the last vet passes away.

 

[TheVictors]

The Neocons stated that "Operation Iraqi Liberation" would be short, US troops would be greeted as liberators, and that it would "pay for itself". The US troop withdrawal was negotiated with the provisional Iraqi government before Obama took office.

Both the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and occupations, the latter which began almost a year and a half earlier, should have been successfully completed by the last half of Bush's second term. Bush's foreign policy was just as piss-poor as his domestic and economic policy, as vividly demonstrated by Katrina and the deep recession that began in late '07. The costs of all combat-related alone having been estimated @ as much as $$$8 trillion when the last vet passes away.

To say nothing about the collateral damage done to those who served - those who were sent on these missions over and over and over, deployed for years and now suffering PTSD and dozens of other psychological problems.

 

[Spartanmack]

The Neocons stated that "Operation Iraqi Liberation" would be short, US troops would be greeted as liberators, and that it would "pay for itself". The US troop withdrawal was negotiated with the provisional Iraqi government before Obama took office.

Both the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and occupations, the latter which began almost a year and a half earlier, should have been successfully completed by the last half of Bush's second term. Bush's foreign policy was just as piss-poor as his domestic and economic policy, as vividly demonstrated by Katrina and the deep recession that began in late '07. The costs of all combat-related alone having been estimated @ as much as $$$8 trillion when the last vet passes away.

no they didn't, Rumsfeld specifically stated it would take years and that we should be prepared for a long engagement and rebuilding effort. We learned that from the first go round in Afghanistan and the mess we left behind after the Russians were thrown out.

 

[Gulo Blue]

no they didn't, Rumsfeld specifically stated it would take years and that we should be prepared for a long engagement and rebuilding effort. We learned that from the first go round in Afghanistan and the mess we left behind after the Russians were thrown out.

November 14, 2002 - ?The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can?t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks or five months. But it certainly isn?t going to last any longer than that.? - Then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

 

[turok]

"There will be no World War III starting with Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared Thursday, and rejected concerns that a war would be a quagmire."

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990," he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program."

"He said the U.S. military is stronger than it was during the Persian Gulf War, while Iraq's armed forces are weaker."

"Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that," he said. "It won't be a World War III."




https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rumsfeld-it-would-be-a-short-war/

 

[Michchamp]

November 14, 2002 - ?The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can?t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks or five months. But it certainly isn?t going to last any longer than that.? - Then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Yes, that's what I remember too.

he also estimated like $50 billion tops, and as it turned out... they asked for $50 billion every 6 months, and that was on top of our usual bloated defense budget.

and no one cared. certainly no one in the media...

but money for healthcare, education, roads, bridges, trains, buses, public wifi? HOW CAN WE AFFORD THOSE THINGS?

 

[Gulo Blue]

They tried to portray it as playing out that way too. The 'Mission Accomplished' speech was after about a month and a half.

 

[Michchamp]

We're also only concerned with American deaths.

civilian casualties are "collateral damage."

Yet starting in Vietnam, and even in Iraq, American military leadership would claim "Asiatics" or now "Muslims" don't value human life like we do (as we invade and bomb the living shit out of their nations...)

 

[Spartanmack]

November 14, 2002 - ?The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can?t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks or five months. But it certainly isn?t going to last any longer than that.? - Then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

that's how long it took to defeat Saddam's army - nobody thought it would take years to that. you can pick up your mic now.

 

[Gulo Blue]

that's how long it took to defeat Saddam's army - nobody thought it would take years to that. you can pick up your mic now.

Read the quote. There's no defeating Saddam's army qualifier, "use of force in Iraq"

 

[Spartanmack]

Read the quote. There's no defeating Saddam's army qualifier, "use of force in Iraq"

I read the quote. You're missing the point. I'm not talking about the actual combat - maybe it was Powell and not Rumsfeld, but I'm pretty sure Rumsfeld talked about it too - we fully expected to be there for an extended period for the rebuilding. Recall his comments about countries who weren't part of the coalition shouldn't be part of the rebuilding.