He ran from Vietnam.
He has to testify to the 9/11 Commission holding Dick Cheney's hand.
He sent OTHER Americans to war that didn't need to happen.
He didn't stand up to corporations that wanted to pollute America.
He wore a wire during the debates because he was afraid of the questioning.
He's held less press conferences then any other president because, again, he's afraid of questions that aren't softballs.
He won't stand up for what's right and downsize the Inaugural Ball, which money could be used for body armor for the troops.
Finally, his name is "Bush" which describes a secondary female sex characteristic.
I rest my case.
>><I made up nothing, I simply pointed out there is no difference between North Korean situation and the Iraqi situation...>
And I simply showed why anyone with two or more functioning brain cells knows there is no comparison between the two.<<
...and you were wrong and I SHOWED that.
Find a "surrender agreement" between Iraq and the US/UN from Desert Storm ...you can't because there was a cease-fire, just like with North Korea...and North Korea HAD nukes and WAS a terrorist state.
So why did Bush invade Iraq, instead of North Korea, when North Korea is and was FAR more dangerous...
BTW, now, the CIA says that our illegal war in Iraq has turned that region into a "haven for terrorism," that wasn't there before the war.
Of course, that ignores and beggars the FACT that we are foreign fighters and terrorists in Iraq, too, as well as the Occupation there.
I made up nothing, I simply pointed out there is no difference between North Korean situation and the Iraqi situation, before this war, other than North Korea admitting to having nukes and Iraq having oil.
YOU pointed out the issues of a non-existent Iraqi "surrender" and the non-issue of terrorism, when it comes to Iraq....I then pointed out that both wars ended identically, with regards to how they ended: neither party "surrendered."
You also pointed out violations of a non-existent Iraqi "surrender agreement" and I pointed that such a document did not exist, since Iraq did not surrender.
You pointed out what I believe you might have meant to be UN Mandates on Iraq and Saddam's violation of them and I then pointed out that North Korea had likewise violated UN Mandates. North Korea's were FAR more serious, however, and, moreover, unlike Iraq, North Korea admitted to HAVING WMD and nukes and making MORE for sale at the time of the initial, illegal Iraq invasion.
You also mentioned something about "terrorism" and I pointed out that North Korea had been a terrorist state far longer, far more deadly and far more murderous to US and Jaaopnese and other forces in the area than Iraq EVER had.
Look it up...you'll find that it is you who are the, shall we say, "dumbass."
Iraq never surrendered, North Korea had nukes and admitted to them 2 years prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq. North Korea is a terrorist state which has killed FAR more people through terrorism than Iraq EVER had.
So why did Bush invade Iraq and not North Korea?
So Bush illegally attacked Iraq for its oil, breaking our cease fire and violating International Law, and ignored North Korea and their known EXISTING nuclear weapons that they have said they would sell to anyone with the cash based on his *OPINION* and because of the Iraqi oil?
I thought so...just wanted to get that clear.
>>They violated those terms hundreds of times and that is justification for action where no similar justification for action exists with North Korea.
There is no comparison.<<
Ask the Japanese...they will tell you different, as will the Filipinos and Russians and Chinese and South Koreans...and North Korea has been going on with WMD in violation of the Armistice since 1960--over 40 years...
There is plenty of comparison...you and Bush are too cowardly to admit it...and too involved in the lies that got us into Iraq for the oil, just like Desert Storm was.
...as usual, the Post gets history wrong...go back and look at my link again...it was a cease-fire...Iraq never signed a surrender document...go find it if they did, since there would have been a copy deposited in a National archive if there was.
Iraq never surrendered....Neither did North Korea...so why Iraq and not North Korea for our illegal attack, in violation of our mutual cease-fire.
>>Note: "and lose?" i.e. were there conditions of surrender?<<
Iraq NEVER "surrendered." It was a cease-fire. Just like for the Korean War...both Iraq and North Korea negotiated "settlements," as part of their respective cease-fires.
Look it up.
Actually, the KOREAN War ended in the closest thing to a surrender: an armistice, just like WW I, but North Korea DID agreee to Terms of Armistice and a companion cease-fire with its terms, both of which negotiated and amended and appended agreements the North Korean government is SERIOUSLY in violation of today...
So again: why Iraq and not North Korea, which EVERYONE agrees and they ADMIT has nukes and did before the Iraq invasion? Why did the US violate not only International Law, but the terms of the cease-fire with Iraq that the US had insisted on after Desert Storm?
The answer can either be cowardice on the part of the Bush Administration or Iraqi oil....or both.
...and stop taking the Lord's name in vain...they burn you at the stake for that in Jesusland, don't they?
>> It was called the Korean War.
> Look at what I asked, for once.
Look at what YOU asked for, for once.
The conversation was:
>> Did North Korea fight and lose a war of
>> aggression and sign a surrender agreement
>> with specific terms and then violate those
> It was called the Korean War.
Which is Korbomite saying "yes, in the Korean War".
What is Kim Jon Il doing right now?
I guess the United States better invade...
You're so stupid to support this moronic war that Bush dragged us into. Don't worry about it though, if the US looses, and it sure looks like an unwinnable war to me, you'll just blame the liberals and not the halfwits that started the war in the first place.
>>Did North Korea fight and lose a war of aggression and sign a surrender agreement with specific terms and then violate those terms?<<
It was called the Korean War.
>>Did they openly send money in support of terrorism to destabilize the area?<<
Yes. Just ask any Japanese, Chinese or South Korean about the North Korean terrorist threats over the last 35 years.
>>That issue was vetted and a majority felt other issues were more important than relying on faulty intelligence.<<
Like gay marriage...more fabricated imaginary measures of superiority for you idiots in Jesusland...meanwhile, Bush lied and soldiers died.