quote:Originally posted by bond006: Preasident George W scrapped any chances of continued talks by breaking all the agreements set in motion by Carter and Clinton
Lol... thanks for your amazing insight... really clears things up. Bdgee has only said that about a dozens times already.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, I've only said that about a dozen times and you haven't bothered to pay attention.
Bond is reporting a fact that you refuse to accept, because prefer to ruminate on the far rightwing cud. You can't support those lies with any credible references because there are none, only propaganda from the far right.
As to your questions, they are of the form:
Since A is true, then explain B.
Sadly, the claims you make for the truth of A are false rather than true, therefor there is no possible answer that is logical.
I will make no attempt to answer any chilishly assinine and illogical construction of a question that requires that I accept a known rightwing lie as a truth in order to have an answer.
Your absurd insistance that NK violated an agreement with the Clinton administration prior to the violation of those agreements by Bush in 2000 is an insistance of a lie of the rightwing propaganda machine.
IP: Logged |
posted
Every one of those makes a false assumption, which, on the one hand, you are either too dishonest to admit, too stubborn to see, or too stupid to understand.
You are right, I can't answer your questions, because they are of a logical construction that requires the acceptance of a falsehood as a fact and any answer is illogical as it must accept as a fact a lie you are promoting.
Your questions are all of the same construction as "Have you stopped breating your wife?"
Any answer accepts as fact the included assumption that the poor devil being questiond was beating his wife.
Are you too stupid to understand that you are demandiong I accept as fact the nonsense you can't and won't provide credible support for?
These are the same as the lies before the invasion of Iraq to the effect that Saddam had not destroyed his WMDs (as we have now proved and had conclusoive evidence for at the time, he had destroyed them and Bush was lying) and that he was refusing UN requirements to do exactly what he had done.
You are promoting lies!
I will not promote those lies with you by supplying any answer to your loaded questions that assume as fact deliberate lies.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Every one of those makes a false assumption, which, on the one hand, you are either too dishonest to admit, too stubborn to see, or too stupid to understand.
You are right, I can't answer your questions, because they are of a logical construction that requires the acceptance of a falsehood as a fact and any answer is illogical as it must accept as a fact a lie you are promoting.
Your questions are all of the same construction as "Have you stopped breating your wife?"
Any answer accepts as fact the included assumption that the poor devil being questiond was beating his wife.
Are you too stupid to understand that you are demandiong I accept as fact the nonsense you can't and won't provide credible support for?
These are the same as the lies before the invasion of Iraq to the effect that Saddam had not destroyed his WMDs (as we have now proved and had conclusoive evidence for at the time, he had destroyed them and Bush was lying) and that he was refusing UN requirements to do exactly what he had done.
You are promoting lies!
I will not promote those lies with you by supplying any answer to your loaded questions that assume as fact deliberate lies.
Whatever makes you feel better Bdgee....
They are the facts... look it up, don't take my word for it.
IP: Logged |
posted
US grants N Korea nuclear funds Wednesday, 3 April, 2002
quote:The US Government has announced that it will release $95m to North Korea as part of an agreement to replace the Stalinist country's own nuclear programme, which the US suspected was being misused.
Under the 1994 Agreed Framework an international consortium is building two proliferation-proof nuclear reactors and providing fuel oil for North Korea while the reactors are being built.
In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors.
President Bush argued that the decision was "vital to the national security interests of the United States".
posted
I don't take your word for it because you only report the crap that the RNC puts out and it has proved over and over again to be false.
As little as only 5 months ago, you were demanding I accept as fact that there were WMDS in Iraq and you provided the same sort of "proof" then.
You need to get off your anti-commmunist hate campaign against everyone that doesn't worship the RNC and Bush.
The communist threat was never what your kind claimed it to be and is now defunct if it ever was a danger to the U.S.
The only real dangers to the U. S. in the present are the fascist leanings of the RNC and Bush and fanatics that use false claims in order to promote and maintain hostilities between the U.S. and other parts of the world.
IP: Logged |
Those are AFTER dubya trashed all the the agreements, including any with the UN.
When you have broken a pledge to an agreement, that frees the other side too....and they are freed without being guilty of the breaking.
Calling them names or saying they are no longer cooperating with the now non-existant agreement doesn't eliminate the fact that it was you that broke the agreement.
IP: Logged |
Clinton 'had plans to attack N. Korea reactor' Monday, December 16, 2002
quote:ROTTERDAM, The Netherlands -- Former U.S. President Bill Clinton says he had plans in the early 1990s to attack and destroy North Korea's nuclear facilities after the secretive communist state was found to be producing weapons-grade plutonium.
posted
The fact of the matter is, that the Bush administration continued with the 1994 framework until the end of 2002 when it was suspected, and then confirmed by NK, that Kim Jong was pursuing nuclear weapons in violation of the 1994 framework.
In addition to pursuing nuclear weapons using enriched uranium instead of plutonium, NK still hadn't fully complied with IAEA inspection and the terms of the NPT by the end of 2002 when the Bush Administration decided to "trash can" the deal.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
posted
There have been several studies in the last few years pointing out that the increase in derailments is coincident with the lack of bed maintenance by the RRs.
I didn't keep any links to those studies, as it is rare that I find anyone other than me that shows interest in such information, but it shouldn't be too difficult to locate them on the net.
I recall the ones I saw were government studies that were very much contrary to what the RRs put out.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: The fact of the matter is, that the Bush administration continued with the 1994 framework until the end of 2002 when it was suspected, and then confirmed by NK, that Kim Jong was pursuing nuclear weapons in violation of the 1994 framework.
In addition to pursuing nuclear weapons using enriched uranium instead of plutonium, NK still hadn't fully complied with IAEA inspection and the terms of the NPT by the end of 2002 when the Bush Administration decided to "trash can" the deal.
Bush haulted those talks immediately after taking office in 2000.
You need to stop getting your "facts" from the RNC.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Note the date, dufus....
Those are AFTER dubya trashed all the the agreements, including any with the UN.
When you have broken a pledge to an agreement, that frees the other side too....and they are freed without being guilty of the breaking.
Calling them names or saying they are no longer cooperating with the now non-existant agreement doesn't eliminate the fact that it was you that broke the agreement.
Two weeks ago you said Clinton made no such agreements with Jong. Do you remember? I will gladly show you your posts in case your alzheimer disease is awakening again.
But now you are saying the agreements were broken by Bush. What is causing your confusion? Do you have stupid on the brain?
IP: Logged |
posted
My English is better than most Americans. So you say there were agreements but they were supposedly "not formalized." According to who? According to you. What the hell is an agreement if it is not formal or official? Stop playing party politics and admit you really have no idea of what you are saying.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
