• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US, Iran nuclear deal spurs bipartisan concern in Congress

Reality? Reality is that Clinton policy of containment was shown to be a failure long before Bush. Libs tend to be duped by ignoble parties in things like this, largely because they approach it with emotion and desire instead of using their brains...

fact is that the north koreans detonated their first nuclear device well into the dicknbush presidency
that's THE reality
one you want to avoid addressing
it was the last republican administration that failed to prevent the north koreans from joining the league of nuclear weapon holders
now, let's compare that outcome with what has happened on Obama's watch
 
fact is that the north koreans detonated their first nuclear device well into the dicknbush presidency
that's THE reality
one you want to avoid addressing
it was the last republican administration that failed to prevent the north koreans from joining the league of nuclear weapon holders
now, let's compare that outcome with what has happened on Obama's watch
But Korea built their nukes during Clinton's reign. Things don't happen overnight. And if it wasn't for the liberals blindness Korea wouldn't have a nuke today.
 
But Korea built their nukes during Clinton's reign. Things don't happen overnight. And if it wasn't for the liberals blindness Korea wouldn't have a nuke today.

that is like saying if the iranians detonate a nuclear weapon we can blame it on dicknbush, because the efforts were active during that regime
 
that is like saying if the iranians detonate a nuclear weapon we can blame it on dicknbush, because the efforts were active during that regime
Nope because now, during Obama we have the ability and the time to stop them.
 
Nope because now, during Obama we have the ability and the time to stop them.

just as dicknbush had the ability, an agreement, and the time to monitor north korea
but you refuse to blame that republican administration for allowing NK to join the nuclear weapons club
meanwhile you express disdain for Obama's efforts to stymie iran's efforts without going to war to accomplish it
your double standard is showing
 
fact is that the north koreans detonated their first nuclear device well into the dicknbush presidency
that's THE reality
one you want to avoid addressing
it was the last republican administration that failed to prevent the north koreans from joining the league of nuclear weapon holders
now, let's compare that outcome with what has happened on Obama's watch

The primary difference (disclaimer: I support exploring the current deal) is the ability to act. A variety of circumstances made the prospect of a military strike on North Korea very risky with enormous potential for radiating consequences including massive casualties on the Korean peninsula, Japan, and major economic disruption. Nevertheless a strike on Yongbyon was seriously considered by the Clinton administration in 1994 and contemplated a major deployment of troops and equipment to Korea and Japan. The 'breakthrough' Carter achieved put a stop to that and given what they agreed to weighed against the risk of an attack its easy to understand why they opted to accept the agreement.

On Iran the same situation does not exist. Not only have sanctions apparently yielded some results (as they rarely do with autarkik North Korea) but military actions are a plausible option without the attendant catastrophic consequences that a North Korean attack might yield. So the burden on the Bush and Obama administrations is considerably higher than it was for Clinton who did not face the same situation.
 
The primary difference (disclaimer: I support exploring the current deal) is the ability to act. A variety of circumstances made the prospect of a military strike on North Korea very risky with enormous potential for radiating consequences including massive casualties on the Korean peninsula, Japan, and major economic disruption. Nevertheless a strike on Yongbyon was seriously considered by the Clinton administration in 1994 and contemplated a major deployment of troops and equipment to Korea and Japan. The 'breakthrough' Carter achieved put a stop to that and given what they agreed to weighed against the risk of an attack its easy to understand why they opted to accept the agreement.

On Iran the same situation does not exist. Not only have sanctions apparently yielded some results (as they rarely do with autarkik North Korea) but military actions are a plausible option without the attendant catastrophic consequences that a North Korean attack might yield. So the burden on the Bush and Obama administrations is considerably higher than it was for Clinton who did not face the same situation.

that is hogwash
nothing more than an excuse for the dicknbush regime's failure to intercede before NK developed THE bomb
meanwhile criticizing the present administration for actually having accomplished non-proliferation without reliance on warfare
 
that is hogwash

nothing more than an excuse for the dicknbush regime's failure to intercede before NK developed THE bomb
meanwhile criticizing the present administration for actually having accomplished non-proliferation without reliance on warfare

The NK bomb was DEVELOPED and built during the Clinton administration.

You know, thanks to Clintons and Carters "non-proliferation without reliance on warfare" strategy.

Why are you so repulsed by the truth ?
 
that is like saying if the iranians detonate a nuclear weapon we can blame it on dicknbush, because the efforts were active during that regime

Grow up will ya? But to an extent sure...But let's take a look at shall we? During the time that Bush was in office, his hands were kind of full, but yeah, I suppose if you think we should have invaded Iran at the time then say it.

But you and I both know that Obama sitting down with Iran today from a position of weakness, and signing the deal he did yesterday, all but ensured that Iran will now at the very least remain a 'break out' nation, and use that leverage for decades as a weapon of its own. Good job.

Obama, and his group of mealy mouthed emotion driven progressives, whom think that "America is no more exceptional than Greece, or England, or France" have now all but ensured that at least a regional war is in the offing sometime in the future....

But, hey you go right ahead and continue to go down the road of waiting for a 'republican' to hang it on...The honesty of that is astounding.
 
Grow up will ya? But to an extent sure...But let's take a look at shall we? During the time that Bush was in office, his hands were kind of full, but yeah, I suppose if you think we should have invaded Iran at the time then say it.

But you and I both know that Obama sitting down with Iran today from a position of weakness, and signing the deal he did yesterday, all but ensured that Iran will now at the very least remain a 'break out' nation, and use that leverage for decades as a weapon of its own. Good job.

Obama, and his group of mealy mouthed emotion driven progressives, whom think that "America is no more exceptional than Greece, or England, or France" have now all but ensured that at least a regional war is in the offing sometime in the future....

But, hey you go right ahead and continue to go down the road of waiting for a 'republican' to hang it on...The honesty of that is astounding.
more accurately stated, the honesty of it is deafening
as you and your ilk are inclined to show us
 
I am disappointed in you on this bubba.

no doubt
you would much prefer your hypocrisy be ignored
blaming Obama for a diplomatic success in working to fashion an agreement keeping nuclear weapons out of iranian hands, while simultaneously ignoring that dicknbush sat on their hands while watching north korea ignore the agreement it had signed while it did go nuclear ... nucular
 
that is hogwash
nothing more than an excuse for the dicknbush regime's failure to intercede before NK developed THE bomb
meanwhile criticizing the present administration for actually having accomplished non-proliferation without reliance on warfare

I'll take it you don't intend to engage on the subject intelligently. Alright then.
 
no doubt
you would much prefer your hypocrisy be ignored
blaming Obama for a diplomatic success in working to fashion an agreement keeping nuclear weapons out of iranian hands, while simultaneously ignoring that dicknbush sat on their hands while watching north korea ignore the agreement it had signed while it did go nuclear ... nucular


Cute...But aside from the childish quips, would there have even been a program to worry about had Clinton not give him the damned materials? What a joke....So, it's only the end product when a demo you like is involved? And you call me a hypocrite?
 
So now Lil Kim has the bomb, and Iran may get one. Now, the most important issue is whether we can blame the Republicans or the Democrats.
 
So now Lil Kim has the bomb, and Iran may get one. Now, the most important issue is whether we can blame the Republicans or the Democrats.

Don't we have to correctly know history in order not to repeat it?
 
Don't we have to correctly know history in order not to repeat it?

Good point. It is important to know just how NK was allowed to get the bomb, and not repeat it. Now, is arguing about whether the president had a D or an R after his name when this was happening really pertinent?
 
Good point. It is important to know just how NK was allowed to get the bomb, and not repeat it. Now, is arguing about whether the president had a D or an R after his name when this was happening really pertinent?

The process has both involved, however comparison would have to compare equal stages in that process.
 
The process has both involved, however comparison would have to compare equal stages in that process.

The stages in the process don't depend on whether the Tweedleblicans or the Tweedledumocrats had the White House while it was happening. There were many factors, China being chief among them.
 
The stages in the process don't depend on whether the Tweedleblicans or the Tweedledumocrats had the White House while it was happening. There were many factors, China being chief among them.

I understand you love to portray yourself as not liking either party, and in some respects that is admirable. However, the facts of who did what, at what stage is important. It goes to core differences in ideology.
 
I understand you love to portray yourself as not liking either party, and in some respects that is admirable. However, the facts of who did what, at what stage is important. It goes to core differences in ideology.

I'm not so sure those "core differences in ideology" are really as different as you think. It's mostly mouth noises that are different.
 
Back
Top Bottom