Except for the fact prior to Libya they had been at the negotiating table with that very chip on the table as something they were willing to give up for the right price.

Once again, here are some sources to support my point about Gaddafi's demise reshaping North Korean nuclear strategy.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/10/opinions/ ... index.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/north-kor ... to-stop-it

"North Korea wanted a nuclear weapon that could reach the United States for a very simple reason: Kim Jong Un and his cronies in Pyongyang watched as the United States assembled a massive invasion force against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, then used airpower to aid the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi. The latter was especially frightening for the North Koreans, because Gaddafi had abandoned his WMD programs in a disarmament deal and was then offered up by the Bush administration as an intermediary who would vouch to North Korea that the U.S. keeps its promises.

The deal ended with Gaddafi’s gruesome death on camera. North Korea doesn’t plan to wait around like Saddam or Gaddafi."

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

You're right, it's not complicated. Most people understand that was Bush's war.

But you're a team player for the right so you're gonna play the BOTH SIDES card no matter how foolish it is.

Without Bush and his handlers ridiculous idea in the first place there is nothing to vote on.

Dems could have stopped it, he created it. Important distinction.

How were Iraq and Libya similar? Isn't that what you stated? You're providing a rationale for North Korea's actions. I'm wondering how Libya and Iraq were similar since that was your original statement.

_________________

Given our history in the middle East, Isis was inevitable. It's a completely neocon talking point to continue the fraud that Obama's policy, in light of Iraq's posturing in 07-08 was the cause. That group didn't/doesn't know shit from shinola except to cry to the media about their version of a "fair" retelling of their fucking ups.

As for North Korea, republican policy in the early 2000s with lying about wmds and UN inspections and subsequently walking away from the rice for inspection deal really is the basis for the problem there, psychopathic pgymy leader aside

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

Ok I'm following the logic now. Militaristic dictator states that he is continuing his nukes program because he doesn't trust the U.S. ok you believe him and I don't. I get it.

_________________

It should be very simple to comprehend. Both were rogue actors (or at least designated as such) who did not have any WMD's on hand. Either because their programs had been destroyed or surrendered. Without WMD's, they were both easy prey when US action led to the end of their regimes. Had either nation had WMD's, they would not have been so easy to depose.

North Korea saw this and thus sees the nuclear program and the deterrence it provides as a key to the survival of the regime. Had we allowed the regimes of Saddam and Gaddafi to survive without their WMD programs (remember Gaddafi willingly gave it up) then North Korea would probably be willing to surrender their own for a price.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

Is North Korea wrong to not believe us? Gaddafi trusted us when he gave up his WMD's and we back-stabbed him because our Secretary of State needed some accomplishment to run on in 2016.

Sorry, but the facts of the matter are fairly clear here. North Korea has seen 2 prime examples this century of a nation with no WMD program suffering regime change at our hands. It is pretty easy for them to conclude that they require one when their #1 goal is the survival of the regime.

If this is going over your head, then I'm going to seriously question the credentials which you claim.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

Ogie, you believe he would be giving up his arms if not for Libya?

United States isnt a threat to North Korea. That's a myth. We warred with them already and had our heads handed to us. The outgrowth was actually the formation of the Country. If they were going to invade it would have occurred a long time ago. Standing army of Korea is stronger than the combined armies of Libya and Iraq. U.S. only seeks to counter check North Korean intentions with respect to South Korea.

_________________

He would for the right price. It seems that prior to Libya the NK nuclear program was a giant extortion tool to be used at the bargaining table.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

and at times tensions have risen near the point of war. This happened prior to the 1994 deal. Remember, while we have a residual force there, it is possible to move a larger force into North Korea in event of heightened tensions. The US military is the best logistical force in the world, it is designed to be able to be transported by ship and air halfway across the globe to fight.

We have talked about regime change on and off in regards to North Korea. That talk is not ignored by them, especially after that policy has been seen in action.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

Ogie means well. Sometimes he's sending his worst thoughts, but many, I assume, are also good thoughts.

_________________

Here we go with the credentials game again. Maybe I should check with the grand pubas of the board in order to ascertain whether this constitutes a personal attack? Also the whole thing regarding "over your head". That's a recurring theme with you also.

_________________

The U.S. wants no part of North Korea if it means having to fight a conventional war. Possibility of Chinese intervention virtually insures that there won't be an invasion.

North Korea is a militaristic dictatorship and has been for the better part of 60 years. I don't think they'd dismantle their nuclear program for anyone or anything.

_________________

They expressed a willingness to dismantle it in 1994. They backed away from that first when Bush went in with his axis of evil speech, were further pushed that direction by the demise of Saddam, and completely galvanized on the position that nukes are required for survival after Gaddafi's end. This is a long string of connected events stretching from a time where they did peacefully give up the weapons program until today's line of thinking that it is required to survive.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

Maybe someone needs to question your credentials. Axis of Evil speech was given in 2002 not 1994. When did they "peacefully give up nuclear program"?. They were alleged to have been in development of nukes at the time axis of evil speech was given. That's one of the reasons they were included in the speech.

_________________

we had a deal in 1994, NK kept to it and this was verified via inspections. They abandoned it after the 2002 axis of evil speech. I have provided sources to back up the trail of events and how it influenced North Korea's strategy here. I would ask you to source your own arguments, but I know better than to do that as you'll end up posting something without reading it only to find that it supports my own argument. You kind of have a habit of doing that.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

Before they developed the ability to use possessive pronouns.

_________________

It should be noted that the 1994 North Korean deal provided the framework for the 2015 Iran Deal. That 1994 Korean deal could have held if we didn't blow it up. The fact that LTG is ignorant of this fact says plenty for someone who claims to be a Middle East expert.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

Nah that is sort of a myth provided by people that don't read sources I provide. What will likely happen is that it will become a battle of sources with you attempting to discredit those that I provide.

_________________

Never claimed to be a Middle East expert.

_________________

Your subjective use of "facts" is really quite telling.

_________________

I'm still yet to see a single fact from you in this discussion. I sourced my arguments.

Perhaps you should tap out of this one if you weren't even aware of the 1994 nuclear deal and what it entailed.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

There is a misrepresentation of facts and one of your sources supports the propaganda theory.I'm also aware of the 94 agreement too.

It's much more likely that U.S. military bases stationed in South Korea are the reason they felt the need to develop nuclear weapons. You're really naive if you believe that actions in Iraq and Libya precipitated it. I actually believe U.S. intelligence when they say that the North Koreans have never really stopped in their efforts to develop nukes.

_________________

Middle East: USA at fault.
Cold War: USA at fault.
North Korea: USA at fault.

Noticing a trend...

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

So do I. Actually noticed it awhile ago. Thanks for furthering validating it.

_________________

Actually, the GOP had a 10 vote majority in the House and the tie breaking vote in the Senate. So they could not have, in fact, stopped it.

I change my mind. Bush was great.

_________________

They did not have the tie breaking vote in the Senate. The Senate vote was in October 2002 when the GOP did have a majority. The Democrats had a majority as Jim Jeffords left the GOP in June 2001. The GOP did not have a majority in the Senate until 3 months after the vote.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

it's a pretty simple restating of the basic facts. NK was in a deal with us, they held to it and abandoned it when Bush blew it up. They were open to returning to a new deal (at a cost) but abandoned that idea and went full into their nuclear program after we deposed 2 dictators who had no WMDs. One of whom had actually willing surrendered them. This chain of events led them to conclude that WMD's are the only tool which can ensure the survival of the regime. We can never go back to a 1994 deal after removing Saddam and Gaddafi.

Let me know where this is confusing you. I'll try to explain in a manner which even you can understand.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson