Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    So if a non-nuclear country attack US with non-nuclear weapon, we will retaliate with non-nuclear weapon. If a nuclear country attack using non-neclear weapons, we still retaliate using non-nuclear weapon. If a nuclear country attack with nuclear weapon, it violate the non-proliferation treaty therefore qualify for a nuclear retaliation. Then of course, you have those country that goes into the exception list. So......... what's wrong?
    Posted by tristelune


    He's pledged to not build anymore nuclear weapons. Well, if other countries don't do the same then that could potentially be a problem.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : He's pledged to not build anymore nuclear weapons. Well, if other countries don't do the same then that could potentially be a problem.
    Posted by hawkeye01

    Sorry but this is a lot of BS about nothing. Every administration has basically said the same thing. "We will not use nukes first". As much as I like to use Obama as a political punching bag, there is no story here.

    As for building more nukes, we can destroy the world something like 20 times now. Would that 21st time make that big of a difference?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : Sorry but this is a lot of BS about nothing. Every administration has basically said the same thing. "We will not use nukes first". As much as I like to use Obama as a political punching bag, there is no story here. As for building more nukes, we can destroy the world something like 20 times now. Would that 21st time make that big of a difference?
    Posted by brat13


    I wasn't aware every administration has stated the same thing as Obama. I obviously missed that over these many years.
    Guess there's no issue then. Cool. Let's move on to the next issue.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    It really is a bunch of BS. Obama is still trying to make concessions to get rouge leaders to like him and not hate America. Good luck with that.

    They will as seen below keep kicking sand in his face until they have the ability to do more.

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad derided Obama on Wednesday, depicting him as an ineffective leader influenced by Israel to target Iran more aggressively.

    "American materialist politicians, whenever they are beaten by logic, immediately resort to their weapons like cowboys,"

    "Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer (to politics). Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience. Be careful not to read just any paper put in front of you or repeat any statement recommended," Ahmadinejad said in the speech, aired live on state TV.

    Ahmadinejad said Obama "is under the pressure of capitalists and the Zionists" and vowed Iran would not be pushed around. "(American officials) bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn't do a damn thing, let alone you," he said, addressing Obama.

    Nice! Basically called our President a big pvssy! Boy, we sure gained the respect of the world since Bush huh?

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : I wasn't aware every administration has stated the same thing as Obama. I obviously missed that over these many years. Guess there's no issue then. Cool. Let's move on to the next issue.
    Posted by hawkeye01

    The only difference I can see is the dirty bomb exemption Obama put in. BUT if a country used a dirty bomb against us, I think that would put the country out of compliance with several UN non-proliferation treaties so nukes would be on the table.
    It looks to me like a carefully crafted BS statement that tries to mollify the moonbats without losing the moderates.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ltown1. Show Ltown1's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : Sorry but this is a lot of BS about nothing. Every administration has basically said the same thing. "We will not use nukes first". As much as I like to use Obama as a political punching bag, there is no story here. As for building more nukes, we can destroy the world something like 20 times now. Would that 21st time make that big of a difference?
    Posted by brat13


    Brat,
         I think this is the first post from you where you demonstrated rational, logical thoughts. 

    Great job!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : Brat,      I think this is the first post from you where you demonstrated rational, logical thoughts.  Great job!
    Posted by Ltown1

    No Town, I do in most of my posts. Because I don't always agree with you doesn't make them illogical or irrational.
    That is where you fall off the track. I understand rational people can disagree without calling names or telling the other they are not thinking straight. We all think straight with regards to our own brain, nationality and up bringing. These are opinions and none are 100% right nor 100% wrong. They are just what they are. I have had countless Guinness with "left of left, liberal" friends discussing these opinions. Usually gets loud and heated BUT never disrespectful and always ends with a heartfelt hug and promise for another round in the near future. Also we usually agree that we all KNOW we all love our country and care about our neighbors. We just disagree on how to show it.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : No Town, I do in most of my posts. Because I don't always agree with you doesn't make them illogical or irrational. That is where you fall off the track. I understand rational people can disagree without calling names or telling the other they are not thinking straight. We all think straight with regards to our own brain, nationality and up bringing. These are opinions and none are 100% right nor 100% wrong. They are just what they are. I have had countless Guinness with "left of left, liberal" friends discussing these opinions. Usually gets loud and heated BUT never disrespectful and always ends with a heartfelt hug and promise for another round in the near future. Also we usually agree that we all KNOW we all love our country and care about our neighbors. We just disagree on how to show it.
    Posted by brat13


    Very well said.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    It really is a bunch of BS. Obama is still trying to make concessions to get rouge leaders to like him and not hate America. Good luck with that. They will as seen below keep kicking sand in his face until they have the ability to do more. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad derided Obama on Wednesday, depicting him as an ineffective leader influenced by Israel to target Iran more aggressively. "American materialist politicians, whenever they are beaten by logic, immediately resort to their weapons like cowboys," "Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer (to politics). Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience. Be careful not to read just any paper put in front of you or repeat any statement recommended," Ahmadinejad said in the speech, aired live on state TV. Ahmadinejad said Obama "is under the pressure of capitalists and the Zionists" and vowed Iran would not be pushed around. "(American officials) bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn't do a damn thing, let alone you," he said, addressing Obama. Nice! Basically called our President a big pvssy! Boy, we sure gained the respect of the world since Bush huh?
    Posted by sk8ter2008


    Yeah because Ahmadinejad was so respectful with regard to the United States when GWB was president. 

    No one cares about whether rogue regimes "respect" us since we don't have relations with them anyway.  Their "respect" for us is a complete nonissue and represents nothing of any significance. 
     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    Nice! Basically called our President a big pvssy! Boy, we sure gained the respect of the world since Bush huh?
    Posted by sk8ter2008


    Oh snap, he called Obama a b*tch.  Playground rules dictate that the only thing to do now is bomb Iran.

    ...(btw, what praise did he shower on Bush?)...

    It was supposed to be a veiled threat to Iran/NK; and of course, a meaningless "promise" not to nuke people who wouldn't attack us and whom we wouldn't nuke anyway:

    "Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates made the choice explicit. “There is a message for Iran and North Korea here,” he told reporters on Tuesday.

    Nonnuclear states that abide by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would not be threatened with nuclear retaliation by the United States — even if they conducted conventional, biological or cyber attacks. But, he added, “if you’re not going to play by the rules, if you’re going to be a proliferator, then all options are on the table in terms of how we deal with you.”"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/07arms.html?hpw

    So skeeter, you see, it is not a concession to Iran or NK at all, it's a threat:  We promised not to nuke other nonnuclear countries (fingers crossed behind back), but we won't promise not to nuke you.

    But of course, I cannot seriously entertain the possibility that we would nuke Iran or NK without having been nuked first.... 



     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ItsATravesty. Show ItsATravesty's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    Taking Isreal out first would better appease his Muslim Extremists friends.
    Kumbaya baby.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : Oh snap, he called Obama a b*tch.  Playground rules dictate that the only thing to do now is bomb Iran. ...(btw, what praise did he shower on Bush?)... It was supposed to be a veiled threat to Iran/NK; and of course, a meaningless "promise" not to nuke people who wouldn't attack us and whom we wouldn't nuke anyway: "Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates made the choice explicit. “There is a message for Iran and North Korea here,” he told reporters on Tuesday. Nonnuclear states that abide by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would not be threatened with nuclear retaliation by the United States — even if they conducted conventional, biological or cyber attacks. But, he added, “if you’re not going to play by the rules, if you’re going to be a proliferator, then all options are on the table in terms of how we deal with you.”" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/07arms.html?hpw So skeeter, you see, it is not a concession to Iran or NK at all, it's a threat:  We promised not to nuke other nonnuclear countries (fingers crossed behind back), but we won't promise not to nuke you. But of course, I cannot seriously entertain the possibility that we would nuke Iran or NK without having been nuked first.... 
    Posted by WhatIsItNow


    Yea, keep thinking veiled threats have any effect.

    Russia, China, India, Israel, Afganistan, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Iraq, France have all made direct critisizms and "veiled threats" towards the US and this administration in the last year.

    That is unprecedented and most of these were strong partners a years ago.

    Wasn't Obama going to heal America's wrongs and gain support from these countries????

    Lets hear your excuses.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    Yea, keep thinking veiled threats have any effect.
    Posted by sk8ter2008


    Who said I thought they had effect?  All my posts in this thread said his "promise" has no effect, but might be intended as a threat.  Then the article came out today quoting officials who said it was supposed to be a threat.

    You decided to call it a "concession", and I was pointing out how miserably wrong you were.  (I'd love to hear how you think telling someone you'll nuke them if you want to is a concession)



    But since your hate for Obama has destroyed your reading comprehension, let's see if you can answer this:

    How is saying that we might nuke Iran different from Bush's statement that all options are on the table?  Same thing: We might nuke you.

    And query whether Bush's statements made things worse.  He tied us up in Iraq unnecessairly.  NK and Iran are crazy but not stupid - they knew perfectly well that we could not invade them without a draft to produce the troops.  They also knew that Bush would not commit political suicide by asking for a draft.

    That's why NK started f**king with us under Bush's watch and built nuclear weapons, and Iran went full steam ahead in its program. 

    Do I think Obama's going to have any better luck than Bush with them?  No.  But I also can't imagine how you can call a threat "we might nuke you" a "concession."

    The only way "we might nuke you" is a concession would be if, a week ago, he said "we are going to nuke you within the month".  That's how English words work.




    You struggle so hard to torture anything Obama does into a mistake.   You may not like his policies but you're just being ridiculous most of the time.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ItsATravesty. Show ItsATravesty's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : Not with Rahm Emanuel sitting in his lap
    Posted by GreginMeffa


    I do wonder who is sitting in whose lap in that relationship.
    I never heard the words 'trust' and 'Emanuel' in the same sentence.
    Do you think Israel TRUSTS Rahm ? Rhetorical question.

    Strange bedfellows.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    Yesterday he said he would never use nuclear weapons against a nation that didn't have nuclear weapons. ------------------------------ My God!  He's gonna nuke England!
    Posted by GreginMeffa

    Book I am reading has us and Canada going mano-a-mano! Nuke, nuke, nuke Can-a-da!!
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : Who said I thought they had effect?  All my posts in this thread said his "promise" has no effect, but might be intended as a threat.  Then the article came out today quoting officials who said it was supposed to be a threat. You decided to call it a "concession", and I was pointing out how miserably wrong you were.  (I'd love to hear how you think telling someone you'll nuke them if you want to is a concession) But since your hate for Obama has destroyed your reading comprehension, let's see if you can answer this: How is saying that we might nuke Iran different from Bush's statement that all options are on the table?  Same thing: We might nuke you. And query whether Bush's statements made things worse.  He tied us up in Iraq unnecessairly.  NK and Iran are crazy but not stupid - they knew perfectly well that we could not invade them without a draft to produce the troops.  They also knew that Bush would not commit political suicide by asking for a draft. That's why NK started f**king with us under Bush's watch and built nuclear weapons, and Iran went full steam ahead in its program.  Do I think Obama's going to have any better luck than Bush with them?  No.  But I also can't imagine how you can call a threat "we might nuke you" a "concession." The only way "we might nuke you" is a concession would be if, a week ago, he said "we are going to nuke you within the month".  That's how English words work. You struggle so hard to torture anything Obama does into a mistake.   You may not like his policies but you're just being ridiculous most of the time.
    Posted by WhatIsItNow

    NK had nukes before Bush's hand came off the bible in 2001. They are a product of the Clinton "trust and, well, trust" policy.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : NK had nukes before Bush's hand came off the bible in 2001. They are a product of the Clinton "trust and, well, trust" policy.
    Posted by brat13


    Um.  Where are you getting that?

    They were trying to produce and buy plutonimum throughout the 90s (in fact they had two reactors since....I think something like 65' and '76).  Clinton got them to stop producing plutonium, but they withdrew in late 2002 because we weren't providing the energy aid which was supposed to compensate for dismantling reactors that produced plutonium.  In all we think 3-4 reactors were removed for contents.

    NK certainly had enough plutonium for 10-40 bombs by the time Bush walked in.  But they had not detonated or built a weapon.

    Bush came in, and his master Cheny started saying things like "We don’t negotiate with evil, we defeat evil."

    Once we were tied down, they withdrew from nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 2003.  Their first test, of an admittedly tiny weapon under 1kt, was in 2006.  They repeated in 2009. 

    Additionally, they seriously picked up efforts to increase the range of their missles in the mid 2000s.  May be able to develop an ICBM within 7-10 years.

    Now I can't lay all the blame for the nuclearizing of NK at Bush's feet.  But unrestrained belligerence by the "tough" neo-cons destroyed any hope of stopping them short of force. 

    Do you think preconditions helped Bush try to negotiate with them?  "We want to negotiate with you about your weapons program, but in order for us to negotiate, you have to concede at the outset everything we want to negotiate for." 

    Of course, I never had any confidence that Obama was going to bring them to the table.  But I'd rather have him try, or do nothing, than have McCain and Palin start saying ridiculous uber-belligerent things like Cheney.





     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : For 8 years we heard how neo-con Zionists in the Bush administration were running the country and ruining the world. Look who's White House Chief Staff now!  No problem.  Amazing
    Posted by GreginMeffa


    People say the same thing about Obama's admin, we see it all the time in posts by the likes of Grimfandago and that ilk.  Some people simply beleive that "zionists" run the country regardless of what party the President comes from. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : I'm not saying we should use nuclear weapons....they are devestating. Why do we tell the world what we are willing to do or not do??? It's wreckless and naive.  Even Carter knew better. 
    Posted by macnh1


    I think it's naive to think that Nukes are really truly ever off the table.

    The Cold War is over.  We need a new strategy for using Nukes.  Personally, I can't think of a single country that has the ability to launch a cyber, bio, or chemical attack against us that doesn't also have nukes.

    I think the policy is designed to remove the argument that other countries have against the US.  Having nukes and telling everyone else that they can't have a nuke is more than a little hypocritical.  Basically, we are telling the non-Nuke countries that we can and will blow them off the face of the planet if we want to.  And Obama is now saying, we can and will blow you off the face of the planet but we won't do it with Nukes unless you have nukes or we think you have nukes.

    It's rhetoric and nothing to get people's pink panites in a wad about.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mattyhorn. Show Mattyhorn's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    “A nuclear-free world has been a 60-year dream of the Left, just like socialized health-care,” - Rudy Giuliani, NRO, 2010.


    “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of this Earth.” - Ronald Reagan, 1984, in China.

    [emph. mine] Another bogus talking point eviscerated....

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    “A nuclear-free world has been a 60-year dream of the Left, just like socialized health-care,” - Rudy Giuliani , NRO, 2010. “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of this Earth .” - Ronald Reagan , 1984, in China. [emph. mine] Another bogus talking point eviscerated....
    Posted by Mattyhorn


    Let me guess.  Reagan lovers will blame that on Alzheimers, and will continue to call Obama weak and stupid for trying to do something about the fact that the wrong set of circumstances could obliterate virtually all life on Earth.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : Um.  Where are you getting that? They were trying to produce and buy plutonimum throughout the 90s (in fact they had two reactors since....I think something like 65' and '76).  Clinton got them to stop producing plutonium, but they withdrew in late 2002 because we weren't providing the energy aid which was supposed to compensate for dismantling reactors that produced plutonium.  In all we think 3-4 reactors were removed for contents. NK certainly had enough plutonium for 10-40 bombs by the time Bush walked in.  But they had not detonated or built a weapon. Bush came in, and his master Cheny started saying things like "We don’t negotiate with evil, we defeat evil." Once we were tied down, they withdrew from nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 2003.  Their first test, of an admittedly tiny weapon under 1kt, was in 2006.  They repeated in 2009.  Additionally, they seriously picked up efforts to increase the range of their missles in the mid 2000s.  May be able to develop an ICBM within 7-10 years. Now I can't lay all the blame for the nuclearizing of NK at Bush's feet.  But unrestrained belligerence by the "tough" neo-cons destroyed any hope of stopping them short of force.  Do you think preconditions helped Bush try to negotiate with them?  "We want to negotiate with you about your weapons program, but in order for us to negotiate, you have to concede at the outset everything we want to negotiate for."  Of course, I never had any confidence that Obama was going to bring them to the table.  But I'd rather have him try, or do nothing, than have McCain and Palin start saying ridiculous uber-belligerent things like Cheney.
    Posted by WhatIsItNow

    They held their breath because after they admitted in 2002 that they had broken the 1994 accord Bush refused to reward them to dismantle the program.

    Shortly after the signing of the 1994 accord, it is believed that North Korea began another clandestine program to enrich uranium and develop a uranium-based nuclear program. The evidence at first was faint and circumstantial. Western intelligence had "shards of evidence" of the North Korea-Pakistan nuclear relationship going back to 1997. These developed into clear suspicions by 1998, and by 1999 the North Koreans committed to this program.

    It was clear in 1998 that construction of the first Light Water Reactor under the Agreed Framework would be at least three years behind schedule, because of US reservations and hesitancy.

    North Korea secretly brought equipment needed for its nuclear weapons program into the country in June 1998 from Pakistan. The nuclear equipment, which included a sample gas centrifuge used to enrich uranium and its blueprints, were transported on a special flight from Islamabad to Pyongyang.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : They held their breath because after they admitted in 2002 that they had broken the 1994 accord Bush refused to reward them to dismantle the program. Shortly after the signing of the 1994 accord, it is believed that North Korea began another clandestine program to enrich uranium and develop a uranium-based nuclear program. The evidence at first was faint and circumstantial. Western intelligence had "shards of evidence" of the North Korea-Pakistan nuclear relationship going back to 1997. These developed into clear suspicions by 1998, and by 1999 the North Koreans committed to this program. It was clear in 1998 that construction of the first Light Water Reactor under the Agreed Framework would be at least three years behind schedule, because of US reservations and hesitancy. North Korea secretly brought equipment needed for its nuclear weapons program into the country in June 1998 from Pakistan. The nuclear equipment, which included a sample gas centrifuge used to enrich uranium and its blueprints, were transported on a special flight from Islamabad to Pyongyang.
    Posted by brat13


    As I recognized in my post, they have been trying to develop nukes for decades.  that's not what I'm disputing.

    I was just asking where you got the notion that they actually had workable nuclear weapons before Bush.  The first evidence we have of NK possessing a workable nuclear weapon is 2006.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : As I recognized in my post, they have been trying to develop nukes for decades.  that's not what I'm disputing. I was just asking where you got the notion that they actually had workable nuclear weapons before Bush.  The first evidence we have of NK possessing a workable nuclear weapon is 2006.
    Posted by WhatIsItNow

    Semantics. 2006 they did their first explosion. Their nuke program had been running unencumbered while we gave them wheat and heavy crude per the 1994 "accord". We never required the over-sight we should have. The fact is regardless of anything Bush did NK had the nuke weapons program and would have had workable nuke around the same time.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share