# North Korea now has Nuclear Weapons



## Navyguy808 (Feb 9, 2005)

guess where we're headed next boys

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6944560/


----------



## cappo5150 (Feb 10, 2005)

Iran...


----------



## Navyguy808 (Feb 10, 2005)

cappo5150 said:
			
		

> Iran...


 
haha both at the same time, have a 3-sum with these commy bitches


----------



## cappo5150 (Feb 10, 2005)

Why is it that the U.S. is the only country allowed to have nukes?


----------



## Warren[BigW] (Feb 10, 2005)

Fuck Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Navyguy808 (Feb 10, 2005)

Israel has nukes, Pakistan and Russia have nukes, and now N.Korea. it's the non-democratic, communist/muslim republics with nukes that threaten the free world......

if they're not a democratic country, they're not peaceful.....


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 10, 2005)

cappo5150 said:
			
		

> Why is it that the U.S. is the only country allowed to have nukes?


serious?  there was the nuclear weapons non-proliferation agreement that tried to keept certain countries stockpiles to certain levels and tried to keep other countries from going nuclear.  maybe you should do a google search because currently the USA, Britian, France, Russia, China, certain former communist block countries, India, Pakistan, and now North Korea all have nuclear weapons.  other countries not on this list may have them as well i just cant remember them all off the top of my head. there were also a few countries that had them then gave them up.  but the usa's is by far the largest of all.  moreso than all the other countries added together. the questian is not who has them it's who has the capability to get them where they want them. the dilevery method is whats difficult now. thats why north korea was testing that rocket a few years ago that went over japanese airspace.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 10, 2005)

Warren[BigW] said:
			
		

> Fuck Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


what did he have to do with this? or is this just another oportunity for you to vent a little.


----------



## cappo5150 (Feb 10, 2005)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> what did he have to do with this? or is this just another oportunity for you to vent a little.


well the first post was, guess where were headed next. So bush has alot to do with it. Again FUCK BUSH!


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 10, 2005)

cappo5150 said:
			
		

> well the first post was, guess where were headed next. So bush has alot to do with it. Again FUCK BUSH!


grow up. i dont care if you dont like bush, but the way your going about it is childish


----------



## Navyguy808 (Feb 10, 2005)

who cares about Bush, a hostile country now has nukes


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 10, 2005)

exactly. thanks for bringing it back to the real issue here


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 10, 2005)

Warren[BigW] said:
			
		

> Fuck Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



you're right... let Iran have all the nukes they want!


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 10, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> you're right... let Iran have all the nukes they want!


 
They let us have nukes.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 10, 2005)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> They let us have nukes.



We won't sell them to terrorists.


----------



## bulletproof1 (Feb 10, 2005)

every country is its own sovereign nation. im proud to be an american but i dont think the u.s. has any business trying to control what other countries do. if these nukes that they supposedly have start being used as threats against us, then yes, the u.s. needs to step in. otherwise, they have just as much right as we do to create weapons of their choice.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 10, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> We won't sell them to terrorists.



Care to rethink this?  Is this not how Sadaam got his WMDs he supposedly had?

Also, we're not going to N Korea, they don't have any oil.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2005)

cappo5150 said:
			
		

> Why is it that the U.S. is the only country allowed to have nukes?


 Uhhhh...there's the British, the Indians, the Pakistanis, the Russians, the Chinese, and the Israelis.  None of which will sell nukes to terrorists.  We'll, other than Russia right after the fall of the U.S.S.R.  but they didn't really have a government at the time.

 Personally, this time I hope we can drop the whole touchy-feely method of war that we've been using.  No more post war rebuilding on our part.  Just go over there, bomb them into oblivion, smoke 'em if you got 'em, and then go home.  It's less expensive that way and costs less American lives.


----------



## Eggs (Feb 10, 2005)

Nobody "let" us have nukes.

Besides, since we developed nuclear weapons we have acted with responsibility regarding their safe keeping and deployment.  Two in Japan, and those were well used looking at the loss of life that would have been caused if they were not utilized.  I'm not going to argue about that with anyone, if somebody doesnt like that idea then they arent too bright and certainly not worth my time.

Being that since Japan we havent used them, and not only have we safeguarded our nukes but we have worked against proliferation in several countries around the world, spending a good deal of time and money to insure that loose nukes dont fall into the hands of people that would misuse them.

I'd rather not get into an all out war with any other country right now.. I'd much rather perhaps drop we just bomb targets in North korea and let Israel loose on Iran.  However, there are a shitload of North Korean troops on their border, we'd do well keep some bombers on standby if we attack North Korean facilities to neutralize some of their troops.

Anywho..


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Care to rethink this?  Is this not how Sadaam got his WMDs he supposedly had?


 We never sold Saddam any nuclear technology.  Quit reaching.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 10, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Personally, this time I hope we can drop the whole touchy-feely method of war that we've been using.  No more post war rebuilding on our part.  Just go over there, bomb them into oblivion, smoke 'em if you got 'em, and then go home.  It's less expensive that way and costs less American lives.




I do like your moxie.  This would save us some money in the long run.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 10, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> We never sold Saddam any nuclear technology.  Quit reaching.



How is it reaching?  We did not provide materials for WMDs?  That's one step away, plus they supposedly had the potential for nuclear weapons.  Maybe I am wrong, but I would figure the WMDs were just as bad.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if we were willing to load him up with WMDs, I would not think nuclear stuff was too far of a reach.


----------



## bulletproof1 (Feb 10, 2005)

nobody is going to nuke the states. the rest of the world needs us for our high quality exports


----------



## Rich46yo (Feb 10, 2005)

cappo5150 said:
			
		

> Why is it that the U.S. is the only country allowed to have nukes?



                         I see by your little red star you are another California quasi-commie, or CQC. CQCs all have one thing in common. They only "play" at being commie. They have never been in a commie country, have never experienced living as a citizen under such a tyranny, never been to a gulag for stating an opinion, never stood in a bread line, wore cardboard shoes, never had to watch your children go to bed hungry, and never had the secret police crash thru your door at 0300 to drag you away for 1/2 a lifetime of torture and political indoctrination.

                      Actually CQCs probably live a more comfortable life then most of us. Its takes a big bank account to afford to sit around cafes all day, wearing your beret, and trading manifestos with all your little cocksucking CQCs comrades.

                     In answer to your dumbassed statement. In order of development of Nuclear weapons. First was the US, then Russia, then Britain, France, China, South Africa/Israel "who developed them together", India, Pakistan, and lastly North Korea "which has had a working bomb for years". Of all these countries the only one who gave them up on their own is South Africa.

                     We are still at a technical state of war with NK, which is one of the most vicious pariah states humanity has ever known. The little midget who runs it answers to no-one. There are no rights of any kind for its people, in fact they are mostly starving due to this "long march" to advanced weaponry.

                    They now have a working prototype ICBM called the TD-2 that can deliver one of these nukes to anywhere in the western US, in an arc that starts at Madison WI. This means that you in CA are now living at the whim of a madman. Within the next 10 years they will have developed an orbital delivery system that will be capable of annihilating any city in the world with only a few minutes warning. They are currently working closely with another enemy of the US, Iran, in the development of both nuclear weapons and advanced delivery systems.

                   Any questions?...................Uncle Rich


----------



## Rich46yo (Feb 10, 2005)

bulletproof1 said:
			
		

> every country is its own sovereign nation. im proud to be an american but i dont think the u.s. has any business trying to control what other countries do. if these nukes that they supposedly have start being used as threats against us, then yes, the u.s. needs to step in. otherwise, they have just as much right as we do to create weapons of their choice.



                              Oh good God! I cant believe this attitude even exists. Tell me this kid aint a by-product of higher learning?.............Rich


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 10, 2005)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> They now have a working prototype ICBM called the TD-2 that can deliver one of these nukes to anywhere in the western US, in an arc that starts at Madison WI. This means that you in CA are now living at the whim of a madman. Within the next 10 years they will have developed an orbital delivery system that will be capable of annihilating any city in the world with only a few minutes warning. They are currently working closely with another enemy of the US, Iran, in the development of both nuclear weapons and advanced delivery systems.


That's scary.


----------



## bulletproof1 (Feb 10, 2005)

im stating my opinion rich so if you dont like it take your all mighty superior ass somewhere else. i dont agree with a lot of things on here but i still let others speak their mind.


----------



## Rich46yo (Feb 10, 2005)

bulletproof1 said:
			
		

> nobody is going to nuke the states. the rest of the world needs us for our high quality exports



                              Oh thats a swell opinion kid. Let me ask you something while I have you here. Exactly what in your background would give you cause to believe a demented dangerous state like Nk has the "right' to have nuclear weapons?

                               One day you will grow up, have children, and start thinking about what your saying before you say it..............Uncle Rich


----------



## bulletproof1 (Feb 10, 2005)

ok boy, you see the eyes? it was a sarcastic comment. not 1 to be taken seriously.

secondly, i stand by my comment. every country has the right to produce weapons as long as it is not a threat to us. why do you think every country needs to "obey" what the united states says.

third, grow up? you know nothing about me, my family or anything so just stfu. pricks like you are so funny. if someone doesnt agree with you you think they are wrong. why dont you grow up


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 10, 2005)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> Oh thats a swell opinion kid. Let me ask you something while I have you here. Exactly what in your background would give you cause to believe a demented dangerous state like Nk has the "right' to have nuclear weapons?
> 
> One day you will grow up, have children, and start thinking about what your saying before you say it..............Uncle Rich



I remember when I walked to school in the snow, uphill both ways and had to kill our own food.



Rich's reply-  Dale, I can almost take your senseless babble, but when you spout commie propaganda like this it brings me back to my 20 years walking the streets as a policeman beating down hippies with my mag light.   



I have my own Rich's Rant template if anyone is interested.


----------



## gococksDJS (Feb 10, 2005)

Warren[BigW] said:
			
		

> Fuck Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 What the hell does this mean? You probably know nothing about politics or about the fact that North Korea backed out of the controlled nuclear arms agreement. If you knew anything, it is not just the U.S. that thinks N. Korea shouldn't have nuclear weapons, none of the international commities think North Korea needs them. N. Korea also pulled out of the six-party commity which is aimed at minimizing the number of nuclear weapons in the Northern Hemisphere, and after all this you say fuck Bush? I can't stand people that do this shit. You think every problem in the world is because of Bush, and due to your lack of political insight, you simply blame the leader of our country.


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 10, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> We won't sell them to terrorists.


We *ARE* their terrorists.

How long did we spend in Iraq trying to get back WMD that *WE* gave terrorists?


----------



## Rich46yo (Feb 10, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I remember when I walked to school in the snow, uphill both ways and had to kill our own food.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



                              Maybry how can you have my template when you dont even know if your own ass is punched or drilled?

                              The point is NK IS! a threat. They have threatened us almost every other week. For the last 50 years our troops have been facing off against them in one of the most dangerous places in the world, while in a technical state of war. They are not only at risk of using the things, the biggest danger is they are going to "sell them", and the technology ,for hard cash to prop up their failed system. They are already the biggest exporters of missile technology and God only knows who they have shared nuclear know how with.

                             And instead of stopping them when we could, instead we had Jimmy Carter ,Bill Klinton, and their United Nations cabal pandering to these bastards, "giving them free oil" as if it was going to make them stop this program.

                             "The right to develope nuclear wepaons'. Oh man, God help us all....................Uncle Rich


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 10, 2005)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> when you dont even know if your own ass is punched or drilled?



Thanks for the new material.  

BTW, I agree with you 100%, they need to go down, and I don't blame Bush for it either.  I'm just funnin with ya a bit.

So how does that grab ya?

I personally don't believe anyone one should have them, but they are out there.  The focus should be on dismantling the ones we all have.  But, if some jerk off comes around trying to develop these things, they obviously need to be stopped before anymore dismantling of the current weapons occurs.


----------



## Rich46yo (Feb 10, 2005)

If we didn't 'have them" ,or if we hadn't "discovered them", we'd all be living as slaves to some form of Tyrannical Govt. right now. Methinks most of you children have been living pampered,spoiled lives to long and cant see a mortal danger even when its staring you in the face. Your so wrapped up in your personal political narcissism that even when you see the mushroom cloud your last words will be "fuck Bush".

                     Well..........maybe Buckwheat has a little sense. But I really think it would be best if all you children got your heads shaved, had an M-16 put in your hands, were forced to clean your own rooms, and did tours of duty in some shithole where you'd see first hand what "tyranny" really means. Then tell me how NK has a "right" to develop nuclear weapons.

                                Hows that grabya?........  ..........Uncle Rich


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> How is it reaching? We did not provide materials for WMDs? That's one step away, plus they supposedly had the potential for nuclear weapons. Maybe I am wrong, but I would figure the WMDs were just as bad.
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, but if we were willing to load him up with WMDs, I would not think nuclear stuff was too far of a reach.


 WMDs just as bad as nukes?  You obviously don't understand what nuclear weapons are capable of.  Do yourself a favor and take a flight to Japan, then find an English speaking Japaneses man and tell him "weapons of mass destruction are just as bad a nuclear weapons".  Then be thankful that the Japanese are generally very polite people.

 You *are *wrong.  Nuclear weapons aren't just "WMDs".  They're in a completely different category. 

 I've never seen any proof that the US ever gave Saddam any WMDs, but I believe that the USA did.  It would make sense.  We would have helped Saddam against the greater, more immediate, threat of the USSR (and later Iran).  Saddam would have needed some serious firepower to fight such a powerful foe.  He did not, however, need nuclear weapons to do that.  He did start _his own_ nuclear weapons program, which the Israelis played a key role in shutting down.  As as a matter of fact there were UN weapons in the min 1990s inspectors who were held against their will in a building were they found the plans and information about that weapons project.

 On a side note, the US supplied very few WMDs to Saddam in the 1980s and most of which were used in the 1980s.  Since then he purchased vast amounts more with the money that he made from selling Iraqi oil.  But if it helps you, as a member of the Angry Left, to sleep at night, feel free in believing that all of Saddam's weapons and tools for warfare came from the USA. All you need to do is ignore the Russian, Arabic, and French writing on them.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2005)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> What the hell does this mean? You probably know nothing about politics or about the fact that North Korea backed out of the controlled nuclear arms agreement. If you knew anything, it is not just the U.S. that thinks N. Korea shouldn't have nuclear weapons, none of the international commities think North Korea needs them. N. Korea also pulled out of the six-party commity which is aimed at minimizing the number of nuclear weapons in the Northern Hemisphere, and after all this you say fuck Bush? I can't stand people that do this shit. You think every problem in the world is because of Bush, and due to your lack of political insight, you simply blame the leader of our country.


 North Korea also has a history of selling WMDs to anyone with enough cash.  Anyone.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 10, 2005)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> Well..........maybe Buckwheat has a little sense. But I really think it would be best if all you children got your heads shaved,
> 
> *I think my head is shaped oddly, this would not be a good look for me.  I already have enough trouble getting laid as it is.*
> 
> ...




Since I have to write something, caca doodie.


----------



## maxpro2 (Feb 10, 2005)

This shouldn't come as a shock... did any of you really think they didn't have nuclear weapons yet?



> guess where we're headed next boys


No. Even if we had the intention of invading North Korea, it would never happen. Not only do we not have enough soldiers due to the involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, but there is also the China, South Korea, and Japan factors. Even though all of these countries absolutely do NOT want North Korea to develop nuclear weapons, they would never pursue a regime change due to the mass exodus of refugees that would occur. 

With North Korea pulling out of the NPT in 1993 and violating the Agreed Frameworks, North Korea definitely does not have any right to develop these weapons. In addition to this and aside from the reasons in above posts, Kim Jong Il doesn't have any right to spend all of his country's money on developing nuclear weapons while almost all of his country lives in poverty and dies of starvation.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 10, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I remember when I walked to school in the snow, uphill both ways and had to kill our own food.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  That was great Dale ...  ... keep it up and you'll be on his ignore list


----------



## bulletproof1 (Feb 10, 2005)

i feel enlightened on the subject. i did not know about these violations etc that some of you are talking about. because of that, i change my opinion.    

rich, you're still a fuckin prick.


----------



## sgtneo (Feb 10, 2005)

its been known for years they have nukes and their not someone to be messed with, we dont want to go starting war on them

Neo


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 10, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> But if it helps you, as a member of the Angry Left, to sleep at night, feel free in believing that all of Saddam's weapons and tools for warfare came from the USA.




I actually lean far more right than left.  I just happen to have the unique ability to form my own opinion and not tow the party line.


----------



## ZECH (Feb 10, 2005)

bulletproof1 said:
			
		

> if these nukes that they supposedly have start being used as threats against us, then yes, the u.s. needs to step in.


THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU JUST SAID. If we let them continue to develop them, then don't you think it's too late, or don't you mind being blown to smitherines?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2005)

MWpro said:
			
		

> No. Even if we had the intention of invading North Korea, it would never happen. Not only do we not have enough soldiers due to the involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, but there is also the China, South Korea, and Japan factors.


 All the US needs to do to defeat North Korea is stop giving them aid. The USA is the largest contributor to North Korea through the IMF. Jim Jong Jr. even said that he would go to war if the aid stopped. Without that aid North Korea was see a famine after three months or so.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I actually lean far more right than left. I just happen to have the unique ability to form my own opinion and not tow the party line.


 So, because the post contain right-wing ideas that means I can't think for myself? Spoken like a true liberal: All ideas are accepted, so long as they're "liberal".

  Notice that you didn't refute anything that I wrote.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 10, 2005)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> We *ARE* their terrorists.
> 
> How long did we spend in Iraq trying to get back WMD that *WE* gave terrorists?


Do you understand the word terrorist? what has america done to terrorize any country, honestly?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 10, 2005)

The stuff you wrote is based on opinion, you can't refute an opinion.  IMO they are one in the same with the exception of the abuse to the environment.  I am to the right on taxes, gun control, and most of the time on war when it is fought for a proper reason.

Is it some sort of conservative obligatory comeback to say to everyone that does not tow the party line, "Spoken like a true liberal"?

I bet even if you actually witnessed GW fabricating up the whole WMD stuff up you would still not believe it.  I bet you would believe your elbow was your asshole if they told you.


----------



## RoCk79 (Feb 10, 2005)

Wow, all I gota say is this is all scary, do I think we could beat North Korea?  I dont know exactly.  But if they sent a nuclear bomb over here, we would certainly send one over there, and there goes the neighborhood.  all I can say is it scares the shit out of me.  I hate nuclear weapons.  Why can't we settle things like the old days, with your fists.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 10, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> All the US needs to do to defeat North Korea is stop giving them aid. The USA is the largest contributor to North Korea through the IMF. Jim Jong Jr. even said that he would go to war if the aid stopped. Without that aid North Korea was see a famine after three months or so.


what? north korea has seen famine for so long the people dont know what normal is. kim jong il doesnt care what happens to his people he never has,thats the point. thats why economic sanctions has done nothing so far.  this guy has prisons larger than some of our fair sized cities to imprison the people that dont agree with him. the point of these evil dictators is that they dont give a damn about their own people. for instance stalin, saddam. these guys watch millions of their own people die  from starvation, and then ask whats for breakfast without flinching.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> The stuff you wrote is based on opinion, you can't refute an opinion.


  Opinions?

  Facts:
 - The largest non-nuclear (fuel-air bomb) weapon does less than half the damage of any nuclear bomb in the USA arsenal (though they are working on tactical nukes).

  - Saddam did have his own nuclear weapons program

  - Saddam did purchase weapons from countries other than the USA, including the French.

  - The Israelis did bomb Saddam's nuclear power plant.

 - Weapons inspectors were held against their will when they found documents detailing Saddam's nuclear weapons program are refused to give them up.


  Yep, opinions all over the place...if you ignore the facts.






			
				Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I bet even if you actually witnessed GW fabricating up the whole WMD stuff up you would still not believe it.


 Even Bill Clinton was convinced that there were WMDs. Putin also said that he told Bush there were WMDs in Iraq. As for me, I couldn't care less if there were any. Iraq was a staging (and training ground) for enemies of the USA. And that's all that matters to me.


----------



## maniclion (Feb 10, 2005)

bulletproof1 said:
			
		

> nobody is going to nuke the states. the rest of the world needs us for our high quality exports


You're talking about our money, movies and music right?


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 10, 2005)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> Do you understand the word terrorist? what has america done to terrorize any country, honestly?










(Baghdad)

To Baghdad citizens, this didn't look any different than 9-11 looked to us . A bunch of helpless citizens, who aren't trying to harm anybody, just slaving at work and trying to raise a family had their lives interupted horribly because two rulers of different countries didn't agree.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2005)

You don't know what terrorism is.


----------



## gococksDJS (Feb 10, 2005)

Luke, invading a country by means of military force is not terrorism.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 10, 2005)

Navyguy808 said:
			
		

> guess where we're headed next boys
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6944560/



Well, maybe...how much oil is in Korea?


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 10, 2005)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> (Baghdad)
> 
> To Baghdad citizens, this didn't look any different than 9-11 looked to us . A bunch of helpless citizens, who aren't trying to harm anybody, just slaving at work and trying to raise a family had their lives interupted horribly because two rulers of different countries didn't agree.


did you also see the pictures of joy on their faces as they ripped down the statue of sadam in the middle of bagdad without getting shot by his royal guards? or how about the people showing up to vote in open elections for the first time in 50 years? never mind the fact terrorists target civilians while our military targeted military instilations while doing as little damage as tactically possible to civilians. but your right america is just a bunch of terrorists


----------



## Arnold (Feb 10, 2005)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> did you also see the pictures of joy on their faces as they ripped down the statue of sadam in the middle of bagdad without getting shot by his royal guards?



that was all a big setup by the US military....Americans are so naive.


----------



## RoCk79 (Feb 10, 2005)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> that was all a big setup by the US military....Americans are so naive.



So the thousands of people who showed up to vote was a big setup too???

Did we pay them money to show up and vote???


----------



## thatguy (Feb 10, 2005)

RoCk79 said:
			
		

> Wow, all I gota say is this is all scary, do I think we could beat North Korea? I dont know exactly. But if they sent a nuclear bomb over here, we would certainly send one over there, and there goes the neighborhood. all I can say is it scares the shit out of me. I hate nuclear weapons. Why can't we settle things like the old days, with your fists.


So instead of war, the country's leaders just get in a ring like the Ultimate Fighting Championship.   

Good idea.  Not sure how Bush would do.  The Korean probably knows some kind of martial art.   

Ken Shamrock for President!


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2005)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> Well, maybe...how much oil is in Korea?


 I didn't know that "nuclear weapons" was spelled o-i-l.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 10, 2005)

RoCk79 said:
			
		

> So the thousands of people who showed up to vote was a big setup too???
> 
> Did we pay them money to show up and vote???




see the other thread.. 'The Party of NO'     They deny facts just to oppose Bush.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 10, 2005)

im sure bush could take kim jong il. no worries. bush might be small, but im willing to bet money he is a scrapper in a fight, like a homeless dog, a little underfed, but mean as hell. did you see him stare down al gore in those debates of 2000. gore was scared. ha ha ha.  and kim jong il that little bastard has been eathing too many twinkies. he never learned martial arts thats why he became a dictator, so he could have someone else do it for him. if this ever gets to blows i got $50 on bush and im giving 2/1 odds. ha ha ha


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 10, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> I didn't know that "nuclear weapons" was spelled o-i-l.


I'm with Rob on this one. In order for somebody to successfully have alternative motives, there have to be people that blindly follow. 

Always question authority.


----------



## RoCk79 (Feb 10, 2005)

thatguy said:
			
		

> So instead of war, the country's leaders just get in a ring like the Ultimate Fighting Championship.
> 
> Good idea.  Not sure how Bush would do.  The Korean probably knows some kind of martial art.
> 
> Ken Shamrock for President!



Thats exactly how things should be fought, save lives, let the leaders themselves fight over it.  But of course, that will never happen.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2005)

Let's see:

 1) North Korea has a history of selling weapons.

 2) North Korea has sold weapons to enemies of the USA.

 3) North Korea has nuclear weapons.

 4) It's reasonable to believe that North Korea would sell nuclear weapons to enemies of the USA.




			
				Luke9583 said:
			
		

> I'm with Rob on this one. In order for somebody to successfully have alternative motives, there have to be people that blindly follow.


 WTF?  So if I have an alternative motive, it's not really an alternative motive unless there are one or more people that will blindly follow???


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 10, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Let's see:
> 
> 1) North Korea* and the US* have a history of selling weapons.
> 
> ...


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 10, 2005)

lets hope they dont sell any nukes to other countries. i truthfully think kim jong il wanted these as a deterent. he saw us go in and take care of buisness in afganistan and iraq and was scared he was next.  but with the amount of weapons grade material he could get from those rods out of his nuke plant he probably only has 2-3 low yield nuclear devices. not really a stockpile yet to be selling to others. lets hope. i hope we send every damn special forces guy we have avialable to nk to assasinate his transvestite lookin ass. navy seals, force recon, delta force, air combat controller, cia sharpshooters, hell lets even send in a couple of civilian swat teams. even our gang members, crypts, bloods, and lets not forget the feminists, aint nobody wants to screw with a feminist on her period. kim jong il will be begging us for political asylum once we send in our femenazi's. yeah thats what we should do.


----------



## maniclion (Feb 10, 2005)

How about we just give him a billion dollars and tell him to put the toy's away and behave like a good little boy?


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 10, 2005)

I'll never understand liberals.   On a totally different wavelength.  Debating is almost pointless!!


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2005)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

>


 So you see _no _difference between the USA and North Korea?  _Really?_


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I'll never understand liberals.   On a totally different wavelength.  Debating is almost pointless!!


  Too true.

  The same liberals who are crying and bemoaning the actions of the US, didn't say _*dick *_when Saddam was out torturing and murdering innocents.  It's funny how they think that way.  Well, maybe _think _is a overestimation.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 10, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Let's see:
> 
> 1) North Korea has a history of selling weapons.
> 
> ...




Thanks for proving a point I made a year or 2 ago, that N Korea should have been before Iraq.


On the other note, I think we are using different criteria for destruction.  Surely you believe that chemical or germ warfare can take out as much if not more life than a Nuclear weapon.  And I do believe those are both types of WMDs.  I am talking about life not infrastructure.

Regarding your point about Clinton...George Washington thought the British were a threat, does that mean they still are?  Well, the same would go for whether or not Sadam had WMDs currently.  Everyone knows he HAD them at some point, but do you fight a war over shit that happened 10+ years ago without knowing if the former reason is still a current one?


On a side note, do you believe N Korea will be before Iran?


----------



## Arnold (Feb 10, 2005)

I. Introduction

Peter D. Zimmerman, professor of science and security at King's College London and a former chief scientist of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, writes: "While Bush looked for nonexistent nuclear weapons in Iraq - as Condoleezza Rice suggested, to ensure that the next warning did not come as a mushroom cloud - the capability to generate plenty of mushroom clouds was being acquired by North Korea." 

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Nautilus Institute. Readers should note that Nautilus seeks a diversity of views and opinions on contentious topics in order to identify common ground. 


II. Essay by Peter D. Zimmerman

*-"We Had Power to Prevent N. Korea from Going Nuclear"*
By Peter D. Zimmerman 

NANJING, China -Senior Chinese nuclear scientists attending an international arms control meeting in this ancient capital city, as well as senior officials and scholars in Beijing, express significant fears over the twin developments on Taiwan and in South Korea. Both countries have been caught red-handed producing enriched uranium or plutonium which can be used in nuclear weapons. Both countries are also a long way from being able to build atomic weapons. But the same Chinese scientists are even more worried about the failure of the Six Party Talks intended to end the North Korean nuclear program. They do not want yet another nuclear power on their borders; Russia and India are enough. 

The question most frequently asked in Chinese scientific circles is whether the Six Party Talks, including North and South Korea, Russia, Japan, China and the United States have any chance to succeed. These are the talks of which George W. Bush appears to be so proud because he is reaching out to "form a coalition." My Chinese counterparts point out that the dispute over a nuclear North Korea, formally called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or DPRK, does not involve four of the six parties. Early on North Korea cast the issue as a simple one between the United States and itself, and it has stuck to that formula. 

What North Korea wants, and the Chinese impressed this on me most strongly, is some kind of normal relations with the United States along with a pledge that the United States will not invade the DPRK. In principle, these should have been easy for the United States to grant. Diplomatic recognition does not state that the United States approves of a government; it merely says that we acknowledge that the government controls a specific piece of land, and that we will talk to that government should problems arise. As to the security pledge, it's obvious that we have no intention of going to war on the Korean Peninsula for a second time, so long as the DPRK does not attack our ally, South Korea. North Korea's immense artillery formations along the Demilitarized Zone could pulverize Seoul, the South Korean capital city, in a matter of hours, no matter what the United States did short of a major nuclear first strike practically on the city limits of Seoul. 

Among the NATO nations, the United States stands practically alone in refusing to extend diplomatic recognition to North Korea. Most of our closest friends and allies, including France, Britain, Canada and Germany, accredit ambassadors to Pyongyang. 

In the fall of 2002, long before the North Koreans broke the seals placed on its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and months before they ejected the IAEA's inspectors, the DPRK stated officially and publicly that it would agree to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, if the United States would discuss the outstanding issues face to face. 

Face-to-face negotiations are precisely what George W. Bush rejects. His first state visitor after he was sworn in in 2001 was Kim Dae Jung, then-president of South Korea and a Nobel Peace Prize winner for his attempts to build bridges to the North. Secretary of State Colin Powell, after meeting with President Kim, announced that the United States would continue to support Kim Dae Jung's "sunshine policy" toward the DPRK and would continue the Clinton administration's policy of openness to both countries. A few hours later, President Kim had met with Bush and been told that because the U.S. president "loathed" Kim Jong Il, the mercurial and sometimes very oddly behaving "Dear Leader" of North Korea, American support for the sunshine policy and the Clinton policy was withdrawn. 

While Bush was focusing on spurious intelligence to spur the United States to war with Iraq, Pyongyang was desperately sending signals that it did not particularly want to reprocess the plutonium in its nuclear reactor, but that U.S. actions were forcing just such a decision. While the Bush administration looked high and low for a nonexistent Iraqi nuclear program, Kim Jong Il's scientists were preparing to reprocess plutonium, ordering the chemicals and, finally, ejecting the IAEA inspectors from its Yong Byong nuclear installation. 

The Bush administration, its attention on Iraq to the exclusion of real problems, failed to do much to meet North Korea even a quarter of the way. In the end, all the Bush team could do was convene six nations, at least three of which were impotent when it came to solving the bilateral problem with North Korea, and hold three meetings, none of which made much progress. 

While Bush looked for nonexistent nuclear weapons in Iraq - as Condoleezza Rice suggested, to ensure that the next warning did not come as a mushroom cloud - the capability to generate plenty of mushroom clouds was being acquired by North Korea. 

I cannot guess the probable outcome had the Bush administration continued the Clinton administration's initiatives on North Korea. The DPRK is a very difficult negotiating partner, and even their principal friends, the Chinese, agree. But I cannot imagine that we would have been worse off with bilateral negotiations and a few small concessions made by the United States. It would have hurt nothing to try. Indeed, my Chinese counterparts still urge such a course with China acting to interpret honestly each side's problems with the other. North Korea is now a nuclear power, with four to six nuclear usable weapons assembled on Bush's watch - built only after the DPRK told us exactly what we could have done to prevent it. 

Without question, George W. Bush has failed the American people and put them and their Northeast Asian friends in harm's way so that he could avoid talking in one direction while starting an unnecessary war in the other. His statement during the third presidential debate that Six Party Talks on North Korea were better than bilateral talks because more nations were involved was self-serving and duplicitous. After all, he refused any kind of multilateral diplomacy concerning Iraq.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Thanks for proving a point I made a year or 2 ago, that N Korea should have been before Iraq.


 I don't agree with this.  While North Korea was becoming a large threat, the terrorist based in Iraq and Afghanistan where a more _immediate _threat.  I do believe that we should have taken care of North Korea way before now though.




			
				Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> On the other note, I think we are using different criteria for destruction. Surely you believe that chemical or germ warfare can take out as much if not more life than a Nuclear weapon. And I do believe those are both types of WMDs. I am talking about life not infrastructure.


 I don't believe that the current state of chemical weapons puts it on the same level as nuclear weapons.  The death to weapon ratio is too low.  Germ warfare is close to being on the same level, but at this point is far less a threat than nuclear weapons due to the scarcity of the technology.  And I'm not talking about anthrax.



			
				Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Regarding your point about Clinton...George Washington thought the British were a threat, does that mean they still are? Well, the same would go for whether or not Sadam had WMDs currently. Everyone knows he HAD them at some point, but do you fight a war over shit that happened 10+ years ago without knowing if the former reason is still a current one?


 
 Not even the same Dale.  You're reaching again.  George Washington lived a long time ago and the US/British relationship has changed a lot too.  Clinton was the President only two years before we attacked Iraq and the situation  (and the threat of) Iraq had not changed.




			
				Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> On a side note, do you believe N Korea will be before Iran?


 North Korea.  They already have the nukes and the missiles to deliver them (to nearby countries).  Perhaps if the US remove both the bombs and Kim Jong Jr. in one fell swoop Iran will rethink their position on nuclear weapons and a war could be averted.   If we hit Iran first we'll still have to go to war against North Korea.


----------



## theprofessor (Feb 10, 2005)

North Korea has had nuclear weapons for some time. Americans didnt want to acknowledge that they did. Wake up people. Their are still a few American civilians out there that knew this awhile back. There just wasnt much talk about it.


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 10, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> So you see _no _difference between the USA and North Korea?  _Really?_




No, I do!  But you're points sucked.  You're points don't explain the evils of NK and communism.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 10, 2005)

did you read the one about prisons the size of cities for his political prisoners? he has like 7 of them.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2005)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> No, I do!  But you're points sucked.  You're points don't explain the evils of NK and communism.


 I was addressing why North Korea is a threat to the USA. 

 If you don't know what the difference is (you say do) between North Korea and the USA, that's your problem.


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 10, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> I was addressing why North Korea is a threat to the USA.
> 
> If you don't know what the difference is (you say do) between North Korea and the USA, that's your problem.



The differences in the two countries and the reason why NK is a threat are two completely different things.

Your points sucked because there are countless countries that would apply to those statements (including us).


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2005)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> The differences in the two countries and the reason why NK is a threat are two completely different things.


 The differences of the countries is important. Think in terms of the administrations policies, general stability, and access to the basic requirements of life. 



			
				Luke9583 said:
			
		

> Your points sucked because there are countless countries that would apply to those statements (including us).


 Saying that over and over and over isn't going to make it true. And no, it couldn't be applied to any country. There is only one US. And as for someone possessing nukes with a willingness to givet them to enemies of the US, there are currently only two that fit the bill: North Korea and Iran.

  So, keep up the mantra, if it makes you feel better.


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 10, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> The differences of the countries is important. Think in terms of the administrations policies, general stability, and access to the basic requirements of life.



I've got great respect for you man, but I think this is the hang up between you and me cfs3.  

I don't beleive that it should be our duty to facilitate the perfection of everybody else's country.  

When something is messed up in your G'ment, you need to stand your own ass up.  

We are the father that spoils his little daughter.  If they possed a real threat to us as citizens, I would be joining the army and defending what I 'have' here at home.  

But what they really are threatening is the 'american idealism'.  IMHO it's more of a holy war.





> Saying that over and over and over isn't going to make it true. And no, it couldn't be applied to any country. There is only one US. And as for someone possessing nukes with a willingness to givet them to enemies of the US, there are currently only two that fit the bill: North Korea and Iran.
> 
> So, keep up the mantra, if it makes you feel better.




We have nuclear weapons, we have given Weapons to countries that are a threat to even our own country, and we sell weapons.

This is all undeniably true.  That breaks down your arguement.  That is why your points sucked.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2005)

I'm not talking about fixing everyone else's government.  Honestly, I don't really care.  I'm only concerned with those that pose an active threat to my country.  That's it.  I don't find it hard to believe that North Korea would sell nukes, they really need the money.  They've been building and selling weapons for a long time.

  "We have nuclear weapons, we have given Weapons to countries that are a threat to even our own country, and we sell weapons."

  You tried to make a connection that doesn't exist.  Yes, we do have nukes.  And yes we have sold, or just given, weapons to others.  But we do not sell *nuclear *technology on a first come, first serve basis.  You started with nuclear and moved on to general weapons.

 Keep trying.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 10, 2005)

do you honestly think that N. Korea is going to use nuclear weapons on us?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2005)

No, but I do believe they'll sell them to those who will.


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 10, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about fixing everyone else's government.  Honestly, I don't really care.  I'm only concerned with those that pose an active threat to my country.




Cool man 

Send me some money and I'll rush it over to Prez Bush for you.

Although, I would rather see that money pay for your kids education.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 10, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> No, but I do believe they'll sell them to those who will.



and if they did we would blow them off the planet.


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 10, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> No, but I do believe they'll sell them to those who will.




You are acting blindly. All you have to do is look back 40 years and you'll see we've already been through this.  (that was 20 years before me, and even I can see it  )

You are the type of person that lead us into the cold war.  This is what "they" want.  The cold war made them rich.  Somebody profits from EVERYTHING.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2005)

No, I'm the type of who have prevented the Cold War.  Did you know that for a period of about 8 months after the end of WW2, the US was the only nuclear power on the planet?  We could have used that power to prevent the Russians from ever making nukes.  And thus, no Cold War.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2005)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> and if they did we would blow them off the planet.


 *After *the fact.


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 10, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> No, I'm the type of who have prevented the Cold War.  Did you know that for a period of about 8 months after the end of WW2, the US was the only nuclear power on the planet?  We could have used that power to prevent the Russians from ever making nukes.  And thus, no Cold War.



hind sight.... 20/20.  But now, you're reliving history, the wrong way.


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 10, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> *After *the fact.




So what's the solution, blow them away first?  lol

There'ya go cowboy.


----------



## The__wenger (Feb 10, 2005)

Tell you what everyone you guys all sort your shat out in this world and me and most Canadians will sit back and laugh and enjoy the light show. I'am sick and tired of seeing nations pump out their chests and sacrafice their own people for false accusations against other nations.**cough cough** Iraq


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 10, 2005)

well said.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2005)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> So what's the solution, blow them away first?  lol
> 
> There'ya go cowboy.


 Yeah, because your idea of doing shit is a great idea.  Nothing gets things done like inaction.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2005)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> hind sight.... 20/20.  But now, you're reliving history, the wrong way.


 Because ignoring the past is so good...

 Take care of North Korea now before they can do anything with their nukes.  You don't seem to like history but...you'll notice that when India and Pakistan got nukes the US was no where near as bothered as we are about North Korea and Iran.  There's a reason.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2005)

OK, looking back over my posts, I believe I'm getting a bit caustic.  That crap happens when I talk politics.

   Sorry Luke9583.  I'll try and tone it down.


----------



## The__wenger (Feb 10, 2005)

I can see some logic of disarming North Korea, but I believe there is always an alernitave solution to war.  I mean has anyone thought about the incredible loss of life that can result from pursuing this?? Most countries should live like Canada   (My sig explains all)


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 10, 2005)

The__wenger said:
			
		

> Tell you what everyone you guys all sort your shat out in this world and me and most Canadians will sit back and laugh and enjoy the light show. I'am sick and tired of seeing nations pump out their chests and sacrafice their own people for false accusations against other nations.**cough cough** Iraq


sacrifice our own people for false acusations agoinst other nations. we have lost less than 1500 people in iraq.  the equivalent of about 2 minutes on omaha beach on d-day. someone thought it was worth it. hitler was an evil man that needed to be stopped for the wrongs he was doing to humanity. saddam was an evil man that had to be stopped because of his evils. the sacrifice our country is doing for the betterment of the world is well worth it. we cant do everthing, but we should do what we can. 1 american soldier is worth 10  canadians. and id gladly pay 15,000 canadians to see saddam out of power. and twice that for kim jong il. A


----------



## Eggs (Feb 10, 2005)

This thread started off somewhat well, but inbetween then and now I've read quite a bit of ignorance.

The US isnt a terrorist nation... one could try and make a point of that, but they would be wrong.  We do use force as necessary, but we use a minute amount of the force that we do command to achieve our goals.  Instead of simply nuking he middle east, we are sending our own people over there to die to try and handle this the humanitarian way.  I'm not so sure thats right.

Whatever point that terrorists try to make drawing similarities between us, dont ever let the media or incompetent convince you that we are.  When the day comes that we sit our enemies in the streets in the middle east and shoot them in the head... or we torture them on television, well... then you can tell me about terrorism.  Thats the problem when people who dont understand the difference between physically protecting their future and simply protecting their beliefs.  Iraq was not a threat to our beliefs, but we have various problems with them... and the unstabilizing force that they can be in the region.  We are not a threat to terrorists physically, at least before they decide to attack us.  The average Muslim in the Middle East and around the world has nothing to fear from us.  However, because certain elements do not like us, our beliefs, and the impact that we have on the world... they have decided that they have the right to harm us.  In that, they have given away their right to have no need to fear us.

The people in Iraq generally like us.  Saddams hometown has some problems with us, obviously because we ruined a good thing for them... but most of the terrorists in Iraq are foreigners that have come there out of their hate for the US.  Not because we had ever threatened them, but because they hate us.  They would hate us even if we were all back here in the US, and they wold eventually strike.  I know some of you say they never would, and its somewhat strange how quickly people forget that 9/11 happened.

Anyhow, we do what we need to do.  I hate it that we need to be at war... my brothers in Iraq, and I'd personally rather they all die than risk his life.  Thats a moot point though, because despite what all the anti-establishment (blah blah whatever) people say, we truly are a generous country that does mean well.

Perhaps we are haughty to think that we are right and that our plans will benefit the world the most.  I dont see anybody else that is doing it better though.  As far as anybody that doubts our intentions... time will be the true measure of what we are doing, and I hope that all that has be given and lost to do what we are doing will be worth it in the end.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 10, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Take care of North Korea now before they can do anything with their nukes.




See, IMO, it should have been, "Take care of N Korea while they are producing nuclear shit, not after."

And to The__wenger, If that shit is aimed at Wisconsin who do you think is gonna get the fall out?  We don't give a shit about Wisconsin, Vermont can make our cheese, plus it would give a few of the douche bags I went to high school with a job since Vermon'ts production of cheese would quadruple.  If we have a shortage of cheese, guess who ain't gettin cheese for their nachos...You guessed it, the Canadians.  Besides, with hockey gone, what the hell do you have to do anyway.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 10, 2005)

All the NK's will do is blow up SK's.  OK ... so we loose the  Kia.  BFD their resale value sucks anyway.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 10, 2005)

BUt douche bags like me with bad credit can afford those shits.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 10, 2005)

So fix your credit and buy a Japmoblie Dale ... you can do it!!

  You do know _how _to do that I presume?


----------



## seven11 (Feb 10, 2005)

hey rich46yo have u ever lived in a communist country... i guess not but u seem to no so much bout it and all the bad things that are going on, well its not like that in every one well actualy it wasnt like that in every country.. im from an ex comu country and while it was still communist it was the best country ever... every body had health insurance every body had equal oportunity and our leader made sure that none was hungry... 
see was the best country ever till the man died...


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 11, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> OK, looking back over my posts, I believe I'm getting a bit caustic.  That crap happens when I talk politics.
> 
> Sorry Luke9583.  I'll try and tone it down.




No prob man.  I wasn't offended anywhere.  caustic tones are to be expected


----------



## The__wenger (Feb 11, 2005)

*Us*

I knew that I would be digging my-self in a hole the moment I started typing and that talking politics is extremly difficult under the current circumstances. All I have to say is why in the hell did you re-elect Bush? When he raised your country's deficet to 100x the world population and ruined your countries' reputation amongst all the world nations. I can see North Korea as a valid threat to the world, but looking back I wouldn't be surprised to see the US  go in alone. And I believe everyone knows that Iraq has been completly mishandled to the point of the US being the only sole occupier and will have to be there to the not so present future. There thats my 2 cents and I'am now finished


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 11, 2005)

The__wenger said:
			
		

> I knew that I would be digging my-self in a hole the moment I started typing and that talking politics is extremly difficult under the current circumstances. All I have to say is why in the hell did you re-elect Bush?


 
There's a very intelligent answer to that question.... 

_ "because Dubya is a God-Fearing man, and a supporter of strong family values"_


Duh,


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 11, 2005)

The__wenger said:
			
		

> I knew that I would be digging my-self in a hole the moment I started typing and that talking politics is extremly difficult under the current circumstances. All I have to say is why in the hell did you re-elect Bush? When he raised your country's deficet to 100x the world population and ruined your countries' reputation amongst all the world nations. I can see North Korea as a valid threat to the world, but looking back I wouldn't be surprised to see the US  go in alone. And I believe everyone knows that Iraq has been completly mishandled to the point of the US being the only sole occupier and will have to be there to the not so present future. There thats my 2 cents and I'am now finished



sorry we're not all-knowing, as you seem to think Canadians are.   We re-elected Bush because the majority felt he was the man to do the job.

I can take ridicule from other Americans, but it pisses me off to no end when a foreigner chimes in telling America we are stupid for re-electing our President.  Worry about your country.  We'd be the first one backing your asses if you needed help.  America is always the bad guy until we're needed.    

Everyone should live like Canada?  You're allowed to live the way you live because of the US.  We're doing the job everyone else is too afraid to do. 

Bush is controversial because he is doing something.  Clinton was popular because he did nothing.  Laugh now, but I have said for 2 years that Bush will go down as one of the greats.  War-time presidents are ALWAYS controversial.  The world.. your world is  safer for what we have done.

-end of my rant.  i'm sure everyone is seething to tear this apart...


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 11, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> Worry about your country.


He doesn't have to. His economy is better (his dollar is almost more valuable), his crime rate is significantly lower, terrorists don't target his country, and they have hockey. 



			
				busyLivin said:
			
		

> War-time presidents are ALWAYS controversial. The world.. your world is safer for what we have done.


 
That doesn't justify 'making yourself' a war time president.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 11, 2005)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> He doesn't have to.  His economy is better (his dollar is almost more valuable), his crime rate is significantly lower, terrorists don't target his country, and they have hockey.



need help packing luke?


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 11, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> need help packing luke?


 
Sorry, I don't swing that way


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 11, 2005)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> Sorry, I don't swing that way


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 11, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

>


made ya laugh 

But honestly, I love the US.  The only way I could see living somewhere else is if I had multiple houses and multiple citizenships.  I would really love to be living in chicago right now.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 11, 2005)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> But honestly, I love the US.



I know, man. it's snowed last night again in Chicago. I hate snow


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 11, 2005)

Sh#t.  That means it's gonna snow here tomorrow


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 11, 2005)

don't worry, just flurries


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2005)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> No prob man.  I wasn't offended anywhere.  caustic tones are to be expected


 Right on.


 Now my question is this: if bombing is not the answer to the NK problem, what , in your opinion, is?


 Before you answer that, consider who runs that country.  Kim Jong Jr. is a short (especially for a Korean) Asian with an incredible Napoleon complex who has consistently acted like a child.


----------



## RoCk79 (Feb 11, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Right on.
> 
> 
> Now my question is this: if bombing is not the answer to the NK problem, what , in your opinion, is?
> ...



I would like to see everybodies response to that question as well.  How do we go about handleing NK?  Some of us say we need to deal with it, but how?  Dont you think they will send Nukes over to us if we try to attack them?  I just dont see how we CAN safely deal with NK.


----------



## Eggs (Feb 11, 2005)

The__wenger said:
			
		

> I knew that I would be digging my-self in a hole the moment I started typing and that talking politics is extremly difficult under the current circumstances.



Yes, talking politics is never very easy... especially with the polarization that tends to occur during war time activites.



> All I have to say is why in the hell did you re-elect Bush?



Because we felt like it... and we wouldnt expect you to understand either way.  Regardless, you have as much right to criticize Bush as we have to criticize the chimps you have in government.



> When he raised your country's deficet to 100x the world population and ruined your countries' reputation amongst all the world nations.



The economy has been unfortunate... it was on its way down before 9/11 though and before Bush was elected.  There were obvious signs that the bubble was going to burst.  We did well riding on the tech revolution that was began and fostered.  In business those with first product to market generally benefit from it... however, over the length of the product life cycle it eventually is susceptible to other companies that can produce it more cheaply.  Unfortunately, in the US with our somewhat high cost of living (and thus high wages) we find it hard to compete in any production job with countries that dont have such costs to associate with producing products (read: Asia, and at the time Mexico to a degree).  The economic downturn is as much a realization of a service economy as any other sign.  The phasing out of the many industry segments which have transferred overseas has hurt us greatly.  Yes, wartime costs a fortune.  However, that is not the only reason that things are the way they are.

I'm truly a proponent of small government and I personally see alot of fat that should be cut.  However, I do believe we will weather our current financial problems and rebound out of them given time.  How long that is, I have no idea.



> I can see North Korea as a valid threat to the world, but looking back I wouldn't be surprised to see the US  go in alone. And I believe everyone knows that Iraq has been completly mishandled to the point of the US being the only sole occupier and will have to be there to the not so present future. There thats my 2 cents and I'am now finished



North Korea is a valid threat.  Not so much that they are a direct threat... I dont see them attacking because they truly couldnt win a war if they attacked South Korea right now.  My fear is the impact that they have on proliferation because of their willingness to sell arms (and eventually no doubt nuclear weapons) to terrorists and corrupt nations.

Whether the US decides to go it alone or not is really of no concern to you.  Was Iraq mishandled?  Perhaps so... but Bush was using information available to him, just as any other government must use information to make decisions.  The fact of the matter is that Saddam ran a corrupt government that was not fulfilling promises that it had made to the UN.  The reason Iraq had sanctions on it, etc, is because of the danger that the WORLD saw in it.  For some reason when it came time to back up the threats it had made to Iraq, the UN's balls just fell completely off and they wanted to spend another 10 or 15 years trying to work things out with Saddam.  I dont think the UN would have ever backed an entrance into Iraq anytime soon... as these days it is currently a device that small countries use to try and bring themselves onto an equal footing with the bigger countries in the world.  Specifically the US.

While the UN could be used by the world to accomplish much, it has instead been used as a tool of mediocrity.  Without a much needed change it will continue to be used as such.

I find it rediculous that people would compare Canada and the US.  Apples and oranges... and we are apples that do 100x more for the world (in donations, etc) than Canada does.  How about them apples?


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 11, 2005)

RoCk79 said:
			
		

> I would like to see everybodies response to that question as well. How do we go about handleing NK? Some of us say we need to deal with it, but how? Dont you think they will send Nukes over to us if we try to attack them? I just dont see how we CAN safely deal with NK.


 
I would like to see a global response to this question


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 11, 2005)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> I would like to see a *global response* to this question


you & John Kerry. Mother May I?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2005)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> I would like to see a global response to this question


 You still didn't answer the question.

 On a side note, I thought about you saying that I'm the type to start the Cold War.  Then I realized that you're the type to that make 9/11 possible. And the "9/11"s will only get worse.  Especially with North Korea in the mix.


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 11, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> You still didn't answer the question.
> 
> On a side note, I thought about you saying that I'm the type to start the Cold War. Then I realized that you're the type to that make 9/11 possible. And the "9/11"s will only get worse. Especially with North Korea in the mix.


 
No US citizen knows what caused 9-11.  To say that some citizen caused that is laughable.  9-11 was the result of events that we will never know about.  If you think you even know 1/2 the story, you're only fooling yourself.  

Do you really think we were attacked because they hate 'our freedom'


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 11, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> you & John Kerry. Mother May I?


In all actuality, it IS a global issue.  To act alone is a mistake.  It isn't for us to decide.  If countries in europe, or asian countries were making "global" discisions and leaving us out of the loop, you would be pissed.

Think about somebody besides yourself man.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> you & John Kerry. Mother May I?


 John Kerry, working hard to re-establish our place at the Global Popularity Table.

 John Kerry, the Great Flip-Flopper (from an interview on Meet The Press):
 [font=verdana, arial, helvetica]*Tim Russert: *Do you believe that Iraq is less a terrorist threat to      the United States now than it was two years ago?[/font]

  [font=verdana, arial, helvetica]  [/font] [font=verdana, arial, helvetica]*Kerry:* No, it's more. And, in fact, I believe the world is less safe      today than it was 2 1/2 years ago. . . .[/font]

  [font=verdana, arial, helvetica]  [/font] [font=verdana, arial, helvetica]*Russert:* Is the United States safer with the newly elected Iraqi government      than we would have been with Saddam Hussein? [/font]

  [font=verdana, arial, helvetica]  [/font] [font=verdana, arial, helvetica]*Kerry:* Sure. And I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone, and I've said that      a hundred times.[/font]

  [font=verdana, arial, helvetica]Does he agree with Ted Kennedy's view that America is the problem and should    get out? No and yes:
*
 Russert:* Specifically, do you agree with Sen. Kennedy that 12,000      American troops should leave at once?
*
 Kerry: *No.
*
 Russert: *Do you believe there should be a specific timetable of withdrawal      of American troops?[/font]

 [font=verdana, arial, helvetica]*Kerry: *No.
*
 Russert: *What would you do?
*
 Kerry:* I understand exactly what Sen. Kennedy is saying, and I agree      with Sen. Kennedy's perceptions of the problem and of how you deal with it.      . . . I agree with Senator Kennedy that we have become the target      and part of the problem today, if not _the_ problem.[/font]

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica]    [/font] [font=verdana, arial, helvetica]  [/font] [font=verdana, arial, helvetica]  [/font] [font=verdana, arial, helvetica]  [/font] [font=verdana, arial, helvetica]  [/font] [font=verdana, arial, helvetica]  [/font]​


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2005)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> No US citizen knows what caused 9-11. To say that some citizen caused that is laughable. 9-11 was the result of events that we will never know about. If you think you even know 1/2 the story, you're only fooling yourself.
> 
> Do you really think we were attacked because they hate 'our freedom'


 On three occasions, the Saudis offered to give Bill Clinton Osama, and he turned them down three times.  So far, you said no to anything other than negative comments about Bush but offer nothing constructive.  Just like 99% of all liberals.

 And no, we were not attacked because that hated our freedom, they attacked because we posed a threat (in some way) to their operations which have shown to be of the worst sort.


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 11, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> On three occasions, the Saudis offered to give Bill Clinton Osama, and he turned them down three times. So far, you said no to anything other than negative comments about Bush but offer nothing constructive. Just like 99% of all liberals.


I'll paypal you $5 if you can find one place where I said something negative about Bush in this thread.

Typical republican.


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 11, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> And no, we were not attacked because that hated our freedom, they attacked because we posed a threat *(in some way)* to their operations which have shown to be of the worst sort.


This is about as vague as your points on why NK is a threat to us.

You're just letting them spoon feed you horse sh#t man. Snap out of it.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2005)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> I'll paypal you $5 if you can find one place where I said something negative about Bush in this thread.
> 
> Typical republican.


 I have no idea.

 You still didn't answer the question.


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 11, 2005)

When you start to think for yourself, you'll know when you're on the right track.  There'll be a cable van parked outside of your house periodically, and your phones and internet connections will start doing funny things.


----------



## Luke9583 (Feb 11, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> I have no idea.
> 
> You still didn't answer the question.


I'm not selfish enough to feel that I can dignify it with a response.  

BUT, I'll let you know what I would do  and i'll send you $5 if you can find that post where I am mocking Bush.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 11, 2005)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> In all actuality, it IS a global issue.  To act alone is a mistake.  It isn't for us to decide.  If countries in europe, or asian countries were making "global" discisions and leaving us out of the loop, you would be pissed.
> 
> Think about somebody besides yourself man.




We tried to go through the UN, and they did nothing. Doing nothing is a bigger mistake, IMO. 

I don't see how I'm thinking only about myself.


----------



## Decker (Feb 11, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> On three occasions, the Saudis offered to give Bill Clinton Osama, and he turned them down three times.


 
This claim has been debunked.  The person (Mansoor Ijaz) that allegedly offered Osama to the Clinton administration was a self proclaimed Pakistani representative--the Saudis appear no where in this tale.  It was a quid pro quo offer---Ijaz offered to deliver Osama if the US would lift an embargo on the Sudan (embargo for terrorist ties) permitting the opening of its oil fields for export.  Ijaz had a vested interest in the lifting of the embargo and no credible means to deliver Bin Laden.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 11, 2005)

BushCo world tour on (oil) terrorism will have as its next stop in Iran.  Korea being next to Japan is no threat to anyone but Japan.  WE knew they were building nukes and now they have  'em ... big deal.  They have no oil.  Iran has oil AND nukes ... bad combo for Iran.  This makes them a very dangerous antagonist and a certain terrorist sympathizer sure to be "stabilized".  Haliburntus can then get the oil contracts and rebuild that poor country for the next 4 years.


----------



## westb51 (Feb 11, 2005)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Korea being next to Japan is no threat to anyone but Japan.


are you sure?  caues i have a farm, and willing to bet it.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 11, 2005)

What threat would Korea pose and to whom would they pose that threat too ... other than the countries that invaded them?

 Korea wants to sell cars and not get bitch slaped by Japan.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2005)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> When you start to think for yourself, you'll know when you're on the right track. There'll be a cable van parked outside of your house periodically, and your phones and internet connections will start doing funny things.


 Cue X-Files theme...


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 11, 2005)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> What threat would Korea pose and to whom would they pose that threat too ... other than the countries that invaded them?
> 
> Korea wants to sell cars and not get bitch slaped by Japan.


they understand they dont have enough nukes to go at us directly but, if they did it indirectly and sold it to someone that would....americans are just as dead.  right now we know they have the nukes. if they get to the black market we dont know who has them are where they will be. remember, "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"  and i think you mean south korea wants to sell cars. north korea cant feed its own people right now, they are hardly in a position to start exporting finished goods.  and truthfully i think we should try and assasinate kim jong il. one shot, one kill. if we cant get in there to do that i think we should let russia, china, japan, try and do what they can, let them feel what its like to be so close to the situation without our backing. the whole time we are letting other countries do this we are preparing to go in there ourselves and get the job done. we have to avoid nukes at all costs.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2005)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> I'm not selfish enough to feel that I can dignify it with a response.
> 
> BUT, I'll let you know what I would do  and i'll send you $5 if you can find that post where I am mocking Bush.


 I said "So far, you said no to anything other than negative comments about Bush but offer nothing constructive."


 The__wenger said, "I knew that I would be digging my-self in a hole the moment I started typing and that talking politics is extremly difficult under the current circumstances. All I have to say is why in the hell did you re-elect Bush?"

 You replied:
 " There's a very intelligent answer to that question.... 

_ "because Dubya is a God-Fearing man, and a supporter of strong family values"_


  Duh,  "

 Like all liberal, you're reactionary.  The Dems, in which you would fit nicely, are nothing more than the anti-party.  They whine about things they don't like and put forth little of value.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2005)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> What threat would Korea pose and to whom would they pose that threat too ... other than the countries that invaded them?
> 
> Korea wants to sell cars and not get bitch slaped by Japan.


 Which Korea?  *South *Korea makes the cars.  *North *Korea makes the nukes.  You're perception of a unified Korea in commendable, but wrong.  *South *Korea is not a threat, *North *Korea is.


----------



## Eggs (Feb 11, 2005)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> No US citizen knows what caused 9-11.  To say that some citizen caused that is laughable.  9-11 was the result of events that we will never know about.  If you think you even know 1/2 the story, you're only fooling yourself.
> 
> Do you really think we were attacked because they hate 'our freedom'



Actually... I can tell you what caused 9/11.  A bunch of terrorists hijacking planes and driving them into various civilian US targets.

I'd really like to know why you think we cant know or understand what caused 9/11.  If one can sift through and find some aspects of what causes terrorism or at least their hate for the US I think that we can very much understand why they did what they did.

Regardless, whether we pissed them off or not and whether or not they view our policies in a friendly light, they do not have and should not have tried to attack us.  A mixture of a corrupt religion and mindless people willing to follow it is always a bad mix.  It was shitty in the Middle Ages, and it is now with Islam.

Do you really think that they didnt attack us because they hate our freedom?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/


----------



## Eggs (Feb 11, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Which Korea?  *South *Korea makes the cars.  *North *Korea makes the nukes.  You're perception of a unified Korea in commendable, but wrong.  *South *Korea is not a threat, *North *Korea is.



Yeah, I wasnt sure why he was mixing up the North Korea and the South Korea thing either...

I was born in South Korea... and I have an affinity for the nation.  I'm not Korean, but I think people that just say "oh, let Kimmie do what he wants" are idiots and need to get a grip.

Being that Kim Jong-Il is said to have the largest Donald Duck collection in the world... amonst other oddities, I wouldnt trust the whack job one bit.  Besides which, he definitely has a Napolean complex, which is apparent for his need to have one on one talks with the US.  He wants us to recognize him.

North Koreas problems are brought about by a corrupt and idiotic government.  If they took 3/4 of those soldiers they keep near the DMZ and put them to use in agriculture I think it would take most of the strain off the country.

Anyways.


----------



## Decker (Feb 11, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> Actually... I can tell you what caused 9/11. A bunch of terrorists hijacking planes and driving them into various civilian US target.


That's a facile analysis.  Life's as simple as you make it.  If the saudi terrorists attacked us b/c they hate freedom, then for you, they did.

However, looking at the history of US intervention in iraq, iran, and other Middle-eastern countries for the benefit of stabilizing Saudi power and opening the way to nationilizing foreign resources, both in terms of marketplace and natural resources, it's easy to understand that the US's fickle yet destabilizing presence has created some enemies.  These religious nutcases that attacked us want the West out of their countries by any means.  Now we have to deal with it.


----------



## westb51 (Feb 11, 2005)

*F the Japanese*

Last week, Japanese scientists explaced... placed explosive detonators at the bottom of Lake Loch Ness to blow Nessie out of the water. Sir Godfrey of the Nessie Alliance summoned the help of Scotland's local wizards to cast a protective spell over the lake and its local residents and all those who seek for the peaceful existence of our underwater ally.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 11, 2005)

You're right cfs ... NK has no industry what-so-ever and is hurting.  The guy who runs the place is a comunist drunkerd.  

 Guys like that are dangerous ... bust out the whoop ass. While we are at it we have plenty of cash and resources to deal with every country out there that defies all the various treaties and agreements they make with the rest of the planet. 

     OK so we will attack and disarm the following countries.  The number of nukes they hold control over is on the right:

Russia ___________8,400
 China _____________400
 France ____________350
 Israel* ____________250
 United Kingdom   _____200
 India** ____________65
 Pakistan**__________            40
 North Korea***       _______8
​ 
*Asterisks explained* * Israel has a policy called "nuclear opacity" or "nuclear ambiguity," which consists of refusing to confirm or deny that it has nuclear weapons at all. In 1986, however, whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli nuclear weapons worker, published pictures of nuclear weapons facilities in Israel. Today, experts agree that Israel has between 100 and 300 warheads (and Israel doesn't deny it).



 ** India and Pakistan both admit (boast?) that they have weapons, but are cagey about how many. Estimates for India run from 40 to 90 and for Pakistan from 30 to 50.



 *** North Korea is anybody's guess. At the end of 2003, U.S. intelligence experts were surmising it had three bombs, but four months later they tentatively raised their estimate to eight. They also said North Korea is geared up to build about six bombs a year from here on out.



      In short, there are now some 20,000 fully operational nukes pointed at someone in this world 

     Source ... MSN


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 11, 2005)

whats your point, russia gains no advantage in nukeing us, china, is realizing more and more everyday capitilism helps them, isreal doesnt want to nuke us nor does pakistan india france or britian.  so we are left with a country with a psycopathic leader who just got his hands on a few nukes and is unpredictable, wow maybe we should treat him like all the rest.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2005)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> You're right cfs ... NK has no industry what-so-ever and is hurting.  The guy who runs the place is a comunist drunkerd.
> 
> Guys like that are dangerous ... bust out the whoop ass. While we are at it we have plenty of cash and resources to deal with every country out there that defies all the various treaties and agreements they make with the rest of the planet.
> 
> ...


 Of your list of counties, which have a history of selling WMDs?  There's only one.  Which have threatened the USA with war within the last decade?  There's only one

*You seem to be missing those crucial points.*

 Althrough I'm fully behind any military action against France.  Cheese Eating Surrender Monkies.


----------



## iMan323 (Feb 11, 2005)

I'm just joining you now and I didn't read the whole thread.  Personally, I'm not worried at all about North Korea going nuclear. Who would they bomb? South Korea and risk American retaliation? China and risk Chinese retaliation? Russia and risk Russian retaliation? Japan and risk American retaliation? Iran or Saudi Arabia and risk Ameri...oh, wait never mind, go ahead.     The reason for all the stink is North Korean desperation.  Their military communist regime has made them into the world's outcasts and for them there's nowhere to go but down.  They have nothing that the world(or the US) wants.  So...whatever.  



			
				BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Guys like that are dangerous ... bust out the whoop ass. While we are at it we have plenty of cash and resources to deal with every country out there that defies all the various treaties and agreements they make with the rest of the planet. [/url]



Foolish words, my friend. We have very limited resources.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 11, 2005)

I proposed the annexation of France long ago.  The first thing I'd do is make the women shave their armpits and take a shower.

 Sorry I missed those points cfs ... tell me where that NK threat was from and when it was made if you could.  I'm interested in that.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2005)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> I proposed the annexation of France long ago. The first thing I'd do is make the women shave their armpits and take a shower.
> 
> Sorry I missed those points cfs ... tell me where that NK threat was from and when it was made if you could. I'm interested in that.


 RIF.


----------



## Jenny (Feb 11, 2005)

I just came to this thread to say that Justin (Eggs) has a cute butt 
Over and out


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 11, 2005)

iMan323 said:
			
		

> Foolish words, my friend. We have very limited resources.


 That was sarcasm ... I have no interest in our country being the world's police.  Lets fix our own issues before we ruin the rest of the planet.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 11, 2005)

Let me explain something here. We all know who and what the NK's and SK's are about. The military power and financial resources the SK's control are more than what is needed to squash the NK's at their whim. We have always backed the SK's and will continue to do so. 

 My crack about the Korean automotive industry was only to state that NK is non-relevant to the rest of the world. They do nothing, produce not much at all, and are nothing more than another struggling country of no real threat to us led by a mental midget who earned his throne by the astounding act of getting born. I posted a few links as an offer to educate the interested on just how useless the dude is.

   Where is this threat he poses to us? Is he gonna sell his nukes to some terrorist for transfer to US soil?   Too late  ...  Elvis done left the building long ago on that one. We are already in big trouble on that issue with top experts predicting the odds of a suitcase nuke being an eventuality here at home. With terrorists forming as an ideology rather than a nationalized mentality they have less to lose by attacking us. After we recover and we go in search of the terrorist who nuked us where do we attack? The terrorist mentality is now based more as an ideology rather than a nation. You can't kill a mentality ...


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 11, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Of your list of counties, which have a history of selling WMDs?  There's only one.




Well if you add the US there is 2.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2005)

Who did the USA sell nukes to?


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 11, 2005)

Every time you post an ignorant smart assed remark like that RIF one I loose interest in what ever you have to say.  For flavor in your posts try sprinkling them with content and intellect instead of caustic sarcasm.  You may even include a link or two so as to back up what ever your post contains.

 I think you take too much joy in your attempts to belittle people and not enough interest in expanding your view of what's going on around you.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2005)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Let me explain something here. We all know who and what the NK's and SK's are about. The military power and financial resources the SK's control are more than what is needed to squash the NK's at their whim. We have always backed the SK's and will continue to do so.
> 
> My crack about the Korean automotive industry was only to state that NK is non-relevant to the rest of the world. They do nothing, produce not much at all, and are nothing more than another struggling country of no real threat to us led by a mental midget who earned his throne by the astounding act of getting born. I posted a few links as an offer to educate the interested on just how useless the dude is.
> 
> Where is this threat he poses to us? Is he gonna sell his nukes to some terrorist for transfer to US soil?   Too late  ...  Elvis done left the building long ago on that one. We are already in big trouble on that issue with top experts predicting the odds of a suitcase nuke being an eventuality here at home. With terrorists forming as an ideology rather than a nationalized mentality they have less to lose by attacking us. After we recover and we go in search of the terrorist who nuked us where do we attack? The terrorist mentality is now based more as an ideology rather than a nation. You can't kill a mentality ...


 You're right, it's too late to do anything, why bother...

 So let's see, someone has nukes that are worth money.  They also need money.  What could they do to rectify that situation?

 So let's see again, nukes can kill thousands of people.  They are also in the hands of a very unstable and irrational person with runs the most militarized nation on the planet.  What could he do?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 11, 2005)

You said WMDs, not nukes.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 11, 2005)

I'm sure you're trying to make a point cfs ... but your sarcastic style obscures it.   Your link to some Democrat's drivel is also a major contribution to the thread.

  Doesn't look like you have much to say anyway other than "He might nuke us so lets get 'em" ...


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2005)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Every time you post an ignorant smart assed remark like that RIF one I loose interest in what ever you have to say. For flavor in your posts try sprinkling them with content and intellect instead of caustic sarcasm. You may even include a link or two so as to back up what ever your post contains.




 I've posted plenty of facts.  There just the facts you don't like.  Tough.

 Did you happen to notice that my 'RIF' post was in reply to _his _sarcastic remark?  Guess not.

 I was posting links to my content since day one. Hell, I even posted a link to the RIF website.  What more do you want?




			
				BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> I think you take too much joy in your attempts to belittle people and not enough interest in expanding your view of what's going on around you.


 Again, every thing is fine so long as I see things from your, liberal, perspective.  You and your ilk have put for little, is anything, that should widen my perspective.  As a matter of fact, go through this entire thread to find a _single _constructive plan of action from Luke9583.  I agree were it makes sense, not just were you would like me to.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 11, 2005)

> Right on.
> 
> Now my question is this: if bombing is not the answer to the NK problem, what , in your opinion, is?
> 
> Before you answer that, consider who runs that country. Kim Jong Jr. is a short (especially for a Korean) Asian with an incredible Napoleon complex who has consistently acted like a child


 Almost funny, no content, no contribution to the thread.



> You still didn't answer the question.
> 
> On a side note, I thought about you saying that I'm the type to start the Cold War. Then I realized that you're the type to that make 9/11 possible. And the "9/11"s will only get worse. Especially with North Korea in the mix.


 Not funny, no content, no contribution to the thread.



> John Kerry, working hard to re-establish our place at the Global Popularity Table.
> 
> John Kerry, the Great Flip-Flopper (from an interview on Meet The Press):
> Tim Russert: Do you believe that Iraq is less a terrorist threat to the United States now than it was two years ago?
> ...


 Sarcasm, no content, no contribution to the thread.



> On three occasions, the Saudis offered to give Bill Clinton Osama, and he turned them down three times. So far, you said no to anything other than negative comments about Bush but offer nothing constructive. Just like 99% of all liberals.
> 
> And no, we were not attacked because that hated our freedom, they attacked because we posed a threat (in some way) to their operations which have shown to be of the worst sort.


 Partisan politics, denial, but something of an attempt to make a contribution to the thread.



> I have no idea.
> 
> You still didn't answer the question.


 Not funny, no content, no contribution to the thread and included a useless link to this same thread.



> Cue X-Files theme...


 More caustic sarcasm, no content, no contribution to the thread.



> I said "So far, you said no to anything other than negative comments about Bush but offer nothing constructive."
> 
> The__wenger said, "I knew that I would be digging my-self in a hole the moment I started typing and that talking politics is extremly difficult under the current circumstances. All I have to say is why in the hell did you re-elect Bush?"
> 
> ...


 More caustic sarcasim, no content, no contribution to the thread.


> Which Korea? South Korea makes the cars. North Korea makes the nukes. You're perception of a unified Korea in commendable, but wrong. South Korea is not a threat, North Korea is.


 Now here you actually said something of value to those whe are not in the know on world issues. But of course you still had to do it in an unpleasant manor.



> Of your list of counties, which have a history of selling WMDs? There's only one. Which have threatened the USA with war within the last decade? There's only one
> 
> You seem to be missing those crucial points.
> 
> Althrough I'm fully behind any military action against France. Cheese Eating Surrender Monkies.


 This was funny, but minor content, little contribution to the thread.



> Who did the USA sell nukes to?


 Attack someone else, no content, no contribution to the thread.



> You're right, it's too late to do anything, why bother...
> 
> So let's see, someone has nukes that are worth money. They also need money. What could they do to rectify that situation?
> 
> So let's see again, nukes can kill thousands of people. They are also in the hands of a very unstable and irrational person with runs the most militarized nation on the planet. What could he do?


 A useless link, sarcasm, more sarcasm, no content, no contribution to the thread.



> Quote Originally Posted by BoneCrusher
> 
> Every time you post an ignorant smart assed remark like that RIF one I loose interest in what ever you have to say. For flavor in your posts try sprinkling them with content and intellect instead of caustic sarcasm. You may even include a link or two so as to back up what ever your post contains.
> 
> ...


 Missed the point, more sarcasm, attacked ME again, no content, no contribution to the thread.



> Quoteriginally Posted by BoneCrusher
> I proposed the annexation of France long ago. The first thing I'd do is make the women shave their armpits and take a shower.
> 
> Sorry I missed those points cfs ... tell me where that NK threat was from and when it was made if you could. I'm interested in that.
> ...


 Now you're even resorting to lying about your sarcasms while refusing to address questions about your statements. I asked you to back your claims to NK's eminent threat and you responded with "RIF" ...  ... whatever that was meant to convey. I've asked you for links and sources for your claims. Where are these "facts" you're alleged to have offered forth?

 I've only quoted you from this page. Can you not see the pattern in all of your posts here cfs? You seem to have enough intellect to form and collect opinions. Step up your game and actually say something more than the  you've come up with so far.

 As a contribution to your knowledge on my politics I voted for GW both times here in Texas and his first time as Prez. I am a conservative and almost always vote Republican. Because I challenge you on your stance or lack of substance does not in itself move me to the status of becoming a liberal.


----------



## Eggs (Feb 11, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> That's a facile analysis.  Life's as simple as you make it.  If the saudi terrorists attacked us b/c they hate freedom, then for you, they did.
> 
> However, looking at the history of US intervention in iraq, iran, and other Middle-eastern countries for the benefit of stabilizing Saudi power and opening the way to nationilizing foreign resources, both in terms of marketplace and natural resources, it's easy to understand that the US's fickle yet destabilizing presence has created some enemies.  These religious nutcases that attacked us want the West out of their countries by any means.  Now we have to deal with it.



I dont think life is as simple as you make it... I can look at a watch and say "thats just a simple moving hand".  That doesnt make it so though, there is alot more that makes that watch tick.

My example was short and not meant to be all inclusive.  Just a statement.

Sure we have a a policy of intervention, and that definitely has had an impact on terrorism.  To say that they are mad at us solely because we have been in the Middle East is not true though, there are certainly other forces at work as well.  Regardless, today is today and we have to deal with the world as it now is.  Sitting on our cans would not stop anything, these terrorists have a vendetta to settle, and it is in our interests to neutralize them before they can.  It is actually in everyones best interests... the more that terrorism becomes a mainstream device to be used by the smaller party, the more susceptible any nation in the world is to their threats.


----------



## Eggs (Feb 11, 2005)

Actually, Bonecrusher and cfs, you've both made some points... I dont think we need to act like one or the other of you has had nothing useful to say.

Lets stick to topic and forget the attacking each other bit.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 11, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> Lets stick to topic and forget the attacking each other bit.


  How is this a bad plan?


----------



## Eggs (Feb 11, 2005)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> How is this a bad plan?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2005)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Blah, blah, blah...


 Nice job picking and choosing what retort to.  Your fellow Dems will be proud.

 It's funny how you missed these:



			
				cfs3 said:
			
		

> WMDs just as bad as nukes? You obviously don't understand what nuclear weapons are capable of. Do yourself a favor and take a flight to Japan, then find an English speaking Japaneses man and tell him "weapons of mass destruction are just as bad a nuclear weapons". Then be thankful that the Japanese are generally very polite people.
> 
> You *are *wrong.  Nuclear weapons aren't just "WMDs".  They're in a completely different category.
> 
> ...





			
				cfs3 said:
			
		

> North Korea also has a history of selling WMDs to anyone with enough cash.  Anyone.





			
				cfs3 said:
			
		

> All the US needs to do to defeat North Korea is stop giving them aid. The USA is the largest contributor to North Korea through the IMF. Jim Jong Jr. even said that he would go to war if the aid stopped. Without that aid North Korea was see a famine after three months or so.





			
				cfs3 said:
			
		

> Opinions?
> 
> Facts:
> - The largest non-nuclear (fuel-air bomb) weapon does less than half the damage of any nuclear bomb in the USA arsenal (though they are working on tactical nukes).
> ...





			
				cfs3 said:
			
		

> Too true.
> 
> The same liberals who are crying and bemoaning the actions of the US, didn't say _*dick *_when Saddam was out torturing and murdering innocents.  It's funny how they think that way.  Well, maybe _think _is a overestimation.


 And so and so and so...




			
				BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Now you're even resorting to lying about your sarcasms while refusing to address questions about your statements.


 Show me where I lied about sarcasm or failed to address a question.



			
				BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> I asked you to back your claims to NK's eminent threat and you responded with "RIF".





			
				BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> I proposed the annexation of France long ago. The first thing I'd do is make the women shave their armpits and take a shower.
> 
> You did not ask for sources, you said:
> 
> ...


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 11, 2005)

wow this got really gay really fast. where is john h?


----------



## theprofessor (Feb 12, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Which Korea?  *South *Korea makes the cars.  *North *Korea makes the nukes.  You're perception of a unified Korea in commendable, but wrong.  *South *Korea is not a threat, *North *Korea is.


 Right we have 2 military bases in S. Korea. We wouldnt be there if we were at  it with S. Korea


----------



## Eggs (Feb 12, 2005)

Jenny said:
			
		

> I just came to this thread to say that Justin (Eggs) has a cute butt
> Over and out



Hey sweet stuff! Thanks for all the chocolate this morning... now I have to sit and look at it 

It looks really good  

Saaaay, when you getting back from spinning?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 12, 2005)

CFS, I have a question.  If WMDs are nothing, and the Israels shutdown Iraq's nuclear program in the 90's, what the hell were we going to war to stop.

And before you tell me he bought them, show me some proof of that.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 12, 2005)

I never said that WMDs are nothing, I said that nuke are_ in a completely different class_.  There's a difference.

 The rest of your post is a bit vague. Is the war that you're referring to the second Iraqi war? For all I know you may have a problem with tenses. I sometimes was. 

    Bought them?  Do you mean Saddam?  Do you mean that he purchased conventional WMDs or nukes?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 12, 2005)

This war, and yes, proof Sadam bought them.  FYI, I was referring to the act of going to war, not the act of war itself, allowing the use of past tense.

IE-I meet someone atthe store and they ask, "Why _did_ you come here?"


----------



## DOMS (Feb 12, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> This war, and yes, proof Sadam bought them. FYI, I was referring to the act of going to war, not the act of war itself, allowing the use of past tense.
> 
> IE-I meet someone atthe store and they ask, "Why _did_ you come here?"


  Something like this? Another. If you care to look, you'll find plenty of others.

  The Isaels didn't stop Saddam nuclear weapons plan, the just ruined his time table.  But here's a bit more info.  It's not everything, but it'll give you an idea.

  Here's a bit of info on Saddam's connection to the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkies.

  Here's Putin's input on the Iraq's connection to 9/11.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 12, 2005)

That first source says nothing of nukes, which is what I was talking about.

I don't doubt HAD a nuclear weapons program.

I didn't check the third one, I don't care about a French/Sadam connection.  We are even connected to Sadam so who cares.

I don't think I even have to state the facts about Fox News.  I looked at the Article anyway and it showed nothing.  Without the actual information given, how can one make a conclusion whether the information was credible or not?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 12, 2005)

First off, I provided the the link to the amount of weapons that Saddam has purchased over the years. Many of which were WMDs. The French info discusses some of what they sold him.  Which contained such tidbits as:

 "In mid-March 2003, U.S. intelligence and defense officials confirmed that exporters in France had conspired with China to provide Iraq with chemicals used in making solid fuel for long-range missiles."

 As for "We are even connected to Sadam so who cares".  You know, with you liberals, you always leave out details.  Such as in this case.  You say who cares that the French were connected to Iraq because we were (almost a decade and a half before that).  The big difference was that the French were supplying arms to Saddam right _as we were going to war with him_.  Do you notice that last part?  It's called a detail.  It makes similar circumstances different.  Sometimes almost completely.

 If you don't like Fox, how about CNN?  When Putin said he told Bush there was a connection, it was all over the news.  You can find others.

 "I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," Putin said.

 If it makes you feel better, I'm sure there's an Angry Left, or anti-US, website that will try to qualify that for you.  Or perhaps sting bits of it together with opinions to make it mean something different.


----------



## ZAGLOBA (Feb 12, 2005)

North korea has the same right as any other country to have nukes including israel and iran. America doesn't need to be in korea. Their nukes won't even reach the U.S. only Japan, China, S. Korea


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 12, 2005)

yes but they are not long off from developing a delivery system that could reach the us. should we wait till then to do something?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 12, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> First off, I provided the the link to the amount of weapons that Saddam has purchased over the years. Many of which were WMDs. The French info discusses some of what they sold him.  Which contained such tidbits as:
> 
> "In mid-March 2003, U.S. intelligence and defense officials confirmed that exporters in France had conspired with China to provide Iraq with chemicals used in making solid fuel for long-range missiles."
> 
> ...




1)Stop calling me a fucking liberal.  I have hunted and owned a gun since I was 6 yrs old.  I am completely against gun control, but at the same time see no reason why someone needs a fully-automatic weapon.  I voted for Bush the first time I voted.  I want taxes low and I don't believe in welfare.  Just because I do not follow this president's ideals does not make me a liberal.  I voted for Bush the first time around and did not want to repeat the mistake.  I am as down the middle as you can be.  I don't see any reason why anyone should have their rights taken away, whether it is an NRA member wanting to own a rifle, or a woman wanting an abortion.

2)That Putin quote...I said show me evidence, not a statement by someone.  This would entail getting the info from Putin, which won't happen.  I don't need Putin to form my opinion for me, provide the evidence and I will form my own.

3)You state that nukes[/UI] are a class above WMDs.  I tell you to provide me evidence that Sadam purchased or attempted to purchase nukes and you give me info on WMDs.  Make up your mind.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Feb 12, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Too true.
> 
> The same liberals who are crying and bemoaning the actions of the US, didn't say _*dick *_when Saddam was out torturing and murdering innocents.  It's funny how they think that way.  Well, maybe _think _is a overestimation.




Reagan didn't seem concerned enough to act when saddam gassed the Kurds either


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 12, 2005)

The problem with that question BioChem is it has only two answers ... yes and no. By choosing to wait you are saying no ...

 If you say yes lets do something then a military action is the only thing open.

 We've already sanctioned him ... and sanctions are weak anyway since other countries like France and China have shown that they only see sanctions as an opportunity for revenue.

 So we either say yes and break out the Big Stick Diplomacy or mind our own business.

 How much war can this country make? At what cost do we say enough is enough? I have a 17 year old son who is looking at military service and the unique options that a stint in the Air Force offers. Do I consider him expendable in the military option to stop NK's threat? Do you or I look at our neighbor's 20 year old sons and daughters and say "It is worth it for you to die so we can stop that"?

 Extended military actions are NEVER the answer. Bosnia was a well devised and well carried out military action with a beneficial result to an entire region. An ethnic purging was ended, the responsible shit heads were taken down, and the area was returned to what ever destiny the natives could bring for themselves.

 Mohmar Kadifi was bombed into submission too. That pecker head was causing problems globally until we adjusted his attitude ... he then shut his pie hole crawled under a rock and went about the business of minding his own business.

 We can slap down NK too ... but this extended version with all the rebuilding and continued military presence is just going to get more of our sons and daughters killed than is needed to achieve the result of a yes answer to that original question ...


 Dale I think I'm done with cfs.  He is another Rich ...

 He is incapable of carrying on a debate on any topic without becoming a sarcastic asshole.  Anyone who is not alligned with his ultra right wingnut mindset is a liberal.  He has reached a point where the flippant remarks come out on a per paragraph basis.  His "sources" are lame, and he is in a state of denial about himself.  Who needs that? 

 He makes great contributions in the fitness threads ... truly.  On politics not so much.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 12, 2005)




----------



## bandaidwoman (Feb 12, 2005)

I'm concerned about its affect over in the Middle East.

North Korea's claim to possess nuclear weapons will alter the playing field for Iran, which is currently engaged in nuclear talks with European representatives in Geneva.

 A bolder stance on the part of Pyongyang will probably encourage Tehran to step up its own rhetoric in hopes of forcing the United States to hold direct talks.


*Both North Korea and Iran want direct talks with Washington, not the six-party negotiations or talks via middlemen bull$shit  they have previously been offered.* 

 To achieve this goal, both countries have coupled hints about desiring talks with increasingly hostile language, hoping that we  will be unable to ignore their threats. Both states hope that Washington will be forced into a foreign-policy dilemma regarding which country to deal with first.

 By announcing its nuclear capabilities first, Pyongyang has attempted to take control of the tempo ahead of Iran.    

To force Washington's hand, Tehran also will seek to take the initiative, presenting the United States a nuclear problem times two. 

We will thus have to respond and decide which country to deal with first.

 One hostile nuclear-armed state is bad enough, but two of them -- combined with the other conflicts the United States must manage -- have the potential to weaken U.S. ability to shape its foreign policy initiatives and focus. 


I worry that should both states become acknowledged nuclear powers, the ramifications in their respective regions could seriously challenge Washington's ability to influence and control its own national security.


This is a diplomatic nightmare....... good luck Rice  dealing with two countries who despise the US and think of women as chattel and reproductive machines.   (Ie: they won't give a rats ass what she thinks or says.)


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 12, 2005)

iran has another problem.its was even discussed on the tv show west wing the other night.  there is a growing resentment over there of the current irainian government. many of the younger generation see the usa as liberators. of course these are the ones who are too young to remember the last time we interfered in their politics. oh well, just something to think about


----------



## DOMS (Feb 12, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> 1)Stop calling me a fucking liberal. I have hunted and owned a gun since I was 6 yrs old. I am completely against gun control, but at the same time see no reason why someone needs a fully-automatic weapon. I voted for Bush the first time I voted. I want taxes low and I don't believe in welfare. Just because I do not follow this president's ideals does not make me a liberal. I voted for Bush the first time around and did not want to repeat the mistake. I am as down the middle as you can be. I don't see any reason why anyone should have their rights taken away, whether it is an NRA member wanting to own a rifle, or a woman wanting an abortion.
> 
> 2)That Putin quote...I said show me evidence, not a statement by someone. This would entail getting the info from Putin, which won't happen. I don't need Putin to form my opinion for me, provide the evidence and I will form my own.
> 
> 3)You state that nukes[/UI] are a class above WMDs.  I tell you to provide me evidence that Sadam purchased or attempted to purchase nukes and you give me info on WMDs.  Make up your mind.


 1. Every time I've seen you in a political argument, I've found you on the side of the liberals. The only time that you come across as conservative is when you profess to be so. If you your views are as you state, then perhaps the Libertarians are you for you.  They would seem to share your views.  On a side note, did you vote for John Kerry?

 2. I provided the Putin quote as one of many reasons why the USA considered Saddam a threat. If you don't like quotes, stay away from history books. They're full of 'em.

 3. Sigh. You said, "If WMDs are nothing, and the Israels shutdown Iraq's nuclear program in the 90's, what the hell were we going to war to stop." You addressed both nuclear and non-nuclear WMDs. If you want me to narrow my responses to one or the other, *you'll* need to decided which one and let me know.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 12, 2005)

bandaidwoman said:
			
		

> Reagan didn't seem concerned enough to act when saddam gassed the Kurds either


 True, but it's the _Democrats _that are whining about the US' war with Iraq, not the _Republicans_.

 Details, liberals.  Details. Details. Details.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 12, 2005)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> His "sources" are lame, and he is in a state of denial about himself.


 Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 12, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.



I thought you guys were white?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 12, 2005)

Only you min0, only you...


----------



## Eggs (Feb 12, 2005)

Just a quick reply to different statement that were made by various people...



> Zagloba said: North korea has the same right as any other country to have nukes including israel and iran. America doesn't need to be in korea. Their nukes won't even reach the U.S. only Japan, China, S. Korea



We already have troops in South Korea.  Besides which, with a decent delivery system the West Seaboard is definitely at risk.  Regardless, the US acts to not only protect itself, but to protect its allies.  This would include South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, and so on.



> Dale said: Stop calling me a fucking liberal.



Liberal Biiiaaaaatttcccchhhh 



> Dale said: That Putin quote...I said show me evidence, not a statement by someone.



We work with what we have Dale.  If we have a spy on he ground with Saddam and he gives us a call to tell us the 411 with the big guy... and this includes information that concerns the launch of nuclear warheads against the US or Israel, do we tell him to forget about it until he can provide us with some pictures?  Or would you prefer that Saddam called and gave us the heads up?  When dealing with HUMINT we often have to do things word of mouth style.  I think Putin is a piece of shit with what he is doing to Russia, but he is the leader of a nation and Bush is well advised to take him seriously.  He isnt trying to inform our opinion, he is just giving us a heads up.  We'd be well advised to look into it a bit more deeply and not just go into action, but we work with what we can.



> bandaidwoman said: Reagan didn't seem concerned enough to act when saddam gassed the Kurds either



Agreed, to merely label something as liberal or conservative can be misleading, csf shouldnt make blanket statements about alot of these things.  Obviously we as Americans have had a profound impact on the Middle East with our previous dealings.  I personally think that we need to be committed to leaving it in a state that is somewhat decent.  Instead of pointing fingers to the past, lets look at the current situation.  It is what it is, and IMO it was right to intervene to take Saddam out and attempt to help them install a government that is somewhat decent to the people.  Saddam is a bastard of the worst sort, and the people in Iraq will be better off long term without him.



> Bone_crusher said: I have a 17 year old son who is looking at military service and the unique options that a stint in the Air Force offers



Thats your business, if you dont want him to be in the military then have a heart to heart with him and tell him that you would like him to go to college first and then go in.  Officers are treated a million times better.  Besides which, if he is in the Air Force the only likely way he is going to die is drinking too much and getting hit by a car.  Air Force and Navy dont have to worry about too many casualties, while the Army and Marines have alot more to expect.

My brothers in the Army... I wish that he wasnt over there, but thats his choice being in the military and serving his country.  When one signs up with the military one doesnt get a choice in what policies the US Government is makes, and what wars it starts.  One has to make the decision whether or not the sacrifices one makes are worth it.  If they are, they are in the right place... and if not, they had best go somewhere else.  I was in the Navy for 5 years, and spent some time in the Med after 9/11.  I believe that Iraq could have been handled a bit better than it was, but it was my decision to support the country... even if some things rub me the wrong way.



> Bone_Crusher said: Extended military actions are NEVER the answer.



Yes and no... sometimes they have to be.  After WW2, we had forces in place in Germany and in Japan to help stabilize and rebuild.  Plus, there were policing actions as well.  Regardless, our military and its soldiers purpose and job is not really to act as a policing force.  Its a shitty situation, but through-out our history we have made a mistake after we defeat our opponents by just leaving and not contributing anything after that.  The difference between leaving and staying can be seen as post WW1 Germany, and post WW2 Japan.  Undoubtedly we have a more positive effect when we stay behind and rebuild after the war... its just not as easy on us as leaving and going home to have a beer and celebrate.

Besides which, we as Americans have a hard time doing something for the long run.  We love to get worked up and go over and kick the shit out of somebody, but after something lasts for 6 months or so we start to get bored and question our purpose.  Well, when dealing with policy we cant let ourselves be so fickle as that... we made the decision to attack, and now we need to be there and clean up.

I'm really looking forward to the day when we (the US) can leave and come home.  That day isnt today though... theres more to be done.



> bandaidwoman said: I'm concerned about its affect over in the Middle East



Good post, and I definitely agree... there is trouble brewing, and neither of those countries is going to give us much room to work with.  Perhaps Diplomacy will work, I truly dont think the North Korea wants to fight us.  Iran on the other hand despises us and what we stand for.  North Korea just wants to be accepted, and if we attack it, kill off a good deal of its army and throw Kim in jail I dont think thats the end goal he is looking to.  Their nuclear weapons pose a serious threat to us though, and to our ally South Korea.  With Seoul just a little ways across the border and such a dense population per sq mile, any sort of war taking place between the US and North Korea would have catastrophic consequences for the South Koreans.

I'm not sure what we can do to neutralize these threats, but something needs to be done as we cant let them continue on their current path.  I hope Diplomacy is an option that can work.



> Every time I've seen you in a political argument, I've found you on the side of the liberals



Dale is quite liberal, but he does have his conservative sides.  He's actually quite odd


----------



## bandaidwoman (Feb 12, 2005)

To be honest If North Korea launches any Nukes they are going straight to Japan.   

What the Japanese did to them and others in the Pacific Rim from the Rape of Nanking to spearing British soldiers as totem poles with their own  testicles stuffed in their mouths on the Coast of Malaysia, (My home) make them the Nazis of the Pacific Rim.  My history books in Taiwan where I lived for a while paints them in a worse light than the Nazis.  The hatred between the North Koreans and Japanese make the Israeli Palestinian hatred look like a sibling spat.  (The only difference is they are seperated by long distances)  There has been no abatement of hate between the two.  I think North Korea is frothing at the mouth to find one little excuse to launch.  That's my opinion from my experience living over there.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 12, 2005)

bandaidwoman said:
			
		

> There has been no abatement of hate between the two.


 .


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 12, 2005)

OK so what do we as a nation do to prevail?  Does China and Japan need our intervention?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 12, 2005)

The mitigating factor is that China is not an ally and Japan is.  If Japan is imperiled, we should help.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 12, 2005)

Would Japan not be able to handle the threat NK poses? I've spent a good bit of my free time these last two days reading up on the history of Korea, their invasion by Japan, and the installation of Comunism through the association withg the defunct USSR. 

  I have not the slightest doubt that Japan could deal with North Korea's threat.  Anyone else see it different?


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 12, 2005)

japan does not have nukes. how can they handle north korea? and even though they are more and more building the size of their army, by virtue of the agreemant they signed at the end of the 2nd world war it is limited in size.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 13, 2005)

A PAC-III missle defense system would solve any threat posed ...


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 13, 2005)

CFS, here are my views...

Against Gun Control
Against High Taxes
Against welfare as it is today
Against the way social security is today.
Very much for a strong military
For Abortion
For freedom of speech
against censorship
For the Iraq war, although it was done under false pretenses

You state maybe I should go with the libertarians.  That statement in and of itself shows where you are off.  I don't feel the need to associate myself with a group, I look at myself as an individual and my views do change with thetimes.  If welfarre was reformed, I could prolly deal with it.  I do feel abortion should be controlled so that it is not a form of birth control.  My views are not always going to be cut and dry and fit into a groups ideals, that is why i am in the middle.

My voting record...

Voted for GW Bush in 2000
Voted for Jeb Bush for governor while in Florida


Voted against George Bush in 2004.  Call it a vote for John Kerry if you want, but I voted against a horrible president imo.

Reagan was my favorite president.
Add to that, I liked Bill Clinton as president.


----------



## Eggs (Feb 13, 2005)

If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 13, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true.



I vote you biggest ghey.


----------



## Eggs (Feb 13, 2005)

I have a pinata with your name on it Dale


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 14, 2005)

Vote for Pedro.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 14, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> I have a pinata with your name on it Dale


 Does it have gyno?


----------



## Eggs (Feb 14, 2005)

No, but I have yours on a cycle of tootsie rolls and butterfingers that might result in that


----------



## DOMS (Feb 14, 2005)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Does it have gyno?


 You have gyno?  What happened?


----------



## westb51 (Feb 14, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true.


7 FACES


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 14, 2005)

I don't have gyno...At least i don't think i do.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 14, 2005)

You don't this so?  You may want to visit a doctor to make sure.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 14, 2005)

Why so?  Do you think i have gyno?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 14, 2005)

You said that you "didn't think so" about having gyno.  I've never heard that having gyno is harmful for the body, but it can't be good.  Better safe than sorry about that sort of thing.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 14, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> You said that you "didn't think so" about having gyno.  I've never heard that having gyno is harmful for the body, but it can't be good.  Better safe than sorry about that sort of thing.




It is harmful for getting laid, but I don't think it has any health issues.  I thought you saw my pics and thought I had gyno.  Wow, nothing ever freaks me out but this really is.  I think I know what gyno is and I don't think I have that, but I could be wrong.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 14, 2005)

OK, cool.  I just though that you had done a cycle and were worried that you may have gotten gyno.  

 I just checked out your pics and you look fine (to my non-physician eye).  BTW, you've done pretty well with bodybuilding.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 14, 2005)

Phew, christ.  I want to get my eyes fixed and getting my tits done first would cost a fortune.  

Thanks, why you got no pics up?  I will pay you $100 if you post a pic of you holding a sign that says, "Vote Hilary 2008."  i swear i will do it.  Well, prolly not, but it would be funny.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 14, 2005)

I'd vote for him.


----------



## maniclion (Feb 14, 2005)

Hilary Swank as president?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 14, 2005)

Would you bang Hilary Swank?


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 14, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Would you bang Hilary Swank?


why the ? that should be a statement and not a question. any man in his right mind, setting aside ethical issues would jump all over hilary swank.


----------



## maniclion (Feb 14, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Would you bang Hilary Swank?


Sometimes if the lights just wrong she looks doggishly like Molly Ringwald and other times she looks like a less gorgeous Jennifer Garner.  So it would depend on the light like in that Seinfeld episode where the girl he was dating looked different in the shadows.


----------



## PreMier (Feb 14, 2005)

Yes.. yes I would.


----------

