REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

a rant about North Korea

POSTED BY: NEWOLDBROWNCOAT
UPDATED: Friday, February 9, 2018 13:16
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2372
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 8:52 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


I'm tired of hearing about the whole North Korea thing.

Two points on MY mind, don't care too much about anything else the media is saying:

1> This is really Japan's, and South Korea's, problem, and of course China's. How 'bout shutting up and letting them take some responsibility, letting them do the heavy lifting, doing what they want?

2> If this is such an immediate, urgent problem, how 'bout believing the N Korean guy when he says this is a declaration of war, calling Congress back into emergency session BEFORE the election, voting on a Declaration of War, and bombing the @#$$! out of N Korea's Nuclear sites, then military positions if their army attacks, then political and/or governmental institutions. Bring about regime change by overwhelming military might, nuclear if necessary, removing Kim Jong II permanently.

Not sure I support that myself, but I'm p!$$&d off about their attitude and the whole thing, and that would get it over with...

Thank you'all for letting me vent, anyway




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 9:05 AM

CITIZEN


Since the Allies are responcible for creating North and South Korea after the removal of Japanese occupation surely it's at least as much the US's problem as anyone elses.

And really do you think what the US needs right now for it's international image is another war of aggression?

Besides we can see how well regime change through overwhelming military might is working in Iraq.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 9:20 AM

KANEMAN


How Michael Savage wants to deal with North Korea:

Take out all North Korean missile launch sites.

While I think this needs to be done, I think it needs to be taken further than that. The moment we initiate a strike, North Korea will initiate an incursion across the DMZ into South Korea and attack the US troops there. So I feel a strike from the USA against not only launch sites, but also the entire North Korean military and political establishment is required. If war was good enough for Iraq, who was suspected of having WMDs, it’s even better for North Korea, that has WMDs and is telling the whole world about it. North Korea will get off some missiles, that will kill millions the moment the USA strikes. So I feel our attack should withhold nothing. Hit them with nukes away from the DMZ and conventional weapons near the DMZ. (Savage wants to use conventional weapons against just the launch sites.) I feel if we are going to attack North Korea, it must be an absolute attack and not partial.

Impose massive tariffs on Chinese imports (38%), because China controls North Korea.

I agree, because this is the only way we’re going to get ourselves off the addiction to Chinese goods. Almost none of us are able to avoid buying Chinese goods, even when we try. Such a tariff would make it easy to identify and turn down goods made in China. China could stop North Korea, but instead uses them as a proxy.

Flush out Chinese sympathizers in the government. Try Albright and Berger for treason.

I don’t know. So many in our government go against the best interests of Americans. Even our current government with the practically open borders. And we the voters keep electing many of them. We need a political shake-up, but that would require that more people wake up to the threat. Otherwise voters would put new nuts in to replace the old ones.

I feel the parties have the voting system locked down in a way that makes it difficult for challenges outside of their control. More open primaries and easier ballot access are needed


Independent conservative comments......

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 9:21 AM

RUE


I know there's a tendancy to say 'to hell with 'em - nuke 'em. Let's settle this once and for all, damn it !!' But look how well bombing Afghanistan back into the stone age worked; and how effective 'shock and awe' was in settling the Iraq problem 'once and for all'.

Added to that, N Korea has missiles all over the place aimed at S Korea. There is no way the US could bomb enough fast enough to silence a N Korean military response.

Furthermore, a unilateral US attack would evoke responses from both Russia and China.

There is no viable military solution. The only avenue is political. The N Koreans only want one thing - to talk one on one with the US (with the US in consultation with its partners). So, why not?


"There are no winners in nuclear war."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 9:24 AM

TPAGE


In response to why this is such a big issue in America and not the responsibility of Japan and South Korea is simply because both of those nations rely on American military support.

If you read about the terms of surrender, etc. that the Japanese military signed at the end of WWII you will notice that they restricted their own military capacity, instead arranging American military support.

More or less, the same thing with South Korea. Technically, a U.N. action but heavily controlled by the U.S.A.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 9:34 AM

KANEMAN


Furthermore, a unilateral US attack would evoke responses from both Russia and China.


Sure it would....That's all I can say besides: Stop being a wuss you limp wristed pansy. Thank god your type(anti-war dope smoking hippies) died with Jefferson Airplane.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:29 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Since this is clearly an international problem, it's exactly the type of issue the United Nations was developed to handle. We should let the U.N. deal with it (giggle). Yes, the U.N., with its stated goals of self-determination and prevention of war(titter), is the perfect body to diplomatically convince Poyngyang to denuclearize(chortle). Just look at how effectively they've handled the recent crisies in Africa(snort). And the Oil-for-Food program (Bwah-Haw-Haw...Sorry).

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:38 AM

RUE


Hey Slick, I noticed you never did respond to "Why I support Bush ..." and Dick (titter, there's something so sexual about those names .. Bush and Dick ... bwah haw haw )

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:44 AM

RUE


So canker sore,

Out of curiosity, what would you recommend should China call in the US debt? What would you recommend militarily if China and Russia made common cause to fight the US? I mean, with US troops tied down in one small, poor and defenseless country in the mid-east.

Quote:

Furthermore, a unilateral US attack would evoke responses from both Russia and China.

Sure it would....That's all I can say besides: Stop being a wuss you limp wristed pansy. Thank god your type(anti-war dope smoking hippies) died with Jefferson Airplane.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:03 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Since this is clearly an international problem, it's exactly the type of issue the United Nations was developed to handle. We should let the U.N. deal with it (giggle). Yes, the U.N., with its stated goals of self-determination and prevention of war(titter), is the perfect body to diplomatically convince Poyngyang to denuclearize(chortle). Just look at how effectively they've handled the recent crisies in Africa(snort). And the Oil-for-Food program (Bwah-Haw-Haw...Sorry).

Naw, we should let the USA deal with it, the only nation militarilly equipped to handle North Korea (giggle). Yes the USA, with it's land of oppertunity (titter), is the perfect nation to convince poyngyang to denuclearise(chortle). Just look at how effectively America handled Vietnam(snort), and Iraq(Bwah-Haw-Haw...Sorry).



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:14 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Naw, we should let the USA deal with it, the only nation militarilly equipped to handle North Korea (giggle). Yes the USA, with it's land of oppertunity (titter), is the perfect nation to convince poyngyang to denuclearise(chortle). Just look at how effectively America handled Vietnam(snort), and Iraq(Bwah-Haw-Haw...Sorry).


*getting up off the floor*
THAT, my friend, was gorram spot on and hi-larious.

BWAHAHAHAHAHChrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 19, 2006 2:39 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Naw, we should let the USA deal with it, the only nation militarilly equipped to handle North Korea (giggle). Yes the USA, with it's land of oppertunity (titter), is the perfect nation to convince poyngyang to denuclearise(chortle). Just look at how effectively America handled Vietnam(snort), and Iraq(Bwah-Haw-Haw...Sorry).



Ah yes. Imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery. Although to get the true Bush flavor, it should be "denucularize".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:00 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Since the Allies are responcible for creating North and South Korea after the removal of Japanese occupation surely it's at least as much the US's problem as anyone elses.


I agree, although 'as much as anyone else' certainly includes Russia, since this is a Soviet legacy, China, since they stuck their noses into Korea and caused no decision on the war that should have settled all this sixty years ago, Japan and South Korea, cause they are in North Korea's crosshairs, the United Nations, because they forgot to end the last Korean war or deal with the next one.

Korea is a big problem and one we all share.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:10 AM

CITIZEN


I agree, my responce was aimed at the poster who said "this isn't our (I assume meaning the US) responcibillity".



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:12 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
There is no viable military solution. The only avenue is political. The N Koreans only want one thing - to talk one on one with the US (with the US in consultation with its partners). So, why not?


Why not?
1. Because they want a million things and talking one on one with the US is no. 4 on the list.
2. Because excluding the other interested parties from the discussion limits the amount of pressure that can be applied. It also alienates those other parties making them less inclined to cooperate in the future and with no guarrantee that they will accept or enforce any potential agreement.
3. Liberals hate it when the US goes alone...
4. A bilateral agreement between the US and NK brokered by Jimmy Carter in 1994 for the Clinton administration is partly responsible for creating our present circumstances.
5. There is no agreement to be had. North Korea wants long range missiles and a viable nuclear threat. At that point they estimate that the US will not be willing to trade Seattle for Seoul and will not intervene should NK use its superior military resources to finish what they started in 1950. That is their goal and has been for decades. No political solution can resolve this particular aspect of the problem.

As for your observation of no viable military solution, I disagree. If North Korea attacks, which is always possible givent the sentiments of the parties, then the US will orchestrate their military defeat. Nobody will intervene on North Korea's side...except maybe Hugo Chavez and Cindy Sheehan neither of whom add up to 10 million Chinese it took the last time. While casualties, especially among civilians will be heavy...thats war.

H


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 19, 2006 6:04 AM

DREAMTROVE


Sure, the US govt is corrupt and incompetent, and sure, the UN is corrupt and incompetent, and sure, they'll screw it up. But they have chosen the correct course of action. I just think that this negotiation needs a little more stick.

We're currently repositioning our mobile aircraft carriers around Iran. What utter lunacy. We should take any portion of the fleet which is not involved in Iraq, and not involved in defending something that need defending, and move it to Korea, where it presently belongs.

That's why we have ships, because they can move. And a move like this would send the message: "If you invade South Korea, you're going to have to deal with us."

And, yes, by all means, and in so many ways, this *is* our problem. 1) In our current industrial state we are dependent on South Korea, and 2) The US has agreed by treaty to defend South Korea, and we must honor it. Just as violating the Geneva conventions invites others to do the same, violating treaties and international obligations invites other to do the same.

The international community, is, always, at least to some extent, rule by example. At the moment, the examples we're setting suck. I'm glad we're not nuking Korea, that would be a moron and evil thing to do, but I do think we're being a little on the weak side.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 19, 2006 6:17 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:


How Michael Savage wants to deal with North Korea:

Take out all North Korean missile launch sites.

While I think this needs to be done, I think it needs to be taken further than that. The moment we initiate a strike, North Korea will initiate an incursion across the DMZ into South Korea and attack the US troops there. So I feel a strike from the USA against not only launch sites, but also the entire North Korean military and political establishment is required. If war was good enough for Iraq, who was suspected of having WMDs, it’s even better for North Korea, that has WMDs and is telling the whole world about it. North Korea will get off some missiles, that will kill millions the moment the USA strikes. So I feel our attack should withhold nothing. Hit them with nukes away from the DMZ and conventional weapons near the DMZ. (Savage wants to use conventional weapons against just the launch sites.) I feel if we are going to attack North Korea, it must be an absolute attack and not partial.

Impose massive tariffs on Chinese imports (38%), because China controls North Korea.

I agree, because this is the only way we’re going to get ourselves off the addiction to Chinese goods. Almost none of us are able to avoid buying Chinese goods, even when we try. Such a tariff would make it easy to identify and turn down goods made in China. China could stop North Korea, but instead uses them as a proxy.

Flush out Chinese sympathizers in the government. Try Albright and Berger for treason.

I don’t know. So many in our government go against the best interests of Americans. Even our current government with the practically open borders. And we the voters keep electing many of them. We need a political shake-up, but that would require that more people wake up to the threat. Otherwise voters would put new nuts in to replace the old ones.

I feel the parties have the voting system locked down in a way that makes it difficult for challenges outside of their control. More open primaries and easier ballot access are needed


Independent conservative comments......




Kaneman, you should take heed of this, if you support this kind of position, you'd do well to temper your language, because Mr. Savage sounds quite reasonable. If you put things more calmly, you might also sound reasonable.

I agree with the post to an extent. Albright is evil, and should probably be tried for treason. Berger is guilty at least of intelligence fraud.

First strike against NK would be idiotic. I assume that Kim Jong Il, if we do nothing involving any show of strength, will invade South Korea. He will do this because he thinks China has his back.

I think that the possibility of intercepting a nuke in the air has not adequately been looked into. Ground-based intercepts that we've been working on are not a very inovative or effective idea. But until we have an effective method of doing this, we should stall as long as we can. I think it's impossible to attack NK and take out thier missile sites without them getting at least one or two off.

I'd say 3/4 of our elected politicians have no concern for the good of America, and about 3/4 of the remainder are well intentioned and reasonable intelligent, but are operating using bad information which has been mailiciously altered by the other 75%.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 19, 2006 11:18 AM

KANEMAN


Ruse,
We are only tied down because we are not fully deployed in Iraq. Let us go in with 350,000 troops and bomb the hell out of areas awash in insurgents . We would not be tied down then. If China calls in our debt we should default and take the bad credit

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 19, 2006 11:58 AM

RUE


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm
"On August 3, 2006 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testified that 133,000 US personnel were deployed in Iraq."

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20040604.htm
As noted, the active-duty force (all branches) numbers 500,000, of which only about 320,000 are easily deployable at any given moment.

So, you are proposing the US take ALL of its deployable troops out of Korea, Japan, Europe, the Phillipines and everywhere around the globe, send them to Iraq, and still be 30,000 short.

Is that what you propose? Pulling troops out of every other deployment around the globe?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 19, 2006 12:10 PM

KANEMAN


No. What I am saying is we have to stop fighting with a hand tied behind our back. If there is a known insurgent stronghold turn it into rubble, ASAP.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:08 PM

MINK


We'd need the draft. The whole Iraq thing is so bungled, it staggers the imagination. If we were going to invade, we should have put the country on a war footing with a war economy and everybody tightening their belts with massive tax increases, instead we're printing up the money to do it, which will haunt us shortly. And we should've sent in a force of 350K++ to put the whole country in lockdown and set up a military governorship with an iron fist and then worked on a long slow transition to democratic rule.

But nobody would have wanted that. F%ck it, I was once in favor of the invasion but now that I realize what complete nincompoops the Iraqis are (to say nothing of our government), I sincerely regret it.

There, I admitted it. Crow is eaten.

"When I write my memoirs, that sh!t'll be in there, guaranteed."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:08 PM

MINK


We'd need the draft. The whole Iraq thing is so bungled, it staggers the imagination. If we were going to invade, we should have put the country on a war footing with a war economy and everybody tightening their belts with massive tax increases, instead we're printing up the money to do it, which will haunt us shortly. And we should've sent in a force of 350K++ to put the whole country in lockdown and set up a military governorship with an iron fist and then worked on a long slow transition to democratic rule.

But nobody would have wanted that. F%ck it, I was once in favor of the invasion but now that I realize what complete nincompoops the Iraqis are (to say nothing of our government), I sincerely regret it.

There, I admitted it. Crow is eaten.

"When I write my memoirs, that sh!t'll be in there, guaranteed."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:14 PM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by mink:
We'd need the draft. The whole Iraq thing is so bungled, it staggers the imagination. If we were going to invade, we should have put the country on a war footing with a war economy and everybody tightening their belts with massive tax increases, instead we're printing up the money to do it, which will haunt us shortly. And we should've sent in a force of 350K++ to put the whole country in lockdown and set up a military governorship with an iron fist and then worked on a long slow transition to democratic rule.

But nobody would have wanted that. F%ck it, I was once in favor of the invasion but now that I realize what complete nincompoops the Iraqis are (to say nothing of our government), I sincerely regret it.

There, I admitted it. Crow is eaten.

"When I write my memoirs, that sh!t'll be in there, guaranteed."



Hit out of the park. Let's not make the same mistake in NK.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:31 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
We're currently repositioning our mobile aircraft carriers around Iran. What utter lunacy. We should take any portion of the fleet which is not involved in Iraq, and not involved in defending something that need defending, and move it to Korea, where it presently belongs.

That's why we have ships, because they can move. And a move like this would send the message: "If you invade South Korea, you're going to have to deal with us."

I agree with this.

In the 1970's the same situations that led to the Falklands war happened while the then Labour government was in power. The government bolstered the naval and army presence in the area and there was no war.

It happens again and the then government under Thatcher reduces the naval presence.

Sometimes flying the flag can stop a war before it starts. It's the old playground bully thing, who do they start a fight with? The guy who lies down and lets it happen or the one who show's he's prepared to fight back?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:37 PM

CITIZEN


Who made me double post?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 20, 2006 3:17 AM

DREAMTROVE


Citizen,

Sure. You have to back your stick up though. If the enemy attacks, you have to defend. "why the falkland war happened" at some level is the fault of argentina, who was itching for a war. they were going to invade someone else, i don't remember who, but the pope stepped in and said "no" and so they attacked the falklands instead. The US acts like that sometimes, and even saddam's invasion of kuwait was based on similar logic. To use a crude analogy, a war machine is like a penis. If it doesn't get to penetrate one sovereign nation, it looks around for the closest thing it can do.

But you're right, you can avoid being that target by maintaining a strong defense. Of course, N. Korea's other choices are Russia, China and Japan, all of which would soundly kick its ass. Maybe one should just give Kim Jong Il a stack of soldier of fortune and leave him alone in the bathroom for half an hour.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 20, 2006 3:38 AM

DREAMTROVE


Mink,

No, we don't.

A draft would create a war machine with a limitless standing army. it would attack everything in site, like clinton in a whorehouse, to follow my crude analogy.

But this wasn't the problem. We had plenty of guys. What we didn't do was making any friends. We should have made deals with Turkey, and launched from there. They were willing to let us for $15B or something. Easily worth it. Then we invade Kurdistan, and secure it. We torture no one and imprison no one. We start right away constructing hospitals, schools and residences, stuff saddam hussein had destroyed in his bombing campaigns.

This would win us a strong ally. The Kurds would then step in to fill up our ranks. We assemble a local army of Iraqis, and arm it, train it, and prepare to lead it into action. All the while we heavily guard the borders of Kurdistan, the military training camps and the reconstruction efforts. While we're here, we set up and oil-share deal with the kurds. Something like we help them get the oil and sell it internationally, and in exchange for that, and our defense of them against saddam, they sell us 1/2 the production at cost plus, and the other half goes to the open market and they keep all the proceeds in a permanent fund or something, use half of that to run a local govt. and distribute the remaining portion to the populous. The people are happy.

Next, we find the Shiia sympathizers. There were plenty who had serious issues with saddam. Our situation in Kurdistan now is much better than the Shiia are getting from Saddam. They also outnumber him. Territory by territory, you attack, secure, and build local support by doing just what you did in kurdistan. When you attack, you'll be fighting Saddam's standing army, but not the shiia, who don't really oppose what you're trying to do, at least, not enough that would make for an armed conflict.

With the Shia territories in control, Saddam's Iraq is like a kuwait reaching up to baghdad. You're next target is the Sunni fundementalists. They hate saddam too, but in a different way. See, these people never toppled saddam not because they loved him, but because he was strong and they were divided. The sunni radicals despise the secular nature of the saddam govt. You get support from their strongholds, invade, conquer, and do what you did other places. Now you have about 2.5 million iraqis in your army, and basically all the oil, and most of iraq. Instead of attacking saddam's heavily armed lichtenstan, you negotiate his surrender. It's painfully obvious who would win the remaining armed conflict, even to a man as stubborn as saddam. You offer him a life on an island as a billionaire, and he takes it. If he doesn't, you fight for a little while, and then offer it again.

Eventually, saddam caves, and you take his army and govt, and intergrate it into the one you already have, introduce democratic elections. You get half the oil, and it's completely above board, and trust me, the iraqis would take it. The saddam govt. was keeping easily half the oil profits for itself before, and an awful lot of countries in the world have accepted a lot worse deals in exchange for peace, stability and a first world infrastructure.

W

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 20, 2006 4:38 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
A draft would create a war machine with a limitless standing army.


Wow, thats quite a leap. Why didn't it happen back when we had the draft? In WW2 or Vietnam why didn't the limitless American War Machine take over the world?

How about Russia, they currently have a draft, why haven't they attacked everything in sight?

Limitless standing army...HAH!

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 20, 2006 5:09 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Report: N. Korea 'Sorry' for Nuke Test

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korean leader Kim Jong Il said Pyongyang didn't plan to carry out any more nuclear tests and expressed regret about the country's first-ever atomic detonation last week, a South Korean news agency reported Friday.



http://wtop.com/?nid=105&sid=949137

Kim: "Oops. We rearry, rearry, sorry. My finger sripped."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 20, 2006 5:36 AM

CITIZEN


The problem with your plan for Iraq, DT, is that it's the long game without the big bangs and flag waving hysteria "we got the bad guys, we got 'em good huya!".

The American Public would've got bored with it about four seconds after it started. Instant gratification man, if you're state doesn't win the war in under 2 minutes it just rolls over and goes to sleep...



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 20, 2006 5:55 AM

MINK


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
A draft would create a war machine with a limitless standing army.


Wow, thats quite a leap. Why didn't it happen back when we had the draft? In WW2 or Vietnam why didn't the limitless American War Machine take over the world?

How about Russia, they currently have a draft, why haven't they attacked everything in sight?

Limitless standing army...HAH!

H




Not to mention all the places without a draft per se, but rather universal mandatory service, like, oh, say ... Switzerland? The former West Germany? Israel (if anybody wants to pounce on that one as a counterexample, go ahead and make yourself look like an idiot)?

That's not to say the rest of the stuff in dt's post is a bad idea.

"When I write my memoirs, that sh!t'll be in there, guaranteed."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 20, 2006 5:55 AM

MINK


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
A draft would create a war machine with a limitless standing army.


Wow, thats quite a leap. Why didn't it happen back when we had the draft? In WW2 or Vietnam why didn't the limitless American War Machine take over the world?

How about Russia, they currently have a draft, why haven't they attacked everything in sight?

Limitless standing army...HAH!

H




Not to mention all the places without a draft per se, but rather universal mandatory service, like, oh, say ... Switzerland? The former West Germany? Israel (if anybody wants to pounce on that one as a counterexample, go ahead and make yourself look like an idiot)?

That's not to say the rest of the stuff in dt's post is a bad idea.

"When I write my memoirs, that sh!t'll be in there, guaranteed."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 20, 2006 8:28 AM

MAVOURNEEN


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
I'm tired of hearing about the whole North Korea thing.

Two points on MY mind, don't care too much about anything else the media is saying:

1> This is really Japan's, and South Korea's, problem, and of course China's. How 'bout shutting up and letting them take some responsibility, letting them do the heavy lifting, doing what they want?

2> If this is such an immediate, urgent problem, how 'bout believing the N Korean guy when he says this is a declaration of war, calling Congress back into emergency session BEFORE the election, voting on a Declaration of War, and bombing the @#$$! out of N Korea's Nuclear sites, then military positions if their army attacks, then political and/or governmental institutions. Bring about regime change by overwhelming military might, nuclear if necessary, removing Kim Jong II permanently.

Not sure I support that myself, but I'm p!$$&d off about their attitude and the whole thing, and that would get it over with...

Thank you'all for letting me vent, anyway



How does this sound?

I'm tired of hearing about the whole Kansas thing.

Two points on MY mind, don't care too much about anything else the media is saying:

1> This is really Oklahoma's, and Nebraska’s problem, and of course Missouri's. How 'bout shutting up and letting them take some responsibility, letting them do the heavy lifting, doing what they want?

2> If this is such an immediate, urgent problem, how 'bout believing the Kansas guy when he says this is a declaration of war, calling Congress back into emergency session BEFORE the election, voting on a Declaration of War, and bombing the @#$$! out of Kansas’ Nuclear sites, then military positions if their army attacks, then political and/or governmental institutions. Bring about regime change by overwhelming military might, nuclear if necessary, removing Governor Kathleen Sebelius permanently.

Not sure I support that myself, but I'm p!$$&d off about their attitude and the whole thing, and that would get it over with...

Thank you'all for letting me vent, anyway



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 22, 2006 1:44 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Mavourneen:
>>> I snipped a bunch...<<<
2> If this is such an immediate, urgent problem, how 'bout believing the Kansas guy when he says this is a declaration of war, calling Congress back into emergency session BEFORE the election, voting on a Declaration of War, and bombing the @#$$! out of Kansas’ Nuclear sites, then military positions if their army attacks, then political and/or governmental institutions. Bring about regime change by overwhelming military might, nuclear if necessary, removing Governor Kathleen Sebelius permanently.




Not sure what your criticism is, but IF Kansas was developing nukes, in the face of the opposition of EVERYBODY, and saying that what other folks were doing was a declaration of war, , then yes, we should call Congress back, right before an election, and make 'em vote Yea or Nay on the Public Record. Then proceed accordingly. If it was gonna be war, it would be in our best interest to strike an overwhelming blow as quickly as possible.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 23, 2006 8:45 AM

RABBIT2


It occurs to me that, technicaly speaking the UN is still at war with North Korea. The Korean War never officially ended and what happened was just a long ceasefire which Kim has just broken by his recent actions.

--------------------------------------------------

Flight Instructor: Son, know what the first rule of flying is?
Me: Don`t crash?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 23, 2006 10:18 AM

RUE


This was an interesting article from AsiaTimes online

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HJ19Dg01.html
It highlights the importance of the fact that plutonium was used on NK's test, not uranium. Plutonium was what the Clinton admin monitored and kept from being manufactured. The Bush admin pulled out of the Agreed Framework with NK after claiming NK was producing fissionable uranium. After that, NK expanded its production of plutonium, and has used some of their reserves to test a bomb.

"Bush knows what kind of bomb was tested because the at-least partially successful nuke blast was not completely contained.
In 1992 ... the North Koreans threatened to withdraw from the NPT.
In 1994, president Bill Clinton persuaded North Korea to sign the Agreed Framework (to),
... remain a signatory to the NPT
... shut down its plutonium-239-producing reactor
... close its spent-fuel reprocessing facilities
... place all its existing nuclear materials - including the plutonium-239 contained under the lock and seal of the IAEA
... and to abandon construction of its 50-MW and 200-MW, plutonium-239-producing reactors.

Clinton promised to
... (replace) their graphite-moderated plutonium-239 producing reactors with light-water nuclear power plants
... provide millions of tons of fuel oil to tide them over
... never use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against them

In September 2002, US officials privately confronted the North Koreas of having a secret uranium-235 nuke program, which the North Koreans then vehemently denied publicly, and have continued to deny to this day.

The president - citing the uranium-235 nuke "intelligence" - stopped fuel oil shipments to North Korea in November 2002, thereby abrogating the Agreed Framework. As Bush may have intended, the North Koreans almost immediately announced they were withdrawing from the NPT.
Hence, in January 2003, on the eve of Bush's invasion of Iraq, North Korea ejected IAEA inspectors, restarted its plutonium-239 producing reactor and began recovering plutonium-239 from their spent fuel, which had been under IAEA lock and seal since the Agreed Framework was established in 1994. By most estimates, they now have enough plutonium-239 to make six to 10 nukes and are busy producing more








NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 23, 2006 4:28 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


I have also heard ( on CNN, no link sorry ) that the six party talks managed to come up with two seperate deals that were acceptable to all partys except the US...

The former state department guy that was being interviewed speculated that was because team Bush is not interested in diplomacy only regime change....



In that context, North Korea pulling out of the six party talks makes sense... no deal to be had so why bother. In addition to Rues last, Bush is acting on his " intellegence " which worked oh so well in Iraq, whether or not the were violating the treaty, there really was no way to prove they were in compliance to even the extent Saddam did.... So what did they have to lose, why not have a bigger stick...





Do I see a burning Bush ?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 23, 2006 5:54 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Hero: Why didn't it happen back when we had the draft?


What? It didn't? Where was I? Wait, no, where were you?

Did you somehow miss the license for unchecked war being carried out in an unchecked war against Japan, Korea, Vietnam ... ?

The only reason serial war stopped is that the draft was ended. Unfortunately, now we have robots. but still, the draft is a big can of kerosene.

Quote:


How about Russia, they currently have a draft, why haven't they attacked everything in sight?



They're not? They haven't been for a century... um, where was I, ... no wait ...

See, Russia is attacking everything in sight, and has been for some time, as is China, and Israel. It doesn't happen everywhere because not all cultures are the same, and it's not always feasible, but it sure happens these ones.

Your argument defeats itself.




Quote:

Citizen

The problem with your plan for Iraq, DT, is that it's the long game without the big bangs and flag waving hysteria "we got the bad guys, we got 'em good huya!".



LOL
True. I tend to hope people are better than this, but I could be mistaken. Certainly politicians on avg. don't seem to be.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 23, 2006 6:00 PM

KANEMAN


Clinton promised to
... (replace) their graphite-moderated plutonium-239 producing reactors with light-water nuclear power plants
... provide millions of tons of fuel oil to tide them over
... never use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against them


A little outside of the presidential powers..ya think?


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 12:08 PM

FLAMETREE


You want to decrease the chance of WW3?

Disarm USA


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 27, 2006 7:26 AM

JAYNEZTOWN


We can't really do squat about North Korea unless your willing to see a bloodbath many times worse than Iraq or sacrifice maybe thousands upon thousands of American troops over a matter of a few hours, plus Kim has also got biological and chemical WMDs. The DPRK dictator also has missiles that would be in range of Okinawa, Tokyo, Osan...The artillery will be the major problem, they've a huge standing army with thousands of commandos and they got alot of missiles pointed at Seoul. What is to say that when cornered, he's not going to try to take the South and a good chunk of Asia down with him?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:39 PM

DREAMTROVE


Jaynestown,

Nonsense.

Containment. It's a US strategy which worked for many years. You position forces in such a way that it is not practical for your enemy to attack. Defend SK and Japan to the hilt. Add troops, aircraft carriers and anti-missile systems. Anti-missile systems aren't 100% yet, but they're a start. At the very least it will have KJI thinking "uh oh, if I nuke japan and fail, the retaliation will annihilate me." He's insane, not stupid.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 9, 2018 10:34 AM

JAYNEZTOWN


Kim's Sister, Kim Yo-Jong arrives in South Korea https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=fbO5OEpe03Y


this thread is old... since this time Libya has happened, a N.African Arab state quit its advanced weapons program for the world, gave you its bio and chemical WMD program...later NATO, Obama and Hillary would destroy their country.... not a very good guarantee about joining an international community


also recently and strangely....a North Korea soldier ran from the North to the South, crossed the border while getting shot....man who defected had immunity to anthrax

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 9, 2018 12:54 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.



Once upon a time, we used to have real discussions like this. That was before trolls like THUGR, GSTRING, AND WITCHY took over.

Sigh.
Ah, for the good old days!

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 9, 2018 1:16 PM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Once upon a time, we used to have real discussions like this. That was before trolls like THUGR, GSTRING, AND WITCHY took over.

Sigh.
Ah, for the good old days!



You mean a thread in which you only post once, and that's just to whine and insult people and add nothing to the discussion? Yeah, those were the days alright!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Robert Mueller's Day Off
Fri, December 14, 2018 05:08 - 64 posts
Google "idiot" in Google images. Guess what comes up?
Fri, December 14, 2018 04:46 - 11 posts
Russian internet trolls are trained to spread propaganda in three-person teams
Fri, December 14, 2018 03:17 - 7 posts
Countdown Clock to Trumps impeachment " STARTS"
Thu, December 13, 2018 23:40 - 1769 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Thu, December 13, 2018 23:19 - 2153 posts
So.... About this "Caravan"
Thu, December 13, 2018 14:54 - 289 posts
Evidence: So where are we now(II) ?
Thu, December 13, 2018 10:35 - 585 posts
Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic Socialists, and end to Capitalism
Thu, December 13, 2018 06:57 - 73 posts
Talking 'bout some crazy fool
Wed, December 12, 2018 20:39 - 17 posts
Sentencing Thread
Wed, December 12, 2018 14:57 - 65 posts
Trump Just Made the United States the Literal Laughingstock of the World. Again.
Wed, December 12, 2018 14:33 - 2 posts
How Many Jumped On The Bandwagon?
Wed, December 12, 2018 08:30 - 9 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL