North Korea's at it again.....

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 14, 2005, 6:13 pm

Lynks wrote:
Aabidano wrote:No, the part of the world that was owed money by Sadaam's regime complained. The rest was fairly quiet and\or irrelevant to the discussion.
Thats the problem right there. Those who complained you brushed off as insignificant or the enemy.

Other than.... RUSSIA, GERMANY, and FRANCE who all had sweet oil deals with saddam, who is 'relevant' and dissenting?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 14, 2005, 6:39 pm

Fash wrote:
Lynks wrote:
Aabidano wrote:No, the part of the world that was owed money by Sadaam's regime complained. The rest was fairly quiet and\or irrelevant to the discussion.
Thats the problem right there. Those who complained you brushed off as insignificant or the enemy.
Other than.... RUSSIA, GERMANY, and FRANCE who all had sweet oil deals with saddam, who is 'relevant' and dissenting?

No no no....the United States is the ONLY country that determines policy based on need for oil...you must be mistaken that these countries wanted Saddam to stay in power because of the oil they were getting....

GASP!!!!

Back to your U.S hating you kooky foreigners.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » February 14, 2005, 6:39 pm

Canada is a nice enough place, but doesn't loom too large in world politics. They didn't scream too loud either if I remember right.

Regardless of anything else, removing Sadaam from power wasn't a bad thing. Assuming the US doesn't screw it up and end up with something worse.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 14, 2005, 8:14 pm

The second Japan feels threatened by KJ, you can bet your asses that there will be a carrier group parked offshore THE NEXT FUCKING WEEK.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » February 14, 2005, 8:29 pm

Brotha wrote:Here's the clip you know you all wanted. Send the VVs my way...

http://kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID= ... vies&NSFW=

ROFL!

"Or else... what?"

"Or else, We will be very, very angry with you, and we will write you a letter telling you how angry we are..."

Gimpy... but I had to steal that for my sig, since I lack one...

Thess · Post by **Thess** » February 15, 2005, 4:01 am

Brotha wrote:You just don't seem to get the point I'm making. N. Korea has been deadset on having nukes since before our policy of pre-emption was even developed. Whether or not Bush had even been elected, N. Korea would still want to have nukes. Therefore, trying to say they wouldn't want nukes if it wasn't for Bush's policy of pre-emption doesn't make very much sense. I'm not sure how I can make it anymore clearer than that.

Personally, I think the only danger of us militarily striking Iran or N. Korea would be because of them developing nukes, so it would be kind of counter-productive if deterrence against us was their reason for developing them.

So therefore we should have invaded them first.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » February 15, 2005, 4:12 am

it's cheaper and safer to let them whither an die. imo one reason bush invaded iraq could be b/c he wanted to send a message to iran and north korea and iraq was a weak target we could bowl over. he didn't count on getting stuck in the mud over there.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 15, 2005, 5:42 am

nobody wrote: he didn't count on getting stuck in the mud over there.

I think everyone knew we'd be there for several years for oil security reasons. We want to be there for the moment.

There may be suidide bombings but there are no major military movements by countries in the region with the U.S. military within easy striking distance of any country in the middle east.

----

Not to hijack the thread, but is anyone opposed to the U.S. steamrolling France and then letting the european nations divide the spoils and land among themselves afterwards? We could practice our tactics on Quebec first if you want.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 15, 2005, 12:14 pm

everyone EXCEPT the people planning the war in the DoD WInnow.

Cheney and Wolfowitz said on videotape the equivalent of "we will be welcomed with flowers and chocolates", as if we were liberating Belgium again in 1944.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » April 29, 2005, 5:37 pm

BUMP!

Update:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=8339652

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - North Korea has the ability to mount a nuclear missile on a long-range missile and the communist state could hit U.S. territory, the head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency said on Thursday.

Jacoby was asked at the hearing by Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York if he assessed that "North Korea has the ability to arm a missile with a nuclear device?"

He replied, "The assessment is that they have the capability to do that, yes, ma'am."

He went on to say that North Korea was also capable of operating a two-stage missile that could hit U.S. territories in the Pacific as well as Hawaii, Alaska and the northwestern sections of the U.S. mainland.

"So the two-stage you are testifying is already within their operational capacity?" the senator asked the admiral.

"Assessed to be within their capacity, yes," he said.

Bastards

Nick · Post by **Nick** » April 30, 2005, 12:25 am

Wow what a surprise! A country you made open threats to has decided to create a deterrant. NO ONE SAW THAT COMING!

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » April 30, 2005, 1:01 am

Good thing the USA has an anti-missle defense system. I think this is the kind of nuclear blackmail old Ronnie had in mind.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » April 30, 2005, 4:04 am

Nick wrote:Wow what a surprise! A country you made open threats to has decided to create a deterrant. NO ONE SAW THAT COMING!

ya b/c they behaved so well themselves for so long until Bush came along.

Teeny, i understand my country is far from perfect but i can't figure why you have such loathing for the US. NK is a communist dictatorship that would gladly take away your freedom and stick you in a dark hole along with the millions of others to have already suffered that fate, yet you find fault with America.

either way, i like teenybloke better, it's hard to get used to Nick, mate.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » April 30, 2005, 8:51 pm

Who said Kim Jong Il was anything other than a vicious oppressive dictator? Not me.

But the point I made (although hard to accept if you swallow the party line) is nothing less than the truth.
I know it doesn't tie into the "vision" but it also happens to have the added bonus of fact, as opposed to a airy fairy righteous crusade of the worlds police.

It's not nice to accept that the "goodies" might have serious aggressive tendencies, but as a member of the developed world I don't happen to think forcing your agenda down the throats of the rest of the world and spinning lies helps the US case.

If the North Koreans want freedom, it's up to them, not you, to get it.

Sorry, no one said it was a nice answer, but it's the case.

PS - Anyone who falls for the usual "OMG THEY HAVE WMD" would do well to learn from the current fuck up in Iraq.
Another lesson conveniently ignored for the sake of ego masturbation.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 1, 2005, 12:27 am

That's funny, what he said in the quote above is not that they do have the missiles. It says that making them is basically not beyond them. Just like saying that someone in West Texas could make a mudball. They have the dirt, and they might have the rain (no guarantee of the rain but it could happen!). Using just those comments above to justify going to war would be unwise in more ways than just public opinion.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » May 1, 2005, 4:54 am

Nick wrote: If the North Koreans want freedom, it's up to them, not you, to get it.

i couldn't agree with you more. and it bothers me as much as you that we are the worlds police.

hopefully, we'll see if China starts to push a little harder on NK to give up their nukes. though i fear that gives them more leverage on the Taiwan issue whom i fully support and believe we should defend. they have already shown they want their freedom and have successfully operated independantly for over 50 yrs.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » May 1, 2005, 7:06 pm

Good old N. Korea...They are the only ones that care about global warming!!!

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... en%26lr%3D

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world ... p-dark.jpg

And for people with poor geography skills here ya go:
http://members.aol.com/picpage506706407 ... korea1.jpg

I know someone on this board is gonna blame Bush for it, so heres a image comparing about 5yrs to about too 10 years ago.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world ... -Night.jpg

The only place besides the ocean that is less active is The Himalayan Mountains.

Ever watch North Korea follow up South Korea in the UN assemblies??...man what a joke of a government.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » May 1, 2005, 7:19 pm

Sirton wrote: The only place besides the ocean that is less active is The Himalayan Mountains.

Umm, eh? There's vast regions of the earth that are just as dark.

This stuff has been posted here before too... and I still don't see the point. If you wanted to show that Kim is a nutbag and NK is a shithole, there's far more obvious evidence than some cute pic of darkness.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » May 12, 2005, 2:30 pm

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking ... -3503r.htm

The announcement came only a day after neighboring China, which has provided Pyongyang with crucial oil supplies and chemicals needed for its nuclear materials extraction program, rejected pressuring North Korea to resume the six-nation nuclear talks in Beijing.

China opposed putting any pressure on North Korea to force it to agree to the resumption of the six-nation talks on Pyongyang's nuclear program, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told a briefing on Tuesday. China considered pressuring North Korea and imposing economic sanctions, Liu said.

hmm, i guess i was wrong. i expected china to side closer with us on this issue. on a side note:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4541195.stm

Earlier Tony Blair said at his monthly press conference that the UK would support referral to the UN Security Council if Iran breaches its undertakings and obligations.

"Quite how that will come about we have got to work out with our colleagues and allies," he said.

"But those international rules are there for a reason and they have to be adhered to."

In Tehran, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Hassan Rohani, said that Iran would "resume part of its nuclear activities in the near future", but that "the conditions and timing" of the move were still being discussed with European negotiators from France, Germany and Britain.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » May 12, 2005, 2:37 pm

Kim doesn't look like an Arab. How bad can he be?