Get Ready - Here Come The Nukes.

Seems like N. Korea is dead set on being a player in this game.

Bush says we can fight a war on TWO fronts at the same time. But nukes?

Saddam has not been accused of having nukes, only weapons of mass destruction.

I think Bush better think really hard before he starts sending our young men out - only to come home in body-bags.

Has anyone else noticed that since 9-11, the Bush administration has seemed to absolutely 'thrive' on a sense of 'impending crisis' in the US? Kind of playing on 'fear'. Maybe it's real. I don't know. Maybe not.

However, N Korea is someone to take seriously. IMHO

The UN nuclear watchdog says North Korea has moved 1,000 nuclear fuel rods to a reactor that could produce weapons-grade plutonium - a situation it describes as "very worrying".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2607375.stm

How many times has 9/11 happened to us? Were you surprised when it happened? Do you now believe anything can happen at anytime in this country? Would you rather he sit on his thumb and do nothing?

At least we have someone who has the balls to stand up to what's going on in the world.

author=lonestar link=board=12;threadid=641;start=0#14530 date=1040913744]
How many times has 9/11 happened to us?

ONce.

Were you surprised when it happened?

Hell yeah! Suprised. Horrified. Pissed. Sick to my stomach, among other feelings....

Do you now believe anything can happen at anytime in this country?

No. We are obviously vulnerable and need to take steps to protect our citizens and our interests abroad - but we have an advantage by our location. But we need to make decisions that are of the greatest benefit to us.

Would you rather he sit on his thumb and do nothing?

At least we have someone who has the balls to stand up to what's going on in the world.


Having the 'balls' to do something and doing the correct thing are not always the same.

The Religious Reich figures prominently in the Bush administration at present.

As long as Bush makes foreign policy believing that we need to protect Israel due to its "chosen" status - Americans are going to suffer.

IF he - and his cronies - can dismiss the superstitious bullshit as just that - I think they will make better decisions.

Just my two cents. :-*

Just my two cents. :-*http://www.klapschus.de/Smilies/piss.gif




;D

I'll just bet you have been dying for a chance to use that! ;D

I'll just bet you have been dying for a chance to use that! ;D


You're right, I just got him for Christmas. ;D

[lgllady]

If there is a nuclear conflict with N.Korea it is highly unlikely that many Americans will come home in body bags. N.Korea has no ability to launch an attack into the Untied States, they do not have the delivery system. They would probably launch against S. Korea (which has a vastly superior armed force) and an American base. Or, against Japan.

China DOES have that delivery system, and has threatened to use it in an attack on Los Angeles. China is also likely to join N. Korea. It is more than likely that there will be more body bags on the west coast than in Korea.

I tend to believe that this whole N. Korea thing is a cook-up with Iraq.

[Lazarus]

International Law is much like the Mafia.

If somebody "accidently" drives some aircraft into your living room you don't assume that it was done with the best of intentions and that your long standing enemies did not have anything to do with it.

When we were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, I was calling for the use of massive (read nuclear) retaliation.

People asked, "Who?"

My reply was that the U.S. State Department has a list of states that sponsor terrorism. So, start with the top of the list and work your way down it until there are no more states that sponsor terrorism.

Some responded with "But are they responsible for what happened?"

And my reply was, "Who gives a shit?"

Now, it is about a year and a half later, and those "enemies" are pretty much still there. And they are getting stronger, while our resolve to act has seemed to wane.

In the Mafia, if you get "hit" then your response is to "hit back"--and if some innocent people get caught in the crossfire, then so be it. It is an ugly world that is governed by the agressive use of force.

How many of us would cry over Khadafi's corpse? Saddam's? Kim il Jung's?

In the aftermath of 9-11-01, if we had lashed out and resolved all of the family business, then who would have blamed us? And even if they did, then who gives a shit?

Now, however, we seem to need to kiss Blix's ass in order to wipe our noses.

NUKE 'EM!

:o

[Jethro Tull]

We don't need to nuke 'em - at least not yet - but we do need to take care of business.

As noted, North Korea's problem is delivery. They may not be able to even deliver a functioning nuclear device at all; it isn't a simple thing to do, much more than loading a warhead on a missile or dropping a bomb. There are two nuclear powers on their borders, who are also concerned. At present, all their activity is blackmail to get us to continue oil shipments. We certainly need to be forming plans, and negotiating hard with South Korea, China, Russia, and Japan about what we need to do and how to go about doing it.

In the meantime, Saddam needs to be taken out. He must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, period. His behavior has demonstrated that the only way we can do that is by removing him.

Between Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, there are nearly 40% of the world's known oil reserves in a small area. There is no margin of error for screwing around with "wait-and-see" policies.

We have heard the whiners and nay-sayers before - before Desert Storm, before Kosovo, before Afghanistan. In each case, thousands of American body-bags and hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties were predicted. Didn't happen then, and won't happen now, either.

How long before we realize their prophecies of doom are simply bullshit in an attempt to divert our policies? Does a track record of ALWAYS being wrong count?

[greginboise]

First, the 2nd Infantry Div. is there. With associated support troops, there are maybe 30,000 GI's in Korea. Any exchange will esult in a perhaps significant number of body bags.

Second, depending of the exact nature of the facility that the spent rods are now in, a precise airstrike to destroy or disable it would not be unprecedented. And to hell with collateral damge concerns.

[Lazarus]

We don't need to nuke 'em - at least not yet - but we do need to take care of business.


Agreed, but wouldn't it have been glorious if we had? Then we would not need to put up with their Bovine Scattology. ;)

[cobe]

"International Law is much like the Mafia.

If somebody "accidently" drives some aircraft into your living room you don't assume that it was done with the best of intentions and that your long standing enemies did not have anything to do with it.

When we were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, I was calling for the use of massive (read nuclear) retaliation.

People asked, "Who?"

My reply was that the U.S. State Department has a list of states that sponsor terrorism. So, start with the top of the list and work your way down it until there are no more states that sponsor terrorism.

Some responded with "But are they responsible for what happened?"

And my reply was, "Who gives a shit?"

Now, it is about a year and a half later, and those "enemies" are pretty much still there. And they are getting stronger, while our resolve to act has seemed to wane.

In the Mafia, if you get "hit" then your response is to "hit back"--and if some innocent people get caught in the crossfire, then so be it. It is an ugly world that is governed by the agressive use of force.

How many of us would cry over Khadafi's corpse? Saddam's? Kim il Jung's?

In the aftermath of 9-11-01, if we had lashed out and resolved all of the family business, then who would have blamed us? And even if they did, then who gives a shit?

Now, however, we seem to need to kiss Blix's ass in order to wipe our noses.

NUKE 'EM!"


Hmmmm.

Lazarus, wannabe mobster.

The problem with being a mobster is that you don't live long, have to look over your shoulder all the time while you do, and end up in hell. What's so great about that?

You're gonna "hit back" (never mind that that's what they were doing) and then what? Well, they are going to hit back again. Do you really think that killing millions of innocent people will not be avenged? Your country will get it back, count on it.

Who gives a shit if you kill millions of innocent people? A lot of people do, and you can't kill them all.

You call yourself a non-ideological centrist and a Christian after that disgusting display of murderous, genocidal fascism?

You should be ashamed of yourself.

And those of you who don't recoil in disgust at such sentiments should be ashamed of yourselves, too.

Anyone who would consider such vile garbage is more than a little sick.

[arod]

Who gives a shit if you kill millions of innocent people? A lot of people do, and you can't kill them all.

Is it your position that the nuking of Hiroshima was unjustified?

[arod]

And just why the hell CAN'T we kill them all?

I think we are perfectly justified in killing as many of our enemies as it takes to make sure that they know better than to mess with us again.

[cobe]

"Is it your position that the nuking of Hiroshima was unjustified? "

Yes.

"And just why the hell CAN'T we kill them all?"

Because you'll never run out of enemies that way, until you kill everybody including yourself.

"I think we are perfectly justified in killing as many of our enemies as it takes to make sure that they know better than to mess with us again."

Impossible, but you'll die trying.

Better solution: get the hell out of other countries business and stop making enemies. It used to work for the uS and it still works for Switzerland.

[Moonchild]

And just why the hell CAN'T we kill them all?

I think we are perfectly justified in killing as many of our enemies as it takes to make sure that they know better than to mess with us again.


Tit for tat.

They are perfectly justified in killing as many of you as it takes to make sure thaty you know better than messing with them again.

First strike makes the US the agressor. Do the math.

[Moonchild]

I would not worry about NK. It seems like they are trying to get some extra money out of the US.

However I think every non western nation has an obligation to get nuclear weapons, and fast. The US is a rouge nation that is a potential threat to weak countries, so one should build up strength.

It would be preferable if fewer nations felt the need to have NW, but sadly it’s a necessity.

[Moonchild]

International Law is much like the Mafia.



What about national law? Why is that diffrent from international law?

Why live by a rule of law at all? Why not live by might makes right?

[cobe]

"Tit for tat.

They are perfectly justified in killing as many of you as it takes to make sure thaty you know better than messing with them again.

First strike makes the US the agressor. Do the math."

Yep. And more will step in to help them as a preventive measure against the USSA rogue state terrorists.

"However I think every non western nation has an obligation to get nuclear weapons, and fast. The US is a rouge nation that is a potential threat to weak countries, so one should build up strength.

It would be preferable if fewer nations felt the need to have NW, but sadly it’s a necessity."

Right again.

"International Law is much like the Mafia.




What about national law? Why is that diffrent from international law?"

It isn't.

"Why live by a rule of law at all? Why not live by might makes right?"

That IS national/international law.

Better to live by individual law: right makes might.

[Lazarus]

International Law is much like the Mafia.



What about national law? Why is that diffrent from international law?

Why live by a rule of law at all? Why not live by might makes right?


The world is indeed ruled by the agressive use of force. In International Law, that truth is hidden beneath the euphemistic words of "diplomacy." Within Nation States, it is rare indeed for the "rule of law" to be--in reality--the true order of things. Far too often, it is the police setting the dogs loose on the protesters in the street with no pretense of a peaceful arrest nor care wasted in the thought of holding a later trial.

[Lazarus]

"Hmmmm.

Lazarus, wannabe mobster."


Who says that is the way I WANT IT TO BE? ::)


"The problem with being a mobster is that you don't live long, have to look over your shoulder all the time while you do, and end up in hell. What's so great about that?"


I did not say that it was "great" STRAWMAN.


You're gonna "hit back" (never mind that that's what they were doing) and then what? Well, they are going to hit back again.


==>Incorrect. In the scenerio put fprward, once they are "hit" then they are dead, and dead people don't hit back. Be logical. If there are survivors, then they will not be in any position to do anything but suffer it.


Do you really think that killing millions of innocent people will not be avenged?


When did I ever suggest killing millions of innocent people, STRAWMAN?


Your country will get it back, count on it.


Not if the opposition has been eliminated and those that remain are made fully aware of the consequences of attacking us. I am not saying that it is a lesson that need not be repeated occasionally. Lesson 1 was Hiroshima. Lesson 2 was Nagasaki. Lesson 3 will be?
Lesson 4 will be? You see, if you are suggeting that Lessons 3 and 4, etc. are NEVER to be taught and learned, then you may as well take all your nukes and dismantle them since they would never be used. Then, once the country is defenseless, lie back and wait to be conquered. On the other hand, if you are severeley attacked and do not retaliate so as to knock out your enemies WILL to fight, then the fight will continue indefinitely. Is it necessary to go nuclear? I would not at this point. There was a window of opportunity within the first few weeks after 9-11-01 when the United States COULD have done so, the rest of the world be damned. If another person was in the White House, then the U.S. just MIGHT have done so.


"Who gives a shit if you kill millions of innocent people? A lot of people do, and you can't kill them all."


Sorry to disaapoint you, but I never suggested killing any innocent people. However, if innocent people do get killed while the United States persues those who attacked us--and their sponsors--then that is an unfortunate reality of war.


You call yourself a non-ideological centrist and a Christian after that disgusting display of murderous, genocidal fascism?


I am not being ideological about this, but disgustingly real-politick. I expect that the government will defend this country against all enemies. I expect them to prosecute that effort with every means at their disposal that would be prudent for the task at hand. There was a time shortly after 3000 or so Americans were murdered as they persued their daily business, where it would have been appropriate for the United States to end certain regimes around the globe, permanently and completely with massive force. That time has passed, and I would not advocate it such a "response" at this point in time--since it would not be a "response" any longer--too much time has gone by and the moment for that sort of action is no more. It might come again, howeer, if somebody lands a weapon of mass murder on U.S. Shores. The point was to try to dissuade any future attackers from such an unwise course of action by demonstrating forcefully (and massively), that the United States will not tolerate such things as happened on 9-11-01--ever. And, that the consequences of making such an attack would mean obliteration of the attacker's homeland or their sponsors.


"You should be ashamed of yourself."


For not being what you imagine me to be? 8)


And those of you who don't recoil in disgust at such sentiments should be ashamed of yourselves, too.



What Cobe is saying seems to be that if we don't agree to surrender this country to anyone who attacks us, then we are shameful or ought to be.


Anyone who would consider such vile garbage is more than a little sick


I agree that your solution is vile garbage. And I have stated that my views were those of the past--for indeed, the iron is no longer hot, and the provocation has faded (somewhat) at this time. At this point, the United States is operating pursuant to the U.N. in regard to Iraq. For example, had we wiped Iraq off the map in the days soon after 9-11-01, then we might not be facing digging him out of his bunker(s), and fighting house to house. How many U.S. soldiers might die doing the dirty work? If fewer would perish if Baghdad had been made to glow in the dark, then why would the President of the United States decide to have more American soldiers perish rather than fewer?

I think that on a purely logical and humanitarian calculation, taking into consideration the desire to preserve the members of one's own armed forces, that the strategy that breaks the will of the enemy to resist the quickest, with the fewest U.S. casualties would be the proper course to have taken--THEN. However, now the "justification" is too old to sell it to the rest of the world.

Consequently, we are forced to have more Americans get killed in any conflict with Iraq, then would likely have been the case had Iraq been vaporized on 9-12-01.

[truelies]

First, the 2nd Infantry Div. is there. With associated support troops, there are maybe 30,000 GI's in Korea. Any exchange will esult in a perhaps significant number of body bags.

Second, depending of the exact nature of the facility that the spent rods are now in, a precise airstrike to destroy or disable it would not be unprecedented. And to hell with collateral damge concerns.


The NK's are mean little shits. It is unlikely that their Army could be stopped short of Seoul. BTW in the advance THEY don't take prisoners.In addition if they have nucs they don't need a high tech delivery system- just drive the dang thing north on a Mexican 18 wheeler.
NK definitely makes the list for regime change.