100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: N. Korea officially pulled the trigger. | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Sun 04/05/09 08:51 AM
|
|
They sure are spending alot of money of these things when so many of their people are hungry and living in poverty. Sounds like the USA. They're literally dying over there. They spend the majority of their money towards military projects that deprive their people. You can't be serious. We forced them to develop a long-range ballistic missile? Where are your facts for that one? Who is threatening an unprovoked attack that they would need one for defense? Most of the world is aware that China backs their Communist friends and nobody is stupid enough to start that fight. North Korea is a socialist nation. As with all socialist nations, the people suffer at the hands of the leadership. That is the root of their problem: the pride of the elite who want to build a world power. Germany was in a war and had to spend on war to feed their own aggression. The Cold War required Soviet Russia to develop weapons just in case. They all had a hand in the root cause for their weapons development needs. And if the development of defense is the reason for the starvation, how do you explain the fact we spend more on military than practically the rest of the world and yet have a much lower poverty rate per capita? I suggest you read up on how socialism works out in third world nations before making another statement like that one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yawn...... You can use Iraq as an example of a country that couldnt defend itself and gets gets over run. the message sent to the rest of the world is loud and clear. If you do not wish your people to suffer as the Iraqis have you better develope a bomb. Historicly we have allways destablised socialist or communist countries. Cuba is a good example. Durring the communist revelution in russia the western powers actualy sent and expiditionary force to fight against the Reds. Buzy for now have a great afternoon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just nuke em now and get it over with.Drop a few on Iran too!  I guess we can thank our lucky stars you won't be making these decisions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yawn...... You can use Iraq as an example of a country that couldnt defend itself and gets gets over run. the message sent to the rest of the world is loud and clear. If you do not wish your people to suffer as the Iraqis have you better develope a bomb. Historicly we have allways destablised socialist or communist countries. Cuba is a good example. Durring the communist revelution in russia the western powers actualy sent and expiditionary force to fight against the Reds. Buzy for now have a great afternoon I'm not even going to bother. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As per the original question "I'm genuinely curious how this administration will handle the issue. How are they going to protect our safety without walking all over the liberties of other nations?"
Some of my guesses... 1. Blame George Bush and his failed policies 2. Make excuses of only being in office for a little less than 3 months 3. Change/divert the topic 4. Boycott the next olympics 5. Appease North Korea by giving/selling them MORE nuclear technology (a la Bill Clinton) 6. Issue more "stern" warnings 7. Organize a community protest and have people go door to door and get signatures to send to the United Nations or to North Korea 8. Hope Kim Jong-il dies 9. Shoot some hoops with Gordon Brown, Brad Pitt, and George Clooney 10. Nothing, just keep reading their own press clippings on how much the world loves (and obviously respects) the Obama administration 11. Finally admit "We have no clue what we're doing" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yawn...... You can use Iraq as an example of a country that couldnt defend itself and gets gets over run. the message sent to the rest of the world is loud and clear. If you do not wish your people to suffer as the Iraqis have you better develope a bomb. Historicly we have allways destablised socialist or communist countries. Cuba is a good example. Durring the communist revelution in russia the western powers actualy sent and expiditionary force to fight against the Reds. Buzy for now have a great afternoon I'm not even going to bother. Stan Watt By this time, civil war had broken out between the Bolsheviks, the Reds, and the counter revolutionaries, the Whites, who supported the old regime. The Allies decided they had to do something. On March 15th, 1918, various senior ministers met in London. They agreed to send troops to Russia to support the Whites. The pretext for intervention was to stop Germany from pushing further into Russia. But in reality, the Allies were more concerned with ousting the Bolsheviks and keeping Russia for themselves. Great Blunders in History will return in a moment. The History Channel now returns to Great Blunders in History. Stan Watt Great Britain had been supporting Russia's counter revolutionaries since early 1918, by sending them munitions, tanks, and even planes. In theory, these were meant to help the Russians fight the Germans. But instead, they were used by White Russians against the Bolsheviks. Other European countries contributed as well. Armored cars were sent by Belgium. France and Italy gave their support. [sil.] Stan Watt The first British troops left for Russia toward the end of March, 1918. [sil.] Stan Watt They came ashore in Murmansk, a small port 150 miles north of the Arctic Circle and hundreds of miles from any Bolshevik centers. [sil.] Stan Watt U.S. troops landed at Murmansk and Archangel, 600 miles to the south. The Japanese, who also supported the intervention, landed at Vladivostok on the far eastern coast of Russia. http://ahivfree.alexanderstreet.com/View/Transcript/524014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As per the original question "I'm genuinely curious how this administration will handle the issue. How are they going to protect our safety without walking all over the liberties of other nations?" Some of my guesses... 1. Blame George Bush and his failed policies 2. Make excuses of only being in office for a little less than 3 months 3. Change/divert the topic 4. Boycott the next olympics 5. Appease North Korea by giving/selling them MORE nuclear technology (a la Bill Clinton) 6. Issue more "stern" warnings 7. Organize a community protest and have people go door to door and get signatures to send to the United Nations or to North Korea 8. Hope Kim Jong-il dies 9. Shoot some hoops with Gordon Brown, Brad Pitt, and George Clooney 10. Nothing, just keep reading their own press clippings on how much the world loves (and obviously respects) the Obama administration 11. Finally admit "We have no clue what we're doing" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yawn...... You can use Iraq as an example of a country that couldnt defend itself and gets gets over run. the message sent to the rest of the world is loud and clear. If you do not wish your people to suffer as the Iraqis have you better develope a bomb. Historicly we have allways destablised socialist or communist countries. Cuba is a good example. Durring the communist revelution in russia the western powers actualy sent and expiditionary force to fight against the Reds. Buzy for now have a great afternoon I'm not even going to bother. Stan Watt By this time, civil war had broken out between the Bolsheviks, the Reds, and the counter revolutionaries, the Whites, who supported the old regime. The Allies decided they had to do something. On March 15th, 1918, various senior ministers met in London. They agreed to send troops to Russia to support the Whites. The pretext for intervention was to stop Germany from pushing further into Russia. But in reality, the Allies were more concerned with ousting the Bolsheviks and keeping Russia for themselves. Great Blunders in History will return in a moment. The History Channel now returns to Great Blunders in History. Stan Watt Great Britain had been supporting Russia's counter revolutionaries since early 1918, by sending them munitions, tanks, and even planes. In theory, these were meant to help the Russians fight the Germans. But instead, they were used by White Russians against the Bolsheviks. Other European countries contributed as well. Armored cars were sent by Belgium. France and Italy gave their support. [sil.] Stan Watt The first British troops left for Russia toward the end of March, 1918. [sil.] Stan Watt They came ashore in Murmansk, a small port 150 miles north of the Arctic Circle and hundreds of miles from any Bolshevik centers. [sil.] Stan Watt U.S. troops landed at Murmansk and Archangel, 600 miles to the south. The Japanese, who also supported the intervention, landed at Vladivostok on the far eastern coast of Russia. http://ahivfree.alexanderstreet.com/View/Transcript/524014 No, I'm not going to bother because all you ever do is go into "blame bush and the Iraq war" mode and will not argue a point. We fought communism for the sake of fighting communism for decades leading up to the fall of the Soviet Empire. That period is over. We have come to terms with nations like China who remains communist. We have not invaded a communist nation for that reason since the Berlin Wall fell. Iraq was an aggressor. There is no denying that. Saddam remained in power on the terms provided on the cease-fire and he violated every single provision of that agreement. He had to be removed at one point. Clinton's administration did nothing about it for 8 years and allowed the UN to be walked over. If he had acted at the first sign of violation, Bush's Iraq would never have existed. N. Korea is making the choice to be an aggressor by developing these arms. Under Clinton, we agreed to provide economic aid and other assistance to N. Korea on the terms that their nuclear and arms programs ceased. They did so temporarily but have since (obviously) begun again. This is where your logic falls apart: they are developing from a need for "defense" according to you that only exists because of that development. They know China has their back which is why they are so brazen in their actions - they have no fear of attack, they are simply prideful and desire to be a world power. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As per the original question "I'm genuinely curious how this administration will handle the issue. How are they going to protect our safety without walking all over the liberties of other nations?" Some of my guesses... 1. Blame George Bush and his failed policies 2. Make excuses of only being in office for a little less than 3 months 3. Change/divert the topic 4. Boycott the next olympics 5. Appease North Korea by giving/selling them MORE nuclear technology (a la Bill Clinton) 6. Issue more "stern" warnings 7. Organize a community protest and have people go door to door and get signatures to send to the United Nations or to North Korea 8. Hope Kim Jong-il dies 9. Shoot some hoops with Gordon Brown, Brad Pitt, and George Clooney 10. Nothing, just keep reading their own press clippings on how much the world loves (and obviously respects) the Obama administration 11. Finally admit "We have no clue what we're doing" Didnt they actualy develope the Bomb when bush was in office? and were we not buzy chaseing phantom WMDS in Iraq when this happened? "In fact, major advances in North Korea's nuclear capabilities took place during the Clinton administration. North Korea greatly improved its missile technology. It successfully tested the Nodong missile to a range of 500 kilometers in 1993. In October 1997, a North Korean defector testified before the U.S. Senate that Pyongyang had two or three nuclear warheads. In 1998, North Korea tested a Taepo Dong-1 missile which flew over Japan and landed in the Pacific Ocean. In February 1999, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet told Congress that North Korea's missile-development program includes missiles that will be able to hit the continental United States. During the 1990s, North Korea repeatedly shut its nuclear reactors to harvest fuel for bombs. It built facilities underground to evade international inspectors." "The Clinton administration's eight years compounded these North Korean successes. The diplomatic enticements and sweetheart deals it engineered or endorsed, including the Agreed Framework, all gave Pyongyang more resources and time to pursue its bomb." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/may/02/20050502-094119-9101r/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our Leaders are doing the same. 600,000+ unemployed here. You reckon there might be some going without and are really going to starve to death. You won't see it in Main Stream Media. They don't want Obama to look bad. Back to N. Korea. They may have only sent a satellite up. Perhaps, all they want is Satellite TV. We have aid - Section 8, food stamps, welfare, medicaid, Social Security, etc. They don't. So millions die from lack of food and lack of heat. Bush cut off ties with them because we sent heating oil and food so they wouldn't continue their nuclear testing. They accepted the heating oil and food and still continued their nuclear testing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As per the original question "I'm genuinely curious how this administration will handle the issue. How are they going to protect our safety without walking all over the liberties of other nations?" Some of my guesses... 1. Blame George Bush and his failed policies 2. Make excuses of only being in office for a little less than 3 months 3. Change/divert the topic 4. Boycott the next olympics 5. Appease North Korea by giving/selling them MORE nuclear technology (a la Bill Clinton) 6. Issue more "stern" warnings 7. Organize a community protest and have people go door to door and get signatures to send to the United Nations or to North Korea 8. Hope Kim Jong-il dies 9. Shoot some hoops with Gordon Brown, Brad Pitt, and George Clooney 10. Nothing, just keep reading their own press clippings on how much the world loves (and obviously respects) the Obama administration 11. Finally admit "We have no clue what we're doing" Didnt they actualy develope the Bomb when bush was in office? and were we not buzy chaseing phantom WMDS in Iraq when this happened? "In fact, major advances in North Korea's nuclear capabilities took place during the Clinton administration. North Korea greatly improved its missile technology. It successfully tested the Nodong missile to a range of 500 kilometers in 1993. In October 1997, a North Korean defector testified before the U.S. Senate that Pyongyang had two or three nuclear warheads. In 1998, North Korea tested a Taepo Dong-1 missile which flew over Japan and landed in the Pacific Ocean. In February 1999, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet told Congress that North Korea's missile-development program includes missiles that will be able to hit the continental United States. During the 1990s, North Korea repeatedly shut its nuclear reactors to harvest fuel for bombs. It built facilities underground to evade international inspectors." "The Clinton administration's eight years compounded these North Korean successes. The diplomatic enticements and sweetheart deals it engineered or endorsed, including the Agreed Framework, all gave Pyongyang more resources and time to pursue its bomb." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/may/02/20050502-094119-9101r/ Let's not forget former president Carter's wonderful little trip over there to "negotiate" the cease of such development in the 90s. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Winx
on
Sun 04/05/09 11:15 AM
|
|
They sure are spending alot of money of these things when so many of their people are hungry and living in poverty. Sounds like the USA. They're literally dying over there. They spend the majority of their money towards military projects that deprive their people. You can't be serious. We forced them to develop a long-range ballistic missile? Where are your facts for that one? Who is threatening an unprovoked attack that they would need one for defense? Most of the world is aware that China backs their Communist friends and nobody is stupid enough to start that fight. North Korea is a socialist nation. As with all socialist nations, the people suffer at the hands of the leadership. That is the root of their problem: the pride of the elite who want to build a world power. Germany was in a war and had to spend on war to feed their own aggression. The Cold War required Soviet Russia to develop weapons just in case. They all had a hand in the root cause for their weapons development needs. And if the development of defense is the reason for the starvation, how do you explain the fact we spend more on military than practically the rest of the world and yet have a much lower poverty rate per capita? I suggest you read up on how socialism works out in third world nations before making another statement like that one. Umm...aren't they communist? Yes, we spend more on the military and have less poverty then they do. We are basically a self-supporting country. We can produce a variety of our own crops and feed our own people. We have more money too. They can't grow their own crops. It's all rock and they have monsoons. Rice is their main product and you can't live on rice alone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They sure are spending alot of money of these things when so many of their people are hungry and living in poverty. Sounds like the USA. They're literally dying over there. They spend the majority of their money towards military projects that deprive their people. You can't be serious. We forced them to develop a long-range ballistic missile? Where are your facts for that one? Who is threatening an unprovoked attack that they would need one for defense? Most of the world is aware that China backs their Communist friends and nobody is stupid enough to start that fight. North Korea is a socialist nation. As with all socialist nations, the people suffer at the hands of the leadership. That is the root of their problem: the pride of the elite who want to build a world power. Germany was in a war and had to spend on war to feed their own aggression. The Cold War required Soviet Russia to develop weapons just in case. They all had a hand in the root cause for their weapons development needs. And if the development of defense is the reason for the starvation, how do you explain the fact we spend more on military than practically the rest of the world and yet have a much lower poverty rate per capita? I suggest you read up on how socialism works out in third world nations before making another statement like that one. Umm...aren't they communist? Yes, we spend more on the military and have less poverty then they do. We are basically a self-supporting country. We can produce a variety of our own crops and feed our own people. We have more money too. They can't grow their own crops. It's all rock and they have monsoons. Rice is their main product and you can't live on rice alone. Communism is the combination of a socialist economic system with a facist social system. Since the discussion at hand is largely economically based, I was referring to only the economic side of it. Then if they are not self-sufficient, it is all the more reason for them to not be an aggressor. They are not being attacked by anyone and do not require a long range missile to protect themselves. It is the money being spent on research like that missile as opposed to helping the people that is resulting in such failure. Socialism is supposed to be to help the people and eliminate greed, but in reality it ultimately only serves the greed of the elite. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's not forget former president Carter's wonderful little trip over there to "negotiate" the cease of such development in the 90s. "Carter met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang and returned to America waving a piece of paper and declaring peace in our time. Kim, according to Carter, had agreed to stop his nuclear weapons development." "The Clinton appeasement program for North Korea included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor. However, the agreement was flawed and lacked even the most informal means of verification." http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/7/164846.shtml |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
madisonman
on
Sun 04/05/09 11:45 AM
|
|
Let's not forget former president Carter's wonderful little trip over there to "negotiate" the cease of such development in the 90s. "Carter met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang and returned to America waving a piece of paper and declaring peace in our time. Kim, according to Carter, had agreed to stop his nuclear weapons development." "The Clinton appeasement program for North Korea included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor. However, the agreement was flawed and lacked even the most informal means of verification." http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/7/164846.shtml North Korea says it has carried out its first test of a nuclear weapon. It said the underground test, carried out in defiance of international warnings, was a success and had not resulted in any leak of radiation. The US said intelligence had detected a seismic event at a suspected test site and Russia said it was "100% certain" a nuclear test had occurred. yup must have been Clinton http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Atlantis75
on
Sun 04/05/09 11:49 AM
|
|
Just nuke em now and get it over with.Drop a few on Iran too! Yes, because the people are the responsible for their oppressive government? Hey, by with your mentality, all US citizens are criminals, for the tortures in the Abu Grahib prison and Guantanamo. No? You must have agreed to these, you are a us citizen aren't you? Let's go kill millions of people, Hurrah! USA USA! Let's bomb them with nukes, let's nuke the people! I'm sickened by this, sick and tired 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's not forget former president Carter's wonderful little trip over there to "negotiate" the cease of such development in the 90s. "Carter met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang and returned to America waving a piece of paper and declaring peace in our time. Kim, according to Carter, had agreed to stop his nuclear weapons development." "The Clinton appeasement program for North Korea included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor. However, the agreement was flawed and lacked even the most informal means of verification." http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/7/164846.shtml Madisonman and Winx... thanks for helping in validating my guess list. North Korea says it has carried out its first test of a nuclear weapon. It said the underground test, carried out in defiance of international warnings, was a success and had not resulted in any leak of radiation. The US said intelligence had detected a seismic event at a suspected test site and Russia said it was "100% certain" a nuclear test had occurred. yup must have been Clinton http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm Totally off the point. Clinton/Carter's attempt to negotiate was an utter failure. That's all there is to it. When a verified nuclear test happened is not the topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just nuke em now and get it over with.Drop a few on Iran too! Yes, because the people are the responsible for their oppressive government? Hey, by with your mentality, all US citizens are criminals, for the tortures in the Abu Grahib prison and Guantanamo. No? You must have agreed to these, you are a us citizen aren't you? Let's go kill millions of people, Hurrah! USA USA! I'm sickened by this, sick and tired |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just nuke em now and get it over with.Drop a few on Iran too! Yes, because the people are the responsible for their oppressive government? Hey, by with your mentality, all US citizens are criminals, for the tortures in the Abu Grahib prison and Guantanamo. No? You must have agreed to these, you are a us citizen aren't you? Let's go kill millions of people, Hurrah! USA USA! I'm sickened by this, sick and tired Tell me, what has so dramatically changed besides the people in charge in the last 2 months that make this sudden change? |
|
|
|
|
