Act of War

POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Friday, May 9, 2025 18:56
VIEWED: 7198
PAGE 8 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Sunday, July 9, 2006 3:30 AM

Unwrapped,

If you'll notice I didn't call you sabre-rattlers, I was quoting someone else. And I was laughing at the "chairborne rangers" phrase which I carefully put in italics.

When you learn to read, please let me know.

RUE

Sunday, July 9, 2006 3:32 AM

No Slick, it's up to you to explain your position, rather than mis-characterize mine.

Besides, I'm done dealing with you. You can't help your snakey-ness, and I'm tired of it.

SHADOWFLY

Sunday, July 9, 2006 3:48 AM

You're both pathetic.

RUE

Sunday, July 9, 2006 12:38 PM

Your fly is open.

OLDENGLANDDRY

Sunday, July 9, 2006 12:54 PM

And your Shadow's showing.

DKE

Sunday, July 9, 2006 3:47 PM

first of all I find it very disturbing that the people that seem to be of a liberal slant tend to be seeing things through a 'I hate bush' lenz. They have no credibility in my not so very humble oppinion. If you want some credible informaion may I sujest a web site, www.stratfor.com its an inteligence serve that has got the nickname 'the shaddow cia' and they are that good. To get the full feed you have to pay a rather nice sum of cash for it. They may thier money by being right - and they are usually (but not aways) right in thier predictions and such.

If you look at north Korea since the armisice was signed you will find a paranoid dictator that has been scared to death of the US - and well he should be. The rest of the international community basically has shuned north Korea and thats not surprizing as they realy dont have that much in the form of goods and services to trade.
Seing as we are - in the leagal sence- at war with north Korea the dictators have been trying to do what opponents do - wrangle conessions out of thier opponent. If you look at the North Korean situation they've been trying it with South Korea as well as the US. It appears (in my oppinion) that North Korea wants reunification on its terms only. You can imation how that goes over in South Korea. So South Korea has been working on limited economic ties with North Korea so the people get a taste of it and it would create a dependancy on South Korea - if the north throws another temper tantrum the south shuts things down.
Moving forward to the US, if we look at the Carter administration and the Clinton administrations they pursued a policies of negoation and giving NK some concessions in turn for promices they they would behave. This is one of the reasons that madeline albright was recantly refered to as "the mother of our bomb" by NK sources. The sad fact of the matter is North Korea as not kept the armistice, nor has it kept any of the aggreements with the US. This puts our current president in a rather annoying situation. The Bushes seem to like this colition thing and thats exactaly what he did in the further discussions with the NK. It also puts the NKs in a much harder position to ask for money/food/technology like they have in the past.
I think thats why Bush basically ignores them and only meets with the NKs as part of the 6 party talks.

If past behavior of Bush is any indication of what he is likely to do, He seems to like to go through the diplomatic route as much as he can, as long as he can, but when he sees that is not accomplishing anything he will not hesitate to use military force. the classic example is how he waited 14 months with sadam husain...
I also find it interisting that recantly declassified doccuments show that we DID find weapons of mass distruction when we invaided :)
gee wiz, since the wire services where reporting him using them on his own people years ago (the kurds) why was this a debait item?

Finaly, the missile.
There is an internationaly recognised protocol when you test launch a missile:
1. You publicaly announce the date.
2. You publish notices to airmen so planes dont get in the way.
3. You publish notices to mariners so no boats are in the intended splash down area.

The russians, the chinise, the East Indians, the us - everyone does this.
North Korea did not give any notice at all. Launching a ICBM with no advance notice is generally considdered an act of war. In this case (my oppinion again) I believe that the Nks knew that it was unlikely that the missile would work, but since (again my oppinion) i think thier objective is to get consessions out of the us in terms of food, fuel and technology, its purpose was to get us back to unilateral negoations.
As to the discussions of "can we get a good target from 40 seconds of flight"?
well, the DSP satelites will pick up the guy about 5-15 seconds after launch. I figure that various forms of radar had it pretty much from the time it cleared its tower to the time it blew up so the parties of iterist had maby 20 to 30 seconds of obs

GEEZER

Sunday, July 9, 2006 4:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
No Slick, it's up to you to explain your position, rather than mis-characterize mine.

Besides, I'm done dealing with you. You can't help your snakey-ness, and I'm tired of it.

C'mon, Rue. You claim it's all Bush's fault. Got Proof? Even a good argument?

But OK. Once again I'll explain my position.

The current North Korean saber-rattling is yet another chapter in their history of broken treaties, lying, threats and bluster. Every few years they make some sort of grand-stand play. They know that China won't let anything bad through the Security Council, so they expect that sooner or later "Diplomacy" will lead to the rest of the world offering them some sort of incentives if they'll just make nice. In 1994 it was oil and trade; this time they might go for food, or the light-water reactors again. Who knows?

Note that the 1994 treaty was prompted by their 1992-93 violations of the Bush I treaty, and the current situation started pretty much in 2002 with admissions of the violation of the 1994 treaty. I wonder if they don't schedule these things so as to try out each new president's administration.

I think you got nothing to either disprove this explanation, or to prove it's all Bush's fault. You always get insulting when you got nothing valid to support your arguments.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RIGHTEOUS9

Sunday, July 9, 2006 5:57 PM

DKE - we all see things through a certain slant - I guess yours is 'liberals bad.'

For me personally, Bush is just the highest profile asshole. He's not really in charge either, but he represents and is usually directly associated by his policies, endorsements and actions, to this government of corruption, cronyism, corporate cock-sucking and incompitence.

I'm only a fan of Clinton in that he was preferable to the current administration, but as I understand it(correct me if you have evidence to the contrary), North Korea had like 1 to 2 bombs worth of nuclear material, which it procured during Bush 1's administration. They still had the same amount going into Bush 2's administration, but now they have about 5 bomb's worth. That would suggest that if the policy under Clinton had remained in place, we would not be having this problem today.

'nk sources' - solid evidence you cite there.

So under Bush, this is the situation we have. A crazy dictator has nuclear bombs, and yet we are overextended in the disaster over in Iraq.

And no, Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Good God Man - if you don't believe what we on the left tell you, then at least believe the administration itself and the Pentagon. They are the ones who could gain the most by proving to the american people that they were right. Why would they not do this, if indeed there was this hard evidence? Yes, we know they HAD chemical weapons. that is not what we predicated our invasion on.

Bush has ignored North Korea since the begining of his term because there was no money in it for his contributers. NOw its a problem - a real world threat - and bush takes a wait and see approach.

Where do you get that our administration is big on diplomacy?

Jon Bolton is greatly disliked by the international community as far as I understand it, yet Bush appointed him as our representative to the UN.

After backing down from our non-negotiable stance on Iran's uranium enrichment program, the administration has chosen 'diplomacy' and told Iran that they will negotiate with them on their program, if they stop their program. That's as logical as saying 'I'll teach you how to swim, but you'll have to swim over to my side of the lake first.'

Realizing how hell-bent on invasion of Iraq our adminisration was, Hussein finally gave in and told Bush he would let the inspectors back in. Bush said "too late".

But sure, now he's Mister wait and see, "can't know their intentions," etc.

Where were any kind of reservations on his part before the Iraq invasion?

TELRICH

Sunday, July 9, 2006 7:29 PM

Meh. I find any discussion of a new war moot. We can't afford one or we implode economically.

Personally, I don't care whos in charge so long as they are compitent and stand for what our country has stood for for a long time.

Sadly, Bush 2 does not appear to have either of those. A sad track record. Maybe its not his fault, maybe its the people he has work under him. Regardless, he is in charge and its his responsibility. Not the liberals (they honestly haven't done jack... much to my irritation). Then again, the liberals aren't in charge. At all. His policies have weakened our country to a great degree. A strong diplomatic and economic presonce is at least as important as military strength.

Bringing us into heavy Dept with China, a situation not entirely his fault but something his policies have compounded, reduce our leverage with China. As does having most of the world pissed at us, and it most certainly is now. Which in turn reduces our leverage with North K, and what happens when you give a spoiled bully with a inferiority complex an inch? They take a mile.

Things are almost never black and white. Bush is not the badguy... he is, however, a liability. Yes you don't like it when people talk bad of the President. Doesn't stop you from talking about Clinton, who had amazing success (likely at best half of it can actually be attributed to him but its something... as compared to nothing) or Carter for that matter. Neither had to deal with the utter disaster that Bush has had to... but they never let it get that far either. Face it, you are at least as biased as any liberal.

We used to have this thing called negotiation and comprimise. Thats out the window now. Sometimes taking hard stance is a good thing, but you must be careful about picking your battles. You are not the only person with something on the line. We are all in this together, and disregarding much of the population can only end in disaster. A great number of people disagree with your sentiment, Hero, and discarding what they say by saying "Oh, they're just liberals, they don't know anything except that they hate Bush" is a mistake.

I don't hate Bush, simply his policies and where they have led us. If they had WORKED, then I would have not cared a bit about wether he's conservative or not. They don't work, so here I am.

You know what I do care about? Our country, its ideals, and its future. You likely do too. So do our current policies seem to be making a better future, or are we simply overextending ourselves with Imperialism just like the once great Romans?

CHRISISALL

Monday, July 10, 2006 3:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Telrich:

So do our current policies seem to be making a better future, or are we simply overextending ourselves with Imperialism just like the once great Romans?

The latter, sadly.

But we can always reverse course...Chrisisall

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE