North Korea "can have a future or it can have these weapons. It cannot have both |
| Posted by: h@ts | | What laughable nonsense from the Bush administration. Apparently North Korea has a choice: nuclear weapons or a future? 
| quote: |
The Bush administration delivered a secret message to North Korea yesterday warning it to back down from a promised nuclear test, and it said publicly that the United States would not live with a nuclear-armed Pyongyang government.
North Korea "can have a future or it can have these weapons. It cannot have both," Assistant Secretary of State Christopher R. Hill said yesterday in remarks at Johns Hopkins University's U.S.-Korea Institute. It was the toughest response yet from the Bush administration, coming two days after Pyongyang announced plans to conduct its first nuclear test. |
My favourite part of the article is the administration's belief that a test would destabilize the region. You couldn't make this stuff up.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | | So N Korea now have nuclear WMDs, and if the Bush administratio weren't just blowing hot air - no future.
A closer look at Bush's foreign policy:
Bush REFUSES to talk to Iran, threatens Iran with words and sanctions, puts them on the "Axis of Evil" list. Iran continue to develop their nuclear energy policy.
Bush REFUSES to talk to N Korea, threatens them with words and sanctions and puts them on the "Axis of Evil" list. N Korea continue to develop their nuclear WMD and have now tested a bomb and so joined the other 8 nations with nuclear weapons.
Wow, what a hugely succesful foreign policy Bush has followed - threats that don't work, backed up with a complete refusal to talk, negotiate, or in any way engage these countries. Well, at least Bush can look towards his policy in Iraq and Afghanistan as... | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Dreamzwalker | | And this is different from the rest of the united nations hot air blowing on the knees how?
You keep saying Bush bush bush but this isn't any different then the other world leaders that are bending over atm
namely brits leaders | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Dreamzwalker said this in post #3 :
And this is different from the rest of the united nations hot air blowing on the knees how?
You keep saying Bush bush bush but this isn't any different then the other world leaders that are bending over atm
namely brits leaders |
I don't recall anyone in the UN or a British politicians threatening NK with the choice between either nuclear weapons or a future. What kind of stupid childish threat is that? Making threats without any weight behind them is worse than not making threats at all, because it means the US's standing in the world has now decreased that little bit more.
As does the war in Iraq and Afghaninstan (and the failure in Lebanon) which is proving that America is in no shape - both politically and militarily - to threaten anyone, and NK is taking full advantage of that fact. Bush has blown it, and is now having to ask the communist dictators in China to do something.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #4 :
What kind of stupid childish threat is that? Making threats without any weight behind them is worse than not making threats at all,...
|
How do you conclude that there is no weight behind the threat? Bush also made a lot of threats before going into Iraq. There are things that the U.S. can do such as a blockade of NK. I don't think we are going to get much by asking the Chinese to fix the problem unless we stop buying their cheap, crappy products.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
EUCLID said this in post #5 :
How do you conclude that there is no weight behind the threat? Bush also made a lot of threats before going into Iraq. There are things that the U.S. can do such as a blockade of NK. I don't think we are going to get much by asking the Chinese to fix the problem unless we stop buying their cheap, crappy products. |
I'm talking about a military threat. Iraq and Aghanistan put paid to that. The US military is overstretched and anthing that might provoke a military response from NK would be insane. Plus there is also the not so small matter of what gives the US the right to attack anyone they choose because they don't like them? btw - when is America getting rid of its nuclear WMDs? They are the only country in the world who have a record of using nuclear WMDs on innocent civilians and they have started two aggresive wars in the last 5 years. Why is NK such a danger by comparison?
NK is under sanctions and much of the population lives in poverty. Face it - NK has the bomb and there's not much anyone can do about it now, other than blockades and isolation. We don't worry too much about Israel, India, Pakistan, France, the UK, etc having the bomb, so we'll no doubt get used to NK having it too. Aparently Japan could have the bomb within weeks if they want to so maybe that's an option for them - get a "deterent. Same with S Korea.
btw - both Japan and S Korea have stronger militaries than N Korea, and NK have stated the reason they needed the bomb was to protect against US aggression.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #4 :
I don't recall anyone in the UN or a British politicians threatening NK with the choice between either nuclear weapons or a future. What kind of stupid childish threat is that? Making threats without any weight behind them is worse than not making threats at all,...
|
h@ts,
Although we might disagree from time to time, I could not agree more with your point about the effect of making threats and not backing them up.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Viper1 | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #6 :
"... The US military is overstretched and anthing that might provoke a military response from NK would be insane. ..." |
Are you suggesting that if North Korea threatens to use nuclear weapons against the US and its allies if it doesn't get its way, then the US and its allies should capitulate and succumb to the threats, thereby reacting to avoid confrontation? Do you really believe that North Korea won't keep threatening in order to "get its way" like some spoiled child? You and the UN seem to think in the same manner -- praise North Korea for what it has accomplished and keep giving in to its demands. Welcome to the new arms race.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Lawless | | Just wondering.... why is it okay that we, the US, have nuclear weapons... but, if another country does, we are going to threaten them? I'm not okay with anyone having them... but is this a case of "Do as I say, not as I do?" Who in the hell do we think that we are to dictate that they can't have them? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Viper1 said this in post #8 :
Are you suggesting that if North Korea threatens to use nuclear weapons against the US and its allies if it doesn't get its way, then the US and its allies should capitulate and succumb to the threats, thereby reacting to avoid confrontation?
It is the US government that is doing the threatening. NK is reacting to those threats. NK has asked the US for a peace pact, and for direct talks with Washington. If the threat is so serious I suggest Bush talks with NK.
[quote]Do you really believe that North Korea won't keep threatening in order to "get its way" like some spoiled child? You and the UN seem to think in the same manner -- praise North Korea for what it has accomplished and keep giving in to its demands. Welcome to the new arms race. |
NK wants the US to stop threatening to attack it, which is exactly what Iran has asked of Washington but both countries were ignored by Bush. So what's the alternative? If Bush is going to stomp around the world demanding regime changes in countries he doesn't like there will be repurcusions. I don't welcome this new arms race but NK have nukes and they are not going to give them up. I suggest Japan and S Korea look into getting their own.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
Lawless said this in post #9 :
Just wondering.... why is it okay that we, the US, have nuclear weapons... but, if another country does, we are going to threaten them? I'm not okay with anyone having them... but is this a case of "Do as I say, not as I do?" Who in the hell do we think that we are to dictate that they can't have them? |
There are no rules about who can have nukes and who cannot. But when smaller countries threaten bigger countries with nukes, the big country stops them because they can.
How can cops carry guns and dictate to convicted felons that they can't carry guns? Who are cops to threaten convicted felons who have paid their price and done their time?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Lawless | | It just seems like a joke to me. No wonder so many countries hate American, and it's people. I would too, if I lived elsewhere. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Viper1 | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #10 :
NK wants the US to stop threatening to attack it, which is exactly what Iran has asked of Washington but both countries were ignored by Bush. So what's the alternative? If Bush is going to stomp around the world demanding regime changes in countries he doesn't like there will be repurcusions. I don't welcome this new arms race but NK have nukes and they are not going to give them up. I suggest Japan and S Korea look into getting their own. |
The US has stated that it does not want to attack North Korea. I don't know how it could be stated any more plainly.
We've all seen what devastation can occur when a nuclear weapon is exploded. Why do you want to increase the chance that it could happen again? Sounds to me that you welcome the chance of another war taking place.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Viper1 | |
| quote: |
Lawless said this in post #9 :
Just wondering.... why is it okay that we, the US, have nuclear weapons... but, if another country does, we are going to threaten them? I'm not okay with anyone having them... but is this a case of "Do as I say, not as I do?" Who in the hell do we think that we are to dictate that they can't have them? |
We, the US, are not the only country with nuclear weapons; we're only one of six (pardon me, now seven). And the US is not the only one dictating that North Korea not have them. China and Russia (two that do have nuclear weapons and friends to North Korea) have also stated that they did not want North Korea to possess nuclear weapons... and North Korea told them to "stick it".
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Lawless said this in post #9 :
Just wondering.... why is it okay that we, the US, have nuclear weapons... but, if another country does, we are going to threaten them? I'm not okay with anyone having them... but is this a case of "Do as I say, not as I do?" Who in the hell do we think that we are to dictate that they can't have them? |
A good question I've yet to hear answered. There has been all kinds of non-proliferation policies so I don't know how the US and UK can openly talk about developing new types of nukes themselves. Blair has just said we are going to spend £25billion updated our own "deterrent", tridant, no discussion with the public necessary.
Nukes or not, Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive strike means that anyone who might one day be a threat to the US or its interests at any unspecified time in the future can be a target for US aggression.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Viper1 said this in post #14 :
We, the US, are not the only country with nuclear weapons. |
Frustrating to hear so much hypocrisy, isn't it? All these powerful nuclear armed countries demanding that a country that is clearly under threat can't have the very weapons they themselves keep as "deterrents".
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Lawless | | Viper, I know that we aren't the only country with nuclear weapons.
I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here for a moment. I don't agree with the nukes... but, when countries have them, they have no right to tell others that they can't. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Viper1 | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #16 :
Frustrating to hear so much hypocrisy, isn't it? All these powerful nuclear armed countries demanding that a country that is clearly under threat can't have the very weapons they themselves keep as "deterrents". |
So your answer is to arm everyone to the teeth? What do you do if one country wants you to bend over and take it up the rear? Say "Thank you, sir. May I have another?"
I wonder what you would do if North Korea were to threaten your country with nuclear expulsion. Would you succumb to their desires and wishes? Or would you fight back? Nah, you'd do what they wanted you to do -- even if it meant killing every one of your family members.
When are folks going to learn that giving in to threats from countries that want to do you harm is not the answer? How is North Korea "under threat"? The US has constantly stated it does not intend to invade North Korea. Yet, North Korea threatens to fire missiles with nuclear-tipped warheads at the United States if it imposes sanctions for its transgressions against international desires (including those of its allies China and Russia).
Study your history -- it's this same pacifist attitude that eventually led to World War II.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Viper1 | |
| quote: |
Lawless said this in post #17 :
Viper, I know that we aren't the only country with nuclear weapons.
I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here for a moment. I don't agree with the nukes... but, when countries have them, they have no right to tell others that they can't. |
I go back to EUCLID's post regarding police and criminals -- should criminals be allowed to have guns just because the police have them?
There are things I believe we shouldn't be the only ones having; there are things I believe we should be the only one having. Nuclear weapons, used irrationally or for purposes of threatening another nation with annihilation, is not meant for every country.
You're welcome to prove me wrong, but I don't remember the US ever threatening another country with nuclear weapons destruction, unlike North Korea. If a country wants to explore the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, I'm all for it. But in the case of Iran, why wouldn't Iran accept already-processed plutonium and uranium from Russia or the US instead of demanding it be allowed to do it themselves? You have to believe there are other reasons for this.
North Korea was asked by its allies and by the UN to cease from developing nuclear weapons. It ignored all of them. Now, North Korea threatens to fire missiles at the US if it imposes sanctions against North Korea. Do we capitulate and apologize for even thinking of such a thing? What do we do the next time North Korea threatens us with nuclear missiles? Give in and give them what they want? What if they want more than we can give? Do we suffer destruction at their hands? If so, then at least you can die saying North Korea had the right to do this.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Viper1 said this in post #18 :
So your answer is to arm everyone to the teeth? |
That's not my answer, it's just AN answer. Do you think war is a better answer?
| quote: |
| I wonder what you would do if North Korea were to threaten your country with nuclear expulsion. |
I would at least ask why is N Korea threatening, and have they actually said they would use nukes against the US? I don't think so.
| quote: |
| Would you succumb to their desires and wishes? Or would you fight back? |
What is this nonsense? The US put NK on the Axis of Evil list and called for regime change. If you corner a wild dog it will eventually bite you.
| quote: |
| When are folks going to learn that giving in to threats from countries that want to do you harm is not the answer? |
As Kim Jong Il has clearly shown.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Viper1 said this in post #19 :
You're welcome to prove me wrong, but I don't remember the US ever threatening another country with nuclear weapons destruction, unlike North Korea. |
Excuse me but Bush has certainly threatened 4 or 5 countries to my knowledge - Afghanistan, NK, Iran, Iraq. Two of these countries he's right now having wars with. You think because nukes are not being used makes him some peacenik. And both the UK and US have openly talked about nuking Iran with bunker busters.
| quote: |
| North Korea was asked by its allies and by the UN to cease from developing nuclear weapons. It ignored all of them. |
Maybe NK didn't believe China could stop America attacking it.
| quote: |
| Now, North Korea threatens to fire missiles at the US if it imposes sanctions against North Korea. Do we capitulate and apologize for even thinking of such a thing? |
Please direct me to this stuff about NK threatening to launch nukes at the US.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Viper1 | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #21 :
Excuse me but Bush has certainly threatened 4 or 5 countries to my knowledge - Afghanistan, NK, Iran, Iraq. Two of these countries he's right now having wars with. You think because nukes are not being used makes him some peacenik. And both the UK and US have openly talked about nuking Iran with bunker busters.
Please show me where these threats have been made.
Please direct me to this stuff about NK threatening to launch nukes at the US. |
Your request:
U.S. Vows Not to Be Intimidated by North Korean Threats
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
NEW YORK — The U.S. vowed not to be intimidated by North Korean threats Tuesday after Pyongyang reportedly said it could fire a nuclear warhead if Washington did not act to resolve the standoff.
"This is the way North Korea typically negotiates by threat and intimidation," John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said. "It's worked for them before. It won't work for them now."
Meanwhile, the White House said the world may never be able to confirm North Korea's claim that it had successfully tested a nuclear weapon on Monday. White House press secretary Tony Snow suggested that the test may not have been nuclear in nature.
"You could have something that is very old and off-the-shelf here, as well, in which case they've dusted off something that is old and dormant," he said. Snow said the intelligence community would continue to assess the explosion.
The latest North Korean threat came in a report by the country's Yonhap news agency. "We hope the situation will be resolved before an unfortunate incident of us firing a nuclear missile comes," it quoted an unidentified North Korean official as saying. "That depends on how the U.S. will act."
The official said the nuclear test was "an expression of our intention to face the United States across the negotiating table."
Beijing's patience with its longtime ally North Korea appeared to be wearing thin as China's U.N. ambassador suggested that some form of Security Council sanctions against Pyongyang are in order.
"I think there has to be some punitive actions, but also I think these actions have to be appropriate," Ambassador Wang Guangya said.
A permanent U.N. Security Council member, China has a decisive say over how stern a punishment the international community can mete out to North Korea.
China's Foreign Ministry also warned Pyongyang that its staging of a nuclear test would harm the two countries' relations.
"The nuclear test will undoubtedly exert a negative impact on our relations," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told reporters.
But Liu added that China is "firmly against" a military strike against the North.
"Taking military action against North Korea would be unimaginable," he said.
A South Korean envoy, returning to Seoul from Beijing, said Tuesday that China appeared to be leaning toward backing strong U.N. measures.
Alexander Vershbow, the U.S. ambassador to South Korea, told reporters that the nuclear test would make the possibility of direct talks between Washington and Pyongyang more difficult, Yonhap reported.
The U.N. Security Council was weighing a U.S. proposal for potentially crippling sanctions. America has asked the council to adopt a measure that would aim to curb the North's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, prohibit all trade in military and luxury goods, and crack down on illegal financial dealings.
There have been worries that the reported nuclear test would prompt Japan to build its own bomb. But Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told lawmakers Japan's anti-nuclear policy would remain unchanged.
"There will be no change in our non-nuclear arms principles," Abe said.
Japan's pacifist constitution bars the use of force to settle international disputes, and Japan has maintained a policy of not producing, possessing or using nuclear weapons.
South Korea said that it believed the North had exploded a nuclear device on Monday, but officials claimed that it might take up to two weeks to confirm whether the test was successful.
Although the reported test drew worldwide condemnation and talk of harsh sanctions, the South said it would stick with its efforts to engage the North, though the policy would be reviewed.
North Korea celebrated a holiday Tuesday marking the 61st anniversary of the Workers' Party of Korea. There was no traffic across a key bridge on a border river between China and North Korea.
China canceled leave for its soldiers along the North Korean border and some units were conducting anti-chemical weapons drills, the pro-Beijing Wen Wei Po reported in Hong Kong. The paper didn't elaborate.
There was no sign of heightened security in the Chinese border city of Dandung, and reporters saw two boatloads of North Korean tourists on the river, smiling and waving to people on the Chinese shore.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Viper1 said this in post #22 :
"This is the way North Korea typically negotiates by threat and intimidation," John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said. "
|
That's rich coming the hawkish John Bolton, Bush's US abassador to the UN, who once said: "There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." Hilarious.
| quote: |
| "We hope the situation will be resolved before an unfortunate incident of us firing a nuclear missile comes," it quoted an unidentified North Korean official as saying. "That depends on how the U.S. will act." |
So who wouldn't agree that threateneing a country with nuclear weapons is ludicrous, dangerous, and the kind of comment you'd expect a lunatic to make.
| quote: |
US plans strike to topple Iran regime - report
Julian Borger in Washington and Bob Tait in Tehran
Monday April 10, 2006
The Guardian
The US is planning military action against Iran because George Bush is intent on regime change in Tehran - and not just as a contingency if diplomatic efforts fail to halt its suspected nuclear weapons programme, it was reported yesterday.
even considering the use of a tactical nuclear weapon against deep Iranian bunkers, but that top generals in the Pentagon are attempting to take that option off the table.
http://www.inreview.com/newreply.ph...id=70&postcount[674670]=22 |
| quote: |
Washington's nuclear bunker busters
The Observer today reports the US administration's plans to test a new generation of nuclear weapons. This is the Executive Summary of the new BASIC report which offers a critical examination of Washington's new thinking on nuclear strategy |
| quote: |
Bunker Busters:
Washington's Drive for New Nuclear Weapons
By Mark Bromley, David Grahame and Christine Kucia
Research Report 2002.2
July 2002
Executive Summary
Washington's interest in developing new nuclear weapons has gathered pace since the arrival of President George W. Bush's administration in January 2001. This pursuit in turn forms part of a wider reorientation of US nuclear policy that seeks to increase the relevance of nuclear weapons in US military planning and boost the credibility behind the threat of their use.
http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Research/2002BBexecsum.htm |
| quote: |
Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs againt Iran: Madness
Saturday, 18 March 2006, 5:20 pm
Article: Global Research
Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs againt Iran: This Way Lies Madness
by Stephen M. Osborn
GlobalResearch.ca
The latest information I have had from the followers of Bush is that he has demanded and received permission to use nuclear “bunker busters” in Iran in a preemptive strike.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0603/S00348.htm |
| quote: |
We'd be nuts to nuke Iran, says Straw
by JAMES CHAPMAN, Daily Mail Last updated at 08:38am on 10th April 2006
A nuclear strike on Iran would be 'completely nuts', Foreign Secretary Jack Straw declared yesterday.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...in_page_id=1770
|
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Viper1 | | Have you an article from a reputable news agency instead of those based on their own views? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Viper1 | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #23 :
So who wouldn't agree that threateneing a country with nuclear weapons is ludicrous, dangerous, and the kind of comment you'd expect a lunatic to make. |
You're speaking of the North Korean official that made the quote?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | |
| quote: |
Viper1 said this in post #24 :
Have you an article from a reputable news agency instead of those based on their own views? |
What, like FOX News? 
-HECK!
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Lawless | | Viper, Bush certainly has "threatened" other countries. We are at war right now. What makes us, the United States, the only country who should have the nukes, and a say?
Personally, I'm sick and tired of war, and killing. It's disgusting that we must kill people in order to get what we want. Yes, we went there to "help" but have we really helped? I'm not saying that it's wrong to get involved. But, I think that there is a point where we've crossed, and gone too far. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Viper1 said this in post #24 :
Have you an article from a reputable news agency instead of those based on their own views? |
Reputable? You are kidding? You posted an article with no link, which quoted an "unidentified North Korean official". Funny stuff.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Lawless | | You know, even if the news is "reputable" it's always spun from a certain perspective. Whether it's spun for the right, or left, someone is going to disagree with it. So, who cares. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Viper1 | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #28 :
Reputable? You are kidding? You posted an article with no link, which quoted an "unidentified North Korean official". Funny stuff. |
Link
Satisfied?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | | Sorry V1, but... it was from FOX News! Sorry, that was comedy.
If you'll exucse me, I'll be at The Nation's website 
-HECK! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Lawless | | You know, why is it than when it's politics, people stoop to low levels, and start playing childish games, and name calling? Are we in preschool, and pissed that someone is in the sandbox with us? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Viper1 | |
| quote: |
Lawless said this in post #27 :
Viper, Bush certainly has "threatened" other countries. We are at war right now. What makes us, the United States, the only country who should have the nukes, and a say?
Personally, I'm sick and tired of war, and killing. It's disgusting that we must kill people in order to get what we want. Yes, we went there to "help" but have we really helped? I'm not saying that it's wrong to get involved. But, I think that there is a point where we've crossed, and gone too far. |
Lawless, we (the US) are not the only country with the nukes and a say. Other nations with and without nuclear weapons have also said they were opposed to North Korea performing the nuclear weapons tests.
No sane person ever wants war. War should always be a last resort. I wish the killing would stop, as well. But there are forces out there that don't see an end to the killing until all Americans and their allies are killed and destroyed. Until they can be halted, the killing will continue.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Viper1 | |
| quote: |
Lawless said this in post #32 :
You know, why is it than when it's politics, people stoop to low levels, and start playing childish games, and name calling? Are we in preschool, and pissed that someone is in the sandbox with us? |
YES!!
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Lawless | | Wow... and people wonder why we have a generation of younger people who want nothing to do with politics, and what's going on in this world. They look at what's happening with the "adults" in the world, and realize that it's not worth it. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Viper1 | |
| quote: |
Lawless said this in post #36 :
Wow... and people wonder why we have a generation of younger people who want nothing to do with politics, and what's going on in this world. They look at what's happening with the "adults" in the world, and realize that it's not worth it. |
Touche'.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Viper1 said this in post #30 :
Link
Satisfied, dip? |
Fox is a Bush supporting network.
Saying that, I'll accept that an "unidentified North Korean official" made the statement. The question is what makes the lunatics in NK better or worse than the lunatics in Washington?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Viper1 | | What lunatics in Washington?
Neither one is better than the other when it comes to making idiotic threats. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | |
| quote: |
Viper1 said this in post #35 :
Where is that?  |
Oh, I don't know. That liberal rag can get pretty far out at times. Extremists are hilarious.
-HECK!
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: USMC_Sniper | | WOW...
You Liberals Have no idea why bush is laying down the law to the NK's. If They have WMD then they could potentially use them on the SK's or us. The only reason you can even voice your opinions is because people like me have been fighting for your right too. I would gladly go to war in korea, I have been to Iraq twice and it is just more skull to train my crosshairs on. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
USMC_Sniper said this in post #41 :
WOW...
You Liberals Have no idea why bush is laying down the law to the NK's. |
You've got to be joking. Bush is impotent in regard to NK. China is the powerhouse in that part of the world.
Bush has made such a mess in Iraq, and showed the whole just how limited American power actually is, and it's going to take years for the US to regain credibility, and it isn't going to start happening until Bush has gone.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | | If they have WMD's? Is this the going to war with Iraq speech? Been there, done that.
-HECK! | | Reply To this Message
|
North Korea Forum: North Korea "can have a future or it can have these weapons. It cannot have both
|
