[quote]tme wrote:
jason1122 wrote:
Anyone who is ready to commit to death 50,000 US servicemen and women (and 800,000 South Korean civilians, not that you care which is obvious in your statements above) based on a SUSPICION - in my opinion even isn’t an American. How un-patriotic can you get?!?!
Hey, HH would be the first one in there, leading the way for his high school students. In fact if Bush decides to turn NK into a “nucular wasteland” HH wants to ride the bomb in just like 'ol Slim Pickins. But darn it, they won’t let him, cause after all he has “asthma”, or vaginal dryness, or something that keeps him from doing anything but talking shit on the internet.
[/quote]
That was funny as hell! I have to admit I had a good laugh from that one.
You’re beginning to show some intellectual potential yet, tme. You’ll soon become a true conservative, aka a thinking person.
[quote]jason1122 wrote:
This is the logic that I can’t understand. Where is it stated that since Kim JI said that he will nuke us that it will - beyond any reason of doubt be carried out? Look at it logically. Did he say that because he is desperate to get anyone’s attention because of the deteriorating conditions of his country or because when and if he ever does develop a nuke that can fit on one of his crappy missiles he is going to commit suicide and lob one over to the US? When Clinton was president we had UN inspectors in the Country making sure he couldn’t build any more nukes than the 1 or 2 he already had. And now low and behold when Bush takes office the UN inspectors were kicked out, Kim is enriching uranium as fast as he can spin it through is centrifuges, and he’s testing nukes - Surprise, Surprise! You want to make sure we don’t get nuked AND we don’t lose 50,000 servicemen? You HELP Kim build a light water reactor for energy like we promised him in the past. In return UN inspectors are allowed back in the country to make sure no more uranium is being enriched. You let up on economic sanctions but keep sanctions on ballistic missile parts in place. You (as Kim has SUGGESTED TO BUSH) talk to North Korea directly. You give them token amounts of grain, etc. just as South Korea has been doing through their Sun Shine policy. You try to establish some sort of PEACE. This is what Kim wants. Some economic help. Assurance that we aren’t going to wipe him off the map. And recognition within the international community. A whole lot better than war. You Bushites had your chance with Iraq and according to every - and I mean EVERY fricken intelligence agency we have you have made the chances of a terrorist attack on our country even greater. Thanks!
Anyone who is ready to commit to death 50,000 US servicemen and women (and 800,000 South Korean civilians, not that you care which is obvious in your statements above) based on a SUSPICION - in my opinion even isn’t an American. How un-patriotic can you get?!?!
[/quote]
Still convinced that you can negotiate with and appease a madman…will we never learn?
So instead of 50,000 American lives (assuming this is valid), we’ll wind up losing 5 million. Shameful.
[quote]orion wrote:
Ren wrote:
I am still curious as to how NK is gonna nuke us seeing as:
A) They have useless “ICBMs”
B) They have dud nukes.
So please tell me where this imminent and dire threat is coming from that forces us to slaughter civilians?
They take their 5 or so warheads, smuggle them into New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Boston and Denver and
BOOOOOOOOOM![/quote]
1 problem, they don’t have warheads. They tested a bomb, converting that into a warhead, well, takes alot more brains than they seem to possess.
Now if you want a realistic scenario, I’d go for a dirty bomb in a major US city. But then, there’s half a dozen countries that could do that to us if they wished.
In short, Kim wants the US threat at his borders to distract people from deteriorating domestic conditions.
Kim Jung-Il has stated publicly that he intends to nuke us, unless we negotiate with him, something that has never worked in the past. He has threatened us in no uncertain terms. How would you like it if he said he intended to nuke Brussels?
I would say “bring it on”. His test fizzled. Had it worked they still wouldn’t be able to build a deployable weapon. This will take several years up to a decade. And they wouldn’t be able to get it to the target.
North Korea should, as we speak, be a nuclear wasteland. Millions of innocents will die, whether here or in the USA, if this nut does as he says.
I believe him. Do you trust him to do otherwise?
How very intelligent of you. So your answer to the nut would be to go apeshit stark raving mad?
And this has worked in the past?
Anyway, the challenge was to look at the situation from the other side. You failed.
Yup, I’m unable to see the world from the eyes of a guy who runs death camps (4 huge ones) and starves his people. Kim IS the Satan you libs portray Bush to be — so, no I have nothing in common with that beast. I’ll leave that for you, Wreckless.
[/quote]
I didn’t ask you to like him or have sympathy for him in any way. But it’s something refreshing to put yourself in the other guys shoes.
If that same logic was used during the cold war Russia AND the United States would be nuclear wastelands. Don’t forget either that plans drawn up by the Pentagon call for 50,000 US servicemen and 800,000 South Koreans would be dead within the first 50 days of war. The weatherman can’t predict the weather a week from now so how can you predict that they will nuke us for sure? Russia never nuked us. India never nuked Pakistan and vice versa.
I know that Kruschev said ‘We will bury you!’, but I don’t recall reading that they said they we’re intending to nuke us. Did they say that? I don’t know. I do know that Kim did; it was all over the headlines.
Bluster is an Asian tradition (as in the Middle East), but they should understand how WE think, if we’re supposed to understand how THEY think. If an American said, ‘I’m going to buy a shotgun and shoot your whole family!’, you would not wait and give him the opportunity to carry out his threat. Why should we wait for him to nuke LA or Chicago? Why are millions of innocents in Asia more important than millions of innocents HERE?
War sucks, no doubt about it. But waiting simply means more deaths and destruction. We can’t put our heads in the sand and hope it goes away. We’ve tried that and see what we got?
Kill 'em all now. Kill or be killed.
Tick…
Tick…
Tick…
[/quote]
I see, so you’re expecting sanity and reason from the guy you declare to be a mad man, a Satan, a beast.
And in the same time, you’re willing to behave like a mad man and a beast yourself.
[quote]Ren wrote:
orion wrote:
Ren wrote:
I am still curious as to how NK is gonna nuke us seeing as:
A) They have useless “ICBMs”
B) They have dud nukes.
So please tell me where this imminent and dire threat is coming from that forces us to slaughter civilians?
They take their 5 or so warheads, smuggle them into New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Boston and Denver and
BOOOOOOOOOM!
1 problem, they don’t have warheads. They tested a bomb, converting that into a warhead, well, takes alot more brains than they seem to possess.
Now if you want a realistic scenario, I’d go for a dirty bomb in a major US city. But then, there’s half a dozen countries that could do that to us if they wished.[/quote]
You do not understand.
They do not need a warhead.
If they can fit it into an international standard container, they can ship it anywhere.
They do not even have to pass customs, they could explode it in the harbour.
[quote]orion wrote:
Ren wrote:
orion wrote:
Ren wrote:
I am still curious as to how NK is gonna nuke us seeing as:
A) They have useless “ICBMs”
B) They have dud nukes.
So please tell me where this imminent and dire threat is coming from that forces us to slaughter civilians?
They take their 5 or so warheads, smuggle them into New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Boston and Denver and
BOOOOOOOOOM!
1 problem, they don’t have warheads. They tested a bomb, converting that into a warhead, well, takes alot more brains than they seem to possess.
Now if you want a realistic scenario, I’d go for a dirty bomb in a major US city. But then, there’s half a dozen countries that could do that to us if they wished.
You do not understand.
They do not need a warhead.
If they can fit it into an international standard container, they can ship it anywhere.
They do not even have to pass customs, they could explode it in the harbour.
[/quote]
Underestimating a guy like this or NK’s capabilities is a crime against humanity.
Ren is asking us to have a pre 9-11 attitude. Yes 9-11 has nothing to do with nukes…or does it?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
jason1122 wrote:
This is the logic that I can’t understand. Where is it stated that since Kim JI said that he will nuke us that it will - beyond any reason of doubt be carried out? Look at it logically. Did he say that because he is desperate to get anyone’s attention because of the deteriorating conditions of his country or because when and if he ever does develop a nuke that can fit on one of his crappy missiles he is going to commit suicide and lob one over to the US? When Clinton was president we had UN inspectors in the Country making sure he couldn’t build any more nukes than the 1 or 2 he already had. And now low and behold when Bush takes office the UN inspectors were kicked out, Kim is enriching uranium as fast as he can spin it through is centrifuges, and he’s testing nukes - Surprise, Surprise! You want to make sure we don’t get nuked AND we don’t lose 50,000 servicemen? You HELP Kim build a light water reactor for energy like we promised him in the past. In return UN inspectors are allowed back in the country to make sure no more uranium is being enriched. You let up on economic sanctions but keep sanctions on ballistic missile parts in place. You (as Kim has SUGGESTED TO BUSH) talk to North Korea directly. You give them token amounts of grain, etc. just as South Korea has been doing through their Sun Shine policy. You try to establish some sort of PEACE. This is what Kim wants. Some economic help. Assurance that we aren’t going to wipe him off the map. And recognition within the international community. A whole lot better than war. You Bushites had your chance with Iraq and according to every - and I mean EVERY fricken intelligence agency we have you have made the chances of a terrorist attack on our country even greater. Thanks!
Anyone who is ready to commit to death 50,000 US servicemen and women (and 800,000 South Korean civilians, not that you care which is obvious in your statements above) based on a SUSPICION - in my opinion even isn’t an American. How un-patriotic can you get?!?!
Still convinced that you can negotiate with and appease a madman…will we never learn?
So instead of 50,000 American lives (assuming this is valid), we’ll wind up losing 5 million. Shameful.
[/quote]
Why not!!! People negotiate with Bush all the time…not that the guy can make an intelligent statement but they still try to negotiate with him. Just last week NK stated they would end their nuclear program if the US would drop the sanctions against them.
“When talking about the possibility of talks, the general said the country didn’t care if the talks were bilateral or six-party, but he said the sanctions must be lifted for progress to begin. He said if all this happened, then North Korea would be ready to stand down on its nuclear program.” [quote from North Korean Gen. Ri Chan Bok]
And yes, I do think we can negotiate with a madman. Remember the Clinton years? When we NEGOTIATED with Kim JI and promised to build him light water reactors in return for Kim to halt his uranium enrichment and allow UN inspectors to inspect, install camaras, and put seals on their containment facilities at their nuclear power plants ensuring they didn’t enrich any uranium? Remember? The good ol days when we didn’t have a psycho path in the White House who had more than one working brain cell?
“If war broke out in Korea, his military leaders told him, they estimated that it would cost 52,000 U.S. military casualties, killed or wounded, and 490,000 south Korean military casualties in the first 90 days,” [Gen. Howell Estes, senior U.S. Air Force commander in south Korea,]
I was wrong. Its 52,000 US military, 1/2 million SK military, and no estimates were given for civilian casualties which undoubtedly would be in the millions on both sides of the DMZ.
I see one other solution that would be a hell of a lot less expensive for the United States in the short term, in terms of blood and treasure, although it might compromise our long-term geopolitical strategic goals.
China annexes North Korea, making it an autonomous province. This is not such a huge stretch, as they already have the Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture in Jilin Province, where a great number of the 2 million or so inhabitants are ethnic Korean, mostly North Korean immigrants.
Militariliy it would be a piece of cake, because all of North Korea’s defenses are massed along the southern border, whereas the northern border is permeable as a sieve. The Chinese could take Pyongyang in a day.
The new province would then end all hostilities with South Korea, arranging for a phased stand-down of troops along the DMZ, with the understanding that the South Korean and US militaries will do the same.
Kim Jong-Il could get a job running a burlesque nightclub in Shanghai (and under close watch by Chinese Intelligence), and a saner, more moderate person would be found to administer the new province. I don’t trust the Chinese much farther than I can throw them, but I think they would do a better job of running the place than Kim and his gang, and would do a much more efficient job at “regime change” and “nation building” in that region than we, in our well-intended but bumbling way, would have a hope of doing.
[quote]jason1122 wrote:
…
And yes, I do think we can negotiate with a madman. Remember the Clinton years? When we NEGOTIATED with Kim JI and promised to build him light water reactors in return for Kim to halt his uranium enrichment and allow UN inspectors to inspect, install camaras, and put seals on their containment facilities at their nuclear power plants ensuring they didn’t enrich any uranium? Remember? The good ol days when we didn’t have a psycho path in the White House who had more than one working brain cell?[/quote]
Remember how Kim Jong Il would not allow comprehensive inspections as part of the deal and we went along with it? Remember how the UN inspectors were only allowed limited access?
Rememeber how NK went full speed ahead and developed a nuclear weapon in spite of the treaty?
Trying to blame this on Bush or Clinton is stupid. Clinton took a gamble. I thought it was rather naive but in reality he has limited choices.
The way the NK’s responded to Clinton takes away the negotiation option from Bush. It was naive to think it would work last time. It is insanity to think it would work this time.
Bush is playing this the right way. A little saber rattling and hope China can take care of the problem. Not much can be done short of full scale military action.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
jason1122 wrote:
…
And yes, I do think we can negotiate with a madman. Remember the Clinton years? When we NEGOTIATED with Kim JI and promised to build him light water reactors in return for Kim to halt his uranium enrichment and allow UN inspectors to inspect, install camaras, and put seals on their containment facilities at their nuclear power plants ensuring they didn’t enrich any uranium? Remember? The good ol days when we didn’t have a psycho path in the White House who had more than one working brain cell?
(1) Remember how Kim Jong Il would not allow comprehensive inspections as part of the deal and we went along with it? Remember how the UN inspectors were only allowed limited access?
(2) Rememeber how NK went full speed ahead and developed a nuclear weapon in spite of the treaty?
(3) Trying to blame this on Bush or Clinton is stupid. Clinton took a gamble. I thought it was rather naive but in reality he has limited choices.
(4) The way the NK’s responded to Clinton takes away the negotiation option from Bush. It was naive to think it would work last time. It is insanity to think it would work this time.
(5) Bush is playing this the right way. A little saber rattling and hope China can take care of the problem. Not much can be done short of full scale military action.[/quote]
(1)- No I don’t remember that. In fact the cameras were put in place by the UN and the seals were put in place that made it IMPOSSIBLE for them to extract the uranium without the UN knowing about it. NK complied completely. They didn’t ‘break the seals’ and remove the UN cameras until Bush backed out on the US’s end of the deal and refused to build them light water reactors.
(2)- No I don’t remember that either. Like I said before, once the seals and cameras were in place it was impossible for them to extract uranium and enrich it without the UN knowing. What’s next? Eskimos have WMD’s so we should bomb the North Pole?
(3) There’s two choices. 1. Kill millions on both sides or 2. Negotiate.
(4) Yes, it did work. NK wasn’t building nuclear weapons.
(5) Bush couldn’t play a game of monopoly right let alone foreign policy.
(3) There’s two choices. 1. Kill millions on both sides or 2. Negotiate.
(4) Yes, it did work. NK wasn’t building nuclear weapons.
(5) Bush couldn’t play a game of monopoly right let alone foreign policy. [/quote]
For (3): If we take the man at his word and strike first, he won’t be able to strike at all. I suspect that, if Kim was destroyed, his troops would jump for joy. South Korea could then take over.
For (4): Guess you haven’t been keeping up with current events.
For (5): Where’d you get your Masters? Yale? Harvard? Bush scored better (or perhaps equal, I forget) to Kerry on the military’s intelligence testing. You libs are so seething with hatred for the guy, you’ve lost touch with reality.
War sucks, no doubt about it. But waiting simply means more deaths and destruction. We can’t put our heads in the sand and hope it goes away. We’ve tried that and see what we got?
Kill 'em all now. Kill or be killed.
Tick…
Tick…
Tick…
so why exactly are millions in Asia worth LESS than here?
You have to choose. Do you choose millions in Asia or millions in, say, California?
Tick
Tick
Tick
[/quote]
Why? How are the people in California different from the people in Asia? They’re both human.
