![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Recently, Bob Fry posted:
"Jose" == Jose writes: Jose respected by the world. We have squandered whatever Jose credibility we had and it won't be coming back in the next Jose fifty years. I don't think so. Most of the world recognizes it is Bush and his team that is acting in a rougish fashion. A level-headed moderate president, not driven by religous or other dogma, could do a lot for both the US and its relations with the world. Alas, we don't seem to produce those candidates, and when we do, the Midwest and South reject them. As I see it, the problem is that while critical fundamental principles guiding our nation should not be up to the whim of particular politicians or political parties, the reality is that they are. Therefore, once we have shown a willingness to act in ways that are morally repugnant, there is no guarantee that we won't do it again when the mood suits us. It is completely reasonable for those outside our borders is to expect that at some point we will again act in the worst ways that we have in the past. 50 years may not be long enough to provide convince others of our good intentions, if one considers that we are the only nation on the planet to nuke somebody, and we are still actively developing ways to nuke somebody else. A question to anyone in this discussion: if *you* were the leader of North Korea, having US troops on your southern border for the last 50+ years; with the leader of the US calling you one of the "Axis of Evil"; and having invaded and destroyed a sovereign nation (also on the "Axis of Evil" list, btw) on the most obviously bogus of pretenses, how would *you* respond to protect your population? As I see it, it's a good thing NK doesn't have any oil. Neil |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
"Neil Gould" wrote: A question to anyone in this discussion: if *you* were the leader of North Korea, having US troops on your southern border for the last 50+ years; with the leader of the US calling you one of the "Axis of Evil"; and having invaded and destroyed a sovereign nation (also on the "Axis of Evil" list, btw) on the most obviously bogus of pretenses, how would *you* respond to protect your population? do you actually think that the "leader" of NK has any interest in protecting "his" population? time for a reality check. -- Bob Noel Looking for a sig the lawyers will hate |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Recently, Bob Noel posted:
In article , "Neil Gould" wrote: A question to anyone in this discussion: if *you* were the leader of North Korea, having US troops on your southern border for the last 50+ years; with the leader of the US calling you one of the "Axis of Evil"; and having invaded and destroyed a sovereign nation (also on the "Axis of Evil" list, btw) on the most obviously bogus of pretenses, how would *you* respond to protect your population? do you actually think that the "leader" of NK has any interest in protecting "his" population? Irrelevant. I wasn't asking about Kim Jong Il; I asked what *you* would do. time for a reality check. Indeed. For starters, it would be a good idea to know approximately how wide the Pacific Ocean is. Then compare that figure with the experts' opinions of the range of the Taepodong-2 missile sans payload (which though it has never been successfully flown, its "range" has been somehow increased about 3x from their original statements). Then try to reconcile the completely irresponsible claims being made about it being able to deliver a nuclear weapon that could reach the lower 48 states. You're being had yet again. Neil |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
"Neil Gould" wrote: do you actually think that the "leader" of NK has any interest in protecting "his" population? Irrelevant. I wasn't asking about Kim Jong Il; I asked what *you* would do. well, such a question isn't relevant. Rationale sane people are not in charge of the nk government. but I, for one, wouldn't bother trying to **** off the USA. I wouldn't **** away government funds on a worthless military weapon systems when millions of my citizens are starving. time for a reality check. Indeed. For starters, it would be a good idea to know approximately how wide the Pacific Ocean is. perhaps you should learn something about missiles, in particular the flight path for something between nk and the USA. -- Bob Noel Looking for a sig the lawyers will hate |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Recently, Bob Noel posted:
Rationale sane people are not in charge of the nk government. Some think the same about our leaders. but I, for one, wouldn't bother trying to **** off the USA. I wouldn't **** away government funds on a worthless military weapon systems when millions of my citizens are starving. I see; so you'd cozy up to the folks who think you're part of an "Axis of Evil", and prefer that the popuce run around anxious that the US is going to attack you next while they starve anyway. Hmm. Is that the rational and sane approach? perhaps you should learn something about missiles, in particular the flight path for something between nk and the USA. That isn't a matter of "missiles"; it's navigation of a geoid, and *still* doesn't extend the range of their missle sufficiently to reach "...the lower 48 states" as claimed. Perhaps you don't know where Korea is? Neil |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
"Neil Gould" wrote: Rationale sane people are not in charge of the nk government. Some think the same about our leaders. some people think the world is flat but I, for one, wouldn't bother trying to **** off the USA. I wouldn't **** away government funds on a worthless military weapon systems when millions of my citizens are starving. I see; so you'd cozy up to the folks who think you're part of an "Axis of Evil", not ****ing off and "cozy up" are not at all the same thing. [snip] perhaps you should learn something about missiles, in particular the flight path for something between nk and the USA. That isn't a matter of "missiles"; it's navigation of a geoid, and *still* doesn't extend the range of their missle sufficiently to reach "...the lower 48 states" as claimed. Perhaps you don't know where Korea is? I had to wonder if you had a clue since the dimension of the pacific ocean isn't particularly when you go great circle route. -- Bob Noel Looking for a sig the lawyers will hate |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Rationale sane people are not
in charge of the nk government. Some think the same about our leaders. I've not met any sane people who claim this to be true. but I, for one, wouldn't bother trying to **** off the USA. I wouldn't **** away government funds on a worthless military weapon systems when millions of my citizens are starving. I see; so you'd cozy up to the folks who think you're part of an "Axis of Evil", and prefer that the popuce run around anxious that the US is going to attack you next while they starve anyway. Hmm. Is that the rational and sane approach? You don't seem to get it. The world (yes, it's not just your horrid United States of America)warned North Korea not to launch any more missiles toward Japan under the guise of "testing" them. In response, they launched not one, but SEVEN missiles, provoking what could have been an all-out retaliatory strike. I suppose you believe these missile launches were the act of a sane government? Good grief... Interestingly, it is the Japanese who are now demanding sanctions against NK, and (as usual) the Russians and Chinese who are proving that the "United Nations" is as ineffective as as always. Here's the bottom line, folks: North Korea represents a clear and present danger to the U.S., and its allies -- and as of this evening they are now threatening to fire even MORE missiles into the Sea of Japan. President Bush, by labeling NK part of the "Axis of Evil", has correctly identified North Korea as one of the main enemies of freedom in the world -- as their actions clearly illustrate. Most thinking people understand the logic of this position, and it alarms me that there are apologists in this group for (I can't believe I'm writing this!) the actions of Kim Jong Il -- a man who aspires to join the despicable ranks of Stalin, Mao, and his own father. What are you guys *thinking*? The fact that we currently have an administration in power that actually says what it means, and means what it says, is a fortunate stroke of luck in world history. Can you imagine what Clinton (or Kerry? Or Gore?) would be doing right now? God almighty, we'd be showering Kim with gifts, offering him a state visit, and firing cruise missiles into the Libyan desert to divert the media's attention... Sadly, incredibly, once again, if diplomacy fails it looks like we may have to go it alone against North Korea -- and once again the majority of Americans (and, I believe, the world) will support such an action. But what a shame... -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote: In response, they launched not one, but SEVEN missiles, provoking what could have been an all-out retaliatory strike. hey - I just had a thought.... maybe NK was actually just trying to help the USA with its fourth of July celebration!! -- Bob Noel Looking for a sig the lawyers will hate |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Recently, Jay Honeck posted:
Rationale sane people are not in charge of the nk government. Some think the same about our leaders. I've not met any sane people who claim this to be true. I'd suspect that "people you've met" would be an insignificant sample size of the world's population. I suppose you believe these missile launches were the act of a sane government? Good grief... From the frame of mind of those in that region, I'd say yes, it was sane. How do you think it will play out? We're not going to attack NK any more than we're going to attack Pakistan or Iran, and pretty much for the same reasons; the consequences are dire. That concept is slowly sinking into Bush's dense skull. Interestingly, it is the Japanese who are now demanding sanctions against NK, and (as usual) the Russians and Chinese who are proving that the "United Nations" is as ineffective as as always. Given that the Russians and Chinese really *are* within range of NK's weapons, it would seem that their opinions should carry more weight than ours. Here's the bottom line, folks: North Korea represents a clear and present danger to the U.S. You're being had, yet again. The fact that we currently have an administration in power that actually says what it means, and means what it says, is a fortunate stroke of luck in world history. We'll see. It appears that the Bush administration's actions have cause more harm to our reputation than otherwise, and the mess that they created in the Middle East will have negative repercussions for decades, if not centuries. How do you see it playing out otherwise? Sadly, incredibly, once again, if diplomacy fails it looks like we may have to go it alone against North Korea -- It won't happen, unless Bush is truly insane. Neil |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Bob Noel wrote: A question to anyone in this discussion: if *you* were the leader of North Korea, having US troops on your southern border for the last 50+ years; with the leader of the US calling you one of the "Axis of Evil"; and having invaded and destroyed a sovereign nation (also on the "Axis of Evil" list, btw) on the most obviously bogus of pretenses, how would *you* respond to protect your population? do you actually think that the "leader" of NK has any interest in protecting "his" population? Exactly my response when I read the initial paragraph. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
North Korea Denounces US Stealth Bomber Deployment | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 2nd 04 09:20 PM |
what bout north korea? What about it? | Anonymoose NoSpam | Military Aviation | 2 | May 5th 04 09:15 PM |
N. Korea Agrees to Nuke Talks | Dav1936531 | Military Aviation | 1 | August 2nd 03 06:53 AM |