The Real Danger to the Free World: North Korea

[jangel]

the real danger with this N Korean idiot is , the selling of nuc. weapons to terrorists. he doesn't need to be the party that takes the action...he'll sell them and let someone else do the dirty work.
Right now he is limited to his striking power (distance he can deliver the payload).

[BDR]

Right now he is limited to his striking power (distance he can deliver the payload).

They have missles that can hit the west coast ...

r:>)

[AtoMikEnRtiA]

Right now he is limited to his striking power (distance he can deliver the payload).

They have missles that can hit the west coast ...

r:>)

Conservatives would say "nobody will miss Hollywood when it's gone, anyway..."

i just want them to spare seattle.. between coffee, rain, and grunge.. i think seattle has contributed enough to stay..

[byndrsn]

Right now he is limited to his striking power (distance he can deliver the payload).

They have missles that can hit the west coast ...

r:>)

Conservatives would say "nobody will miss Hollywood when it's gone, anyway..."

i just want them to spare seattle.. between coffee, rain, and grunge.. i think seattle has contributed enough to stay..

I don't think most conservatives would ever say any such thing - we have more tact than that!! (unlike the comment John Kerry made recently)

But honestly- I hate coffee, I hate rain and I really hate grunge!!!

[AtoMikEnRtiA]

They have missles that can hit the west coast ...

r:>)

Conservatives would say "nobody will miss Hollywood when it's gone, anyway..."

i just want them to spare seattle.. between coffee, rain, and grunge.. i think seattle has contributed enough to stay..

I don't think most conservatives would ever say any such thing - we have more tact than that!! (unlike the comment John Kerry made recently)

But honestly- I hate coffee, I hate rain and I really hate grunge!!!

what comment Kerry made? Are you talking about his interview on Bill Maher? Because I saw that.. and it sounded pretty accurate to me..

[jet_king]

I can't figure out where all this imperialism came from. We haven't added a new state since 1959. We haven't added any new territory since WWII. Sure, there were the Grenada and Panama invasions, but I doubt if Maxmood was very concerned about them. Aside from this, from Vietnam to 9/11, the US took no major action that was not UN sanctioned.

We had the opportunity to be an imperialist when we drove the invading Iraqi Army out of Kuwait, but we did not take it. What imperialist actions did President Clinton take? He never impressed me as the imperialist kind of guy. Prior to 9/11, George Bush barely had time to fill his cabinet let alone take imperialist actions. So I ask, what imperialism are you referring to that required the actions of 9/11?

In my mind, simply having a pre-emptive strike policy is imperialistic. And it seems you've overlooked our current occupation of Iraq (which is for oil, not to free their people from dictatorial rule), the fact that we have military bases all over the world as a means of bending nations to our will, and have used the bomb and an aggressive global economic policy to inflict ruin while we profit (perhaps I should have said "colonialist" instead?) Call it what you like. I resent the shit out of it.

Thanks for discussing this with me, lonewolf. It's fun and keeps me thinking.

[Banned]

I can't figure out where all this imperialism came from. We haven't added a new state since 1959. We haven't added any new territory since WWII. Sure, there were the Grenada and Panama invasions, but I doubt if Maxmood was very concerned about them. Aside from this, from Vietnam to 9/11, the US took no major action that was not UN sanctioned.

We had the opportunity to be an imperialist when we drove the invading Iraqi Army out of Kuwait, but we did not take it. What imperialist actions did President Clinton take? He never impressed me as the imperialist kind of guy. Prior to 9/11, George Bush barely had time to fill his cabinet let alone take imperialist actions. So I ask, what imperialism are you referring to that required the actions of 9/11?

In my mind, simply having a pre-emptive strike policy is imperialistic. And it seems you've overlooked our current occupation of Iraq (which is for oil, not to free their people from dictatorial rule), the fact that we have military bases all over the world as a means of bending nations to our will, and have used the bomb and an aggressive global economic policy to inflict ruin while we profit (perhaps I should have said "colonialist" instead?) Call it what you like. I resent the shit out of it.

Thanks for discussing this with me, lonewolf. It's fun and keeps me thinking.

This is a pretty lame definition of imperialism. There are 7 countries in the world known to have nuclear weapons. Are they all imperialistic also?

What is our global ecoomic policy to inflict ruin? This one I am real interested in. Is it shipping our jobs all over the world. Yeah, that must be it, get them ruined on earning imcomes that our citizens should be earning. Is it letting Japanese steel undercut our prices and basically ending our steel indurstry? It that ruining the rest of the world?, Now they have to go to work and make the steel for us.

I know, it must be by the way we ingore the way China ignores all or our patent laws and make anything they want, and the people who should be getting patent rights are fucked. That must be some of the policies of how we are ruining the world.

[Blain]

Saying that we're in Iraq "for the oil" seems to me to be such a cop-out. It requires no critical thought. It is nothing more than a parroted platitude. Blah blah blah. Just once I'd like to see somebody back it up with some evidence, or hey, how about just a reasonable theory that could hold a little water? Bush lied, war crimes, new world order, oil oil oil, blah blah blah blah blah. Get a new songbook.

[lonewolf]

I can't figure out where all this imperialism came from. We haven't added a new state since 1959. We haven't added any new territory since WWII. Sure, there were the Grenada and Panama invasions, but I doubt if Maxmood was very concerned about them. Aside from this, from Vietnam to 9/11, the US took no major action that was not UN sanctioned.

We had the opportunity to be an imperialist when we drove the invading Iraqi Army out of Kuwait, but we did not take it. What imperialist actions did President Clinton take? He never impressed me as the imperialist kind of guy. Prior to 9/11, George Bush barely had time to fill his cabinet let alone take imperialist actions. So I ask, what imperialism are you referring to that required the actions of 9/11?

In my mind, simply having a pre-emptive strike policy is imperialistic. And it seems you've overlooked our current occupation of Iraq (which is for oil, not to free their people from dictatorial rule), the fact that we have military bases all over the world as a means of bending nations to our will, and have used the bomb and an aggressive global economic policy to inflict ruin while we profit (perhaps I should have said "colonialist" instead?) Call it what you like. I resent the shit out of it.

Thanks for discussing this with me, lonewolf. It's fun and keeps me thinking.

I didn't overlook Iraq. It was my intent to cover from WWII up to 9/11. Then we were attacked. Iraq is part of the retaliatory strike, not a pre-emptive one. Of course, you can argue that all day long, but the bottom line is that we would not be in Iraq if not for 9/11.

The US overseas military bases are a direct result of WWII and the Korean War. In all cases, they were created as a response to somebody else's aggression. You know, guys like Hitler, Hirohito and Chairman Mao. The bases still exist because they are located in a US territory, like Guam, or the sitting government wants us there, like Germany. I don't recall any aggressive moves from any of our bases--ever. Do you?

Economic ruin? Do you mean like OPEC banding together to cut oil production because they want the U.S. to pay $75/bbl for oil? Or maybe you mean our gargantuan trade deficit with China? That's certainly the beginnings of economic ruin. Or maybe all these jobs exported to India never occurred. There may be some economic ruining going on, but I'm not so sure who's getting ruined.

[Banned]

This video from the maker of Scary Movie IV explains the reason behind N. Korea's actions:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashma.htm

[RobTheDrummer]

I think you have to be pre-emptive to nut jobs like N. Korea's leader. He would work to get nukes into terrorist's hands. Better to get him before he can get us.

[Banned]

WOW!!!!! this may just be the end of the world as we know it,

my take in this issue is this, North korea is going to do what they want to do and the U.S.A. is Not going to do anything about it why Because we got our ass kicked over there a few times with the KOREAN war and Viet Nahm, PLUS North Korea has China and Russia on there side, SO if the North wants to Explode thereNuke Bombs so be it. The ONLY way we would use our Military is if China and or Russia joined on our side and we all know thst is not going to happen,

[RobTheDrummer]

Our problem is that both political parties have no spine. We warn N. Korea all the time and do nothing about it. Are we going to act? NO, and the they know it. They've been doing what they want for the last 10+ years.