This is powerful, brings back some feelings.

[MRWSM]

The graphic images are what caught me.

BTW, the only reason I posted this here is to get a link off it so I can direct it to my RB board since it wouldn't post there. Didn't realize so many weirdo's would take offense. A lot of weirdo's in this world and so many of them right here at Elite.

 

[TGregg]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I'm curious how we negotiate with the North Koreans.
. . .

That's the point. Does one attempt to reach a negotiation with a mass murderer or psycho killer (qu' est-ce que c'est)? Kim Il Sung (or whatever his name is) is a nutcase. He's already proven that he cannot be trusted to stand by an agreement. For crying out loud, the North Koreans think they freaken won the Korean war by resisting an invasion by the US!

Anyway, I don't believe that CandleTrader really meant that we should or could trust the North Koreans. I'm pretty sure he was making a joke.

 

[bungrider]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

When a rogue state develops nukes and starts threatening us, we are perfectly entitled to launch a preemptive nuclear strike.

Christ almighty. This is the entire problem with allowing ANY pre-emptive strikes to occur, and this is why Ashcroft et al. need to stand trial for the pre-emptive attack of Iraq.

Do you hear yourself? Have you lost your mind??

What if France had decided that in order to prevent a bigger war from developing either as a result of 1)the attack of Iraq; or 2)the danger of allowing the US (despite UN intervention) to continue to bully other nations, a nuclear pre-emptive strike of the USA was justified???

And honestly, compared to the dimwit, falsified arguments we've heard out of Ashcroft, it's hard to criticize any other arguments in favor of "pre-emptive" strikes against the USA in such a situation.

This is a DANGEROUS bag of worms that Ashcroft and his merry band of fascists have opened, and the only way to put an end to it is for them to be tried as war criminals.

OTHERWISE, you will have India claiming that a pre-emptive strike of Pakistan is justified; you will have Cyprus claiming that a pre-emptive strike of Turkey is justified; you will have north korea claiming that a pre-emptive strike against south korea is justified, ETC.

You may say, "yeah, so what if France launches their nukes against the USA?? We'll cream those bastards!!" And you would be 100% right -- but let's not forget that the fallout from a nuclear strike ANYWHERE effects us all...and it would truly suck balls.

PUT AN END TO THIS MADNESS!!!

Of course W and that energy fraud charge evading pile of shit dick cheney will be hiding underground as usual anyway, so what do they care what happens to us? I mean, shit, they've already sold out the environment to their little buddies in the energy business, so what are a few more nukes and a few more cases of cancer?? If you had cheney's arteries, you wouldn't give a shit about cancer, either...

 

[TGregg]

Quote from bungrider:

What if France had decided that in order to prevent a bigger war from developing either as a result of 1)the attack of Iraq; or 2)the danger of allowing the US (despite UN intervention) to continue to bully other nations, a nuclear pre-emptive strike of the USA was justified???

Then there'd be no more Eiffel Tower, nor Louve, nor cowardly Frenchmen to protect.

EDIT: Not to say that I'm ready to nuke North Korea. But nuking France sounds strangly appealing.

 

[bungrider]

Quote from TGregg:



Then there'd be no more Eiffel Tower, nor Louve, nor cowardly Frenchmen to protect.

EDIT: Not to say that I'm ready to nuke North Korea.

Frenchmen aside, what about all the beautiful French women?? Think about them with TUMORS all over...what a waste of lovely soft, light brown skin...:eek:

And then there's the Dali museum in Paris...definitely don't want to lose that one, either...

 

[KymarFye]

Quote from TGregg:



That's the point. Does one attempt to reach a negotiation with a mass murderer or psycho killer (qu' est-ce que c'est)? Kim Il Sung (or whatever his name is) is a nutcase. He's already proven that he cannot be trusted to stand by an agreement. For crying out loud, the North Koreans think they freaken won the Korean war by resisting an invasion by the US!

Anyway, I don't believe that CandleTrader really meant that we should or could trust the North Koreans. I'm pretty sure he was making a joke.

Kim Il Sung was daddy. The current nutcase is Kim Jong Il. Too bad Kim Catrall was otherwise occupied when dad swallowed the big kim chee.

The only agreement worth aiming for would be one that's verifiable, both in the implementation and going forward. The big deal would involve dismantlement, intrusive inspections, and monitoring in exchange for some variation on recognition, a formal peace treaty, a non-aggression pact, and, for lack of a better word, ransom. There are numerous complications, conflicting visions, and uncertainties still standing in the way, apparently, but, in a way the situation is the same as it's been for years: If NK were to attack - with or without nukes - they'd be obliterated, but SK would suffer intolerable death and destruction.

I don't believe that a US nuclear first strike is remotely likely.

 

[TGregg]

Quote from bungrider:



Frenchmen aside, what about all the beautiful French women?? Think about them with TUMORS all over...what a waste of lovely soft, light brown skin...:eek:

And then there's the Dali museum in Paris...definitely don't want to lose that one, either...

strangely, I am married to a French woman, but do not generally prefer their appearance (with an obvious exception of my wife and besides, she shaves). I would like to check out the Dali museum someday though.

But, back on track. Plain ol' negotiation with the NKs is clearly not going to stop them from developing nukes. To be fair, I'm talkin' "plain ol' negotiations", meaning pre Regan "Trust but Verify." More commonly known as "Liberals Shut Their Eyes and Open Our Wallets." It's very clear that this idea has failed (Plain Ol' Negotiations), and I will not respond to any arguments to the contrary, it's a waste of time.

However, I don't think we could trust those lunatics even with verification.

Kim Jong Il (thanks KymarFye) leads his country, and does a demonstrable disservice to his people that he claims to love. "Demonstrable disservice" - Christ, these people are practically enslaved. They are definitely brainwashed. This guy and his cronies care about one thing, and one thing only - staying in power and living the good life.

Now, if we could convince him that we'd leave him alone to abuse his people, we'd be set. He could do the nasty, and not spend cash on troops and nukes to defend himself. We'd be somewhat immoral, but that's not the point.

Kim knows that as long as there is freedom anywhere, it is a threat to tyrants everywhere. Voters in the USA have ties to North Koreans. Other voters have this nasty thing we call a conscience. Kim's kinda vague on just what that is, but he can afford some advisors to fill him in. And he definately sees the writing on the wall - tyrants are falling around the world. And there is a very short list of the really nasty ones left - and he's on it.

So there's no way we're gonna convince ol' Kim that he can serve his lifelong term as The Great Evil One of North Korea. Which means that negotiations will fail.

 

[MRWSM]

Quote from candletrader:



Perhaps if we didn't go around fucking up other countries and killing people around the world (and this is not a recent phenomenon, its more like habitual behavior), we need not fear any further 911s... the rest of the world sees something that our policymakers deny: there are real reasons why we are hated... and if our policymakers continue in the ways that they are are well-versed in, further 911s are not only possible, they are pretty much inevitable...

I say we don't touch North Korea for one... we can achieve our objectives through negotiation...

Candletrader, I didn't mean to get into a discussion about this with idiots like you. But, how does saving other countries from destruction, like Kuwait, helping so many countries financially and securing them qualify us as F-king up other countries? You totally have no clue. All we do is help and give and give. We shouldn't help any country because it seems they don't appreciate it. I say secure our borders and if anyone messes with us they can pay the ultimate price swiftly from the air, we can keep our troops home.

 

[MRWSM]

Quote from a_ooiioo_a hii:

Well you just stole 10 minutes from my life that I'll never get back.

None of it would seem true if it weren't for the Cello section sawing back and forth for the first 5 minutes, and then the Enya crap for the next 5 minutes.

Now let's see some REAL images of children in Afhganistan being killed, and Iraq. "This happened to you"? How the fuck do you know that I'm not of Afghan or Iraqi ancestry?

By the looks of your ID, you definitely are Iraqi. Now you just wasted 2 minutes of my time to respond to an idiot.

 

[dnaj65000]

Quote from bungrider:



What if France had decided that in order to prevent a bigger war from developing either as a result of 1)the attack of Iraq; or 2)the danger of allowing the US (despite UN intervention) to continue to bully other nations, a nuclear preemptive strike of the USA was justified???

The US policy makers are hypocrites so of course a preemptive strike on the USA constitutes "terrorism" and in no way could be compared to the brilliant logic behind Hiroshima. Didn't you know, it's the USA way or the highway! Sheesh, the whole world should know that by now.

DNAJ65000