Reply With Quote
When was Madelaine Albright president?
Who said I hated celebrities?
All of those presidents invaded Iraq for no reason?
Celebrity hating Yoni finds a way to embrace Hollywood.
When was Madelaine Albright president?
Who said I hated celebrities?
do they even have a way to properly deliver it? i'm going on the assumption that detonating a nuke underground in a controlled setting is a lot different than actually using one in a strategic sense.
There's still no consensus over whether or not the detonation was actually nuclear.
But, I would imagine Kim Jong Mentally-Ill plans to duct tape the damn thing to the top of one of those Missiles that blew to pieces, during the boost phase last July, and irradiate much of the Korean Penisula as well as the Sea of Japan.
Here, clambake, let the Director of Airplane and Scary Movie educate you.
Agreed Framework in Action
Ain't gonna happen
(1) If they don't have a way to deliver it now, they will before long.
(2) You don't have to have a missile to really ruin the day of a lot of people. Smuggle it out, put it on a boat or an aircraft, and destroy whatever port you like.
Remember that "Little Boy," the first US nuke used in action was humongous (10' long, 9000 lbs) and only resulted in a 15 kiloton explosion. Once you get the basic concepts down miniaturization is only a matter of time. The NKs may not be there yet but it seems they are on the road.
Love her or hate her, the chick's writing style is awesome.
CLINTON'S LATEST GLOW JOB
October 11, 2006
With the Democrats' full-throated moralizing of late, I'm almost tempted to vote for them — although perhaps "full-throated" is the wrong phrase to use with regard to Democrats and sex scandals. The sudden emergence of the Swift Butt Veterans for Truth demonstrates that the Democrats would prefer to talk about anything other than national security.
Unfortunately for them, the psychotic Kim Jong Il seems to be setting off nukes, raising the embarrassing issue of the Clinton administration's 1994 "peace" deal with North Korea.
At least with former Rep. Mark Foley, you could say the Democrats' hypocritical grandstanding was just politics. But in the case of North Korea, Democrats are resorting to bald-faced lies.
Current New Mexico governor and former Clinton administration official Bill Richardson has been on tour, bragging about the groundbreaking Clinton administration negotiations with North Korea — keeping his fingers crossed that no one has access to news from 1994.
In 1994, the Clinton administration got a call from Jimmy Carter — probably collect — who was with the then-leader of North Korea, saying: "Hey, Kim Il Sung is a total stud, and I've worked out a terrific deal. I'll give you the details later."
Clinton promptly signed the deal, so he could forget about North Korea and get back to cheating on Hillary. Mission accomplished.
Under the terms of the "agreed framework," we gave North Korea all sorts of bribes — more than $5 billion worth of oil, two nuclear reactors and lots of high technology. In return, they took the bribes and kept building nukes. This wasn't difficult, inasmuch as the 1994 deal permitted the North Koreans to evade weapons inspectors for the next five years.
Yes, you read that right: North Korea promised not to develop nukes, and we showed how much we trusted them by agreeing to no weapons inspections for five years.
The famed "allies," whom liberals claim they are so interested in pleasing, went ballistic at this cave-in to North Korea. Japan and South Korea — actual allies, unlike France and Germany — were furious. Even Hans Blix thought we were being patsies.
If you need any more evidence that it was a rotten deal, The New York Times hailed it as "a resounding triumph."
At the time, people like William Safire were screaming from the rooftops that allowing North Korea to escape weapons inspections for five years would "preclude a pre-emptive strike by us if North Korea, in the next U.S. president's administration, breaks its agreement to freeze additional bomb-making."
And then on Oct. 17, 2002 — under a new administration, you'll note — The New York Times reported on the front page, so you couldn't have missed it: "Confronted by new American intelligence, North Korea has admitted that it has been conducting a major clandestine nuclear weapons development program for the past several years."
So when it comes to North Korea, I believe the Democrats might want to maintain a discreet silence, lest anyone ask, "Hey, did you guys do anything with North Korea?"
But by Richardson's lights, the only reason Kim Jong Il is testing nukes is because Bush called him evil. He said, "When you call him axis of evil or a tyrant, you know, he just goes crazy." This is the sort of idiocy you expect to hear from an illiterate like Keith Olbermann, not someone who might know people who read newspapers.
Richardson also blames the war in Iraq, bleating that the poor North Koreans feel "that there's too much attention on the Middle East, on Iraq. So it's a cry for attention." If Kim just wanted our attention, he could have started dating Lindsay Lohan. But Richardson says Kim "psychologically feels he's been dissed, that he's not treated with respect."
Damn that Bush! If only he had ignored the crazy Muslims and dedicated himself into sending flowers (and more nuclear reactors!) to North Korea, we could be actively helping Kim develop his nukes like the Clinton administration did.
As Richardson said, Kim "wants us to negotiate with him directly, as we did in the Clinton administration."
To go on TV and propose negotiating with North Korea like Clinton did without ever mentioning that North Korea cheated on that agreement before the ink was dry would be like denouncing American aggression against Japan in 1942 and neglecting to mention Pearl Harbor. Anyone who is either that stupid or that disingenuous should not be allowed on TV.
When pressed by CNN's Anderson Cooper about the failed deal, Richardson lied, claiming the 1994 deal prevented the North Koreans from building nukes "for eight years" — i.e., right up until the day The New York Times reported the North Koreans had been developing nukes "for the past several years."
Kim is crazier than any leader even South America has been able to produce. In fact, he's so crazy, we might be able to get the Democrats to take action. Someone tell Nancy Pelosi that the "Dear Leader" is an actual pederast. Then we'll at least be able to read his instant messages.
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
that. That is an atypical statement.
I can feel World War 3 coming on. Something along the lines of US, Britain, and Japan vs China, North Korea, and Russia. Hopefully all doesn't break loose. Someone brought up the point that North Korea could potentially sell nukes to enemies such as Al Queda. Something really should be done for the sake of the U.S. and the North Korean people, i'm just not exactly sure what to do.
You want to change his mind using the tired, simplistic comedy of an over the hill director?
...Shirley, you can't be serious!
ann doesnt writes as if we gave them anything. Smart woman.
His style isn't very noteworthy.Love her or hate her, the chick's writing style is awesome.Actually, he writes as if we gave them "more than $5 billion worth of oil, two nuclear reactors and lots of high technology," which would be true had we followed through with our part of the deal. The truth is something different and something he doesn't want to make clear, which is typical of him when a blowjob joke is available.ann doesnt writes as if we gave them anything. Smart woman.
rascal has good basketball takes and good political takes
Well....I say the U.S. doesn't take anything NK says seriously, until they can prove ANYTHING.
How very true!!!!! The problem with understanding the problem that NK presents, is that many on here are too young to know the complete history of the situation.
You don't have to be of a certain age to know the complete history of the Korean situation. They're called books, they have information in them, some are read for leisure.
Thats what Im saying, we didnt give them anything, so lo and behold, they didnt live up to their side either... what a concept.
Thats the problem!!! There are some who don't read and just form opinions from talking points!
Not to mention that the US strategically chose its targets as those that would be least detrimental to Japanese society....
The US could have dropped the bomb on Tokyo or Yokohama... if they had wanted to. But killing the maximum amount of civilians and causing a massive amount of destruction was not the goal. Ironic as it may seem, the goal of the Enola Gay's mission was to end the war... not to 'end' Japanese society.
Imagine if the bomb had been dropped on Tokyo.... 3-4 million dead... instant decimation of countless of precious artifacts, monuments, and culture, loss of an entire history, everything gone. The U.S. knew better, and was as civilized in their use of the atom-bomb as they could be in such a trying time.
Do you think that Japan would be on such buddy-buddy terms with the U.S. if it had been any different?
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-12-2006 at 05:45 PM.
Wanna know what we're up against?
A satellite image from the U.S. Department of Defense of the Korean Peninsula at night, showing the lights of South Korea and the relative darkness of North Korea (TOP), is shown at a news briefing by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon in Washington, October 11, 2006.
What was the point of that?
The point is we should attack at night when they are all asleep.
Let's see, if you follow the Republican talking points you have (from Josh Marshall):
Clinton had direct negotiations with Kim. Those who oppose this say he cannot be trusted to keep his word in treaties. What puzzles me is Bush insists on the six party talks. If Kim will lie to us individually, why would he not lie to 5 parties in the six party talks?"Failure" =1994-2002 -- Era of Clinton 'Agreed Framework': No plutonium production. All existing plutonium under international inspection. No bomb.
"Success" = 2002-2006 -- Bush Policy Era: Active plutonium production. No international inspections of plutonium stocks. Nuclear warhead detonated.
By saying negotiation will not work because Kim is untrustworthy means you only have limited options:
1. Talk everyone else into sanctions against North Korea. (Kind of tried that with Iraq)
2. Do nothing. (That is really the Bush plan)
3. Attack militarily.
So what do you right wingers propose?
Cool photos don't need no stinking point!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
