http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20050210/ts_nm/korea_north_talks_dc
Bad news.
Bad news.
Sylock
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
I really didn't think they had them yet. I knew they were working on them regardless of what they told the public. The fact that they've announced it outside their private threats to just the U.S. means that the weapons are stable, or at least that they think they are stable.
The scary thing is that our intelligence services had thought Iran was further along than N.K.
(Edit: I probably won't be running any group orders for a while, sorry)
The scary thing is that our intelligence services had thought Iran was further along than N.K.
(Edit: I probably won't be running any group orders for a while, sorry)
I know you were 
, and I was just kind of making fun of the sarcasm .
NK has a history of low balling what they have though, even in their threats. They know that if they have nukes, EVERYONE, including their ally China, will be worried about how they are going to use them. The fact that they've admitted to the 'highest sin' a country can currently have right now says something.
, and I was just kind of making fun of the sarcasm .NK has a history of low balling what they have though, even in their threats. They know that if they have nukes, EVERYONE, including their ally China, will be worried about how they are going to use them. The fact that they've admitted to the 'highest sin' a country can currently have right now says something.
They announced in ... 2002 I believe, that they were backing out of the treaty in 6 months (which was legal). That's not saying they weren't working on it the whole time, it's just that Clinton never was interested or concerned about foreign 'aggression/terrorism' so we didn't care what they were doing as long as this treaty was in place.
Joined
·
1,140 Posts
\Sylock said:
Yep... Scary ain't it....
Contrary to popular belief Bill Clinton has not run this country for four+ years what has Bush done?Besides rob our Nations treasury and youth,well i guess he did name the Axis of Evil,Bush is terrible at diplomacy,the blame lies there not what Clinton did or did not do,if Bush was not such a Moron he would let China lead the way,do you think they want some crack pot with his finger on the button in their backyard?Sylock said:
A little beyond the scope of this thread, but it was Clinton that promised to hunt Osama after he attacked us the first 3 times. Of course as everything else Clinton didn't do anything period. Let me correct that, he did bomb a terrorist camp that had be abondoned for 30 months, and that is the entire scope of his 'hunt'.
China supports the N.K., that's where N.K. gets all of their capital, supplies, everything.
I happen to think it's smart to call a spade a spade. Bush isn't a politican, he lets all know his beliefs and agenda. I had to laugh when Clinton couldn't even say who he thought was going to win the super bowl for fear of upsetting someone.
China supports the N.K., that's where N.K. gets all of their capital, supplies, everything.
I happen to think it's smart to call a spade a spade. Bush isn't a politican, he lets all know his beliefs and agenda. I had to laugh when Clinton couldn't even say who he thought was going to win the super bowl for fear of upsetting someone.
Joined
·
1,140 Posts
Ronald Reagan for President!!
Take off the blinders, do you not remember wag the dog,where the GOP accussed Clinton of bombing the camp of which you speak, to detract from the lewinsky scandle, so who really let Osama go? This is a fact if you want ro check it, Clinton wanted to put troops on the ground in afganistan,but was advised against it by the same dumb a*** in the pentagon that are running the Iraq disaster.Sylock said:
The blinders are off my friend . You may want to do the same and not listen to propaganda. Also by chance are you one of those who watched Mr Moorons Fierenhiet 9/11? And did you think it was anything other than propaganda?
So you are saying that either
a) Clinton bombed the camp to detract from his purgery case or
b) Clinton attacked an abondoned camp to try to do something (to a camp that was abandoned for 30 months)
Clinton said he wanted to do a lot of things, but didn't do any of them. The final decision to hunt Osama was his ... he did NOTHING period. (probably in a different post, but I'd like someone to show me ONE thing Clinton did. I posted that in another polictical thread a while ago and NO ONE from the Clinton side could give me anything other then he didn't screw up the economic boom that Bush Sr had started until the middle of his second term)
. You may want to do the same and not listen to propaganda. Also by chance are you one of those who watched Mr Moorons Fierenhiet 9/11? And did you think it was anything other than propaganda? So you are saying that either
a) Clinton bombed the camp to detract from his purgery case or
b) Clinton attacked an abondoned camp to try to do something (to a camp that was abandoned for 30 months)
Clinton said he wanted to do a lot of things, but didn't do any of them. The final decision to hunt Osama was his ... he did NOTHING period. (probably in a different post, but I'd like someone to show me ONE thing Clinton did. I posted that in another polictical thread a while ago and NO ONE from the Clinton side could give me anything other then he didn't screw up the economic boom that Bush Sr had started until the middle of his second term)
Joined
·
1,612 Posts
Propaganda?Sylock said:The blinders are off my friend
So you are saying that either
a) Clinton bombed the camp to detract from his purgery case or
b) Clinton attacked an abondoned camp to try to do something (to a camp that was abandoned for 30 months)
Clinton said he wanted to do a lot of things, but didn't do any of them. The final decision to hunt Osama was his ... he did NOTHING period. (probably in a different post, but I'd like someone to show me ONE thing Clinton did. I posted that in another polictical thread a while ago and NO ONE from the Clinton side could give me anything other then he didn't screw up the economic boom that Bush Sr had started until the middle of his second term)
Pot...kettle...black?
Who ignored the fairly specific warnings that we're now (post election) hearing more about?
I'm sure that you'll think I'm a crazy pinko liberal (though my views on most social and economic issues and gun rights might make that less convenient to rationalize than you had hoped), but the present administration is the one who:
1) Planted a porn-site operator-turned "journalist" in the White House press room to ask easy or anti-Democrat questions when the "liberal" media aked questions that were too tough,
2) Made covert payment to more than one "objective" commentator and "journalist" to specifically promote administration policy,
3) Released the "budget"... which is either the biggest delusion, or biggest work of fiction in American political history. If it's not propaganda... ?
I'm NOT a liberal/Democrat/socialist or whatever some might think I must be becuase I disagree with them.
I'm a moderate pragmatist, and I try to make LOGICAL decisions on the FACTS related to individual issues.
I thought that Bill did disgrace the office by lying, and I think that he probably should have done jail time. I don't think that Hilary would be a good President. I support our troops, but don't think that they should need to be where they are. I think that Dean and Nader did more harm than good for even their own pet causes.
I support allowing amusing images in MR sigs.
I also think that the people in power now are, as my late Grandmother liked to say, "Crazier 'n a woodchuck".
I saw a bumper sticker today that you might like to think about, if you can stop railing against Michael Moore and the "liberal" media, and read the 9/11 report: "When Bill lied, no one died"
Apologies to anyone I might have personally offended. My opinions are my own, but they're based on a thoughtful consideration of what I know to be factually true.
Yes propaganda. Your 3 numbers above ... all political parties have tried to feed the media. Granted liberals have an easier time since some of the top names in the 'un-biased' media are liberals. I laugh at the SS thing (I assume that is part of your problem with the budget?) because 3 years ago liberals were crying that SS would run out in 2025 (give or take a couple years I forget) and now that Bush says yeah so lets do something about it, the liberals are saying no those aren't the facts.scleractinian said:Propaganda?
Pot...kettle...black?
Who ignored the fairly specific warnings that we're now (post election) hearing more about?
I'm sure that you'll think I'm a crazy pinko liberal (though my views on most social and economic issues and gun rights might make that less convenient to rationalize than you had hoped), but the present administration is the one who:
1) Planted a porn-site operator-turned "journalist" in the White House press room to ask easy or anti-Democrat questions when the "liberal" media aked questions that were too tough,
2) Made covert payment to more than one "objective" commentator and "journalist" to specifically promote administration policy,
3) Released the "budget"... which is either the biggest delusion, or biggest work of fiction in American political history. If it's not propaganda... ?
I'm NOT a liberal/Democrat/socialist or whatever some might think I must be becuase I disagree with them.
I'm a moderate pragmatist, and I try to make LOGICAL decisions on the FACTS related to individual issues.
I thought that Bill did disgrace the office by lying, and I think that he probably should have done jail time. I don't think that Hilary would be a good President. I support our troops, but don't think that they should need to be where they are. I think that Dean and Nader did more harm than good for even their own pet causes.
I support allowing amusing images in MR sigs.
I also think that the people in power now are, as my late Grandmother liked to say, "Crazier 'n a woodchuck".
I saw a bumper sticker today that you might like to think about, if you can stop railing against Michael Moore and the "liberal" media, and read the 9/11 report: "When Bill lied, no one died"
Apologies to anyone I might have personally offended. My opinions are my own, but they're based on a thoughtful consideration of what I know to be factually true.
As for the "When Bill lied, no one died". Well again, if Bill would have done his Job, 9/11 would never have happened period. Where is it that Bush lied? WMD? So when Bush got the info that Iraq was still investigating WMD how is that not the same as when Bill got his info about the terrorist camp that had been abandoned for 30 months? Bush has to reley on many different branchs (most of which had been cut to pieces by Bill ... NASA, CIA, NSA, DoD), there is no other way to do it.
Again, name ONE thing Bill did (that's positive).
We can name dozens of things Bush has done. And just think if Gore would have won in 2000. Many of us here in Michigan would be losing value on our houses because the auto industry would be going belly up as one thing. That and I will assume that Gore would not have done as much as Bush has against terrorism, I shudder to think that he might have just let it go on like Clinton did.
Sylock ,have you ever voted for anyone who is not a republican?You are trying to tell me Bush is a better man, politican and leader than John McCain.I would also like a description of a Liberal,Does Conservatives always bankrupt the nation and what is conservative about that,sounds pretty Liberal to me,and do not even get me started about Iraq, name one conservative thing there,pretty Liberal in my opinion. P.S do not take everything Rush Limbaugh tells you as fact
Joined
·
332 Posts
It's all in someone's own opinion as to what a president did or did not do that was good or bad... for example some thing US attacking Iraq was good... others do not.
With that said...
Back to North Korea...
Not surprising at all that they have nuclear weapons.
I think that all countries have the ability to make nuclear weapons. All you need is a chemistry background and a nice big check of bribery.
With that said...
Back to North Korea...
Not surprising at all that they have nuclear weapons.
I think that all countries have the ability to make nuclear weapons. All you need is a chemistry background and a nice big check of bribery.
Joined
·
1,612 Posts
Sylock said:Yes propaganda. Your 3 numbers above ... all political parties have tried to feed the media. Granted liberals have an easier time since some of the top names in the 'un-biased' media are liberals. The fact that many of those who are considered legitimate journalists disagree with the administration is not "propaganda". Please give me an example of a "liberal" administration covertly paying sympathetic commentators to promote its policies. Please also give an example of a "liberal" administration installing someone in the White House Press Corps like the porn-site webmaster/ace reporter we found out about last week.
I laugh at the SS thing (I assume that is part of your problem with the budget?) because 3 years ago liberals were crying that SS would run out in 2025 (give or take a couple years I forget) and now that Bush says yeah so lets do something about it, the liberals are saying no those aren't the facts.
Well, the facts have changed. We don't have a budget surplus for the foreseeable future like we did in January 2001. We don't have the couple of trillion or so to "feed the beast"...er... fund W's plan... if the people that used to be both fiscally conservative AND anti-big-government... if SS is "the-beast", guess who the AARP block is voting for next time?
I personally can't recall any Dem's saying that there isn't a future problem w/ SS. Many, of BOTH parties, ARE saying that this "emergency" strangely became so urgent only after the election, and after the administration's own projections give us a half-trillion in deficits EVERY YEAR for the foreseeable future, even without considering the changeover costs in W's plan. Simply put, we can't afford to do this, like this, now. SS is screwed, but this isn't the thing to do... and it might actually be wiser to do nothing ATM.
As for the "When Bill lied, no one died". Well again, if Bill would have done his Job, 9/11 would never have happened period. Where is it that Bush lied? WMD? So when Bush got the info that Iraq was still investigating WMD how is that not the same as when Bill got his info about the terrorist camp that had been abandoned for 30 months? Bush has to reley on many different branchs (most of which had been cut to pieces by Bill ... NASA, CIA, NSA, DoD), there is no other way to do it.
I won't suggest that W lied. I personally feel that he believed what he was saying, he just didn't ask the questions to he needed to to get the right answers. He felt no need to. He sincerely believed that since his advisors were telling him agreed with what he wanted to do, that he had all of the info he needed.
It seems to me that this administration had their priorities set when they came in to office, and that nothing (including 9/11) has been able to really get them to re-prioitize things. Again, read the 9/11 report, or search for the "hair on fire" and "Al qaeda". The administration thinks and has thought that they're right, and that they know better... and that anyone who tries to convince them otherwise is inherently wrong and unpatriotic.
Again, name ONE thing Bill did (that's positive).
Almost solved the Middle East problem by getting the right people to the table at the right time... though he did forget that Arafat really was first the head of a terrorist organization, and second the leader of the Palestinians. Bill was a much mmore fiscally conservative President than W. Bill had also at least heard of and taken some action against Osama pre 9/11.
We can name dozens of things Bush has done.
Really?
Please list at least a dozen positive things that everyone can agree with the W has actually gotten accomplished.
And just think if Gore would have won in 2000. Many of us here in Michigan would be losing value on our houses because the auto industry would be going belly up as one thing.
Ummm... many ARE losing value, or at least seeing appreciation significantly decelerate... The housing market in suburban Detroit will probably be fine for at least as long as people continue to flee the city and close-in 'burbs though, and nothing George does or has done will be as significant as getting rid of everyone even remotely associated with Kwame. You might also want to take a look at how AMERICAN auto producers are doing compared to asian producers. That and I will assume that Gore would not have done as much as Bush has against terrorism, I shudder to think that he might have just let it go on like Clinton did. ... If someone would have paused to listen to Richard Clark, maybe they would have taken some effective action. This administrations first actions against terrorism seem to have been initated only after 9/11.
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
