PDA

View Full Version : OT: North Korea


maher_tyler
05-29-2009, 06:00 PM
Maybe this should go into the war forum or whatever...but is anyone else at all concerned. My wife is currently stationed over there and i'm honestly pretty worried that this time around some **** is gonna go down and it's going to be pretty ugly to say the least...WWIII anyone?!?!

Archer81
05-29-2009, 06:05 PM
Prayers for your wife man. My dad is stationed in Japan, he's back in the states now but only for a few days before he goes back over.

:Broncos:

cutthemdown
05-29-2009, 06:20 PM
Well ask yourself what N Korea has to gain by attacking. IMO not much. Obama will not have the balls to do a military strike so IMO not much chance of anything happening that could put your wife in danger anymore then she was before.

China would never support a N Korean attack on S Korea. N Korea gets 90% of fuel and most of what they eat through CHina.

for those reasons I dont think you should worry anymore then the normal way you would worry about a loved one who is a long ways away.

bronco0608
05-29-2009, 06:30 PM
Why do we have to get involved in any conflict North Korea has with anyone besides the United States?

maher_tyler
05-29-2009, 06:31 PM
Well ask yourself what N Korea has to gain by attacking. IMO not much. Obama will not have the balls to do a military strike so IMO not much chance of anything happening that could put your wife in danger anymore then she was before.

China would never support a N Korean attack on S Korea. N Korea gets 90% of fuel and most of what they eat through CHina.

for those reasons I dont think you should worry anymore then the normal way you would worry about a loved one who is a long ways away.

I don't know, Kim Jong is definitely not there in the head...i wouldn't be all that surprised if something happens..hell he's doing nuke tests and launching missles left and right..but what your saying puts a little ease on the situation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_north_korea_military

maher_tyler
05-29-2009, 06:33 PM
Why do we have to get involved in any conflict North Korea has with anyone besides the United States?

There our allies...we have forces stationed in the south, in japan etc. Don't you watch the news at all?! In the end, the North would lose but there would be an insane amount of human life lost because of an idiot leader!!

Popps
05-29-2009, 06:36 PM
If NK invades SK by ground, which is now being speculated... it'll be a much wider-sweeping response than we saw during the Iraq war.

bronco0608
05-29-2009, 06:37 PM
There our allies...we have forces stationed in the south, in japan etc. Don't you watch the news at all?! In the end, the North would lose but there would be an insane amount of human life lost because of an idiot leader!!

Its not our job to protect the world. When in the hell did that become our job?

Hogan11
05-29-2009, 06:39 PM
If NK invades SK by ground, which is now being speculated... it'll be a much wider-sweeping response than we saw during the Iraq war.

That's what I think as well...plus indications are that China and Russia will not be backing them up this time around if they do that.

Ratboy
05-29-2009, 06:40 PM
I am TDY to Korea right now. I am not too concerned, I am sure things will work out eventually.

I will start worrying when bullets and/or bombs start hitting.

bronco0608
05-29-2009, 06:41 PM
We can't keep footing the bill as American taxpayers to protect other people's ****. They (S.Korea) should fight their own battles, or better yet, why don't they spend billions upon billions like United States does on their defense?

Hell, let the rest of world fight their battles. We can't afford to.

maher_tyler
05-29-2009, 06:42 PM
Its not our job to protect the world. When in the hell did that become our job?

Dude...if they invade the south by ground or whatever way..we have soldiers/airmen/marines stationed there, you know americans, what don't you get about that. A lot of them would possibely die with out warning. Your willing to just let something like that happen?!?!

gunns
05-29-2009, 06:42 PM
My son goes over to S. Korea for a year in October. Thought this was great until lately. Jong doesn't have to have anything to gain, he just wants to prove he can do it. Idiot.

Ratboy
05-29-2009, 06:44 PM
We can't keep footing the bill as American taxpayers to protect other people's ****. They (S.Korea) should fight their own battles, or better yet, why don't they spend billions upon billions like United States does on their defense?

Hell, let the rest of world fight their battles. We can't afford to.

Rinse, Wash, and Repeat.

You are saying the same things over. We understand we are not the world police (somebody has been watching Team America). However we're civilized and care about what happens to other people.

We have a dozen bases in South Korea (some which contain families) and you don't want us to get involved?

Ratboy
05-29-2009, 06:45 PM
My son goes over to S. Korea for a year in October. Thought this was great until lately. Jong doesn't have to have anything to gain, he just wants to prove he can do it. Idiot.

I wouldn't worry about it. I personally have not heard anything from our leaders. The only thing i;ve heard so far is what the media is throwing at the wall.

maher_tyler
05-29-2009, 06:50 PM
I am TDY to Korea right now. I am not too concerned, I am sure things will work out eventually.

I will start worrying when bullets and/or bombs start hitting.

It seems to be a lot more serious than i can remember it being...i get a gut feeling the North isn't going to back down/shut up this time like they usually do. And how many times can this crap keep happening before we use military force..what else can we do..one minute they say there going to stop and then there doing nuke tests again/launching a "commercial satelite". When does everyone just decide to smack them around to let them know were done with these games they keep playing?!

bronco0608
05-29-2009, 07:06 PM
Rinse, Wash, and Repeat.

You are saying the same things over. We understand we are not the world police (somebody has been watching Team America). However we're civilized and care about what happens to other people.

We have a dozen bases in South Korea (some which contain families) and you don't want us to get involved?

Oh, I had to watch a cartoon to come to that conclusion? Seriously now.

How about this? Evacuate all American troops, let them duke out, and call it night. How about that?

Spider
05-29-2009, 07:18 PM
Its not our job to protect the world. When in the hell did that become our job?

Since the UN was created .......
We can't keep footing the bill as American taxpayers to protect other people's ****. They (S.Korea) should fight their own battles, or better yet, why don't they spend billions upon billions like United States does on their defense?

Hell, let the rest of world fight their battles. We can't afford to. If anything you have to keep Kim Jong Douchebag from gaining more resources, that Little pecker has done alot with what little he has , he gets south Korea he can gain even more .........

Oh, I had to watch a cartoon to come to that conclusion? Seriously now.

How about this? Evacuate all American troops, let them duke out, and call it night. How about that? I would love to see us pull out of S. Korea , I believe we had a chance back in the 90's , but not now .........

TonyR
05-29-2009, 07:18 PM
Lots of good info on the topic in the article linked below.

http://www.slate.com/id/2219064/pagenum/all/#p2

cutthemdown
05-29-2009, 07:23 PM
I don't know, Kim Jong is definitely not there in the head...i wouldn't be all that surprised if something happens..hell he's doing nuke tests and launching missles left and right..but what your saying puts a little ease on the situation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_north_korea_military

I guess a case could be made he goes crazy since hes close to death. IMO though he would still need his generals to carry out the plan, and they may balk. I doubt the N Korean military want to deal with the whole world. Make no bones about it CHina will not help N Korea attack. If anything they would join in the counter attack.

True if USA tries some type of action to try and shut down the N Korean nuclear program then it would get really dangerous. Just trust in her training, the training of the other soldiers over there, and hope for the best.

No since worrying too much about it until there is something more to worry about.

Besides I bet your wife tells you not to worry!!!!!!!

Talk about the new era!!!! Hubbies worried about wives overseas serving their country. You've come a long way baby!!!!!!!!

IMO American women lead the women everywhere showing them they can be athletes, soldiers, moms, run companies, and still look hot.

Let's hear it for our women guys!!!!! They friggin rock!!!!!!!

cutthemdown
05-29-2009, 07:27 PM
For anyone who doesn't see the merit in fulfilling our obligations to S Korea all I can say is maybe look a little deeper.

Some things more important then what it costs us to do it. The point is those people over there depend on us. Does that mean we can't maybe move some troops home and save money? no. But to just pack up and leave S Korea to the N Koreans and the Chinese it totally unacceptable.

I had family that fought in that war and the reasons were just despite what any tree hugging pacifist wants to try and say.

Who lives better S Korea, or N Korea? Hell N Koreans would be better off had we just kept up the fight and defeated China and the N Koreans commies.

No way we leave, not ever IMO.

Not to mention those troops are also a buffer which keeps Japanese from feeling they need to expand their military.

Things are bigger then a lot of people realize.

~Crash~
05-29-2009, 07:28 PM
Its not our job to protect the world. When in the hell did that become our job?

LOL so you think them hurling nukes and saying that they want war with us we should just turn and run away ....:peace:

~Crash~
05-29-2009, 07:30 PM
Why should we go to war I say take a seal team in and cut the head of the snake off .

cutthemdown
05-29-2009, 07:33 PM
Why should we go to war I say take a seal team in and cut the head of the snake off .

kim jong will soon die.

~Crash~
05-29-2009, 07:36 PM
kim jong will soon die.

yep castro is still ticking what 40 years or so after people said he will not last long...

Punisher
05-29-2009, 07:42 PM
This is all in a time line to 2012 then where all dead.....

I think it will be like this SC attacks NC...NC and SC go to War then Russia helps NC, a week later The US gets in to the war.

After a year in the war Russia drops a bomb on SC then US drops a Bomb on Russia then were all dead from Nuclear war.......

Spider
05-29-2009, 07:51 PM
This is all in a time line to 2012 then where all dead.....

I think it will be like this SC attacks NC...NC and SC go to War then Russia helps NC, a week later The US gets in to the war.

After a year in the war Russia drops a bomb on SC then US drops a Bomb on Russia then were all dead from Nuclear war.......

if this is the case , last day I ma alive , I am making my log books out in Crayon , handing them over to D.O.T. and say Ha! what do you think of that ****

Punisher
05-29-2009, 07:55 PM
if this is the case , last day I ma alive , I am making my log books out in Crayon , handing them over to D.O.T. and say Ha! what do you think of that ****

I think I'll sneak in Invesco Field in spend my last hours there :Broncos: :bronxrox:

maher_tyler
05-29-2009, 08:44 PM
I guess a case could be made he goes crazy since hes close to death. IMO though he would still need his generals to carry out the plan, and they may balk. I doubt the N Korean military want to deal with the whole world. Make no bones about it CHina will not help N Korea attack. If anything they would join in the counter attack.

True if USA tries some type of action to try and shut down the N Korean nuclear program then it would get really dangerous. Just trust in her training, the training of the other soldiers over there, and hope for the best.

No since worrying too much about it until there is something more to worry about.

Besides I bet your wife tells you not to worry!!!!!!!

Talk about the new era!!!! Hubbies worried about wives overseas serving their country. You've come a long way baby!!!!!!!!

IMO American women lead the women everywhere showing them they can be athletes, soldiers, moms, run companies, and still look hot.

Let's hear it for our women guys!!!!! They friggin rock!!!!!!!

I'm also in the Air Force...and i wouldn't worry but after all the BS thats been going on its hard not to think what could happen...who really knows what China and Russia will do if something goes down.

Archer81
05-29-2009, 09:03 PM
We can't keep footing the bill as American taxpayers to protect other people's ****. They (S.Korea) should fight their own battles, or better yet, why don't they spend billions upon billions like United States does on their defense?

Hell, let the rest of world fight their battles. We can't afford to.


I nominate this for most retarded post of the week.


:Broncos:

Archer81
05-29-2009, 09:08 PM
yep castro is still ticking what 40 years or so after people said he will not last long...


Castro doesnt have nuclear weapons.


:Broncos:

Houshyamama
05-29-2009, 09:19 PM
This is all in a time line to 2012 then where all dead.....

I think it will be like this SC attacks NC...NC and SC go to War then Russia helps NC, a week later The US gets in to the war.

After a year in the war Russia drops a bomb on SC then US drops a Bomb on Russia then were all dead from Nuclear war.......

South and North Carolina?

Punisher
05-29-2009, 09:20 PM
South and North Carolina?

LOL Yea they'll fight over The Panthers

lazarus4444
05-29-2009, 09:26 PM
Its not our job to protect the world. When in the hell did that become our job?

Let's see,

15,000,000 deaths in world war 1.

48,000,000 deaths in world war 2 (and estimates are as high as 72,000,000)


It became our job when 63,000,000 people lost their lives in both world wars in a span of 27 years. Since then, no major war has been started and we haven't lost close to the 400,000 troops we lost in WWII.

I would like to think we had a part to play in that and we still are.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-29-2009, 10:29 PM
I just can't see North Korea as a main threat for a few reasons. One, they are poor as ****. Yes, they are building their ****ty nukes and though we are unaware of their actual capability, the ones they were testing were about a quarter as powerful as hiroshima. Have you seen pictures of NK? That place is falling apart.

2) They don't really have allies. China supplies 90 percent of their energy, food...and their recent actions have been alienating the chinese.

3) As someone said, they really don't have anything to gain. I think they just want to be heard in the world community. As to what they actually want as a member, who the hell knows, but I dont think they are looking for world domination (as they know they are completely incapable of it). World War 3 this is not.

ZONA
05-29-2009, 11:13 PM
Obama will not have the balls to do a military strike so IMO not much chance of anything happening that could put your wife in danger anymore then she was before.


What makes you think that? He's beefed up the forces in Afghanistan. And it may not be a matter of "balls". Do you think going to war right now would be a good move? You think the economy is bad right now, just wait until word gets out that we are going to war yet again, with a different county. And presidents don't go grab a rifle and hit the front line exactly. They give orders and sit back in their cushy office while our soldiers go out and get shot up. Not exactly having "balls" in my book.

JJJ
05-29-2009, 11:30 PM
Its not our job to protect the world. When in the hell did that become our job?

I would say our outreach program began in earnest in 1801 at the start of the Barbary wars. To the shores of Tripoli we went to fight pirates harrassing our ships with our recently formed Navy and Marine Corps we had launched a few years prior.

We have been protecting our interests and allies in the world and trying to keep the peace through strength in the 200+ years since.

The last wave of isolationism fell away during WWII. Protecting the world became the fully adopted strategy since then and made us the most powerful and influential country on earth.

You could also argue the most indebted nation but that really is only a recent development. On their own the Iraq/Afghan war debts would be fairly manageable.

cutthemdown
05-30-2009, 01:40 AM
I'm also in the Air Force...and i wouldn't worry but after all the BS thats been going on its hard not to think what could happen...who really knows what China and Russia will do if something goes down.

Basically CHina and Russia want to prosper. No way they would support anything that would ruin that. What would CHina have to gain by supporting a N Korean attack? I can't think of anything.

If they wanted Taiwan I guess and needed an excuse, but i don't see that as profitable for them.

I think if anything this is just more bluster from N korea. Best thing is to try and maintain the status quo, maybe some stuff in UN, but not enough to really make N Korea have to do something crazy to break a blockade etc.

Outside of that the only thing would be a massive attack that tried to wipe out all the missiles. But with all N Koreas artilliary, the damage they could inflict on Seoul and even Japan would make it not worth it.

cutthemdown
05-30-2009, 01:45 AM
What makes you think that? He's beefed up the forces in Afghanistan. And it may not be a matter of "balls". Do you think going to war right now would be a good move? You think the economy is bad right now, just wait until word gets out that we are going to war yet again, with a different county. And presidents don't go grab a rifle and hit the front line exactly. They give orders and sit back in their cushy office while our soldiers go out and get shot up. Not exactly having "balls" in my book.

No I don't think Obama should go to war with N Korea right now. If China and Russia were on board I would feel different.

It's more political balls. It would mean certain defeat for him because he would lose his base.

I would like to see a little more from him on this then he has done so far though. At least let us know his plan is more then trying to revive some old UN regulations from 2006.

I would support shooting one of the missiles down if we can do it. If you missed it would like Carter like, but if you did it that would be a good way to show them we can do it.

cutthemdown
05-30-2009, 01:46 AM
I would say our outreach program began in earnest in 1801 at the start of the Barbary wars. To the shores of Tripoli we went to fight pirates harrassing our ships with our recently formed Navy and Marine Corps we had launched a few years prior.

We have been protecting our interests and allies in the world and trying to keep the peace through strength in the 200+ years since.

The last wave of isolationism fell away during WWII. Protecting the world became the fully adopted strategy since then and made us the most powerful and influential country on earth.

You could also argue the most indebted nation but that really is only a recent development. On their own the Iraq/Afghan war debts would be fairly manageable.


Many people on the board talk up being fair. What right do we have. We should mind own business etc etc. They fail to realize they wouldn't be living in the most powerful country in the world had we thought that way.

PaintballCLE
05-30-2009, 02:05 AM
nuke the whole god damn country........problem solved LOL

TailgateNut
05-30-2009, 07:18 AM
Maybe this should go into the war forum or whatever...but is anyone else at all concerned. My wife is currently stationed over there and i'm honestly pretty worried that this time around some **** is gonna go down and it's going to be pretty ugly to say the least...WWIII anyone?!?!

Your wife is stationed in NK. ???

Rock Chalk
05-30-2009, 08:11 AM
Why do we have to get involved in any conflict North Korea has with anyone besides the United States?

I bet you are the kind of guy that, when your friend gets jumped, you just sit there and watch thinking "Why should I get involved in any conflict not involving me".

When we defeated Japan in WWII, we took on the responsibility for their security as they were not allowed to have any military force beyond the defensive.

When we got involved in the Korean conflict, we took the responsibility to protect the democratic South Korea against teh communist North and/or China if they were ever to get involved.

As the second largest democracy and most powerful democracy on the planet, we are tasked with protecting other democracies, especially democracies that have strong economic ties with us like South Korean and Japan. Our economic future is tied into these two countries probably more so than any European power and it is in the US's best interest to protect them against any external threat to their soveriegnty.

Rock Chalk
05-30-2009, 08:12 AM
Its not our job to protect the world. When in the hell did that become our job?

World War II.

Instead of letting Europe try to police itself, the US decided that two world wars and over 2 million dead Americans was enough and that we would decide to protect our own interests instead of being isolationists.

Jesus Christ, didnt you learn anything in school?

Spider
05-30-2009, 08:26 AM
I would say our outreach program began in earnest in 1801 at the start of the Barbary wars. To the shores of Tripoli we went to fight pirates harrassing our ships with our recently formed Navy and Marine Corps we had launched a few years prior.

We have been protecting our interests and allies in the world and trying to keep the peace through strength in the 200+ years since. if that was true ,We get involved in WW1 and WW2 ..... we protected shipping routes ...... when the UN was formed ,is when we became the pit bull for the lapdog

Rock Chalk
05-30-2009, 08:33 AM
if that was true ,We get involved in WW1 and WW2 ..... we protected shipping routes ...... when the UN was formed ,is when we became the pit bull for the lapdog

You are both correct and both kinda wrong.

The Barbary pirates is when the US first started realizing they needed a military to protect their interests.

WWII is when the US realized the rest of the world was incapable of policing itself and with the mechanization of armies and the rapidly increasing destructive power of militaries, it was time for the US to stop being isolationist and start being more assertive.

America will never allow another world war on teh same scale as what cost so many American lives in WWII. That wasnt our conflict, and neither was World War I, but we got dragged into it.

After WWII was ended, the UN was formed, the US positioned itself on the permanent UN Security Council and has been the de-facto world police ever since. It was from past incidents, starting with the Barbary Pirates in the Mediterranean and culminating in WWII that dictated how America decided to handle future world affairs.

Protecting our allies is in our best interest. South Korea and Japan are two extremely important allies to us. Economically as well as geographically.

Cito Pelon
05-30-2009, 08:37 AM
I just can't see North Korea as a main threat for a few reasons. One, they are poor as ****. Yes, they are building their ****ty nukes and though we are unaware of their actual capability, the ones they were testing were about a quarter as powerful as hiroshima. Have you seen pictures of NK? That place is falling apart.

2) They don't really have allies. China supplies 90 percent of their energy, food...and their recent actions have been alienating the chinese.

3) As someone said, they really don't have anything to gain. I think they just want to be heard in the world community. As to what they actually want as a member, who the hell knows, but I dont think they are looking for world domination (as they know they are completely incapable of it). World War 3 this is not.

Nobody really knows what's going on between the Chinese and the NK's. The missiles NK has been launching for years can hit Beijing easily. NK also has a border with Russia and a rail link to Russia. Russia/USSR has been a big supporter of NK since WWII.

You're right NK doesn't have a lot of allies. What they have is influence. Russia and China have been using NK as a client state for many a decade, and now NK has grown up into a state that can hold them to accounts. NK is now maneuvering Russia/China vs. Russia/China used to maneuver NK. Russia/China played with fire, now they're trying to wrap fire in paper.

Basically, it's a mess. NK has become their own strategic player in Asia because the Russians and Chinese built NK up from a mere pawn to a bishop, and NK made themselves into a knight. NK grew up fast and is no longer a puppy, they're a fullgrown dog that will bite their former masters.

Spider
05-30-2009, 08:44 AM
You are both correct and both kinda wrong.

The Barbary pirates is when the US first started realizing they needed a military to protect their interests.

WWII is when the US realized the rest of the world was incapable of policing itself and with the mechanization of armies and the rapidly increasing destructive power of militaries, it was time for the US to stop being isolationist and start being more assertive.

America will never allow another world war on teh same scale as what cost so many American lives in WWII. That wasnt our conflict, and neither was World War I, but we got dragged into it.

After WWII was ended, the UN was formed, the US positioned itself on the permanent UN Security Council and has been the de-facto world police ever since. It was from past incidents, starting with the Barbary Pirates in the Mediterranean and culminating in WWII that dictated how America decided to handle future world affairs.

Protecting our allies is in our best interest. South Korea and Japan are two extremely important allies to us. Economically as well as geographically.
Basically thats what I said , i should have added we protected shipping routes both on land and Sea ....... to clear up any confusion ....

STBumpkin
05-30-2009, 10:02 AM
I just can't see North Korea as a main threat for a few reasons. One, they are poor as ****. Yes, they are building their ****ty nukes and though we are unaware of their actual capability, the ones they were testing were about a quarter as powerful as hiroshima. Have you seen pictures of NK? That place is falling apart.

2) They don't really have allies. China supplies 90 percent of their energy, food...and their recent actions have been alienating the chinese.

3) As someone said, they really don't have anything to gain. I think they just want to be heard in the world community. As to what they actually want as a member, who the hell knows, but I dont think they are looking for world domination (as they know they are completely incapable of it). World War 3 this is not.

It doesn't matter how big NKs nukes are when they can hit american soil with their missiles. The closest Alaskan Aleutians are within range of North Korean Nukes.

Cito Pelon
05-30-2009, 10:55 AM
It doesn't matter how big NKs nukes are when they can hit american soil with their missiles. The closest Alaskan Aleutians are within range of North Korean Nukes.

Beijing is a lot closer to NK than American soil. Think about it.

I remember several years ago when NK first started shooting missiles and making nuclear noises China amassed IIRC 6 armored Divisions on their border as a threat. NK just kept doing what they wanted to do, no pause at all.

Kim's answer was to take an extended rail journey to Russia. Russia has a common border with NK, and a long established rail link that runs all the way to Moscow. Kim went all the way to Moscow right in the middle of China's massing of Armored Divisions on the border. I think China is pretty scared of NK also.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Kim has never visited China. Kim has visited Russia several times. Think about that.

JJJ
05-30-2009, 11:22 AM
You are both correct and both kinda wrong.

The Barbary pirates is when the US first started realizing they needed a military to protect their interests.

WWII is when the US realized the rest of the world was incapable of policing itself and with the mechanization of armies and the rapidly increasing destructive power of militaries, it was time for the US to stop being isolationist and start being more assertive.

America will never allow another world war on teh same scale as what cost so many American lives in WWII. That wasnt our conflict, and neither was World War I, but we got dragged into it.

After WWII was ended, the UN was formed, the US positioned itself on the permanent UN Security Council and has been the de-facto world police ever since. It was from past incidents, starting with the Barbary Pirates in the Mediterranean and culminating in WWII that dictated how America decided to handle future world affairs.

Protecting our allies is in our best interest. South Korea and Japan are two extremely important allies to us. Economically as well as geographically.

Correct. I think I indicated though we had waves of isolationism before WWII and it wasn't our consistent philosophy.

There are plenty of examples though between 1801 and 1917 of us using our muscle and negotiation strength outside our borders. See Spanish-American war and acquisition of the Philippines, San Juan Hill, opening up of Japan, Panama canal to name a few.

WWI clearly didn't make a lot of sense in the first place even to the countries fighting it and it seemed correct that standing back from that one until it became clear our intervention was in our best interests. WWII was in similiar in this way as well. One must always weigh the benefits of the intervention with the costs of the intervention before taking action. That equation only favored the former pretty late in these conficts

bronco0608
05-30-2009, 11:47 AM
Why does North Korea want to attack us/hate us anyway? I know they have problems with S. Korea, but why they US?

JJJ
05-30-2009, 11:50 AM
Why does North Korea want to attack us/hate us anyway? I know they have problems with S. Korea, but why they US?

They want reunification ala Vietnam, and we are in the way. 50k troops in the South doesn't sit well with them.

Besides they got nothing better to do with their time.

boltaneer
05-30-2009, 11:52 AM
Why does North Korea want to attack us/hate us anyway? I know they have problems with S. Korea, but why they US?

Wow. I don't know whether to be amused or frightened by this question.

epicSocialism4tw
05-30-2009, 11:55 AM
My son goes over to S. Korea for a year in October. Thought this was great until lately. Jong doesn't have to have anything to gain, he just wants to prove he can do it. Idiot.

Which is exactly why it is necessary to be proactive in eliminating nuclear capability in rogue nations. N. Korea, Iran, etc. None of them should ever be allowed by the international community to manufacture WMD's. Its just too risky.

These nations see Obama as weak. Someone is going to push him until he either snaps back or breaks.

epicSocialism4tw
05-30-2009, 11:57 AM
Why does North Korea want to attack us/hate us anyway? I know they have problems with S. Korea, but why they US?

Its not about the US. Its about protecting S. Korea, Japan, and other nations within reach of their missles.

Spider
05-30-2009, 12:03 PM
Which is exactly why it is necessary to be proactive in eliminating nuclear capability in rogue nations. N. Korea, Iran, etc. None of them should ever be allowed by the international community to manufacture WMD's. Its just too risky.

These nations see Obama as weak. Someone is going to push him until he either snaps back or breaks.

See Obama as weak ?
where in the hell do you get this **** from ?
Most of this trouble started under your boy Bush ......... Clinton had NK and Iran pretty well under control

bronco0608
05-30-2009, 12:06 PM
So what you fellas are telling me is that there is only one ideology to follow, and that ideology is protect every single one of our "allies", right?

So where in the **** was South Korea when we were invading Iraq? How come they didn't help out?

JJJ
05-30-2009, 12:11 PM
So what you fellas are telling me is that there is only one ideology to follow, and that ideology is protect every single one of our "allies", right?

So where in the **** was South Korea when we were invading Iraq? How come they didn't help out?

South Korea had 3600 troops in Iraq beginning in 2003. The third largest contingent behind US and Britain. They left last year.

Spider
05-30-2009, 12:11 PM
So what you fellas are telling me is that there is only one ideology to follow, and that ideology is protect every single one of our "allies", right?

So where in the **** was South Korea when we were invading Iraq? How come they didn't help out?

They ran out of trees to make tanks with ....... But more then protecting allies , it is to keep Kim Jong Ill from gaining more resources , more wealth .....

Dukes
05-30-2009, 12:14 PM
What makes you think that? He's beefed up the forces in Afghanistan. And it may not be a matter of "balls". Do you think going to war right now would be a good move? You think the economy is bad right now, just wait until word gets out that we are going to war yet again, with a different county. And presidents don't go grab a rifle and hit the front line exactly. They give orders and sit back in their cushy office while our soldiers go out and get shot up. Not exactly having "balls" in my book.

Sending troops to battle is one of the toughest decisions a competant leader can make.

watermock
05-30-2009, 12:22 PM
Sure, let's fight a 3 front war. We've got the money and men. Hell, let's bomb Iran and make it party like Germany did.

Hogan11
05-30-2009, 12:29 PM
So what you fellas are telling me is that there is only one ideology to follow, and that ideology is protect every single one of our "allies", right?

So where in the **** was South Korea when we were invading Iraq? How come they didn't help out?

You've got to be kidding with this stuff......grasp another straw.

bronco0608
05-30-2009, 12:30 PM
They ran out of trees to make tanks with ....... But more then protecting allies , it is to keep Kim Jong Ill from gaining more resources , more wealth .....

But from the reports, S.Korea would win, but have a large amount of troops lost.

So why do need to get involved again? S.Korea is CAPABLE of winning this war all by themselves.

Dukes
05-30-2009, 12:32 PM
But from the reports, S.Korea would win, but have a large amount of troops lost.

So why do need to get involved again? S.Korea is CAPABLE of winning this war all by themselves.

Sure, that's why there's THOUSANDS of US troops stationed there. Good one.

Flex Gunmetal
05-30-2009, 12:35 PM
never get involved in a land war in Asia

Dukes
05-30-2009, 12:37 PM
never get involved in a land war in Asia

That.

bronco0608
05-30-2009, 12:45 PM
Sure, that's why there's THOUSANDS of US troops stationed there. Good one.

Hahaha, S. Korea has like 4 million troops or something like that and we have how many troops stationed over there? 25,000?

Give me a break.

Spider
05-30-2009, 12:49 PM
But from the reports, S.Korea would win, but have a large amount of troops lost.

So why do need to get involved again? S.Korea is CAPABLE of winning this war all by themselves.

LOL Reports ? only a fool would trust them ... reliable as a magic 8 ball ......
No one knows how it would play out , would China get involved ? Russia ?
Muslim terrorist ?
then the black market arms dealers ........

jutang
05-30-2009, 01:01 PM
I think China is more annoyed at North Korea than the US right now. China wants to keep it's modernization going and any instability in the region would hinder that. As China becomes stronger economically and trades between Europe and US strengthen, it's overall goals become more similar to the West further isolating North Korea. Kim Jong is probably aware of this and is trying to ensure his future as best he can.

SureShot
05-30-2009, 01:04 PM
never get involved in a land war in Asia

Somebody has been playing Risk.

Spider
05-30-2009, 01:05 PM
I think China is more annoyed at North Korea than the US right now. China wants to keep it's modernization going and any instability in the region would hinder that. As China becomes stronger economically and trades between Europe and US strengthen, it's overall goals become more similar to the West further isolating North Korea. Kim Jong is probably aware of this and is trying to ensure his future as best he can.
we cant even speak as to what our neighbor next door is thinking , our own government , but yet we have insight as to what Chinese leaders are thinking ......... the wonders of the internet

Archer81
05-30-2009, 01:13 PM
Hahaha, S. Korea has like 4 million troops or something like that and we have how many troops stationed over there? 25,000?

Give me a break.


The ROK (south korea) has an active military of 650,000 men, with 3.04 million in reserves.

The DPRK (north korea) has 1.2 million man active military, with 7 million in reserves.

The US has 28,000 men stationed directly in South Korea. The US 7th fleet is stationed nearby, with AF bases in Okinawa. 33,000 men are stationed in Japan.

:Broncos:

JJJ
05-30-2009, 01:15 PM
we cant even speak as to what our neighbor next door is thinking , our own government , but yet we have insight as to what Chinese leaders are thinking ......... the wonders of the internet

I lived in China for two years. He pretty much has it right from my discussions with folks there.

JJJ
05-30-2009, 01:18 PM
See Obama as weak ?
where in the hell do you get this **** from ?
Most of this trouble started under your boy Bush ......... Clinton had NK and Iran pretty well under control

They definitely see him as weak. Mostly because he is.

Sending videos greetings to Iran. Please.

I miss Kissinger and real tough nuts back room diplomacy.

jutang
05-30-2009, 01:19 PM
we cant even speak as to what our neighbor next door is thinking , our own government , but yet we have insight as to what Chinese leaders are thinking ......... the wonders of the internet

I am Chinese:welcome:

bronco0608
05-30-2009, 01:19 PM
The ROK (south korea) has an active military of 650,000 men, with 3.04 million in reserves.

The DPRK (north korea) has 1.2 million man active military, with 7 million in reserves.

The US has 28,000 men stationed directly in South Korea. The US 7th fleet is stationed nearby, with AF bases in Okinawa. 33,000 men are stationed in Japan.

:Broncos:

Ok. South Korea has the 6th largest army in the world, and North Korea has the 5th. South Korea's weapons are more advanced.

They can handle North Korea. So what's the issue here?

Archer81
05-30-2009, 01:23 PM
Ok. South Korea has the 6th largest army in the world, and North Korea has the 5th. South Korea's weapons are more advanced.

They can handle North Korea. So what's the issue here?


South Korea have nuclear weapons?

:Broncos:

bronco0608
05-30-2009, 01:37 PM
South Korea have nuclear weapons?

:Broncos:

If they don't, they should attack North Korea and take their weapons. How about that? Why are they pussy-footing around and acting like tree-huggers?

They need to grow some balls like the US and quit letting the North Koreans treating them like their bitch. Whatcha say?

Spider
05-30-2009, 01:46 PM
I lived in China for two years. He pretty much has it right from my discussions with folks there.

Oh bull**** , those people over there cant tell you what their government thinks any more then we can

Spider
05-30-2009, 01:55 PM
They definitely see him as weak. Mostly because he is.

Sending videos greetings to Iran. Please.

I miss Kissinger and real tough nuts back room diplomacy.

LOL you are full of **** ......... keep drinking the cool aid

JJJ
05-30-2009, 02:03 PM
Oh bull**** , those people over there cant tell you what their government thinks any more then we can

You seem pretty confident you know what Obama is thinking. Lots of irony in your rantings.

Tankgunner95
05-30-2009, 02:20 PM
Oh, I had to watch a cartoon to come to that conclusion? Seriously now.

How about this? Evacuate all American troops, let them duke out, and call it night. How about that?

We are obligated to protect SK and Japan after the Korean War. If they did not go with commies then we would protect them for the commies. Do they not have history books where your from?

By the way this will be a total different war, to be frank with every, who served in SK. We will just be speed bumps and hopes that the US reacts in enought time to hold out the NK. Its fact everyone over there knows it.

gunns
05-30-2009, 02:31 PM
Which is exactly why it is necessary to be proactive in eliminating nuclear capability in rogue nations. N. Korea, Iran, etc. None of them should ever be allowed by the international community to manufacture WMD's. Its just too risky.

These nations see Obama as weak. Someone is going to push him until he either snaps back or breaks.

No, they saw how stupidly Iraq and Afghanistan were handled under dubya in all aspects.

Tankgunner95
05-30-2009, 02:31 PM
See Obama as weak ?
where in the hell do you get this **** from ?
Most of this trouble started under your boy Bush ......... Clinton had NK and Iran pretty well under control


How did Clinton do on your boy Bin Ladin, I yea he had the chance to kill him but was afraid to give the order to kill him because he did not know what would have happened. Would 911 have happened if Clinton had BALLS????

bronco0608
05-30-2009, 02:33 PM
We are obligated to protect SK and Japan after the Korean War. If they did not go with commies then we would protect them for the commies. Do they not have history books where your from?



We are OBLIGATED to protect them FOR LIFE? Really now.

I wonder who came up with that ****.

Cito Pelon
05-30-2009, 02:37 PM
You've got to be kidding with this stuff......grasp another straw.

You guys just don't get it.

Asia is totally different. Asia plays their own game. While we're playing one game, they're playing a totally different game. They have their own game, and they're playing it now. They really don't give a damn what the US has to say right now. Their poker game is right there in Asia.

Good lord, China forced down a US spy plane in 2001, laughed at all the threats to get it back, stripped it down to an aluminum hull, then made a big ceremony about giving that stripped down hull back laughing all the time. You think they're scared after having a big laugh like that? Just hosted the Olumpics?

The US has only one ally in Asia - the Japanese. And the rest of the Asians hate the Japanese, they have some long-standing scores against the Japanese. This is gonna be a long, drawn out battle to have influence in Asia, Navy or no. It's already an uphill battle.

Tankgunner95
05-30-2009, 02:42 PM
The thing that no one knows is what kind of war it will be. The terrain over there is awful, cant do alot with the m1a1 or m1a2, the striker batts, we have over there would make one hell of a dent in the NK Soldiers. I would compare the NK are with the Iraq army during the first ware. But the terrain is so much different it would not be quick at all..

bronco0608
05-30-2009, 02:45 PM
How did Clinton do on your boy Bin Ladin, I yea he had the chance to kill him but was afraid to give the order to kill him because he did not know what would have happened. Would 911 have happened if Clinton had BALLS????

Man Dubya should have nuked the Koreans while he was in office. If he had the balls to take out crazy man Jong-il we wouldnt be dealing with this **** today, would we?

Did Dubya know he was crazy while he was in office? Yup. Why did he pussy-foot around then?

Why?

Tankgunner95
05-30-2009, 02:45 PM
We are OBLIGATED to protect them FOR LIFE? Really now.

I wonder who came up with that ****.

No they have a 30 year lease with the opition to buy at the end of that for $1. Are you serious, most people mean what they say.

Tankgunner95
05-30-2009, 02:52 PM
Man Dubya should have nuked the Koreans while he was in office. If he had the balls to take out crazy man Jong-il we wouldnt be dealing with this **** today, would we?

Did Dubya know he was crazy while he was in office? Yup. Why did he p***Y-foot around then?

Why?

OK let me get this straight you said why did George W not nuke them, but then your saying we should not be involved????? Must be high or smoking dope or maybe a 16 year old boy, who reallly dont know right from wrong?

Cito Pelon
05-30-2009, 03:01 PM
I am Chinese:welcome:

Did a research on you for Mane posts. You're a cool headed guy. But, everybody is suspect these days. It's a shame, but there we are.

bronco0608
05-30-2009, 03:02 PM
OK let me get this straight you said why did George W not nuke them, but then your saying we should not be involved????? Must be high or smoking dope or maybe a 16 year old boy, who reallly dont know right from wrong?

No, I'm asking why didn't dudya take care of this problem while he was in office since you are advocating American interference in that conflict?

Why was Dubya such a pussy? He knew Jong-il was crazy!

Why did Bush act like a pacifist tree-hugger?

Cito Pelon
05-30-2009, 03:06 PM
Man Dubya should have nuked the Koreans while he was in office. If he had the balls to take out crazy man Jong-il we wouldnt be dealing with this **** today, would we?

Did Dubya know he was crazy while he was in office? Yup. Why did he p***Y-foot around then?

Why?

Stop your blather.

Tankgunner95
05-30-2009, 03:08 PM
No, I'm asking why didn't dudya take care of this problem while he was in office since you are advocating American interference in that conflict?

Why was Dubya such a p***Y? He knew Jong-il was crazy!

Why did Bush act like a pacifist tree-hugger?

Your soo wrong in so many ways it makes not sense. Why did bush not nuke NK, well ok they did do anything to us to cause a strike, which then would have cause China and Russia get involved with any military actions, plus were in two wars already.

DUMBASS

bronco0608
05-30-2009, 03:10 PM
Your soo wrong in so many ways it makes not sense. Why did bush not nuke NK, well ok they did do anything to us to cause a strike, which then would have cause China and Russia get involved with any military actions, plus were in two wars already.

DUMBASS

Dubya is and was a pussy. He didn't have the balls to take out the crazy man Kim Jong-il. That's why we are in this situation today.

Why didn't he just kill Kim Jong-il?

We need leaders with balls in office. Not pussy-foots like Dubya.

maher_tyler
05-30-2009, 03:11 PM
Your soo wrong in so many ways it makes not sense. Why did bush not nuke NK, well ok they did do anything to us to cause a strike, which then would have cause China and Russia get involved with any military actions, plus were in two wars already.

DUMBASS

I really think that is why NK is stiring **** up again..they see we're already on two war fronts and aren't going to be as willing to be on a 3rd...there kinda kicking us when we're down...

bronco0608
05-30-2009, 03:13 PM
Man, we should have went into North Korea like we did Iraq. Wasn't the reason we went into Iraq was to take out a despot that was cruel to his people? Bring democracy to the Iraqi people!

Why in the hell didn't he do that with the North Korean people? ****ing pussy.

No balls.

Spider
05-30-2009, 03:40 PM
You seem pretty confident you know what Obama is thinking. Lots of irony in your rantings.

How so ? All I am going off of is how Obama gave the green light to take out those pirates , I didnt even hint as to knowing how Obama will handle N.K , or anything .........

Spider
05-30-2009, 03:41 PM
How did Clinton do on your boy Bin Ladin, I yea he had the chance to kill him but was afraid to give the order to kill him because he did not know what would have happened. Would 911 have happened if Clinton had BALLS????

And Bush did what with Bin Laden ? Exactly , at least Clinton didnt bog us down in a war we didnt need ........

Tankgunner95
05-30-2009, 03:45 PM
And Bush did what with Bin Laden ? Exactly , at least Clinton didnt bog us down in a war we didnt need ........

We all have our own views with this subject, did we need the war I think yes bring the fight to them on their sole before they bring it AGAIN on ours. If Clinton would have given the CIA the OK to kill Bin Laden, we would have never went inot Iraq in the first place. Come on spider most of the time you agree with you but this time you are as wrong as 3 boys makking love in a church parking lot.

Spider
05-30-2009, 03:52 PM
We all have our own views with this subject, did we need the war I think yes bring the fight to them on their sole before they bring it AGAIN on ours. If Clinton would have given the CIA the OK to kill Bin Laden, we would have never went inot Iraq in the first place. Come on spider most of the time you agree with you but this time you are as wrong as 3 boys makking love in a church parking lot.

we didnt need the war in Iraq , not even close ..........And please no more porn videos ;D

Tankgunner95
05-30-2009, 03:55 PM
Sorry, i did not mean to put your business out there like that. Yes, we did need the war we been safe every since 911. Thats the way I saw it, fight them on their land while you drive you big truck HOT up and down the road. We had safety meeting this morning, did you know in a year or so you will no longer have to have your physical card on your persons, it will be on your MVR. But who am i talking to with your connection with OBAMA you probably told him to do it that way :)

Spider
05-30-2009, 04:03 PM
Sorry, i did not mean to put your business out there like that. Yes, we did need the war we been safe every since 911. Thats the way I saw it, fight them on their land while you drive you big truck HOT up and down the road. We had safety meeting this morning, did you know in a year or so you will no longer have to have your physical card on your persons, it will be on your MVR. But who am i talking to with your connection with OBAMA you probably told him to do it that way :)

we went 7 years safe under Clinton 93 to 2000 , OKC and McViegh was home grown .......we could have fought Al Qadea in Afghanistan ........ I heard something about the DOT physical card , my Driving record is pretty rough ;D
06 Speeding 70 in a 65 , then 07 Failure to obey a traffic light ( personal vehicle sped up to beat the red light ) and speeding 79 in a 65 , passing an RV .....08 and 09 are pretty clear ..........But I got a **** load of non moving violations .........

watermock
05-30-2009, 04:39 PM
did you know in a year or so you will no longer have to have your physical card on your persons, it will be on your MVR. But who am i talking to with your connection with OBAMA you probably told him to do it that way

Wonderfull.

Ratboy
05-30-2009, 04:51 PM
If they don't, they should attack North Korea and take their weapons. How about that? Why are they p***Y-footing around and acting like tree-huggers?

They need to grow some balls like the US and quit letting the North Koreans treating them like their b****. Whatcha say?

Moron.

boltaneer
05-30-2009, 05:04 PM
OK let me get this straight you said why did George W not nuke them, but then your saying we should not be involved????? Must be high or smoking dope or maybe a 16 year old boy, who reallly dont know right from wrong?

One can only hope this guy is a clueless 16 year old kid. If he's a normal American adult, I don't know what to think.

Spider
05-30-2009, 05:20 PM
One can only hope this guy is a clueless 16 year old kid. If he's a normal American adult, I don't know what to think.

you are a ****ing Chargers fan , your ability to think is already suspect .........

bronco0608
05-30-2009, 05:21 PM
One can only hope this guy is a clueless 16 year old kid. If he's a normal American adult, I don't know what to think.

Haha, so lets get this straight, you are AUTOMATICALLY a pacifist if you disagree with ANY WAR AND ALL WARS the United States involves themselves in. Really now? Either/or huh? Either you have balls or you are tree-hugger. Gotcha.

Tell me, what wars has the United States been in that you have disagreed with?

JJJ
05-30-2009, 05:21 PM
How so ? All I am going off of is how Obama gave the green light to take out those pirates , I didnt even hint as to knowing how Obama will handle N.K , or anything .........

And all I am going off of is sending holiday videos to Ahmadinejad (weak), pushing restart buttons with Lavrov (weak and embarrasingly corny), closing down a perfectly good prison in Cuba for political and personal bravado reasons (truly baffling), pulling out of our new stronghold in Iraq (an egregious error if followed through on), and constantly bashing the previous administration while exuding self-righteousness.

Obama is far more arrogant than Bush. This is clear in his first 100 days. At least Bush was arrogant and strong. Arrogant and weak are not a good combination.

Spider
05-30-2009, 05:31 PM
And all I am going off of is sending holiday videos to Ahmadinejad (weak), pushing restart buttons with Lavrov (weak and embarrasingly corny), closing down a perfectly good prison in Cuba for political and personal bravado reasons (truly baffling), pulling out of our new stronghold in Iraq (an egregious error if followed through on), and constantly bashing the previous administration while exuding self-righteousness.

Obama is far more arrogant than Bush. This is clear in his first 100 days. At least Bush was arrogant and strong. Arrogant and weak are not a good combination.
Keep drinking the Kool aid ..... From the Video Released on the occasion of Nowruz, the Persian new year, Obama's message said the United States seeks engagement with Iran "that is honest and grounded in mutual respect," but cautioned that the country cannot "take its rightful place in the community of nations . . . through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization." the right tard way has worked so well ......
Yeah and engaging the Russians is completely retarded , we need another 20 + year cold war ( what in the **** is it with you pussies acting tough ?
and Gitmo needs closed , try the ****ers , killem if they are guilty , but keeping them locked up without a Military tribunal is wrong .........

JJJ
05-30-2009, 05:48 PM
Keep drinking the Kool aid ..... From the Video Released on the occasion of Nowruz, the Persian new year, Obama's message said the United States seeks engagement with Iran "that is honest and grounded in mutual respect," but cautioned that the country cannot "take its rightful place in the community of nations . . . through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization." the right tard way has worked so well ......
Yeah and engaging the Russians is completely retarded , we need another 20 + year cold war ( what in the **** is it with you pussies acting tough ?
and Gitmo needs closed , try the ****ers , killem if they are guilty , but keeping them locked up without a Military tribunal is wrong .........

Engaging the Russians is fine, but can we do it with some dignity?

Gitmo. If he planned to do what you said and put them all on military tribunals and keep them there that is also fine for me. But that is not his plan. Declaring them prisoners of war and releasing them when hostilities have ended is also fine. Not seeing the logic of simply having the same policy just in different places so he can claim he "closed" it.

Not drinking anything. We just disagree. Your guy is running the show so lets see how it plays out. Stay safe on the road.

Spider
05-30-2009, 05:57 PM
Engaging the Russians is fine, but can we do it with some dignity?

Gitmo. If he planned to do what you said and put them all on military tribunals and keep them there that is also fine for me. But that is not his plan. Declaring them prisoners of war and releasing them when hostilities have ended is also fine. Not seeing the logic of simply having the same policy just in different places so he can claim he "closed" it.

Not drinking anything. We just disagree. Your guy is running the show so lets see how it plays out. Stay safe on the road.
Oh you are drinking the kool aid , As for Gitmo why keep it open ? just lock the ****ers in max security fed prison ? cheaper then keeping Gitmo open

Cito Pelon
05-30-2009, 05:59 PM
Nobody controls NK. Russia/USSR and China tried to control them, but they considered themselves independent for many a year. NK played Russia vs. China for a long time, and Russia/China got sucked into the game for power in East Asia. NK has been playing Russia against China for a long time.

NK kept that little tiny border open to Russia for a good reason. China wanted it closed, Russia and China fought border wars over it for a long time in the 50's and 60's, 70's, 80's, along with Manchuria.

It's been kind of a secret the number of border wars China and Russia have fought. Those two are ancient enemies, and they have the longest border in the world, 2500 mile long border, stretches from North Korea in an arc to Afghanistan and Iran. They go at it every day, I guarantee you. If you think the North and South Korean border is tense, look at the Russian and Chinese border. Those two go at it every day on the border crossings. They hate each other. Both are maneuvering for power in the vast expanse of Central Asia with all it's resources.

And I guarantee you they still have disputes about that little tiny sliver of border of NK and Russia. China has tried to close that railroad link from NK to Russia many times. By hook or crook, China wants that rairoad link to Russia closed down. And those two are part of the 'Six Party Talks'. That's a formula for failure of the "talks".

NK offers Russia ice-free access to the Pacific. China sure wants to keep the Russian Navy from year-round access to the Pacific Ocean. Russia doesn't have natural ice-free Pacific ports, NK offers that. NK plays the two against each other well.

Archer81
05-30-2009, 06:19 PM
Oh you are drinking the kool aid , As for Gitmo why keep it open ? just lock the ****ers in max security fed prison ? cheaper then keeping Gitmo open


I have a supermax 2 miles from me. Too close for comfort.


:Broncos:

Archer81
05-30-2009, 06:21 PM
we went 7 years safe under Clinton 93 to 2000 , OKC and McViegh was home grown .......we could have fought Al Qadea in Afghanistan ........ I heard something about the DOT physical card , my Driving record is pretty rough ;D
06 Speeding 70 in a 65 , then 07 Failure to obey a traffic light ( personal vehicle sped up to beat the red light ) and speeding 79 in a 65 , passing an RV .....08 and 09 are pretty clear ..........But I got a **** load of non moving violations .........


WTC in 1993, Khobar Towers, Embassy bombings, the Cole in 2000. Rather then treat terrorism as something serious, clinton fired missiles at empty tents and bombed an aspirin factory in the sudan.

:Broncos:

Spider
05-30-2009, 06:51 PM
WTC in 1993, Khobar Towers, Embassy bombings, the Cole in 2000. Rather then treat terrorism as something serious, clinton fired missiles at empty tents and bombed an aspirin factory in the sudan.

:Broncos:

Oh bull**** , Holding Clinton responsible for the khobar Towers is like holding Bush responsible for the Road side IED's in iraq ....... and the Cole happened on Clintons way out of the office ......... Look Sir , I like you but I cant stand bull**** ......And since you want to get cute , what about Reagan the original cut and Runner out of Beruit ? And since you seem to have forgotten History , explain this ........ http://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=15633&d=1147537591

Spider
05-30-2009, 06:52 PM
Is this the plan by the right ? keep repeating Bull**** until it seems true ?

Archer81
05-30-2009, 06:56 PM
Oh bull**** , Holding Clinton responsible for the khobar Towers is like holding Bush responsible for the Road side IED's in iraq ....... and the Cole happened on Clintons way out of the office ......... Look Sir , I like you but I cant stand bull**** ......And since you want to get cute , what about Reagan the original cut and Runner out of Beruit ? And since you seem to have forgotten History , explain this ........ http://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=15633&d=1147537591


You stated something completely incorrect, that clinton kept us safe. Americans were murdered by Al Qaeda throughout the 90s. Scream BS all you like Spider, but you are clearly wrong. If Al Qaeda bombed the USS Nimitz on January 19, 2009, you would be lambasting Bush for allowing another attack.


:Broncos:

Archer81
05-30-2009, 06:58 PM
Is this the plan by the right ? keep repeating Bull**** until it seems true ?


The plan of the left is to redefine everything (its not terrorism anymore, its man made disasters) and act like its 9/10/2001.


:Broncos:

Spider
05-30-2009, 06:59 PM
The plan of the left is to redefine everything (its not terrorism anymore, its man made disasters) and act like its 9/10/2001.


:Broncos: how so ? how have we defined anything ?
Iraq wasnt involved .......

Spider
05-30-2009, 07:01 PM
You stated something completely incorrect, that clinton kept us safe. Americans were murdered by Al Qaeda throughout the 90s. Scream BS all you like Spider, but you are clearly wrong. If Al Qaeda bombed the USS Nimitz on January 19, 2009, you would be lambasting Bush for allowing another attack.


:Broncos:

that quote in the picture says it all ......... Clinton did keep us safe , do yourself a favor go back to the early 90's look up air line security , see why the republicans shut that bill down .... go ahead .......

Spider
05-30-2009, 07:02 PM
So if the reps didnt shut down that air line security bill 9-11 never happens ... imagine that

Archer81
05-30-2009, 07:03 PM
how so ? how have we defined anything ?
Iraq wasnt involved .......


Not war on terror anymore. Its overseas contigency operations. As I said previously, a terrorist is not a terrorist, but a creator of man made disasters. Terrorist acts are not bombings, but the before mentioned manmade disasters. Compromise also means dont voice opposition, just do as the great "O" asks.

:Broncos:

Hogan11
05-30-2009, 07:04 PM
Do you think Kim Jong shaves his balls?

Spider
05-30-2009, 07:06 PM
Not war on terror anymore. Its overseas contigency operations. As I said previously, a terrorist is not a terrorist, but a creator of man made disasters. Terrorist acts are not bombings, but the before mentioned manmade disasters. Compromise also means dont voice opposition, just do as the great "O" asks.

:Broncos:
you cant have a war on terror , you can have a war on Muslim extremist.......And 9-11 was a man made disaster , unless you subscribe to the Falwell Doctrine .... Gods wrath cause of Homos and abortions ........

Archer81
05-30-2009, 07:18 PM
that quote in the picture says it all ......... Clinton did keep us safe , do yourself a favor go back to the early 90's look up air line security , see why the republicans shut that bill down .... go ahead .......


Is this something you just made up? Republicans did not get control of congress until 1994. Before that it had been dominated by democrats. Does this mythical bill have a name?


:Broncos:

Archer81
05-30-2009, 07:19 PM
you cant have a war on terror , you can have a war on Muslim extremist.......And 9-11 was a man made disaster , unless you subscribe to the Falwell Doctrine .... Gods wrath cause of Homos and abortions ........


You can call a terrorist a terrorist...because that is what they are trying to engender. A state of fear. Pretending its something that its not is exactly why 9/11 happened in the first place.


:Broncos:

Spider
05-30-2009, 07:33 PM
You can call a terrorist a terrorist...because that is what they are trying to engender. A state of fear. Pretending its something that its not is exactly why 9/11 happened in the first place.


:Broncos:
who is pretending ? by calling it a different name this suggest someone is pretending ?
:rofl: now this is just becoming comedic ........

Spider
05-30-2009, 07:34 PM
Is this something you just made up? Republicans did not get control of congress until 1994. Before that it had been dominated by democrats. Does this mythical bill have a name?


:Broncos:

It was after Flight 800 1996 . you do remember TWA flight 800?

Spider
05-30-2009, 07:36 PM
Here ......... http://tech.mit.edu/V116/N40/airport.40w.html
an excerpt On Capitol Hill, some Repub-lican leaders were skeptical, saying the administration has not even yet taken full advantage of the $1 billion anti-terrorism law he signed in April.

"While Congress will certainly work with the president to provide funding for anti-terrorism efforts," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, "it is important to note that we have done so already. � The administration would be wise to utilize the resources Congress has already provided before it requests additional funding."
So 9-11 is clearly the fault of republicans

Spider
05-30-2009, 07:42 PM
oh thats right , Clinton didnt do anything to try and stop terrorism .. :rofl:
The right wing is nothing but a bunch of hot air looking to pass blame on everyone but themselfs , for a party of self accountability they sure do pass a buck , and just for ****s and giggles ,93 bombing happened in Feb , Clinton took office in Jan .........Set 11 2000 And Bush took office in Jan of 2000 , yet you right wingers blame Clinton for 93 , but want us to believe Bush isnt responsible for 9-11 ........ I wonder why that is

Tankgunner95
05-30-2009, 08:02 PM
Keep drinking the Kool aid ..... From the Video Released on the occasion of Nowruz, the Persian new year, Obama's message said the United States seeks engagement with Iran "that is honest and grounded in mutual respect," but cautioned that the country cannot "take its rightful place in the community of nations . . . through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization." the right tard way has worked so well ......
Yeah and engaging the Russians is completely retarded , we need another 20 + year cold war ( what in the **** is it with you pussies acting tough ?
and Gitmo needs closed , try the ****ers , killem if they are guilty , but keeping them locked up without a Military tribunal is wrong .........

What in the hell do you mean "if" they were guilty, these guys were shotting at us I think that makes them guilty, damn spider Im very surprised that your view is to give these guys a trail. Hey did anyone give the people who died on 911 or did they just get a death sentence. Same people that killed innocent americans are in Gitmo.

Tankgunner95
05-30-2009, 08:13 PM
oh thats right , Clinton didnt do anything to try and stop terrorism .. :rofl:
The right wing is nothing but a bunch of hot air looking to pass blame on everyone but themselfs , for a party of self accountability they sure do pass a buck , and just for ****s and giggles ,93 bombing happened in Feb , Clinton took office in Jan .........Set 11 2000 And Bush took office in Jan of 2000 , yet you right wingers blame Clinton for 93 , but want us to believe Bush isnt responsible for 9-11 ........ I wonder why that is

AND........ You honestly think Bush was responsible for 911. Even though your beloved mr Bill what a guy Clinton could have killed him. 911 was no one presidents fault. It was everyone thinking oh no one will ever attack us, we are the most powerful nation on earth. Well we were wrong, and alot of people died because of that thought. To release these men for Gitmo into the United States because they were found not guilty and their own country dont want them is one mans thought ,and that is your President O. Now lets say one of the men President O lets into the US goes and kills a family. Would that be President O fault or would that be the republicans fault for opening Gitmo in the first place. I BET I KNOW YOUR ANSWER.

Spider
05-30-2009, 08:25 PM
AND........ You honestly think Bush was responsible for 911. Even though your beloved mr Bill what a guy Clinton could have killed him. 911 was no one presidents fault. It was everyone thinking oh no one will ever attack us, we are the most powerful nation on earth. Well we were wrong, and alot of people died because of that thought. To release these men for Gitmo into the United States because they were found not guilty and their own country dont want them is one mans thought ,and that is your President O. Now lets say one of the men President O lets into the US goes and kills a family. Would that be President O fault or would that be the republicans fault for opening Gitmo in the first place. I BET I KNOW YOUR ANSWER.

it is you guys on the right that keeps blaming Clinton For 93 , I am just trying ot find out why Clinton less then a month in office is to blame , but Bush well in 7 months isnt to blame , why is that ? Andd no one is talking about just releasing the detainees , everyone wants a trial / Military tribunal , then punishment

Spider
05-30-2009, 08:28 PM
What in the hell do you mean "if" they were guilty, these guys were shotting at us I think that makes them guilty, damn spider Im very surprised that your view is to give these guys a trail. Hey did anyone give the people who died on 911 or did they just get a death sentence. Same people that killed innocent americans are in Gitmo.

I want to give them a military tribunal trial ...... Now cut the ****ing drama

Archer81
05-30-2009, 08:51 PM
It was after Flight 800 1996 . you do remember TWA flight 800?


So now the minority party suddenly is the one responsible for killing a bill?


:Broncos:

Archer81
05-30-2009, 08:52 PM
who is pretending ? by calling it a different name this suggest someone is pretending ?
:rofl: now this is just becoming comedic ........


In the 1990s acts of terror were considered legal issues. Clearly Al Qaeda did not get the message that if they dont stop bombing **** they will be taken to court...


:Broncos:

Spider
05-30-2009, 09:13 PM
So now the minority party suddenly is the one responsible for killing a bill?


:Broncos:

1996 ?

Spider
05-30-2009, 09:16 PM
In the 1990s acts of terror were considered legal issues. Clearly Al Qaeda did not get the message that if they dont stop bombing **** they will be taken to court...


:Broncos:

and what happened to the 1993 bombers ? and Bin Laden is still free ........ yeah good point

Archer81
05-30-2009, 09:49 PM
1996 ?


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c104:4:./temp/~c104A3Vg6h::

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:S.3205:

Courtesy of Library of Congress. Any idea how many bills sponsored by both parties from the last 15 years deal with terrorism?

:Broncos:

Archer81
05-30-2009, 09:50 PM
and what happened to the 1993 bombers ? and Bin Laden is still free ........ yeah good point


Oh, they went to jail so Americans can spend $30,000 a year on them until they die. They commit a crime and we get to pay for them.


:Broncos:

Bronco Boy
05-30-2009, 10:30 PM
This whole thread is absolute malarkey.

Spider
05-30-2009, 10:41 PM
Oh, they went to jail so Americans can spend $30,000 a year on them until they die. They commit a crime and we get to pay for them.


:Broncos:

and Bin Laden ?

cutthemdown
05-30-2009, 10:53 PM
LOL people still arguing Bush and Clinton. Amazing.

We need to move on and worry about the next attack, not whose to blame for 93 and 2001. Besides a President judged more on how he responds, how effective that response it.

No doubt Al Queda worst off after Bush was through with them.

The drone attacks etc were all Bushes baby. Obama just continuing an effective policy.

True that the Military deserves 99.9% of the credit but whatever.

Spider
05-30-2009, 11:13 PM
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c104:4:./temp/~c104A3Vg6h::

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:S.3205:

Courtesy of Library of Congress. Any idea how many bills sponsored by both parties from the last 15 years deal with terrorism?

:Broncos:

Please resubmit your search
Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information. Not to sure what this has to do with republicans shooting down Clintons bill on stricter air line security pre 9-11

Spider
05-30-2009, 11:16 PM
LOL people still arguing Bush and Clinton. Amazing.

We need to move on and worry about the next attack, not whose to blame for 93 and 2001. Besides a President judged more on how he responds, how effective that response it.

No doubt Al Queda worst off after Bush was through with them.

The drone attacks etc were all Bushes baby. Obama just continuing an effective policy.

True that the Military deserves 99.9% of the credit but whatever.

are they ? http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2009/03/video-35-islamic-terrorist-training.html

JJJ
05-31-2009, 02:30 AM
oh thats right , Clinton didnt do anything to try and stop terrorism .. :rofl:
The right wing is nothing but a bunch of hot air looking to pass blame on everyone but themselfs , for a party of self accountability they sure do pass a buck , and just for ****s and giggles ,93 bombing happened in Feb , Clinton took office in Jan .........Set 11 2000 And Bush took office in Jan of 2000 , yet you right wingers blame Clinton for 93 , but want us to believe Bush isnt responsible for 9-11 ........ I wonder why that is

Bush took over in January of 2001, less than 8 months before the attack.

So the plotting was clearly being done on Clinton's watch. But I don't blame Clinton anymore than I blame Bush for 9/11 which is not much at all. We all got surprised by the magnitude and ferociousness of that attack. Clinton was just a little luckier than Bush.

In the end I think with some people and countries you just have to negotiate from a position strength with people who won't be reasonable. They won't respect you otherwise and you certainly won't accomplish anything if you don't.

Clinton is a good example. He was one of the most liked Presidents worldwide who clearly tried to engage his enemies in constructive dialogue whenever possible before using force. We still got hit with a major terrorist attack and some extremely beligerent states. Trying to be nice only takes you so far with that crowd. I think Clinton actually understood this. I am not convinced Obama actually does. But lets wait and see.

I have also noticed that Dems that claim they are for negotiations and engagement and world peace seemed to be the first to start throwing Fbombs around forums like this and making direct personal attacks on posters.

cutthemdown
05-31-2009, 03:56 AM
Like I said no reason to sit around trying to blame Clinton, Bush JR. The smart thing to do is look forward and support our new presidents efforts to try and make headway with terrorists.

If he can do some magic in the West Bank and Gaza then maybe we can get some better help from countries like Syria, Egypt, Saudis etc. I'm skeptical though I don't see Israel giving in, but who knows maybe.

I'm just over trying to blame Clinton especially, he's been gone 8 yrs now time to get over it. Bush JR I think tried really hard but it might be impossible to really beat terrorism on the battle field. It's much easier to take out a Saddam Hussien then it is catch a Bin Laden.

cutthemdown
05-31-2009, 03:59 AM
People that make the 93 attack, 2001 attack, into a timeframe, then try to blame the people in charge before or after IMO just being political.

Everyone knows that it's almost impossible to stop specific attacks unless you have specific information.

True I think our govt should have had better airline security and done a better job tracking people that come into the country, but I think it's too big a problem to blame just one man even if he was President.

Spider
05-31-2009, 09:39 AM
Bush took over in January of 2001, less than 8 months before the attack.

So the plotting was clearly being done on Clinton's watch. But I don't blame Clinton anymore than I blame Bush for 9/11 which is not much at all. We all got surprised by the magnitude and ferociousness of that attack. Clinton was just a little luckier than Bush.

In the end I think with some people and countries you just have to negotiate from a position strength with people who won't be reasonable. They won't respect you otherwise and you certainly won't accomplish anything if you don't.

Clinton is a good example. He was one of the most liked Presidents worldwide who clearly tried to engage his enemies in constructive dialogue whenever possible before using force. We still got hit with a major terrorist attack and some extremely beligerent states. Trying to be nice only takes you so far with that crowd. I think Clinton actually understood this. I am not convinced Obama actually does. But lets wait and see.

I have also noticed that Dems that claim they are for negotiations and engagement and world peace seemed to be the first to start throwing Fbombs around forums like this and making direct personal attacks on posters.

force should always be a last resort ,Just like with those pirates , but you have to call a spade a spade , just like with the personal attacks , it isnt my fault right tards are 2 cans short of a six pack

lazarus4444
06-11-2009, 08:06 PM
Man, we should have went into North Korea like we did Iraq. Wasn't the reason we went into Iraq was to take out a despot that was cruel to his people? Bring democracy to the Iraqi people!

Why in the hell didn't he do that with the North Korean people? ****ing p***Y.

No balls.

NK doesn't have oil, duhhhhhh:thanku: