Thread: North Korea Launched it.

Saddam wasn't doing anything?? What did i miss? When did Saddam not do anything? Last I knew his entire life was based around violence.

I hope your not referring to Desert Storm being a preemptive strike. Seeing as we did do anything until he invaded Kuwait.

As for starting a war with NK. My opinion is he was told not to launch and he did. He was told not to develope nuclear weapons and he his. I fail to see how we would be the ones starting the war with him in direct violation of UN wmd doctrines.

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

Lastly, Go ahead and start a fucking war with NK, lets just fuck everything up. Thank god McCain isn't in office otherwise we'd probably be in a depression, in war with about 40 countries and if we were lucky not nuked to death

Doubtful. The recession has been coming since the mid-clinton era. As to war, McCain actually understands the costs of war, so I doubt he would be eager to get us into another. Calculated air strikes, sure, but not a war. But that's all theory craft, seeing as how McCain let himself get turned into a puppet of the far right, which saddens me.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Saddam wasn't doing anything?? What did i miss? When did Saddam not do anything? Last I knew his entire life was based around violence.

I hope your not referring to Desert Storm being a preemptive strike. Seeing as we did do anything until he invaded Kuwait.

As for starting a war with NK. My opinion is he was told not to launch and he did. He was told not to develope nuclear weapons and he his. I fail to see how we would be the ones starting the war with him in direct violation of UN wmd doctrines.

We would be attacking b/c nowhere does it state that we have the right to attack. Meaning that other countries in the UN did not give us the explicit authorization to do so.

Should we also attack Pakistan for developing nuclear weapons against the wishes of the UN?

I find it amusing how so many people who despise the UN, like to talk about UN mandates and such. Having it both ways, I see.

I'm torn on the issue of punishing countries developing nuclear weapons. I hate the concept that only a select few countries have the ability to destroy the world and use it to mandate international doctrine. However, nuclear weapons have the power to destroy the world and should not be up for sale. On the other hand, nuclear weapon research often has the effect of increasing research into nuclear power, which I'm all for. A tough topic.

And the problem with the UN is they lost their spine. The first gulf war, the UN sent a Sternly Worded Letter (tm) that told Saddam to back off Kuwait or we will beat you into submission. The current versions of the dreaded Sternly Worded Letter (tm) lack that last clause. I'm all for supporting the UN, so long as it is more than just a collection of paper tigers.

Originally Posted by MaBell37

Edited: Thanks for the catch, Toker, typo fixed.

N/P.. I had to re-read it once.. Most people don't realize that South Korea did have troops in Nam since '64. I love reading about it since I can get plenty of facts from my old man. He was at Khe sanh and few other places...

Originally Posted by Manse

Doubtful. The recession has been coming since the mid-clinton era.

Care to back this up? I'm interested to know how in in the "mid-Clinton era" that the recession was coming? Fuck, the Dow didn't hit it's all time highs until 2000. But please, I'm all eyes in regards to your response. Methinks you do not know what the hell you are talking about.

Hawg statistically speaking he is right. What they say is it takes 10 to 12 years for whats going on to actually come about. Personally i dont blame anyone inparticular for the recession. Its seems to fit the treads off normal ups and downs. I also don't think it matters who was in office McCain or Obama it was going to come back like it always does.

Trigger i don't despise the UN. I just feel it an ineffective way to deal with countries anymore due to them never backing up what they say like they used to. I do feel if the country has a lunatic at the wheel then yes we need to stop the country from developing nuclear weapons.

As for us attacking Iraq without the "complete" UN support it was justified. I use complete because people tend to forget other countries were in favor of it as well. He had MANY wanrings to comply and choose to give us the finger and dare us to do something about it like a 5 year old. So we did what any parent would do and knocked the shit of him.

Next will be some sad ass statement about how the Iraq's don't want us there. Which is bs they do want us there. Next will be then why are we still fighting in Iraq. Like we are fighting Iraqis and not terrorist. Funny how that part is always left out. Then of course come the statement about 4000+ americans killed in Iraq for nothing. Which is bs to.

I'm not for americans dieing but the numbers that have been lost and will be lost in the future are far less that what would be lost if we sat back and did nothing. You don't agree thats fine. At least think about what could very well happen if Saddam had been allowed to complete his dream of nuclear arms.

Let see would he use them? He already proved he will use wmd's why would this one be any different. Does he have the capacity to sell an item like a nuclear weapon to terrorist? Myself and many others including those in the UN agree he was in fact the kind of nut job that would do just that.

As for the ignorant remark about UN mandates and having it both ways. LOL Your one to talk. Try to keep the snide comments to a minimum remember those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I'm not against countries having nuclear power but nuclear weapons is a whole different item.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Hawg statistically speaking he is right. What they say is it takes 10 to 12 years for whats going on to actually come about. Personally i dont blame anyone inparticular for the recession. Its seems to fit the treads off normal ups and downs. I also don't think it matters who was in office McCain or Obama it was going to come back like it always does.

Did someone fart? Oh no no no it's just deathgod talking out of his ass again......

In economics, a recesssion is a general slowdown in economic activity in a country over a sustained period of time, or a business cycle contraction. During recessions, many macroeconomic indicators vary in a similar way. Production as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), employment, investment spending, capacity utilization, household incomes and business profits all fall during recessions.

...........several economic indicators that identify a recession; these included two successive quarterly declines in GDP. Over time, the other rules have been largely forgotten, and a recession is now often identified as the reduction of a country's GDP (or negative real economic growth) for at least two quarters. Some economists prefer a more robust definition of a 1.5% rise in unemployment within 12 months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession

None of which happened at anytime during the "mid-Clinton era" to the time the prick got out of office. Statistically speaking my ass. What statistics do you talk about that say that this is the result of Clinton policies. I always get a kick out of the guys that try to blame that hick(the one from Arkansas, not the fake one from Kennebunkport) for the mess we're in right now, and use the same line of thinking that because "it takes the 12 year cycle" for presidential economic plans to come to fruition, that the 90's were the fruit of Reagn. Yet they don't attribute the rtaging bull markets of the 80's to Jimmy Carter....... Nope this one as well goes to the senile old "Gipper".

In my 10 years in the futures trading industry, I have usually been one of 10 out of 200 traders, in just about any futures pit at the CBOT, that wasn't Republican...... And not once did I hear any of these republicans (guys that really know about economics and don't get their fill from Limbaugh or Faux News) ever say that Clinton was bad for the economy or the cause of this debacle. But go on airdale, and expound some more of your economic knowledge and your funny statistics.

And if I have you in the wrong category, then my apologies, but if not.......Ju hav sum 'splainin tudu.

Hawg if all that was meant for me then yeah you got me wrong. I'm simply saying that statistically he's right. Personally i don't think either of them (Clinton, Bush) were really worth a shit. Like i said before politicians are just lier and conmen that found a niche they can work.