Bad move North Korea

**deathgodusmc** · 06-18-09, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Captain Coors

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Who says he did nothing with North Korea? Why do you think North Korea has 1 nuke test in 2006 and what 3 in 2009? What's the only thing that changed?

The intelligence and progress of the weapons developers.

I'm pretty sure that 1 failed nuke test in 06 was not by design....I think its fair to say they would much rather have detonated 3 successful ones at that time if they could.

Failed nuke test. I don't see how you come to the conclusion it failed when it was in fact detonated.

**rock_lobster** · 06-18-09, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by Toker

Originally Posted by ***COMMANDER***

we are winning the war on terror, because he hit it head on.

What constitutes "winning"? Not being an ass, just curious.

We can make progress concerning the war on terror, but honestly, I personally feel a war on terror is unwinnable. I say this simply because, the finatics of islam (not regular muslims, but the one's who are gung ho about killing Americans), will never stop terrorizing the world. It's like saying we are at war with evil...evil will always exist because of human nature.

Now, does this mean we shouldnt continue on with it? Absolutely not. Although the war on terror is technically unwinnable (overall), we should still strive to minimize the casualties worldwide that terrorism can cause.

Iraq and Afgahn. are small steps towards knocking out a huge part of the terrorism network, at least I would think so. I say let's keep the fight on their soil, not ours.

**Captain Coors** · 06-18-09, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Failed nuke test. I don't see how you come to the conclusion it failed when it was in fact detonated.

The 2006 explosion was widely assessed to be a failure.....less than a kiloton and much smaller than the planned yield. It was a fizzle, dud, etc. More of a dirty bomb than a nuclear explosion.

When you throw a M80 and it emits a little pop and fizzles, that is called a failure.

**Muqtar SGT_Clintok** · 06-18-09, 06:56 PM

Gonna get real interesting real quick.

They're tracking a suspcious ship suspected of moving weapons. Reports haven't gone into whether that means missle parts, nuclear technology, or what. There is a UN resolution allowing us to inspect.

Now I dont know whether a new resolution is required if the ship doesn't comply and if so, how many additional resolutions needed. The authors might not have considered what is going to happen if people dont cave to a declaration from the bowels of the UN.

**triggerhappy2005** · 06-19-09, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by ***COMMANDER***

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by Highstakes72

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by ***COMMANDER***

I think there are a few countries that are willing to try and see what they can get away with now.... We use to have Strong (get down to business) presidents and the one we have now, many see him as weak and passive.

He is showing very soft skin to the Iranians and that approach has weakened his image. Joe biden said Obama would be tested and the decisions he is going to make is probably not the one that the people think he should make but to bare with him. I don't know if this was what he was referring to, but it would make sense.

I think ol kim doesn't think Obama has the nuts to fight back.

I guess we will see how Obama handles the situation. He is either going to prove them right, or dead wrong. I hope it is dead wrong.

Same shit happened under Bush, what did he do? What?

You've been comparing Obama to Bush a lot lately....is he or isnt he like Bush?

I'm not comparing the two, I'm comparing the similar situations they have encountered with North Korea. My point was, where was the outrage at Bush for not reacting militarily? I doubt I will get an intelligent response to this but that's par for the course around here anyways.

You should have more hope than that. Whilst the Bush administration did not directly assault NK they did authorize the sale of PAC3 interceptor systems to Japan. So that at least the ability to absorb such a foolhearty action on NK's part would be local in the region.

...then again maybe Bush was just being a good "global citizen". That is the populist err. popular thing to do right?

That hardly counts as a military response like the one commander advocates. That's the point I'm trying to make.

No, the difference was, is that that North Korea came to the table and shut down the reactor and let the IAEA in to put seals on everything.

No, that was because Bush caved into his demands.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289332,00.html

I'm using Fox News so you don't question the source.

Here's a snippet.

SEOUL, South Korea — A North Korean diplomat confirmed that his country had shut down its sole operating nuclear reactor after receiving an initial shipment of oil aid and said U.N. inspectors would start verifying the closure on Sunday.

**triggerhappy2005** · 06-19-09, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by ***COMMANDER***

I think there are a few countries that are willing to try and see what they can get away with now.... We use to have Strong (get down to business) presidents and the one we have now, many see him as weak and passive.

He is showing very soft skin to the Iranians and that approach has weakened his image. Joe biden said Obama would be tested and the decisions he is going to make is probably not the one that the people think he should make but to bare with him. I don't know if this was what he was referring to, but it would make sense.

I think ol kim doesn't think Obama has the nuts to fight back.

I guess we will see how Obama handles the situation. He is either going to prove them right, or dead wrong. I hope it is dead wrong.

Same shit happened under Bush, what did he do? What?

You've been comparing Obama to Bush a lot lately....is he or isnt he like Bush?

I'm not comparing the two, I'm comparing the similar situations they have encountered with North Korea. My point was, where was the outrage at Bush for not reacting militarily? I doubt I will get an intelligent response to this but that's par for the course around here anyways.

If you ask an intelligent question you may get an intelligent answer. You are one of the same ones that condemn Bush for the military actions he took and now you want to know why he didn't take one. Thats just stupid. You can't have it both ways trigger.

Who says he did nothing with North Korea? Why do you think North Korea has 1 2 nuke tests in 2006 and what 3 in 2009? What's the only thing that changed?

North Korea tested the waters. Found there isn't much back bones like there was before and here we are. He knew damn well if Bush, Bush sr., Reagan, maybe even Clinton were in office he wouldn't be pushing so hard. Obama lacks a back bone.

I'm not saying he's a piece of shit or anything like that. Just that when it comes to these types of things he doesn't have the resolve to see it through. Don't worry though I'm sure he'll be on tv sometime this coming week talking in circles as usual.

Show me those 3 nuclear tests in 2009.

**CanadianPersian** · 06-19-09, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

Originally Posted by Toker

Originally Posted by ***COMMANDER***

we are winning the war on terror, because he hit it head on.

What constitutes "winning"? Not being an ass, just curious.

We can make progress concerning the war on terror, but honestly, I personally feel a war on terror is unwinnable. I say this simply because, the finatics of islam (not regular muslims, but the one's who are gung ho about killing Americans), will never stop terrorizing the world. It's like saying we are at war with evil...evil will always exist because of human nature.

Now, does this mean we shouldnt continue on with it? Absolutely not. Although the war on terror is technically unwinnable (overall), we should still strive to minimize the casualties worldwide that terrorism can cause.

Iraq and Afgahn. are small steps towards knocking out a huge part of the terrorism network, at least I would think so. I say let's keep the fight on their soil, not ours.

i think you should ask yourselves WHY. WHY do they hate you? get to the source of that, and change it. then you will have peace. and it's not enough to say "they hate infidels" or crap like that. this widespread "terrorists" movement is relatively new. there's a reason as to why they take up arms against the west, and until those issues are addressed, you will never solve your "terrorist" problems.

**jason_jinx** · 06-19-09, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by CanadianPersian

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

Originally Posted by Toker

Originally Posted by ***COMMANDER***

we are winning the war on terror, because he hit it head on.

What constitutes "winning"? Not being an ass, just curious.

We can make progress concerning the war on terror, but honestly, I personally feel a war on terror is unwinnable. I say this simply because, the finatics of islam (not regular muslims, but the one's who are gung ho about killing Americans), will never stop terrorizing the world. It's like saying we are at war with evil...evil will always exist because of human nature.

Now, does this mean we shouldnt continue on with it? Absolutely not. Although the war on terror is technically unwinnable (overall), we should still strive to minimize the casualties worldwide that terrorism can cause.

Iraq and Afgahn. are small steps towards knocking out a huge part of the terrorism network, at least I would think so. I say let's keep the fight on their soil, not ours.

i think you should ask yourselves WHY. WHY do they hate you? get to the source of that, and change it. then you will have peace. and it's not enough to say "they hate infidels" or crap like that. this widespread "terrorists" movement is relatively new. there's a reason as to why they take up arms against the west, and until those issues are addressed, you will never solve your "terrorist" problems.

lol
What are you crazy? you might make some heads explode around here when you ask them to think it through.

**Highstakes72** · 06-19-09, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by CanadianPersian

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

Originally Posted by Toker

Originally Posted by ***COMMANDER***

we are winning the war on terror, because he hit it head on.

What constitutes "winning"? Not being an ass, just curious.

We can make progress concerning the war on terror, but honestly, I personally feel a war on terror is unwinnable. I say this simply because, the finatics of islam (not regular muslims, but the one's who are gung ho about killing Americans), will never stop terrorizing the world. It's like saying we are at war with evil...evil will always exist because of human nature.

Now, does this mean we shouldnt continue on with it? Absolutely not. Although the war on terror is technically unwinnable (overall), we should still strive to minimize the casualties worldwide that terrorism can cause.

Iraq and Afgahn. are small steps towards knocking out a huge part of the terrorism network, at least I would think so. I say let's keep the fight on their soil, not ours.

i think you should ask yourselves WHY. WHY do they hate you? get to the source of that, and change it. then you will have peace. and it's not enough to say "they hate infidels" or crap like that. this widespread "terrorists" movement is relatively new. there's a reason as to why they take up arms against the west, and until those issues are addressed, you will never solve your "terrorist" problems.

Yes, terrorism is a new thing.