they fire one JUST one at the USA there country is moon dust. They know this. For that matter any country, they are history.

I'm still fucking HOWLING over this one.. These guys should hire the Iraqi Information Minister. At least he was a little more convincing.

http://www.korea-dpr.com/history30.htm

Ouch!

Are you really stupid enough to believe this or are kidding, NOPE I think you be stupid.

I never said we needed to be in Iraq... I think something needed to be done, but not the way Bush went about it... I'm not in favor of us being there on our own... but then agin who could we rely on the French

:1orglaugh

Guess you forgot about the US embargo against Japan a year before Pearl Harbour, which is considered an act of war.

It's better to learn history in the classroom, not the multiplex :thumbsup

So, which country in Africa is best structured? Has lowest corruption? No civil disorder? Has most efficient economical infra-structure?

South Africa.

Apartheid brought a lot of suffering to one group of people.
But today they are kings of Africa. Only ONE country to come even close is Nigeria, but ONLY because of natural resources (oil).
Again, makes you wonder eh?

Nope, neither the Russians or the Germmans... But maybe the UN would have been an option if cowboy didn't have such a bonner for Sadaam...

All those countries were side by side in the Gulf War and shared the expenses.

Why did something have to be done now?

Actually I don't mind, just seems like a curious time to do it. And Tony Blair basing UK involvement on a 12 year olds essay?
45 minute reactions?

I totally agree with stirring up the Arab world. It's society 1000 years ago. Screwed and dangerous to the rest of us.
Bomb 'em away.

But still, Bush is just not trustworthy. He's too stupid.

see someone trying to make sense without facts. you make good points and logic would say your right but the facts are:

1) If they have nukes that can reach us we will attack them first
2) Mattyd is already over there in Okinawa - they are deploying 100,000 troops all over the Asian theater as we speak
3) we didn't use all of our "smart bombs" in Iraq - we did use a good portion of our million dollar cruse missiles - most of the bigger so called "smart bombs" are surplus WWII dumb bomb with guidance systems added and we have ass loads of them
4) This guy Kim is a freak - he wears American cloths and watches our movies and he's got untested nukes. the point is he needs to be taken out!
5) If Bush wants to take them out it won't be a hard sell - some people in Bushes cabinet thought Korea was a bigger threat then Iraq and think we should have dealt with that first -

Wrong it's Botswana. In a World survey South Africa has dropped to 4th place. Civil disorder is at it's highest levels ever and unemployment is sky rocketing. Coruption is rife and AIDS is a major concern.

Their own President denied that AIDS was a huge problem and the AIDS NG organisation took the Government to court and they won.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

yeah good point but we didn't just blockade them for no reason. The Japanesse were an aggressor long before we placed the Oil embargo on Japan, it was China they were mainly fucking with and we didn't care. but the oil is what caused the attack - not sure of the dates but I think it was 6 months before the attack - then again I may have to watch tora tora tora again to be sure :thumbsup

Botswana?

Oh yeah, those guys are world players.

Ask any large country in the world which African country's opionon they value most... Botswana or South Africa.
My uneducated guess is South Africa.

I have no idea what rules in Botswana, but I have a pretty good idea. Either there's a strong colonial legacy, a very militant oppression rule, or a UN subsidized country with a corrupt black puppethead in charge.

No way in hell there's a democracy. Democracy and Africa is a 'mismatch error' isn't it?

Botswana...

[IMG]http://www.tnbsolution.com/sicklecell/typical******behavior/originals/typical******behavior_020.jpg[/IMG]

LOL Troels you are 100% correct. Botswana is a beautifull place and if you ever go there visit the Okavongo swamps.

You camp next to the crystal clear rivers and lakes at night and the hippos come out to feed. You hear them through the bush but you have to be carefull if you have a fire. The hippo thinks he is the African fire fighter and he will storm into your camp and stomp your fire dead LOL

Have I ever commented on the modern day human and its DNA legacy?

All people in the world - except Africans - have the same ancestral mother (Eve). There are 2 mitochondrial roots we all derive from (that means only 2 women!). Both African in origin. One made the crucial move OUT of Africa - one didn't. One had the capacity, one didn't. Anyone black today does not share the same 'building blocks' as the rest of the world.

Interesting huh?

which KKK site did you cut and paste that silly ass story from?

Science has proven some us evolved you moron!

Is that info correct? Wow that is interesting

Do a search on Google, ask around, I don't care. It is true.
There are 2 types of mitochondrial DNA. 2...
Not 1, not 3...

2!

You can read what I just said somewhere else.

Not questioning your mitochondrial DNA assertion - I question the biblical reference of EVE "All people in the world - except Africans - have the same ancestral mother (Eve)." Thats just racist bullshit!

Unless Eve was a fucking fish at one point then your quoting a fiction story from the bible told to nieve children for 1000's of years because they had no better information. Oh and I hate to break it to you there is no Santa Claus -= Try the TLC webpage they have a lot of information on Science - not a lot of made up KKK dribble

The right wingers are in a bit of frenzy in the U.S. since their boy got caught lying. Check some of the post counts for GFY right wingers, you'll see a huge spike since Bush got caught lying.

Anyone turned on talk radio lately? Same story. They're all yelling, insulting "liberals" more than normal, trying to re-define lying, and talking real fast.

It's interesting to watch the pack running in every direction with their hero busted. :)

001

The Bush administration won't attack Korea. There is no oil or money to be made there.

You're talking about one super psycho Kim Jong Il, who think he's a god. The country is SUPER TIGHTLY controlled, especially media and information outlets. So if North Korea is attack, the whole population response, not just regular soldiers.

Iraq is nothing compare to the N. Korean military. The U.S. can definitely win, but by doing so, they'll loose HEAVY(can make Vietnam look silly) military casulties, not to mention the political backlash. Attacking N. Korea is like cornering a starving lion. They are a desparate, starving nation whose sole military purpose is to LIVE or die FOR WAR.

The U.S. do not want to attack a suicidal nation, that has nothing to loose. However, there's alot to loose for the U.S.. Diplomacy is the only way to stop their nuclear potential. In fact, it worked before, until that "axis of evil" sparked them to rebuild again. They a skittish nation.

really good points - but the fact is he is threating to nuke the US - I don't think a ground war would be the option - I see us taking out the plants - I am not sure if we will go to war over this or not only time will tell. I know for a fact there is a build up happening as we speak just wait till the news picks it up.

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea said Monday that victory would be certain for the communist state in any nuclear war with the United States thanks to Pyongyang's "army-first" political system.

"Victory in a nuclear conflict will be ours and the red flag of army-first politics will flutter ever more vigorously," state radio said, reported by South Korea's Yonhap news agency.

"Our victory is certain and the future ever more radiant," it said, touting the dominance of the army in the world's most heavily militarized society.

The million-strong Korean People's Army is the world's fifth-largest, with nearly one in 20 North Koreans in uniform and spending on defense consuming as much as a quarter of the impoverished state's annual budget.

War warnings and claims that the United States is poised to attack North Korea have been almost daily fare in Pyongyang official media, which have ratcheted up the rhetoric since a nuclear crisis flared last year.

The standoff over North Korea's suspected nuclear program has been simmering since October, when Washington said Pyongyang had admitted to pursuing a program to enrich uranium in violation of major international treaty commitments.

Since then, North Korea has expelled U.N. nuclear inspectors and withdrawn from the treaty which aims to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and said it was ready to restart a mothballed reactor capable of producing plutonium for bombs.

Pyongyang has insisted that it only intends to produce electricity for its decrepit economy and that the nuclear row is a bilateral dispute with Washington that can only be solved through two-way talks leading to a non-aggression treaty.

But a vote on February 12 by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog, referring the nuclear issue to the Security Council was seen as a rebuff to North Korea's insistence on a bilateral solution.

The Security Council has the power to impose economic sanctions -- a step North Korea has said would amount to a declaration of war.

But IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei has said there was no intention to push for sanctions immediately. North Korea's allies Russia and China and neighbors including South Korea have said it was too early to pursue sanctions.

Last week, Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet reiterated U.S. intelligence estimates that North Korea has already extracted enough plutonium for one to nuclear bombs.

Tenet said North Korea could recover enough plutonium for several additional weapons if it were to reprocess spent fuel from the reactor that had been frozen in 1994 under an agreement with the United States which Pyongyang abrogated in October.

The United States keeps 37,000 troops in South Korea under a 50-year-old security alliance formed to deter a repeat of the North Korean invasion of the south that sparked the 1950-53 Korean War.

What is the lie that you are referring to?

Hmm...just as I thought.

It's not CONSIDERED an act of war, it was interpreted as such. War was not declared when OPEC announced an oil embargo in 1973-1974 on the US. There are embargos of various sorts all the time.

The embargo against Japan was a reaction to the ongoing war between Japan and China. China at the time was considered one of the US' closest allies.

We didn't start the fire. It was always burning ...

Yeah, and how many times has that happened in all of history? 1991 was an exception, not a rule. Not to mention Bush I was one of the best presidents in US history at diplomacy in both his interest and his ability.

I found this from a quick search... it outlines North Korea's war capabilities... who knows if it's true, but if it's all factual, North Korea sounds formidable

http://informationclearinghouse.lite...rticle3099.htm

I see the economical and political issues as being a huge factor.

1. 2004 is an election year. I don't see him risking re-election in another war. Though the US military is vastly superior to NK's, there is a high probability this would be very costly for SK in the opening days of the war. That could very well turn public opinion against Bush and risk him re-election.

Another war before the election is unlikely. Bush will start losing votes because people are most concerned about the economy.

The deficit is already projected to be $475 billion in 2004 and $304 billion in 2005. Needless to say, add a war into either of those figures and you will see a white house in trouble.

I didn't say "use all of our smart bombs". I said we used a lot. I know the difference between a Tomahawk and a JDAM. Thanks.

Again, I say such a war is unlikely (opposite of likely, less than 50%), not that it's not not going to happen.

North Korea's military is similar to Saddam's 1991 military. A large military but outdated in tactics and equipment. T-62 and T-71s. Lots of MiGs which have never fought well against American planes. Soviet military doctrine which served the Arab countries really well against the Israelis. ;-) ;-)

Very lopsided. NK's biggest threat in a war is to South Koreamn civilian population.

I hope you are right and the article was wrong

theking:

Taking one step backwards. Why is it ALWAYS the US that is under some threat that there is a need to "take down" anyone??
(Of course... I forgot the world is jealous of the US! :1orglaugh )

Take a look inwards for just one second and see how ridiculous you look to the rest of the world.

Quit the stupid US euphemisms and lets assume you mean it is your opinion that the US will nuke N Korea? I doubt any other way will suceed.

By the way, why can the US construct WMD and it whines at the thought of others possessing such weapons?? That sounds like still more BS and hypocracy to which we have become accustomed.

Shit.. if I was some leader of a country which an idiot US "President" did a rhetorical "threat" oratory on, I sure as hell would be inclined to consider WMD as a deterent!! :1orglaugh

Agreed. Another six weeks and it's back to school for all the kiddies here.



bye bye kiddies.

It's a function of pecking order, not the country itself. Because the US has the most influence on international affairs. Every nation that has ever been in the position the US is in acts similarly (usually more extreme actually). The British Empire, the Japanese Empire in the Pacific, the Spanish, the French, Germany, Prussia. Many more examples.

The behavior of such nations makes perfect sense to them and little sense to anyone else.

If nations act in what they believe is their best interest, and I argue that they almost always do, weaker nations will band together into pacts, leagues, organizations and any number of other alliances both formal and informal. Such nations call for increases in power of international bodies and law as a counterweight to the prevailing powers.

This has always been so. It is a common story in history.

What has changed is the function of imperialism. Up until World War II, the dominant world powers were traditionally empires.
Find an old map of Africa up until World War II. It was carved up by the imperial powers. There were hardly any African nations at all that were free from the world's imperial powers - if there were any at all.

Is the US the cause of the decrease in Empire or simply following a new international paradigm as to what dominant powers should be? We don't know the answer to that. It may very well be that the US is the cause f the decrease in Empire. After all, Empire was the name of the game until after World War II when the US came out as one of the world's two dominant powers. The USSR continued to annex countries and the US did not.

Some people like to say "The US isn't the world's cops". But the US is in many ways. That's just the way it is. So was Great Britian for many years. Powerful nations have always acted this way in accordance with their ability and the information and technology of the time.

You can say "What right does the US have to do such and such ..." but it doesn't mean anything. When has there ever been a time when might is not the sole determining factor in such things?

The more globally influential a country one lives in, the more likely one will be interested in the concept of international law. Those who live in countries that are weaker militarily and economically tend to see the world in terms of international bodies and laws, alliances, pacts, and leagues. Those who live in powerful countries tend to not.

See above. If you continue to think that the world should be "fair" in some sense where the rules are the same for all nations you are going to be in for a long distressed life. It has never been that way and there is no indication it ever will be.

Tell me one time in the history of Civilization where all countries played by the same rules. There is none.

International law only exists as much as powerful countries are willing to enforce it. Look at the UN. The UN exists because powerful countries formed it. It favors powerful countries. France, the UK, Russia, China, and the US have veto power in the UN Security Council. That is power and the result of power.

The UN can easily be used to push countries around but not those five. It is impossible for a US Security Council Resolution to pass against one of the five nations. It just gets vetoed.

Why do you think the US should play by the same rules as Argentina? That's absurd.

To see the history of the future, you need only look to the history of the past.

War is inevitable and sadly, inherent in our species.

I never said anything needed to be done now... I've allways thought that North Korea was a bigger problem than Iraq... Sadam wasn't going anywhere.. he wasn't going to invade anybody else, he learned his lesson...I'm sure he would have been a good little dictator and sat in his cornor for atleast another 10 years.. in that time we could have backed a freedom movment in Iraq to oust Sadam... unlike what we just did, that will probally lead to more terror attacks.

Colin...you tax Webby's little brain.