NK. A regional issue
-
Q: Mr. President, thank you. Another hot spot is North Korea. If North Korea restarts their plutonium plant, will that change your thinking about how to handle this crisis, or are you resigned to North Korea becoming a nuclear power? Bush: This is a regional issue. I say regional issue because there's a lot of countries that have got a direct stake in whether or not North Korea has nuclear weapons. -- indeed. and that region now includes New York, Chicago and DC: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826533281.html[^] -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
Chris Losinger wrote: Bush: This is a regional issue. Hopefully, that statement will light a fire under China's ass to do something. They say they're concerned about a nuclear North Korea, but avoid any negotiations (and avoid any concessions; leaving the US to make concessions). But the statement is stupid. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion
-
-
Jason Henderson wrote: What would you do if you saw a guy with a gun standing outside your house just waiting for you to go to sleep? Shoot the SOB before he shoots you! I think you're supposed to invite him in, hug him and ask him what you could give him to make him go away. If you shoot him, you might offend your neighbor. Mike
yah hoo!!! where do you live? i feel you're a threat to my well being. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
So, why don't we let the French take the lead on this one since the USA has so terribly screwed up on Iraq? Mike
Because it's the responsibility of the UN. US haven't screwed yet, without the presence of the US Army the inspectors would not be able to get such results.
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
-
Q: Mr. President, thank you. Another hot spot is North Korea. If North Korea restarts their plutonium plant, will that change your thinking about how to handle this crisis, or are you resigned to North Korea becoming a nuclear power? Bush: This is a regional issue. I say regional issue because there's a lot of countries that have got a direct stake in whether or not North Korea has nuclear weapons. -- indeed. and that region now includes New York, Chicago and DC: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826533281.html[^] -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
Translation: "I don't know where the hell North Korea is, but I guess those other countries nearby had better start watching their backs! All those slant-eyed countries over there in Asiastan. Now I's got to go and gets me some oil. Jesus told me it was the right thang to do!" Ty
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." -Albert Einstein
-
yah hoo!!! where do you live? i feel you're a threat to my well being. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
see what happens when you forget to indicate sarcasm - dang. Mike
-
see what happens when you forget to indicate sarcasm - dang. Mike
i got the sarcasm. looks like you missed mine :) -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
Because it's the responsibility of the UN. US haven't screwed yet, without the presence of the US Army the inspectors would not be able to get such results.
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
KaЯl wrote: Because it's the responsibility of the UN. But who will initiate an action or resolution? If the USA does it, well then we'd be war mongering. Reckon? (cowboy talk) KaЯl wrote: US haven't screwed yet, without the presence of the US Army the inspectors would not be able to get such results. And we should leave them on the border for how many years? 12 years was long enough to live up to the terms of the disarmament agreement, and there has certainly been enough time to deliver to resolution 1441. Just for the intellectual exercise, how much time should be given? Mike
-
KaЯl wrote: Because it's the responsibility of the UN. But who will initiate an action or resolution? If the USA does it, well then we'd be war mongering. Reckon? (cowboy talk) KaЯl wrote: US haven't screwed yet, without the presence of the US Army the inspectors would not be able to get such results. And we should leave them on the border for how many years? 12 years was long enough to live up to the terms of the disarmament agreement, and there has certainly been enough time to deliver to resolution 1441. Just for the intellectual exercise, how much time should be given? Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: But who will initiate an action or resolution? It could be Japan, or South Korea, they are the more concerned. Mike Gaskey wrote: Reckon? (cowboy talk) Reckon[^] :confused: ? Mike Gaskey wrote: And we should leave them on the border for how many years The UN inspectors decide. They are the only ones who know how many time they need. As soon as they say they can't do their job, war will be the last solution, but as long they ask for time, this time should be allowed to them. BTW, I read this in Jane's newsletter: "Iran's nuclear capability probed; Iran has made more progress than previously publicly disclosed in furthering its nuclear weapons capabilities, though its ultimate intentions remain unclear. According to US and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officials, Iran is developing a full-scale uranium enrichment facility near Natanz, 160km north of Esfahan. It has completed a pilot-scale centrifuge cascade for such work at that location." After the invasion of Iraq, Iran will be surrounded by a US grip, threatened by a double attack from Iraq and from Afghanistan. Is Iran the next target?
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
-
Jason Henderson wrote: What would you do if you saw a guy with a gun standing outside your house just waiting for you to go to sleep? Shoot the SOB before he shoots you! I think you're supposed to invite him in, hug him and ask him what you could give him to make him go away. If you shoot him, you might offend your neighbor. Mike
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile"
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
-
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile"
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
KaЯl wrote: 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' The Old Testament approach is much better, reckon? Mike
-
KaЯl wrote: 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' The Old Testament approach is much better, reckon? Mike
The "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"-approach breeds hatred. It's IMO the worst approach. :) -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine
-
KaЯl wrote: 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' The Old Testament approach is much better, reckon? Mike
I prefer the message of Jesus :) But it's your choice not to believe, I respect that.
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
-
I prefer the message of Jesus :) But it's your choice not to believe, I respect that.
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
JC was generally a nice guy. I wish everyone would be more like him. :) -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine