Blast, Mushroom Cloud Reported in N. Korea

[/dev/null]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...korea_explosion

[DC Tom]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...korea_explosion

27212[/snapback]

 

Bush's response: "North Korea is a nukyooler threat..."

Kerry's response: "I won three Purple Hearts in Vietnam..."

 

 

Wonderful couple of candidates we have...

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

The fact that we are in Iraq instead of focusing on the more realistic threats is wonderful in itself. Pretty soon, we're gonna invade Syria, and waste even MORE time...

 

North Korea and Iran should have been 1,2 on our list... instead, Iraq got in the way. BRILLIANT.

 

I'll wait on the confirmation... who knows what to believe...

[MichFan]

North Korea and Iran should have been 1,2 on our list... instead, Iraq got in the way. BRILLIANT. 

Diplomacy is being attempted with these nations. Would you have preferred Bush just went to war with them instead? All the crying about Iraq -- even after 12 years of failed dipomacy. If Bush would have been militarily aggressive toward NK or Iran the libs would have gone off the wall. We probably could not have found a coalition of the willing, because not even England would have signed on for either of those wars.

[GG]

Diplomacy is being attempted with these nations.  Would you have preferred Bush just went to war with them instead?  All the crying about Iraq -- even after 12 years of failed dipomacy.  If Bush would have been militarily aggressive toward NK or Iran the libs would have gone off the wall.  We probably could not have found a coalition of the willing, because not even England would have signed on for either of those wars.

27309[/snapback]

 

Welcome to Myopic Tunnelvision 101 class.

[/dev/null]

Diplomacy is being attempted with these nations.  Would you have preferred Bush just went to war with them instead?  All the crying about Iraq -- even after 12 years of failed dipomacy.  If Bush would have been militarily aggressive toward NK or Iran the libs would have gone off the wall.  We probably could not have found a coalition of the willing, because not even England would have signed on for either of those wars.

27309[/snapback]

 

Granted we haven't had much contact with Iran, but N Korea I seem to recall there being quite a bit over the last, oh 40 years or so...

[Nanker]

The fact that we are in Iraq instead of focusing on the more realistic threats is wonderful in itself. Pretty soon, we're gonna invade Syria, and waste even MORE time... 

 

North Korea and Iran should have been 1,2 on our list... instead, Iraq got in the way. BRILLIANT. 

 

I'll wait on the confirmation... who knows what to believe...

27284[/snapback]

 

So you're supporting an immediate start to a 2nd Korean War?

NK has 10,000 pieces of artillery on their edge of the DMZ and could hit downtown Seoul with over 100,000 shells in the first 24 hrs of hostilities. We've got 30,000 troops positioned in the line of fire. We'd lose at least half of them overnight. I'm sure that would go over just great with the American public! And if we go nuclear against them, don't be surprised if the Japanese and the Chinese aren't part of that particular coalition.

 

Kim Yung Mentally-Ill is as stable as sweaty dynamite. I think the current administration is playing this one just right. They're stringing Kim along with the help of the Communist Chinese - who have their own reasons to keep him on a leash. Maybe one day Kim will take too much LSD with his ecstasy and viagra hi-ball and screw his brains out with a bevy of beauty queens from Canada and the tropics. The world will be a safer place without this particular rodent playing Big Brother to his brain-washed minions. But Japan has more at stake than we do at this point.

[VABills]

Well CNN is already reporting that a falsehood.

 

Thing is if the did a "secret" nuclear test the reports would have come out that there was an earthquake in North Korea first. Civilian quake monitoring stations would have been on this long before satellite imaging.

[Alaska Darin]

Diplomacy is being attempted with these nations.  Would you have preferred Bush just went to war with them instead?  All the crying about Iraq -- even after 12 years of failed dipomacy.  If Bush would have been militarily aggressive toward NK or Iran the libs would have gone off the wall.  We probably could not have found a coalition of the willing, because not even England would have signed on for either of those wars.

27309[/snapback]

Thanks for posting that. It saved me the time.

[KD in CA]

So you're supporting an immediate start to a 2nd Korean War?

NK has 10,000 pieces of artillery on their edge of the DMZ and could hit downtown Seoul with over 100,000 shells in the first 24 hrs of hostilities. We've got 30,000 troops positioned in the line of fire. We'd lose at least half of them overnight. I'm sure that would go over just great with the American public! And if we go nuclear against them, don't be surprised if the Japanese and the Chinese aren't part of that particular coalition.

 

27326[/snapback]

 

 

Gee, that could be a problem...

 

I've also read that those artillary pieces are embedded into the sides of mountains so there is no way to even identify them, must less do anything to stop them (short of capturing the entire region which might take a little while).

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Diplomacy is being attempted with these nations.  Would you have preferred Bush just went to war with them instead?  All the crying about Iraq -- even after 12 years of failed dipomacy.  If Bush would have been militarily aggressive toward NK or Iran the libs would have gone off the wall.  We probably could not have found a coalition of the willing, because not even England would have signed on for either of those wars.

27309[/snapback]

 

Why NOT? Bush supporters advocate going to Iraq and ridding the world of a dictator, and bringing democracy to other countries, but its NOT OK to do that with North Korea and Iran, countries who pose a REAL THREAT to us? Come on now... we should expect some consistency here!!! Who are the REAL sponsors of terrorism, and the REAL threats in the world? Certainly not Saddam... what happened to the diplomacy in Iraq? I'll tell you what happened to it... it went out the window because they KNEW it was an easy target for us to roll over, and they provided the excuse.

 

Damn it, Kim Il Jong is INFINITELY more dangerous than Saddam would have EVER been contained like he was! Iran is salivating at the prospects of sponsoring as many terrorists as possible, and we are supposed to just sit back, and let the UN handle things?? Hell with it, invade Iran, and take them out since they ACTUALLY HAVE WMD! What's the matter, since we are there, let's do it!

 

I'll tell you the MAIN REASON why we don't do it... because Saddam was #1 on GWB's target list, no matter WHAT danger the others posed... and he was DETERMINED to do it, no matter what the cost. Brilliant! Now we have eliminated someone who isn't even CLOSE to the root of the threats against the US, comparatively speaking!!

[SilverNRed]

Damn it, Kim Il Jong is INFINITELY more dangerous than Saddam would have EVER been contained like he was!

27349[/snapback]

 

Exactly. In fact, he's SO dangerous, that we can't attak him directly because the losses for S. Korea and our troops stationed there would be massive and inescapable. Someone already mentioned this.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

Why NOT? Bush supporters advocate going to Iraq and ridding the world of a dictator, and bringing democracy to other countries, but its NOT OK to do that with North Korea and Iran, countries who pose a REAL THREAT to us? Come on now... we should expect some consistency here!!! Who are the REAL sponsors of terrorism, and the REAL threats in the world? Certainly not Saddam... what happened to the diplomacy in Iraq? I'll tell you what happened to it... it went out the window because they KNEW it was an easy target for us to roll over, and they provided the excuse.

 

Damn it, Kim Il Jong is INFINITELY more dangerous than Saddam would have EVER been contained like he was! Iran is salivating at the prospects of sponsoring as many terrorists as possible, and we are supposed to just sit back, and let the UN handle things?? Hell with it, invade Iran, and take them out since they ACTUALLY HAVE WMD! What's the matter, since we are there, let's do it!

 

I'll tell you the MAIN REASON why we don't do it... because Saddam was #1 on GWB's target list, no matter WHAT danger the others posed... and he was DETERMINED to do it, no matter what the cost. Brilliant! Now we have eliminated someone who isn't even CLOSE to the root of the threats against the US, comparatively speaking!!

27349[/snapback]

 

Part of the rational to Invade Iraq, was to do so BEFORE he had nukes. Because Sadam had never had a weapon that he did not use. Your fantasy DNC talking point about a personal grudge works about as well as O.J.'s looking for the real killer.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Exactly.  In fact, he's SO dangerous, that we can't attak him directly because the losses for S. Korea and our troops stationed there would be massive and inescapable.  Someone already mentioned this.

27368[/snapback]

 

Ahh yes, my post was to attack IRAN, and that North Korea was #1 on our importance list. I NEVER advocated attacking North Korea because we can't... instead, we are so focused on Iraq and North Korea and Iran sit there...

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Part of the rational to Invade Iraq, was to do so BEFORE he had nukes.  Because Sadam had never had a weapon that he did not use. Your fantasy DNC talking point about a personal grudge works about as well as O.J.'s looking for the real killer.

27374[/snapback]

 

I didn't get it from the freaking DNC... when I make points and give my opinions, they don't come from some freaking squawk box organization! I came up with that assessment by myself, because it makes so much sense. Why is it that all of a sudden when Bush gets elected, Iraq suddenly becomes the biggest threat and enemy to America since Hitler?!?! No rational explanation takes us from Iraq with the corrupt dictator to Iraq with the loads of WMD and the terrorist haven in TWO YEARS?! It was built up, no doubt in my MIND.

[SilverNRed]

I didn't get it from the freaking DNC... when I make points and give my opinions, they don't come from some freaking squawk box organization! I came up with that assessment by myself, because it makes so much sense. Why is it that all of a sudden when Bush gets elected, Iraq suddenly becomes the biggest threat and enemy to America since Hitler?!?! No rational explanation takes us from Iraq with the corrupt dictator to Iraq with the loads of WMD and the terrorist haven in TWO YEARS?! It was built up, no doubt in my MIND.

27384[/snapback]

 

If it makes you feel any better, I don't see you as someone who just posts DNC 'talking points'.

 

OK, for Iran, I think the US is banking on an internal uprising. The younger generation has been making waves pushing for democratic reforms. I've heard many analysts say they'd be surprised if there wasn't a revolution in Iran within the next 5 years.

 

For Iraq, nothing changed when Bush was elected. Saddam had basically been public enemy no.1 since the Gulf War (and America thought so too - based on his appearances in movies like Hot Shots and South Park). His hands were not clean. The man subsidized suicide bombers, gave save-haven to terrorists, fired on U.S. jets patrolling the no-fly zone every day, and certainly did not comply with UN inspectors until there were over 200,000 U.S. troops on his doorstep. The conclusion that he had to be taken out before he became another Kim Jong-Il seemed reasonable. A nation like North Korea in the Middle East is something much more difficult to deal with - at least the real North Korea is flanked by China, Japan, and South Korea.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

If it makes you feel any better, I don't see you as someone who just posts DNC 'talking points'. 

 

OK, for Iran, I think the US is banking on an internal uprising.  The younger generation has been making waves pushing for democratic reforms.  I've heard many analysts say they'd be surprised if there wasn't a revolution in Iran within the next 5 years. 

 

For Iraq, nothing changed when Bush was elected.  Saddam had basically been public enemy no.1 since the Gulf War (and America thought so too - based on his appearances in movies like Hot Shots and South Park).  His hands were not clean.  The man subsidized suicide bombers, gave save-haven to terrorists, fired on U.S. jets patrolling the no-fly zone every day, and certainly did not comply with UN inspectors until there were over 200,000 U.S. troops on his doorstep.  The conclusion that he had to be taken out before he became another Kim Jong-Il seemed reasonable.  A nation like North Korea in the Middle East is something much more difficult to deal with - at least the real North Korea is flanked by China, Japan, and South Korea.

27430[/snapback]

 

THANK YOU. Nothing iritates me more than accusing me of being a bobble head!

 

The US policy of containment of Saddam's power seemed to me to be working, and the United Nations were still continuing inspections up until RIGHT before we invaded. The whole basis for going to war was the WMD and THEN the 'democratization' of Iraq. They CONVINCED most in Congress that the WMD threat was deadly serious... told us that Al Qaeda was ASSUREDLY being supported by Saddam. BOTH of these reasons, which turns a containment policy into a policy of 'must remove', were just NOT proven to be true... that's my beef. We didn't HAVE to attack then...

 

As far as Iran goes, any country that begins and ends their proceedings with "Death to America" has got my vote as a country we should ACTUALLY go after. Their government OPENLY wishes harm on us, and HAS the WMD materials, as verified by the UN. Do you think the young have a shot? They just are as they are in China.... a dissident voice that isn't making any major govt changes of note.

 

I know about the North Korea situation, and how the pressure by other countries on its borders keep it in line, no matter how blustery they get. That doesn't make them any less dangerous... I am really hoping we stop toying around in Iraq with people's lives, and get on with business...

 

GAME TIME!!!!

 

GO BILLS!!!!

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

THANK YOU. Nothing iritates me more than accusing me of being a bobble head!

 

The US policy of containment of Saddam's power seemed to me to be working, and the United Nations were still continuing inspections up until RIGHT before we invaded. The whole basis for going to war was the WMD and THEN the 'democratization' of Iraq. They CONVINCED most in Congress that the WMD threat was deadly serious... told us that Al Qaeda was ASSUREDLY being supported by Saddam. BOTH of these reasons, which turns a containment policy into a policy of 'must remove', were just NOT proven to be true... that's my beef. We didn't HAVE to attack then...

 

As far as Iran goes, any country that begins and ends their proceedings with "Death to America" has got my vote as a country we should ACTUALLY go after. Their government OPENLY wishes harm on us, and HAS the WMD materials, as verified by the UN. Do you think the young have a shot? They just are as they are in China.... a dissident voice that isn't making any major govt changes of note.

 

I know about the North Korea situation, and how the pressure by other countries on its borders keep it in line, no matter how blustery they get. That doesn't make them any less dangerous... I am really hoping we stop toying around in Iraq with people's lives, and get on with business...

 

GAME TIME!!!!

 

GO BILLS!!!!

27489[/snapback]

 

I think it is possible Iran was our next point of focus militarily, if the weapons in Iraq had been found. By the way, the did exist at one time. Iraq never gave proof they were destroyed. Because there are so many detractors to the Iraq war now, because Iraq does have nukes, and because the politics of the region are under different pressures now, I'd have to say it's not as likely.

 

Sorry if your conclusion about the evil George Bush wanting to Invade Iraq for a grudge or for personal reasons, just so happens to mirror the tired and and relentless and organized bull stevestojan attacks from the left that have been answered and addressed many times, for those willing to listen.

[Thucydides]

THANK YOU. Nothing iritates me more than accusing me of being a bobble head!

 

The US policy of containment of Saddam's power seemed to me to be working, and the United Nations were still continuing inspections up until RIGHT before we invaded. The whole basis for going to war was the WMD and THEN the 'democratization' of Iraq. They CONVINCED most in Congress that the WMD threat was deadly serious... told us that Al Qaeda was ASSUREDLY being supported by Saddam. BOTH of these reasons, which turns a containment policy into a policy of 'must remove', were just NOT proven to be true... that's my beef. We didn't HAVE to attack then...

 

As far as Iran goes, any country that begins and ends their proceedings with "Death to America" has got my vote as a country we should ACTUALLY go after. Their government OPENLY wishes harm on us, and HAS the WMD materials, as verified by the UN. Do you think the young have a shot? They just are as they are in China.... a dissident voice that isn't making any major govt changes of note.

 

I know about the North Korea situation, and how the pressure by other countries on its borders keep it in line, no matter how blustery they get. That doesn't make them any less dangerous... I am really hoping we stop toying around in Iraq with people's lives, and get on with business...

 

GAME TIME!!!!

 

GO BILLS!!!!

27489[/snapback]

 

 

Actually, I believe that you are correct factually, however hopelessly wrong politically.......Iran and Iraq were potential targets in the war on terror, however, Iraq as an enemy was the ground that had been prepared for the last 10 years, and thus the easiest first target.....Anyone who believes that Iraq was a first and primary target is nothing more than a fool and deserves the horrible leadership they have inherited by their inherent stupidity come November....the political ground was cleared and that is why the attack on Iraq was the among the first responses to the terrorists.....in the end it makes little difference who goes first and i am convinced that this is why the administration chose Iraq.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Actually, I believe that you are correct factually, however hopelessly wrong politically.......Iran and Iraq were potential targets in the war on terror, however, Iraq as an enemy was the ground that had been prepared for the last 10 years, and thus the easiest first target.....Anyone who believes that Iraq was a first and primary target is nothing more than a fool and deserves the horrible leadership they have inherited by their inherent stupidity come November....the political ground was cleared and that is why the attack on Iraq was the among the first responses to the terrorists.....in the end it makes little difference who goes first and i am convinced that this is why the administration chose Iraq.

28427[/snapback]

 

My problem is that EASIEST doesn't always mean BEST. It makes a huge difference to me because Iran has the nuclear material NOW, and we have to do something about it NOW, as we should... Problem is, we are in Iraq right now, still fighting Mr. Iraqi Insurgent. There is NO ONE in that region who has the means to keep Iran in line.