Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: WhiteHawk on February 12, 2005, 06:41:18 AM
-
Do we allow them to accumulate nukes? Do we bend over backwards to bribe them not to develope nukes? Or do we attack them and make sure they dont have nukes?
-
muheee... why should you do something about NK ? There are much more important places like Syria and Iran.
Forget NK, it doesnt suit to your economical interests.
Did you hear any single word about NK in Bush's last speach ?
-
Well US attacked against Iraq because alleged WMDs; I can't see any reason how they couldn't attack against NK now that they have even admitted they have WMDs and they're also a real threat to US.
I know that will be the campaign even Yeager and other nutcases in this board support wholeheartedly :)
-
Originally posted by lada
muheee... why should you do something about NK ? There are much more important places like Syria and Iran.
Forget NK, it doesnt suit to your economical interests.
Did you hear any single word about NK in last Bush's speach ?
No, not in his last speech, but , remeber the 'axis of evil'speech? I didnt hear any speech by Bush that brought down the tensions that that speech created? Didi you?
but the question still remains. If we allow NK to accumulate Nukes, we will be unable to deal with them in any fashoin, especially if they are hell bent on building suitcase nukes that can easily be smugled into other countries.
I dont know that they are, but how stupid is it to try to butt heads with the US nukes trying to launch them conventionally?
They would certainly try to smuggle them into the US (or its allies) cities for an 'ace up the sleeve'.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Well US attacked against Iraq because alleged WMDs; I can't see any reason how they couldn't attack against NK now that they have even admitted they have WMDs and they're also a real threat to US.
I know that will be the campaign even Yeager and other nutcases in this board support wholeheartedly :)
I agree staga, war with NK could be averted easily, as could the iraq war, but that damm 'axis of evil' speech still botheres the hell out of me.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
but that damm 'axis of evil' speech still botheres the hell out of me.
Then speech were effective.
Did you hear Kim Chong Il's speach about Nukes ?
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Do we allow them to accumulate nukes? Do we bend over backwards to bribe them not to develope nukes? Or do we attack them and make sure they dont have nukes?
Well I think the satellite photos that have been being posted evrywhere in the media of the facility might give ya a hint.
I`m pretty sure it is intended to do so for NK.
:D
-
China will take care of the NK's.
With NK getting nukes, the Japanese will now have to have nukes, the Chinese will not allow the Japanese to have nukes. The thought of Japanese nationalism must give the cronies in China a bad case of Deja Vu. Look how much China trades with SK, do you think they want a ready market for their goods to vanish?
Look for a political change in NK from within the next year via the hammer or the feather.
-
NK is no problem, clinton got them to sign a paper promising peace in our time.
-
Originally posted by ygsmilo
China will take care of the NK's.
With NK getting nukes, the Japanese will now have to have nukes, the Chinese will not allow the Japanese to have nukes. The thought of Japanese nationalism must give the cronies in China a bad case of Deja Vu. Look how much China trades with SK, do you think they want a ready market for their goods to vanish?
Look for a political change in NK from within the next year via the hammer or the feather.
I agree with this.
China is the best one to deal with NK.
Its not in the best interests of China for NK to be nuclear capable.
-
Originally posted by john9001
NK is no problem, clinton got them to sign a paper promising peace in our time.
:rofl
-
Well the choices are simple. Option A: Special ops activity targeting high value military and civilian targets including government leaders. Option B: US Navy attack subs hunting down the NK sub navy and then launching nuke tipped tomahawks Option C: US Navy missle boats opening up their launch tubes for some ICBM love on the NK territoy.
All of these are just the beginning the end of man as we know it.
-
Originally posted by Reschke
Well the choices are simple. Option A: Special ops activity targeting high value military and civilian targets including government leaders. Option B: US Navy attack subs hunting down the NK sub navy and then launching nuke tipped tomahawks Option C: US Navy missle boats opening up their launch tubes for some ICBM love on the NK territoy.
All of these are just the beginning the end of man as we know it.
You forgot ground attack from South Korea; it worked in Iraq so it should work in NK too.
It's kinda funny to see how GWB reacts to that threat; he has been quite adamant when talking about WMDs and now it's time to either put up or shut up.
Are you guys ready to be drafted?
-
NK already had nukes. The estimates are between two and up to two dozen.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
NK already had nukes. The estimates are between two and up to two dozen.
And? IIRC also Iraq had WMDs ?
-
I say we wait until they are starving and Kim launches a nuclear attack on the US.
Then we can just glass over all of NK and the world and our Euro buddies will sadly sake their collective heads and say "it had to be done".
And if we lose LA or SFO.... well, double bonus round I guess. Too bad the wind blows West to East though.
:p
-
Originally posted by Staga
And? IIRC also Iraq had WMDs ?
you are correct, they did have WMD.
1.5 tons of VX nerve gas has never been accounted for.....even the mighty Hans Blix couldn't find it.
-
What are our choices with N Korea?
Himmm.....? Lets start by putting LSD in their water supply and then project a life size Hologram of Godzilla coming out of the Ocean while singing "These boots are made for walking......"
That just for 'starters...'
-
So is GWB full of it or man of action? Is he going to live up his words?
How many of US citizens are willing to go to a war against NK ?
I think there's many in this board who are willing to join the army and help cleanse NK from their WMDs?
Nuke are you too old already? Yeager?
-
Better let NK bleed to death coz their communistic system will fall apart in the end.
Anyway war would suit the NK leader well as its sets away the focus on their real internal problems.
Having patience is the most tactical thing u could do right now.
-
NK will realise that nuclear weapons are not going to be effective in extorting money from rich nations and they will switch to a different tactic. As it is now this tactic is only succeeding in alienating them from the entire world. NK leadership and people are not insane, they don't want to die.
One great thing about nuclear weapons is that leaders realise if they go to war it's their own life in mortal danger.
-
Right on, Suave.
-
>>NK leadership and people are not insane,<<
Well maybe, maybe not...
"South Korean sources claim that Kim Jong-Il was born on February 16, 1941, and that subsequently his "official" birth year was adjusted so as to be in harmony in terms of decades with that of his father, Kim Il-sung."
"Before his accession to power, Kim Jong-il was frequently accused of dishonesty, drunkenness, sexual excess of various kinds and even *insanity* [emphasis mine], particularly in the South Korean press. While this is not an uncommon pattern of behavior in the sons of dictators (see Vasily Stalin, Nicu Ceausescu, Tommy Suharto and Uday and Qusay Hussein), at least some of these accusations seem to have been fabricated by the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA) of South Korea.
Some of these stories, however, come from defectors from the DPRK whose accounts have some credibility."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong_Il
-
Originally posted by Otto
What are our choices with N Korea?
Himmm.....? Lets start by putting LSD in their water supply and then project a life size Hologram of Godzilla coming out of the Ocean while singing "These boots are made for walking......"
That just for 'starters...'
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Personally i think we are screwed. If we wait too long they could sneak nukes in US and then its too late, if we go to war with them, im about 90% sure that they would launch missiles at us with nukes. I am definetly going to be following this story closely over the next year because i plan on going into the Air Force and how we deal with NK will affect what happened to me when i join the USAF. Ill either be sent to SK, Japan or in Europe.
-
Originally posted by Reschke
Well the choices are simple. Option A: Special ops activity targeting high value military and civilian targets including government leaders.
I say that all the time. Terrorism is way to go.
-
Originally posted by Staga
So is GWB full of it or man of action? Is he going to live up his words?
How many of US citizens are willing to go to a war against NK ?
I think there's many in this board who are willing to join the army and help cleanse NK from their WMDs?
Nuke are you too old already? Yeager?
When did Bush ever say that the US was going to attack every nation who had WMD?
You obviously do not follow his policies very well.
You do realise the the Iraq war was caused because Saddam invaded Kuwait, then did not honor his cease-fire commitments. The course of "action" as you say, took 13 years before ending in the last option, war.
The UN even gave Saddam "one, final last chance" and Iraq didn't take it.
-
Originally posted by Staga
So is GWB full of it or man of action? Is he going to live up his words?
How many of US citizens are willing to go to a war against NK ?
I think there's many in this board who are willing to join the army and help cleanse NK from their WMDs?
Nuke are you too old already? Yeager?
What difference should it make to you? Not like your gonna do anything anyway. Your just gonna sit there and play lil BBS arm chair General/Antagonist/Fortune Teller. I doubt you OR your country will lift a hand to do squat about anything anyway.
What's Finlands position on this General? You have any IDEAS or just big tough talk about how and what the BAD OLE U.S. needs to do.
Got any REAL constuctive things to say? Or , is it just more of your thinly veiled Nose snubbing.
Why don't you just sit back , relax , have another beer , and not worry about the U.S. and what we do. He!! our coat tails are getting crowded now. Not much room for you guys anyway.
And take Lada with you. Yall have a nice drink and talk about how the U.S. is so screwed up.
-
How about we open diplomatic relations and free trade instead?
Long term, that will be better for all. Remember, dictators live x amount of years. After he dies, it will be easier for that country to move towards a democratic type of govt once they realize that the USA isn't evil.
Remember, we feared China and the USSR far more than we do of NK, Iran, etc.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
What difference should it make to you? Not like your gonna do anything anyway. Your just gonna sit there and play lil BBS arm chair General/Antagonist/Fortune Teller. I doubt you OR your country will lift a hand to do squat about anything anyway.
What's Finlands position on this General? You have any IDEAS or just big tough talk about how and what the BAD OLE U.S. needs to do.
Got any REAL constuctive things to say? Or , is it just more of your thinly veiled Nose snubbing.
Why don't you just sit back , relax , have another beer , and not worry about the U.S. and what we do. He!! our coat tails are getting crowded now. Not much room for you guys anyway.
And take Lada with you. Yall have a nice drink and talk about how the U.S. is so screwed up.
I know we have been allies since.... forewer, but..
Why should the US be allowed to have nukes along with 4 others countires, and the rest can't? Are these 4 nations moraly superior or more stable than the rest?
Does any nation have a right to own nuke while the rest does not?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I know we have been allies since.... forewer, but..
Why should the US be allowed to have nukes along with 4 others countires, and the rest can't? Are these 4 nations moraly superior or more stable than the rest?
Does any nation have a right to own nuke while the rest does not?
Well now that is an interesting question. The countries that have them now , for reasons that have been documented , IMO have them more as a ditterant than anything. And , These countries , were at a time more powerful than others. By that I mean were more ambitious I guess.
Honestly , If noone had Nukes it wouldn't tick me off at all. If a war was started between 2 countries , then its just a good ole fashion brawl til someone wins. Now , as bad as it sounds , a country makes a few bad decisions when in a war , and they start losing , they can always fall back to what they have stored up. If you catch my meaning. NOT that they would , but if what they were trying to do really meant life and death to that country , then if they had nukes and felt that they were going to lose , what would keep them from using it?
Imagine if say...Australia was the ONLY nuke country in the world. We'd be having a Roo as our national pet.:lol Its just a power thing. Thats all I can see it as. Nothing more.
I guess to honestly answer the last part...No...No one country should have what others dont in respect to nukes.
But , A Crazy Dictator doesnt need em either.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
But , A Crazy Dictator doesnt need em either.
Very true, but whom is to decide witch dictator or leader is crazy? Some would say that Bush is crazy and others will say that the chinese or french leaders are crazy.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Very true, but whom is to decide witch dictator or leader is crazy? Some would say that Bush is crazy and others will say that the chinese or french leaders are crazy.
Would say? I imagine they do already. I guess the world view of someone like Kim Jong is what you measure things by. His history of the way he does things and views things leads one to think he may be just a few bricks short of a load.
I really don't have a good answer to that. I guess a case by case thing?
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Would say? I imagine they do already. I guess the world view of someone like Kim Jong is what you measure things by. His history of the way he does things and views things leads one to think he may be just a few bricks short of a load.
I really don't have a good answer to that. I guess a case by case thing?
Yes, but he hasnt started any wars has he? Other world leaders posessing nukes has.
i agree tho...case by case it is. There is no final answers so therefore i think that nobody should have them period.
-
I meant they are prolly calling Bush crazy:) (I personally think he is a fine president.)
In regards to noone having them , yeah that would be a good thing I think. It's not like that , but its nice to think about it.
My position , not that ya asked , is that there is a time for talk and there is a time for no more talk and let the butt whipping begin. Knowing when that time is , is the kicker.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
I meant they are prolly calling Bush crazy:) (I personally think he is a fine president.)
In regards to noone having them , yeah that would be a good thing I think. It's not like that , but its nice to think about it.
My position , not that ya asked , is that there is a time for talk and there is a time for no more talk and let the butt whipping begin. Knowing when that time is , is the kicker.
Its all calculated guesswork isnt it? Bush guessed that Saddam would be a threat and that he had WMDs. Whats the truth? We will never really know. If the US had waited then maybe nothing or something bad would have happend but as i said, its only educated (or not) guesswork.
My personal view is that one should always wait until something happens. To take a funny scenario, I would rather wait and defend norway if sweden attacked than to launch a preemptive strike based on intel that said that they would. Reason is simple. The defendant usually wins.. maybe not the battle at hand but what follows in the eyes of the general public and the history books.
Name one real agressor in modern times that has won in the long run.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Its all calculated guesswork isnt it? Bush guessed that Saddam would be a threat and that he had WMDs. Whats the truth? We will never really know. If the US had waited then maybe nothing or something bad would have happend but as i said, its only educated (or not) guesswork.
My personal view is that one should always wait until something happens. To take a funny scenario, I would rather wait and defend norway if sweden attacked than to launch a preemptive strike based on intel that said that they would. Reason is simple. The defendant usually wins.. maybe not the battle at hand but what follows in the eyes of the general public and the history books.
Name one real agressor in modern times that has won in the long run.
All good points there.
Well...I'll pass on the naming thing if thats ok. I will say..the jury is still out on the latest agression and who wins.:)
-
Yeah, the jury is still out.
I hope the coalition wins because of so many things, but because of alot of issues i also think they wont (and perhaps should not). If they do it will prolly mean that agression is seen as "a good way to go" and that is a rather scary thought you must agree, but if they "loose" then it will mean that so many good men have died for a lost cause and also that one can't actvily change a bad regime (and saddam was BAD).
There are too many "ifs" and whatnots to truly win me over on this one, but as a general rule i think that its better to be on the defese than on the offence when real peoples lives are on the line. The loss of my mother a few weeks ago war horrific and to think that this happens on a daily basis in some corners of the world is just to hard to really sink in.
Every day on either side of any conflict whatever the cause someone looses their loved once.
-
I hope the coalition wins because of so many things, but because of alot of issues i also think they wont (and perhaps should not). If they do it will prolly mean that agression is seen as "a good way to go" and that is a rather scary thought you must agree, but if they "loose" then it will mean that so many good men have died for a lost cause and also that one can't actvily change a bad regime (and saddam was BAD).
Well..You have a point. In black and white the U.S. was the agreesor. Many will say that SH had a way out , or he could have complied and a 100 other reasons ,all GREAT ONES. But the fact is , WE DID INVADE. So in a black and white world that makes us the agressor I think. BUT , the agression was for a reason. See what I mean? Double edged sword. And I was and still am all for the action in Iraq. My judgemnet may be clouded but I dont think there are to many other countries that could be an agressor. At least to the point that the U.S. and a very few other countries could. I hope the coalition wins. I think they will.
There are too many "ifs" and whatnots to truly win me over on this one, but as a general rule i think that its better to be on the defese than on the offence when real peoples lives are on the line. The loss of my mother a few weeks ago war horrific and to think that this happens on a daily basis in some corners of the world is just to hard to really sink in.
A good Offense is a great defense. I'm facing that same road you just traveled. Sorry for your loss :(
Every day on either side of any conflict whatever the cause someone looses their loved once.
-
a good offence is a good defence when it comes to winning the battle at hand, but it does not have to be in the long run.
Anyways. You seem to be a very inteligent man and i look forward to perhaps debating this further at another time even if I think we may be on the same page so to speak.
Its 01:46 here and its time for me to join the missus in bed for what i hope will be some good offencive and defencive moves were we both end up as winners :D
Good night and enjoy the rest of the evning.
-
Good Night and Good Luck:D
-
What are our choices with N Korea?
Bring all our Troops home as a sign of friendship toward the peace loving people of North Korea.
Send postcards to China, Japan, South Korea and.... aaaah.... Finland, wishing them the best of luck in handling this situation and suggest they might want to have the United Nations send a 'stern warning' to North Korea.
Get that damn Missile Defense system in Alaska operational ASAP.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Do we allow them to accumulate nukes? Do we bend over backwards to bribe them not to develope nukes? Or do we attack them and make sure they dont have nukes?
Hawk,
Will you please first attack Russia, Britain, France,
China, Israel, (South Africa ?), Pakistan, and India. Or, maybe, you are afraid to do that ? :confused:
-
Do they have TVs and cell phones in NK. In that satellite photo, looks like they didnt even have any electricity let alone a clue.
-
They probably dont even have computers, ring ring goto use dial tone in north korea. LOL!
:lol
-
I bet they aint got microwave popcorn in Nkorea do they?
-
No, I think the choices with N Korea right now are Kim Chi, Kimchi, KimChi, kimchi or they may still have KIMCHI on the menu.
-
NK regulates it's electricity. The mandatory 'voice of the nation' radio reports the power cuts as 'Americans stealing the electricity.'
It's about as totalitarian and brainwashed as any country can ever be. If you take a drive through thier capital and all the huge monuments you'll notice one interesting detail. Nobody's out on the streets.
How do you deal with millions of absolutely brainwashed people who hate anything western, especially America? They are literally like robots. The school system is based on conditioning, certain behaviour patterns and ideas are sunk in the children from the birth.
It's a totally surreal world. A world that should never have been created. Much like any communist one.
-
Originally posted by genozaur
Hawk,
Will you please first attack Russia, Britain, France,
China, Israel, (South Africa ?), Pakistan, and India. Or, maybe, you are afraid to do that ? :confused:
If you are wondering why we do not allow other countries to posess nukes without attacking them also, the answer is, I dont know. Now that Bush made his 'axis of evil' speech, and now that we are in Iraq and soon to be in Iran, N korea can only assume that we are going there next. Thus, they are obviously pouring everything they have into defending thier country against the US the best way they can, WMD's. They are not going to comply with any resolution telling them that they cannot defend themselves, just as the US wouldnt, or any other country. So, since we have traveled this far down the pre-war path, our choices do not seem to be 'live and let live' with NK, hence the question at the top of this thread. What are our choices from this point on? It seems ugly, any direction, except a diplomatic solution, which would then prove NK right in its efforts to develope nukes to force a peaceful solution. So far in history, nuclear weapons have served to prevent world wars. If they ever fail us, well, i cant imagine what comes next. Survival of the fittest, I spose.
-
""Will you please first attack Russia, Britain, France""
the US and russia are both reducing the number of nuks they have according to a treaty with mutual inspections.
russia and britain,france, india, etc pose no threat to world peace at this time.
the big threat from NK nuks (if they have any) is that they will give/sell them to other countries or terrorsts. the threat is not that Nk will use them.
-
my dog suggested that we eat them.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the big threat from NK nuks (if they have any) is that they will give/sell them to other countries or terrorsts. the threat is not that Nk will use them.
Yeah, that and they're still at war with UN security forces.
-
Originally posted by john9001
""Will you please first attack Russia, Britain, France""
the US and russia are both reducing the number of nuks they have according to a treaty with mutual inspections.
russia and britain,france, india, etc pose no threat to world peace at this time.
the big threat from NK nuks (if they have any) is that they will give/sell them to other countries or terrorsts. the threat is not that Nk will use them.
If indeed that is a credible threat, why give NK the ultimatum? Stop producing Nukes or face a cruise missle attack to disable the manufacturing facility? Any attack on NK will result in a Korean war, so what the hell is the difference? I just dont understand why Iraq was at the top of the list. Now we are unable to deal with NK properly until we finish up the Iraq war and whatever we are going to do with Iran
-
WhiteHawk, did you learn nothing from the iraq war, first we must prove to the world NK has nuks, then we have to get UN approvial for any action.
-
ya john, but in the NK case, we might actually be right about it.
:)
-
Isn't the difference quite obvious - Saddam denied the existence they even manifest it on tv.
-
IF allies successfuly vanquish NK...
would SK's standand of living go down lower than indonesia if ROK absorbs DPRK?
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
NK regulates it's electricity. The mandatory 'voice of the nation' radio reports the power cuts as 'Americans stealing the electricity.'
It's about as totalitarian and brainwashed as any country can ever be. If you take a drive through thier capital and all the huge monuments you'll notice one interesting detail. Nobody's out on the streets.
How do you deal with millions of absolutely brainwashed people who hate anything western, especially America? They are literally like robots. The school system is based on conditioning, certain behaviour patterns and ideas are sunk in the children from the birth.
It's a totally surreal world. A world that should never have been created. Much like any communist one.
wow have you been there or you have any friends overthere ?
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
If indeed that is a credible threat, why give NK the ultimatum? Stop producing Nukes or face a cruise missle attack to disable the manufacturing facility? Any attack on NK will result in a Korean war, so what the hell is the difference? I just dont understand why Iraq was at the top of the list. Now we are unable to deal with NK properly until we finish up the Iraq war and whatever we are going to do with Iran
ahhh you still live with propaganda.
Iran is finished bussines. Mrs. said, that US is thinking about economical sanctions agains Iran and not attacking.
Wait wait.. what about Syria.. you didnt hear bushs latest speach ?
Whaaaaaaaaaaaat ?? you wanna attack only facility ? Eeeeeeeehh ?
Where is your religios duty to spread freedom ?...
whats has happen ?
is there diferent propaganda in US agains NK that were against Iq, Sy and In ?
-
Originally posted by lada
you still live with propaganda. (unintelligible babble)
I didn't get it if you had a thought there or not, but it seems that you believe a military response is the only weapon available.
-
wow have you been there or you have any friends overthere ?
Nope since it's a totally closed society with no personal freedom whatsoever. Would be kinda hard.
However they did let a tv-crew travel there and even tape some footage. School performances, public places and even some private home.
Even though the crew was under strict supervision at all times they still managed to tape some secret footage also.
I've also seen a few low-grade videotapes that were smuggled from NK. They show street children eating bugs from the ground.
A true example of a society.
-
Bomb them with food? Then Leave em alone to sort out their own mess!
Keep rattling the sabre at em and they'll rattle theirs back!
-
Originally posted by Toad
I say we wait until they are starving and Kim launches a nuclear attack on the US.
Then we can just glass over all of NK and the world and our Euro buddies will sadly sake their collective heads and say "it had to be done".
And if we lose LA or SFO.... well, double bonus round I guess. Too bad the wind blows West to East though.
Toad,
This one is a real pearl ! I've almost laught my ace off.
:D :aok
-
genozaur, why do you choose to live in America? Why not just stay in the great country you came from?
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>NK leadership and people are not insane,<<
Well maybe, maybe not...
"South Korean sources claim that Kim Jong-Il was born on February 16, 1941, and that subsequently his "official" birth year was adjusted so as to be in harmony in terms of decades with that of his father, Kim Il-sung."
"Before his accession to power, Kim Jong-il was frequently accused of dishonesty, drunkenness, sexual excess of various kinds and even *insanity* [emphasis mine], particularly in the South Korean press. While this is not an uncommon pattern of behavior in the sons of dictators (see Vasily Stalin, Nicu Ceausescu, Tommy Suharto and Uday and Qusay Hussein), at least some of these accusations seem to have been fabricated by the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA) of South Korea.
Some of these stories, however, come from defectors from the DPRK whose accounts have some credibility."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong_Il
Re: Vasily Stalin. This son of Stalin was an able Air Force general who was publicly accusing Soviet leaders of killing Stalin (which is not a far-fetched idea because Stalin was not given immediate medical help when he suffered a stroke). So Khrushchev orchestrated sentencing of Vasily Stalin to 10-year imprisonment. After spending, as far as I remember, 7 years in jail Vasily Stalin was released, his health condition not well. Khrushchev had a private talk with him, but Vasily did not seem to show much change in his views, even though he was now keeping them to himself. Vasily was sent out from Moscow into exile to a minor city where he lived under the constant KGB surveilance. And this is where he was reported as turning to the bottle, and in a couple of years died allegedly from complications connected to "alcoholism".
The official version may be just not true. It can be that the main cause of his death was slow poisoning.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
genozaur, why do you choose to live in America? Why not just stay in the great country you came from?
I did not choose, I was forced to.
And the great country I came from is the All-greatest Don Cossack Host which has not been given the autonomous status yet by the Russian government.
But don't worry, I won't stay here for long.
The Chinese are coming ! :D