Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Furball on September 19, 2005, 01:53:58 AM
-
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13441578,00.html
-
So now they are no longer part of the axis of evil?
-
I wonder what we promised them behind closed doors.
North Korea has pledged to scrap all its nuclear programmes.
In a joint statement at talks in China, the Communist state and the US pledged to mutually respect each other's right to a peaceful co-existence.
North Korea promised to drop all nuclear weapons and current nuclear programmes.
Well this is good news indeed. Perhaps we can open diplomatic relations to further open our relationship.
-
Didn’t purple hearts Kerry wanted to stop six-party talks because they were ‘bad’?
-
LOL, while you're at it, how about Clinton and Carter?
It's really irrelevant, and truth betold, I haven't thought of Kerry for quite awhile now. Why is he such a boogey man to you? He lost, Bush won. Sheesh.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
I wonder what we promised them behind closed doors.
we gave kim venezuela.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Why is he such a boogey man to you?
Because he is tall, goofy looking and has a big chin. :aok
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
for quite awhile now. Why is he such a boogey man to you?.
´Remember that Roddy piper movie? Kerry is a spitting image of those aliens, except for his horse jaw
-
I await the summation from all those folks that said Bush was absolutely on the wrong track in his dealings with NK. The ones who said he would lead us to nuclear war with NK, that said we could never get a deal with NK the way he was doing it.
IIRC, they espoused a better method, the one France, Germany and the UK were using with Iran. How's that going, anyway?
-
and you believe NK this time why?
-
Originally posted by Furball
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13441578,00.html
I will believe it when I see it.
-
I will believe it when I see it.
Ditto.
Charon
-
More smoke and mirrors.
The Koreans are saying 'nice doggie' while they look for a rock.
-
You guys........
This agreement is absolutely as promising as the Carter/Clinton deal with Kim.
What a bunch of sceptics!
There will be peace in our time.
-
it's all booshs fault, impeach him
-
LOL
Sit back, relax and forget about the Exlax.
We certainly haven`t heard the last from N.K.
How many decisions and recants have we had so far? I lost count somewhere around 20 to 25.
They are playing us like a fine violin.
N.K. reminds me of Corky Romano in the movie in the scene where he had just gotten a face full of coke. Got a question? No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes...................:)
-
Iran gathers allies in nuclear row (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/09/19/iran.nuclear.reut/index.html)
VIENNA, Austria (Reuters) -- Iran has vowed to press ahead with its nuclear program as opposition hardens to an immediate referral of Tehran to the U.N. Security Council over suspicions it is seeking nuclear bombs.
Well, at least we know Bush's approach to the NK nuke problem doesn't work. The Euro approach to Iran's nukes looks like it's going pretty well. Bush should get with them for tips on how to handle NK.
-
I remember a few years ago Israel bombed a reactor, was that in Iraq or Iran?
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Iraq or Iran?
Whats the difference? :p
-
I bet if the Massad says that Iran is making nukes the problem will be taken care of without our help.
-
I blame BOOSH!
-
Rumor has it we gave Kim Senator Clinton...he was thrilled since he knows that she's been a virgin now for at least 25 years.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You guys........
This agreement is absolutely as promising as the Carter/Clinton deal with Kim.
What a bunch of sceptics!
There will be peace in our time.
Well... a statement of principles is not an agreement.
I'm not holding my breath just yet.
-
At least we didn't give into NK's demands for two light water nuclear reactors.
Bush has and has had the correct approach from the very begining. Bush didn't let NK run all over him/us and refused to be blackmailed or pushed around.
Now, weather the words of NK acually give way to verifiable actions remains to be seen. It does strike me as a major breakthrough, having NK seemingly crack and state publicly their willingness to scrap their entire nuke program.
-
Instead, US gave them a promise of non-aggression.
NK got what they wanted.
-
Kweassa, if that was all they wanted, I wonder why they tried to get Clinton to build them a nuclear reactor, then went ahead and started cheating on their agreements and started trying to produce nukes?.
NK wanted nuclear weapons IMO.
NK got a compromise as a result of Bush not allowing them to blackmail us. I think this is looking like a definate Bush vitory in the situation. All of the naysayers who said Bush was going about it all wrong are the one's who were wrong it seems.
Same deal with Libyas nuke programs, the remnents of which now reside on US soil. Tough talk backed up with actions are the only thing that gets through to dictators and fanatics.
Who knows if NK will actually follow through though. I'd say it looks good compaired to any point in the last 6 years.
-
Right now it would take his negotiating of galactic peace for me to ever respect anything with the name BUSH attached.
-
I'm not congragulating the president on 'mission accomplished' till the misson IS accomplished.
Now, any guesses on just which of his avowed missions he has in fact actually accomplished to date?
-
Bush positives for me:
Taking responsibilty for what he could in Katrina. Good starting point.
Israel withdrawing from Gaza, hoping the West Bank also.
Negotiating with NK instead of invading. Another good starting point.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Bush positives for me:
Negotiating with NK instead of invading. Another good starting point.
Well, we can't really afford another $200B mistake now can we? :)
-
EAGL
Can you drop in on the F-14 "last mission" thread and give us an opinion on F-14 v F-15 in a knifefite? Thanks!
[/hijack]
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Well, we can't really afford another $200B mistake now can we? :)
You might want to take that arguement up with the relatives of those who were fed to woodchippers under Saddams iron fist...:huh
-
"I remember a few years ago Israel bombed a reactor, was that in Iraq or Iran?"
It was Iraq, and they were roundly criticised for it, as I recall. Im sure behind the cameras they were all grinning like chesire cats though. Nobody in the west wants to see another mid east country with a reactor.
As for NK, they wanted aid, and they know how to play us, they were just doing what they do best. Screwing around.
-
Of course, the difference is that the US spend 14 years trying to get Iraq in compliance.
Bush has always said that NK would be approached diplomaticaly.
Also, I don't think Iraq was a mistake. It has already paid off in Libya and God knows how many other places, including NK it seems.
After Iraq is said and done, it will be seen as a major change for the good in the middle east, in my opinion. It's going to be a world changing event for the better.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You might want to take that arguement up with the relatives of those who were fed to woodchippers under Saddams iron fist...:huh
I would actually they take up resistance to Saddam and overthrown him themselves. If they ask for help then we should go in. That's when we'd actually see parades honoring our intervention.
-
I believe they tried to do just that after Gulf War I. The filtered word is, of course, Shi Ite.
The Ghosts of 1991 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10874-2003Apr11?language=printer)
The spontaneous *****e uprising of 1991 consumed the southern part of Iraq right up to the approaches to Baghdad. Rebels came to U.S. troops, who were then deployed in the Euphrates Valley, begging for U.S. intervention. The *****e political parties sent emissaries to the few Americans who would see them. To this day, I am haunted by the desperation in the appeals made to me by one group, as they realized time was running out for their countrymen.
Many of the problems we face now and in the future with *****es likely have to do with the way the first Bush administration responded to those appeals. On Feb. 15, 1991, President George H.W. Bush called on the Iraqi military and people to overthrow Saddam Hussein. On March 3, an Iraqi tank commander returning from Kuwait fired a shell through one of the portraits of Hussein in Basra's main square, igniting the southern uprising. A week later, Kurdish rebels ended Hussein's control over much of the north.
But although Bush had called for the rebellion, his administration was caught unprepared when it happened. The administration knew little about those in the Iraqi opposition because, as a matter of policy, it refused to talk to them. Policymakers tended to see Iraq's main ethnic groups in caricature: The *****es were feared as pro-Iranian and the Kurds as anti-Turkish. Indeed, the U.S. administration seemed to prefer the continuation of the Baath regime (albeit without Hussein) to the success of the rebellion. As one National Security Council official told me at the time: "Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime."
The practical expression of this policy came in the decisions made by the military on the ground. U.S. commanders spurned the rebels' plea for help. The United States allowed Iraq to send Republican Guard units into southern cities and to fly helicopter gunships. (This in spite of a ban on flights, articulated by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf with considerable swagger: "You fly, you die.") The consequences were devastating. Hussein's forces leveled the historical centers of the *****e towns, bombarded sacred *****e shrines and executed thousands on the spot. By some estimates, 100,000 people died in reprisal killings between March and September. Many of these atrocities were committed in proximity to American troops, who were under orders not to intervene.
-
Yeah that was a sad chapter. I believe we actually were helping the resistance in the beginning as Bush had promised.
It was back channel protests of the Saudi Arabia and Jordan govts that convinced us to stop our support.
Saudi being Sunni didn't want to see the *****es taking power as they knew payback would be coming to the Sunnis. They definitely didn't want to see another Iranian style theocratic government come to power.
Those mass grave images we see contain those brave rebels tried and killed for "treason".
They had 70% control of Iraq, and we bailed on them. Damn.
-
1991 Gulf War should have ended with Husseins regime toppled. I remember the reasons given for not going to Baghdad. #1 was loss of support amongst the Arab Allies (which were not needed), and #2 was the taking of Baghdad was supposed to be some "big deal" militarily (which it turned out not to be).
Then we ended up with having to mess around with Saddam crushing the revolt that never was, UN sanctions, no fly zones and food for oil and all that nonsense that did not work, and that dragged on for more than a decade. Fast forward to 2003, and invasion #2 goes in to finish the job. Baghdad falls like a house of cards, and Saddam goes down a hole with a pistol...
I think Bush Sr. was badly advised. Too much "this wont look good on CNN" over what needed to be finished. The blame can be shared by the leaders of the 1991 Coalition as well though, all of them, who didnt have the stones to see it through. If it was going to be "too ugly for TV" (highway of death ect), then they should have never invaded.
The 1991 War had broad international support, there was a clear mandate to do it (western oil, a threat to Saudi Arabia, and the invasion of Kuwait), and the opportunity was squandered. Instead it took 12 years to finish the job properly, dressed up in an unpopular "hunt for WMD", and link to terrorism. Valid reasons, but not as strong as the original mandate was by any stretch.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You might want to take that arguement up with the relatives of those who were fed to woodchippers under Saddams iron fist...:huh
I'm sure they love it. It's not their ****ing taxes paying for it.
1991 Gulf War should have ended with Husseins regime toppled. I remember the reasons given for not going to Baghdad. #1 was loss of support amongst the Arab Allies (which were not needed), and #2 was the taking of Baghdad was supposed to be some "big deal" militarily (which it turned out not to be).
Even Bush 41 knew that the occupation wouldn't be easy.
-
Dejavu. :)
---------------------------------------------------------
North Korea Demands Nuke Reactor From U.S.
AP - 3 minutes ago
SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea demanded Tuesday that the United States give it a light water nuclear reactor before it rejoins the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and ends its weapons program. The North's Foreign Ministry made the demand a day after it agreed at six-nation talks in Beijing to give up its arms efforts, rejoin the treaty, and accept inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We will return to the NPT and sign the safeguards agreement with the IAEA and comply with it immediately upon the U.S. provision of LWRs, a basis of confidence-building to us," the ministry said in the statement, carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency.
-
In any event the She Ites and the Kurds DID try to do it themselves in '91.
Apparently we all would prefer they did it themselves..... and when they tried we didn't help them.
Good thing those @#$)*V @_ French gave us a hand when we needed it though. :)
Otherwise we'd all still be doing the "God Save The Queen" thing.
-
So, I suspect that since NK is willing to end research that they have a good grasp on bomb making technology, and have several nukes with delivery capability now.....
-
LOL Classic DPRK.
North Korea Demands Nuke reactor from US.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050920/ap_on_re_as/nkorea_reactor
-
Right on top of everything, huh? :)
-
Wow, that sure took long :) If the negations for the cease fire are any indication, North Korean astronauts will be landing on the moon in plutonium powered rockets about the time the "reactor for arms" talks end in 2050. The debate about the color the containment vessle will be painted will eat up a year or two alone.
Charon
-
LOL, boy that didn't last even 24 hours...
-
True enough but the 1991 Coalition army had the manpower to take the country and occupy it properly.
-
DETH TO BOOSH!
-
I think the REAL problem is "he so rone-ry".
-
"Yes...there he is...Mr. Chamberlain is just exiting the train...he seems to have a piece of paper in his hand..."
-
Plane... it was a PLANE.
No chunnel back then. ;)
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Bush positives for me:
Taking responsibilty for what he could in Katrina. Good starting point.
Israel withdrawing from Gaza, hoping the West Bank also.
Negotiating with NK instead of invading. Another good starting point.
No disrespect to Mr. Tillman, was he killed by friendly fire?
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
No disrespect to Mr. Tillman, was he killed by friendly fire?
Yes he was.
To make matters worse, the Army tried to cover it up.
.....but you knew that right?
-
North Korea is about as consistent as a person suffering from alzheimer's.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169986,00.html
-SW