Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on January 13, 2003, 09:57:17 AM
-
Fool me twice... er
won't get fooled again! - George W. Bush
Aid for N. Korea (http://www.msnbc.com/news/850567.asp?0dm=C12NN)
:D
Yep, this is all Clinton's fault...... Muahahahahahahahahahah
-
Troll!
;)
-
Call me stupid, but I don't see the problem.
*IF* NK drops the nuke program, why not help them?
*IF* they don't (the far more likely scenario) we can at least say we tried.
C'mon Libs, you can't have it both ways... either you want Bush to talk nice to NK, or you don't.
-
North K was threatening war and he gets talked to and gets aid.
Iraq tries to comply :rolleyes: and is figured on being invaded anyway.
Just cant understand politics :eek:
-
What's the Peter Sellers movie... "The Mouse that Roared"?
The most sure fired way to boost a nation's economy is to go to war with the U.S. and then surrender.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
The most sure fired way to boost a nation's economy is to go to war with the U.S. and then surrender.
Yeah, just look at Iraq.
-
In a nutshell, as long as we pay them, they'll be nice.
Hmmm.
Sounds like my 4-year-old nephew has been hired by North Korea!
-
NK has just been paying attention. Petulant whining works. Thus the "Jackson, Sharpton, Daschle, Pelosi, Waters School of Extortion and Geopolitical Strategy" tactics...................... ......
Cabby
-
Originally posted by Ping
North K was threatening war and he gets talked to and gets aid.
Iraq tries to comply :rolleyes: and is figured on being invaded anyway.
Just cant understand politics :eek:
You don't really believe Iraq is trying to comply, do you?
-
You don't really believe Iraq is trying to comply, do you?
Well, let me see Kieran...
Iraq lets inspecters into country and gives them unbridled access over the entire country, including presidential palaces. Despite no evidence surfacing at this present moment in time, US begins to amass 150,000 strong army on Iraq's border, Britain makes arangements to send 30,000 troops and sends 16 warships including two carriers in the mean time.
North Korea kicks inspectors out and threatens war. West quickly offers food in return for disarmanent.
Yup, no inconsistency there.
-
I thot you were dead.
Originally posted by midnight Target
-
Not exactly accurate there... the inspectors have stated the reports are incomplete, as in, Iraq has not provided all the information. This suggests duplicity. I dunno about you, but I have been around for the last 12 years. I don't trust Saddam.
NK and Iraq are not equivalent situations, despite trying to paint them as such.
-
If North Korea wants to have a war against us then they'll just have to have something we want- like oil, damnit.
We are America- the biggest and the baddest. And being America we won't fight wars for mouldy rice or skinny water buffalos- no sir, we only fight for higher stakes.
If North Korea wants a war they'll have to come up with something we want- say, a better tasting beer- otherwise let them have a war against a country like France or New Zealand.
-
Park Israel right next to NK and I would worry.
-
Originally posted by Kanth
I thot you were dead.
:eek:
WHAT!?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Well, let me see Kieran...
Iraq lets inspecters into country and gives them unbridled access over the entire country, including presidential palaces. Despite no evidence surfacing at this present moment in time, US begins to amass 150,000 strong army on Iraq's border, Britain makes arangements to send 30,000 troops and sends 16 warships including two carriers in the mean time.
North Korea kicks inspectors out and threatens war. West quickly offers food in return for disarmanent.
Yup, no inconsistency there.
A few inspectors are supposed to search how many thousands of square miles of desert in a few months? Of course Iraq has at least chemical weapons hidden somewhere.
No denying the whole thing is about oil. That's why we went to the defense of Kuwait to begin with. But when you get down to it the US really doesn't depend on Middle Eastern oil nearly so much as Europe and Japan. Because of this I will argue that it is for our allies benefit more than for oil prices in the US.
-
APPEASEMENT
Guess that "axis of evil" thing didn't work out so well, now did it?
-
You could have fooled me....where is it?
Oh.....there it is, it's called appeasment.
If N.K. had some oil wells we would go after them thar evil doers....but without oil that thar leg of the "Axis of Evil" just ain't evil enough to bother.
Meanwhile in Iraq Der Fuhrer Chimpler orders in more troops.
It only took one day from my pointing it out to see the emperor has no clothes.
"Speaking in Seoul, James Kelly suggested the Bush administration wanted to de-escalate the showdown, which critics say has muddled U.S. foreign policy as the Pentagon is building up forces in the Persian Gulf region for a possible war on Iraq."
-
Sounds an awful lot like the Evil Clinton to me. Let the mental gymnastic begin.
Charon
-
our forign policy is getting scary.
-
Maybe we should pull out the 37000 American troops along the DMZ and relocate them to our own borders....just let the world deal with these regimes since Europe and others abroad seem to think we are so bad of a people and nation.
When something does go wrong and threaten the US, we'll just nuke em and go about our business....maybe that's preferable to trying to thwart, pre-empt or contain current threats....let our enemies strike first, then kill all of them, women, children, livestock and property. The policy would be simple and clear to understand by everyone....when we catch terrorists, let's just cut them up into little pieces and mail them to hamas or wherever we feel they come from. Kind of a leave us alone and you'll be fine foreign policy?
Bush should just quit and let Edwards or Gephardt deal with the war on terror and the rest. It's too hard to do something because it's right...expediency feels much better.
What do you guys think?
-
That's easy, Charon... Bush will require proof.
-
If nuclear preemptive strikes could be done in a way so the people are vaporized instantly then it might be the most humane solution.
-
"deal with the war on terror"
Chimpy said: Sept. 13, 2001
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden.
It is our #1 priority and we will not rest until we find him"
But on March 13, 2002 Chimpy said:
"I don't know where he is.
I have no idea and I really don't care.
It's not that important.
It's not our priority."
The reason why he doesn't care is because bin laden has served his only purpose in Chimpys eyes, he gave us an excuse to go into Afghanistan, and now he's using the Osama straw-man to go into Iraq
The bottom line is greed...and that's an ugly diddlying reason to get a lot of our boys killed.
The emperor has no clothes Rude.
-
HAHAHAHAH and just a few days ago some people were complaining about Clintons 'Agreed Framework' - why he made such a deal.
Now it looks like Bush is gonna do the same :D.
-
Thank you Dowding, Glad someone caught my point.
To top it all off The Inspectors want more evidence and time from the States...But the Bush Regime doesn't want to give it.
Yep. Consistant.
-
Jury's out on that, Santa. Depends how it's handled... you know, it might be a gesture he knows NK will never accept. Even then, what Bush requires by way of compliance is sure to be different from Clinton's.
Besides all that... I think you guys missed the point on the other thread. There you were, blaming the NK non-compliance on Bush- then it was proven Bush had nothing to do with it. You were all happy with the Clinton plan then. Now, Bush is offering a similar twig, and it's a bad idea. Clinton did not properly monitor the situation. Bush may.
-
Ping- why can't the world take care of it's own problems, and why does the "Bush Regime" have to deal with 'em all?
N. Korea violated the UN's agreement... but they'd rather sit around with thumbs up their bellybutton and let us deal with this problem while pretending to be the good guy in Iraq.
Spare me the consistency line... both countries have been threatened, neither country has been invaded.
-SW
-
AKS : Read my lips...I am tired of The US policy of trying their damndest to police The Worlds actions to suit their own agenda. Do you understand now?
They go after Iraq for several reasons while having commited them themselves. They allow their allies to commit these terrible crimes against humanity but pick on others that dont play along with their Idea of world order.
I am Pointing out the Hypocrisy of the US Governments actions..and that is all.
IF the US decides to look out for poor little pissant countries than stop all the Dual standards and hypocritical actions.
-
They go after Iraq for several reasons while having commited them themselves.
Oh wait... we used chemical/bio agents against our own people? We invaded neighboring countries with the intent of genocide?
We look out for our allies... not lil pissant countries.
-SW
-
AKS:
The US is Guilty of using WMD, State sponsered Terrorism.
Its allies, Saudi Arabia, terrorist heaven. India and Pakistan both have there terrorist groups and are threatening Nuclear response against each other. I WON'T get into Israels Sins, too touchy of an issue.
Turkey in the 20th century slaughtered 1.6 million armenians in an act of Genocide .
Because these are allies there sins are overlooked. Are you such a patriot that you are blinded by the fact that your country is not the Knight in shining armour that you thought it was?
Iraq was about Oil..It still is. Nothing more..nothing less. Its not about protecting its allies(whom tend to stray to the scummier side of life)
I am amazed that There are those that get the impression that I want the US to police and take care of all the rogue states. Far from it. I am pointing out the Hypocrisy of the Governments Words and Deeds. Lives are at stake in this issue and the world is so small right now that you cant just let injustice go by without at least taking notice.
To top it all off The US expected Canada to join in on the war, So yes this does involve us as Canadians. This war that the Bush Regime wants is purely for Their own self interest.
-
The US is guilty of using a WMD? Overlooking the fact it ended what could of been in excess of millions of more lives lost (Japanese, American, and possibly even British)...
That's a far stretch to compare the use of 2 nukes to end one of the greatest wars this world has seen, to use of WMDs against your own people.
And the US is guilty of sponsoring terrorism? How?
Are you such a patriot that you are blinded by the fact that your country is not the Knight in shining armour that you thought it was?
Are you completely delusional?
-SW
-
GW is a Who fan.
:D
"...the same as the ol' boss..."
-
AKS..Have you not heard of the Contras???
Where have you been? South america had camps setup all over the place run by the CIA. My Gawd man..do some research.
The CIA directed the contras to switch to economic and civilian targets. The international courts even ruled it as terrorism.
Reagan, Bush Sr. the list goes on as to who was involved in these terrorist groups.
World War 1 the US also used Chemical weapons and Nerve Gas.
They stockpiled it for use in WW2.
Read the History books.
-
Oh yes..A former director of the CIA also admitted it funded and trained terrorist groups.
Sadly I'm not disllusional, AKS just research these facts and see it for yourself. The US is Guilty of these things....dont be a Boroda and deny everything just because it goes unfavourably against your country.
-
The Contras was a government scandal, it was perpetrated by officials long since removed from office... while other areas of the globe have been using terrorist tactics openly for years and continue to support it. We have had our black points in history... but we have righted them... it was a scandal as opposed to something supported by the entire American government.
Every country used gas in WWI... what exactly does this go to prove?
Used it in WWII too, against an enemy during a time of war against aggressor nations.
Back then there weren't guidelines as to what could and could not be used in war. Now there are, people continue to violate them, and they must be dealt with- simple as that.
-SW
-
But AKS. Alot of the people involved in funding and training the Contras are in Key points of the current administration.
Lets put that aside for the moment and say OK.
Is it then Ok to allow your allies to commit these same crimes while waging war against another Nation for perpetrating these crimes?
These Double Standards are hurting the USA's credibility and feeding Muslim Nations anger. It is a vicious circle.
Also, dont forget, there are still training camps setup and being used to train insurgents for other countries.
It was also not just the Contras but several other groups as well.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Jury's out on that, Santa. Depends how it's handled... you know, it might be a gesture he knows NK will never accept. Even then, what Bush requires by way of compliance is sure to be different from Clinton's.
Besides all that... I think you guys missed the point on the other thread. There you were, blaming the NK non-compliance on Bush- then it was proven Bush had nothing to do with it. You were all happy with the Clinton plan then. Now, Bush is offering a similar twig, and it's a bad idea. Clinton did not properly monitor the situation. Bush may.
Because of the very point you are making Kieran I'm afraid you're wasting your time. I hope to never be so blinded by my agenda that I ignore the truth.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
That's a far stretch to compare the use of 2 nukes to end one of the greatest wars this world has seen, to use of WMDs against your own people.
The US also used nuclear weapons against it's own citizens on several occasions.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
The US also used nuclear weapons against it's own citizens on several occasions.
:rolleyes:
-
Smacks Thrawn upside the head....Testing the effects of nuclear weapons on willing subjects dont count. :D
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Besides all that... I think you guys missed the point on the other thread. There you were, blaming the NK non-compliance on Bush- then it was proven Bush had nothing to do with it.
I just saw your last post in response to mine, and I have to say that was not my point at all. I was simply saying that, in relation to the original topic of the thread, Bush's rhetoric was irresponsible and reckless, and is now coming back to bite him in the bellybutton while he's trying to resolve this crisis.
You were all happy with the Clinton plan then. Now, Bush is offering a similar twig, and it's a bad idea. Clinton did not properly monitor the situation. Bush may.
First off, Bush has been in office for two years, and was apparently briefed with information from the outgoing Clinton administration but choose to sit on it - his monitoring of the situation is already a matter of record. Secondly, the critics of Clintonian appeasement are now put in a strange position, now that their boy Bush is heading the same direction. Saying it's all Clinton's fault while spouting apologetics for Bush appeasement looks pretty rediculous.
-
Funked, have you heard of Bimini? African American Sailors were given protective goggles and then ordered to face the blast so we could judge the effects of exposure to radiation.
We've also tested biological agents against our citizens but in very small doses. In the 1950s we released airborne chemicals off the coast of San Francisco and monitored hospital admissions for flu like symptoms.
-
Just to clear the air on why some of us Canadians take such an interest in this.
Canada was asked to join in the war against Iraq..not that they have the ability to do so.. So this issue does affect us as well.
Wouldn't it make sense to question everthing involved as well as motives and the whole purpose of the exercise?
I am also not so naive as to beleive that We dont have our cells operating up here. I KNOW that there are groups using Wellfare Fraud to help Finance Warlords in other countries. We have used WMD in the 1st and stockpiled them for use in the 2nd. And most importantly....Our Government F$%##@$ Sucks.
I just refuse to blindly accept what Government tells us and prefer to get the facts as to what is really going on.
-
Originally posted by Ping
Is it then Ok to allow your allies to commit these same crimes while waging war against another Nation for perpetrating these crimes?
No, but do you want to find out what happens when we declare these nations that were our allies, our enemy?
Denoting certain, more friendly to the US, nations as allies of the US in that region gives it a degree of stability. The friendlier nations are easier to work with and attempt to remove terrorist groups, and allows us a bit of room to work in that region.
Otherwise, it'd be a matter of hours before the region completely destabilized and turned into one helluva war... probably ended by a couple mushroom clouds, set off by various nations in that region.
One nation in that region has been openly hostile towards the US and it's personnel in that area, and that nation is known as Iraq... and that's why we're dealing with them first, removing Saddam from power in Iraq is the first step to creating a safer Middle East.
But you're only looking at the little picture... it's far bigger than the points you are arguing.
-SW
-
Au Contraire: We are talking Life and death, and using lies and threats (You are either with us, or against us) to dominate and install The Bush Administrations ideas of what it wants in the region.
Aks, you claim I'm looking at the smaller picture. I think I'm looking at a vastly greater one. The US Government wants its sphere of influence to hold sway in that region and the reason is Oil. Without Oil, Western Civilization would become a mere shadow. Its what Our Economy runs on.
Hence all the lies, deceit and sad aliances with dictators and general meanies.
Its a shame that honour and truth have to be the first victims.
-
Do you have any proof to any of that, or simply making assumptions based on other lies and deceit you have read?
-SW
-
AKS: Its time I just leave this conversation. You are capable of doing the research. You will find the truth that you will want to find on your own.
I have given you nothing but facts. Its up to you to research and come to your own conclusions. I just ask that you honestly do the research and base your convictions upon facts.
Nothing more to add.
-
I have given you nothing but facts.
These are not facts, but instead mere assumptions based on looking at what's in the region that could possibly be the only reason we'd want to get rid of Saddam:
"The US Government wants its sphere of influence to hold sway in that region and the reason is Oil. Without Oil, Western Civilization would become a mere shadow. Its what Our Economy runs on.
Hence all the lies, deceit and sad aliances with dictators and general meanies.
Its a shame that honour and truth have to be the first victims."
I would type out an entirely seperate reason, but since you have decided to back out because you couldn't back up the above quoted paragraph, then I would only be wasting my time.
-SW
-
Republican's Syndrome: A neurological disorder characterized by compulsive outbursts of mind-boggling hypocrisy.
:p
-
Originally posted by weazel
It only took one day from my pointing it out to see the emperor has no clothes.
NK has at least a few nukes and the have hundreds of thousands
of conventional missles. Japan and SK would suffer near or total
devastation along with an estimated 100,000+ Americans
within the first few hours of a war with NK. Compared to an almost 0% body count for warring with Iraq.
No comparison....
-
So why do we need to go to war with Iraq?
Total cooperation with the inspectors, unrestricted access.
The aren't in anyone elses territory, nor lobbing missiles at Israel.
0 body count great. Guess that means on both sides right?
The UN inspectors are asking for alot more time to do the job. Guess we can all sit back and enjoy the peace....
Oh yes they support terrorism. Now lets see...what Nationality were the majority of those Hijackers?????? (hint...think ally)
-
We don't need to go to war with Iraq.. we NEED to get Saddam out of power, if the only way is by force, then I'm afraid that's how it's going to happen.
There is no denying the guy is a fukin nut job, and he has been toying with the UN since 1993. He's had plenty of time to hide, or temporarily move, any UN classified WMDs.
He's giving the UN unrestricted access, terrific... at this point it don't really matter much, 3 or 4 years ago it may have actually led to finding what he didn't want the UN to see only a year ago.
Regardless of the nationality of the hijackers, where were they trained and who do you think supported them?
There have been plenty of examples of people of one nationality fighting a cause for an entirely seperate continent, so the "what nationality were they" card holds about as much water as a bucket with a hole in the bottom.
-SW
-
Lets see. They trained in Afghanastan. Supported by Osama Bin Ladin.
Do I win?
The US wiped out the Taliban....and a coupla canadians....but mostly Taliban and Lotsa "Freedom fighters"
So Job done..lets all go home.
-
You must be one of those "only read what I want to read" type people.
-SW
-
I posted yeterday that chimpy would take no action other than to sweeten the deal WJC made in order to make the N.K. crisis go away.
Looks like I was right, chimpys not concerned with anyone having weapons of mass destruction...
-
Originally posted by Ping
Smacks Thrawn upside the head....Testing the effects of nuclear weapons on willing subjects dont count. :D
"The Clinton administration's first halting step toward taking responsibility for past government misdeeds occurred on Pearl Harbor Day 1993, when DoE Secretary Hazel O'Leary confirmed that the AEC, her agency's predecessor, had sponsored experiments in which hundreds of Americans were exposed to radioactive material, often without their consent.
That O'Leary had decided to break with her agency's long tradition of secrecy and deception was something of a surprise. After all, she came to the job after a career in the nuclear power industry. But, confronted by a media firestorm over the government's Cold War nuclear experiments, O'Leary was left with few options.
Her decision to confirm some government abuses and reveal others was precipitated by a series of reports by journalist Eileen Welsome in the Albuquerque Tribune last November and the nearly simultaneous release of a Government Accounting Office (GAO) report on radiation releases. *3 Following a six-year investigation, Welsome uncovered details of five experiments in which plutonium was injected into 18 people without their informed consent. "
More here:
http://www.netti.fi/~makako/mind/radiatio.htm
-
AKS..Im only repeating what GB told all of us :D
However have you looked into your own history as to who has trained in the great US of A?
Of what Benefit is it to the US, to get rid of Saddam Hussien?
Explain that please?
And you will note that its pakistan and SA that seems to be the hole that AL Q has crawled into.
-
Thrawn :D Informed consent means they weren't given the WHOLE picture :). They still knew something was up :)
-
Originally posted by weazel
The bottom line is greed...and that's an ugly diddlying reason to get a lot of our boys killed.
S! weazel.
Not to mention the innocent civillian casualties.
War should be left as an absolute last resort.
-
Wulfe, surely you can see the connections? Big oil - oil fields in Iraq. Iraq not like US - puppet regime will.
It's not like Iraq suddenly did *much* more than they have in the last 10 years. It's not like the announce that they weren't gonna follow the nuclear nonproliferation plan. They didn't suggest they'd unleash 'a sea of fire' in the US - nor did they suggest that they already had or could build at least two nuclear devices. Yet Bush plays hardball - and that's because its in American interests to control Iraqi oil fields. In NK there are some water buffalos and a little rice. Had NK had oil like Iraq, Kim Yong would have been taken care of long ago. That diddlyer is even worse than Saddam - starving millions of his own people. He's responsible for more deaths than Saddam. So I'd say take them both out.
Yeah, he's a megalomaniac murderer. He didn't kill his own people with gas though; you'll notice that Iraq is divided into tribal groups. 'Own people' means your own tribe - no one else. So when he gassed some Iraqis, he wasn't gassing his own - at least not in his mind. Of course it was an evil act.
Having said that, I think he's an utter bastard who should be forcibly removed from power. OTOH, I refuse to be blind to the economic ties between the administration and the private economic sector (oil). And that's all I want proponents of the war to admit - that the primary motive (or at the very least secondary) is $$$. And incidentally Cheney and others stand to make a buck on it.
-
Santa if we just wanted Iraqi oil why not just buy it from saddam hussein? He is the one desperatly pushing for an end to the oil trade embargo, not the USA.... And could not be a significant price advantage either way, it is a worldwide highy structured market for oil prices. And I think we all know what Hussein would want the money for - going by his past behavior.
All of your little Bush oil conspiracy theories fail to resolve that little detail, dont they?
-
Ive said it before Grun: Do the research. Do research on American Foreign Policy. Or try American Oil Policy.
Try searching history Iran, history Iraq.
No matter what we say you will only beleive what you want. So do research at a Library, Go to your National Archives.
Stop arguing from an uninformed and Rabid Nationalistic stance.
-
I can't get over how full of crap some of you are:)
-
Maybe we should pull out the 37000 American troops along the DMZ and relocate them to our own borders....just let the world deal with these regimes since Europe and others abroad seem to think we are so bad of a people and nation.
When something does go wrong and threaten the US, we'll just nuke em and go about our business....maybe that's preferable to trying to thwart, pre-empt or contain current threats....let our enemies strike first, then kill all of them, women, children, livestock and property. The policy would be simple and clear to understand by everyone....when we catch terrorists, let's just cut them up into little pieces and mail them to hamas or wherever we feel they come from. Kind of a leave us alone and you'll be fine foreign policy?
Bush should just quit and let Edwards or Gephardt deal with the war on terror and the rest. It's too hard to do something because it's right...expediency feels much better.
What do you guys think?
You were saying, Rude?
-
"The US Government has announced that it will release $95m to North Korea as part of an agreement to replace the Stalinist country's own nuclear programme, which the US suspected was being misused.
Under the 1994 Agreed Framework an international consortium is building two proliferation-proof nuclear reactors and providing fuel oil for North Korea while the reactors are being built.
In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1908571.stm?
Beautiful!
-
Originally posted by UserName
Troll!
;)
Hehe
-
How bout one of answer my question.... Guess not huh?
-
Originally posted by Ping
The aren't in anyone elses territory, nor lobbing missiles at Israel.
:rolleyes:
Yet.
We will go to war to protect our children and our childrens children. Should have been done 10 years ago. You think its all about oil, so be it. I need my 1.25 a gallon for my SUV.
Point is we are going to liberate Iraq.
If you like it or not does not matter.
And Happy Birthday to me, 45 today.
:cool:
-
Santa, you did notice that all of the N. Korea hoopla started shortly after demands for Iraq to allow UN inspectors in came through the wire?
You did notice the mention of NK's nukes and it's programme by NK didn't happen until after we demanded Iraq allow inspectors in?
NK hasn't become a big problem until after we demanded that the UN inspectors be allowed in... and that's why Iraq is being dealt with first.
But ignoring all that, I keep hearing people say "No war, we want peace"
You ain't gonna have peace until that crazy somasqueak is removed from power in Iraq... it'll just be an illusion.
The whole "this war is about oil" is just like anti-war activists calling American soldiers baby killers in Vietnam... it ain't true, but it makes a nice poster.
-SW