themarin8r wrote:I sometimes wonder if GAM has time to eat sleep shower or @!#$ if he in fact does go to work , since he can search the interweb for every damn thing known to man to make responses like he does
No, I have a dedicated team of superb researchers and ANALysts that provide me with top drawer info 24/7.
Seriously, I've said it before, learn to research, Google, Lexis Nexus, Wikipedia... They're your friends and mine
Well, that and I have a reading habit that makes the public library my second stop on the way after picking up my GF from work.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Adam Asmus (the Burned One) wrote:Canada has libraries?
Weird...
You've heard of them? Good for you.. You are a rare one..
PAX
That should say Canada has
LIBERALS not libraries ! The 2 words are co close they get mixed up sometimes. And we all know Canada is full of liberals.
Disclaimer:: Chill out this is only a joke!
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
China = back stabbers
They asked the president if the united states can handle going after Iraq, Iran, and North Korea at the same time but he did not answer the question.
He said that was a ____________ type of question and he was not going to answer it.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Corp.Punishment: (is that in the same division as Gen. Chaos, Maj. Woody, and Pvt. Parts? Just wondering... )
General Choas was an awesome game(Sega Genesis) - yes that is the answer to this whole thing - N. Koreans NEED videogames!!
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
"It should make people nervous when nontransparent regimes, that have announced that they've got nuclear warheads, fire missiles," Bush said. "This is not the way you conduct business in the world. This is not the way that peaceful nations conduct their affairs."
So what does that make the United States?
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
Robby002 wrote:China = back stabbers
They asked the president if the united states can handle going after Iraq, Iran, and North Korea at the same time but he did not answer the question.
He said that was a ____________ type of question and he was not going to answer it.
Rhetorical?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Rodimus Prime wrote:"It should make people nervous when nontransparent regimes, that have announced that they've got nuclear warheads, fire missiles," Bush said. "This is not the way you conduct business in the world. This is not the way that peaceful nations conduct their affairs."
So what does that make the United States?
Able to back up what they say
Considering the US is the only nation on earth to use a nuclear weapon in petulance, not once but 2x on an enemy?
I think that it makes Bush at the very least a poor acquaintance of history. I think it's also pretty hypocritical, need I point out that Iraq wasn't carried out under UN mandate?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
No...you don't.
I just feel that beating the whole "No WMD" horse has long passed any entertaining value.
Granted we did use nuclear wepons, but I will argue the fact that it was nessary to end WWII. I know many don't agree with that, but thats my opinion and I will hold fast on that one.
Yes he (that is Bush) isn't exactly the brightest bulb on the tree, but no one has to worry about someone flying off the handle and pushing the big red button to destroy everything. We have to many channels to go through in order to even think about doing something that drastic, and thats only if the same may have been done to us.
In NK's case, Jong is the "supreme leader" and is capable of poping one off (if it would even take off) without having to justifiy his actions. That is what makes him the threat, not the fact that he can, but that he might if he had the power too.
Now like I've said before, he's crazy, but he's not stupid. Its merely a way to be "respected" in the world. To not be looked at as a 3rd world nation anymore. Its all about respect.
Adam:
If the primary reason for invading a soverign country is found to be faulty if not non-existant, you had better believe that someone is going to be all over that like a cheap suit for as long as it takes for someone to own up, publicly say "Yes, we really screwed the pooch on that one, we were about as wrong as humanly possible. We only invaded because we're trying to secure our own oil needs. " That admission would be enough to end that part.
WWII would have taken at most 60 more days, from the day the first atomic weapon was dumped on Hiroshima. The Japanese were being starved of oil from all directions, and weren't going to be able to mount any kind of offensive measure. Dropping a nuclear bomb was a gross act power on the part of Truman.
I understand that Bush couldn't pop off a nuke if he wanted to for no reason... I think you need to know that neither can Kim Jong Il. He's not "Supreme Leader," he's Prime Minister (for all intents and porpoises) But, he CAN be unseated or over-ruled by the politburo, and if nothing else: China can still crush his regime tomorrow.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I didn't read anything in this thread yet. But the subject line is hilarious. "Nuke North Korea", yes good idea... let's nuke every country that threatens us.
We have more known nuclear weapons than any other country in the world - we have used them on another country, no other country has. We are trying to encourage countries to disarm nuclear facilities and give up hopes of nuclear weaponry. So to set the best example, we should indeed nuke what countries we can that pose a threat. Is that anything like telling your disobediant child to stop smoking pot while you're shooting up in the same room? Just because we have nuclear weapons, does not mean that: a.) we have to use them, and b.) we want to use them. The only case they have been plausable so far was with our dellima in Japan. But that's a whole other discussion. North Korea has always talked a lot of @!#$. They have not backed it up very much - look at their latest missile testings. Yes, they fired them against the requests of a dozen countries - and they failed miserably. The more stunts like this they pull, the more they isolate themselves. While China is an "alliance" of theirs (NKs), they cannot just watch North Korea do this. Many large and important countries to China, have problems with North Korea. This puts a lot of pressure on a country like China considering they are one of the only countries that tolerates North Korea. If the United Stats, Greater Britian, France, Russia, Japan, Germany, etc. etc. etc. have a problem with something... guess what? It's China's problem. Because with out all these major countries, China wouldn't necessarily be where they are this day. So, now that we've established how many countries are not in agreeance with North Korea. Why should anyone nuke them? They are basically going to implode on themselves if they keep walking in the same direction. It's just a matter of time.
If they do indeed get their missile working, the furthest distance I've heard it able to hit is Alaska. Now, that obviously is no way, shape, or form a fact. But if that is the case... they are very, very... stupid. So you blow up some ice and a few bears, now you just started a war that you are not going to win - good job.
North Korea is ballsy, but in my opinion, they are just a lot of talk. They want to be recognized for something other than being the "whiny bastards of the world." They want attention, they want to be noticed... well they got that, and if they keep poking the giant - the giant is going to wake up and crush them.
If you don't agree, I could really care less
Not many people are going to agree with one another on an issue as this. Just like people don't agree with each other on the nuclear attack on Japan.
