Skip to comments.
Draft UN Resolution: No Military Option in NK
Posted on 10/12/2006 7:12:47 PM PDT by Lunatic Fringe
UNITED NATIONS (AP) New U.S. draft Security Council resolution would authorize only non-military measures against North Korea over its claimed nuclear test.
TOPICS: Front Page News
KEYWORDS: flaccidity; impotence; northkorea; un
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
To: Lunatic Fringe
Typical for the US. No Balls.
2
posted on
10/12/2006 7:14:06 PM PDT
by
Hambone02
To: Lunatic Fringe
Do you know approximately how many artillery tubes are aimed at Seoul and how many shells an hour can be lobbed into the city in case of an air attack on NK nuclear sites?
3
posted on
10/12/2006 7:16:45 PM PDT
by
bnelson44
(Proud parent of a tanker! (Charlie Mike, son))
To: Hambone02
Surprise, surprise, surprise!
To: Lunatic Fringe
I'm disgusted with the abject failure of the American government.
Besides the WoT, it has not accomplished one thing of significance in the past 15 years. And no, it will not help if Republicans pick up seats (thankfully, they won't).
To: Lunatic Fringe
I guess we should just authorize NK to go ahead and nuke as quick and get it overwith! *sigh*
6
posted on
10/12/2006 7:21:19 PM PDT
by
pollywog
(Psalm 44:5 "Put your HOPE in God, for I will yet praise Him, my Savior and my God.")
To: pollywog
I guess we should just authorize NK to go ahead and nuke as quick and get it overwith! *sigh* Hey POLLY, let's make sense eh!!!! Should have read " I guess we should just authorize NK to go ahead and nuke us as quick as possible and get it overwith!!!
7
posted on
10/12/2006 7:23:25 PM PDT
by
pollywog
(Psalm 44:5 "Put your HOPE in God, for I will yet praise Him, my Savior and my God.")
To: bnelson44
Yes. I served at Kunsan for a year. What is the point of having our military there, as I was, if we arent willing to use them? Quite a big waste of money if you ask me. Do you know how many F-16's we have at Kunsan, F-15's in Japan (at multiple sites), A-10's at Osan, 15's, 16's in Alaska? that are ready to deal with NK at a moments notice. All of PACAF is on alert right now. I could go on with B-2's that would be there in a day and a half, B-1's within hours, and Buffs from Guam and Diego Garcia. Not to mention the 37,000 American Troops (actually more like 30,000 now), the million and a half ROK troops on the DMZ right now. How many missiles, artillery rds do you think we could lob on Pyong Yang?
8
posted on
10/12/2006 7:27:26 PM PDT
by
Hambone02
To: TeenagedConservative
To: TeenagedConservative; Lunatic Fringe
Abject failure of the American government. You said it in a nutshell. And LF, America has no balls? We used to. If you say America has no balls, it's our government you're talking about, including Mr. Bush. But the government is supposed to be a reflection of the people. Is it?
Maybe liberalism has de-balled America. Politics is rotten. I feel like becoming an ostrich because everywhere I turn, the world at large is getting uglier and uglier.
And I'm one of the lucky ones. An American, a conservative, I have a good job, etc., and I still get sick of living with and hearing of all the evil things pervading our world. I guess I need to talk to God more. Do either of you have his cell number?
To: bnelson44
I didn't answer you question. In November of 1998 when I was there, the number of shells was 35-40 Thousand every 24-48hrs...According to our briefings. Almost unbelievable, but inevitably it will have to be faced.
To: Blowtorch
Yes, let me rephrase that: The American Govt has no balls.
To: Blowtorch
And LF, America has no balls? We used to. I didn't make that comment.
13
posted on
10/12/2006 7:35:16 PM PDT
by
Lunatic Fringe
(Say "NO" to the Trans-Texas Corridor)
To: Lunatic Fringe
IT WAS MEEEEEEEE. I rephrased. Don't shoot.
To: Hambone02
15
posted on
10/12/2006 7:36:34 PM PDT
by
bnelson44
(Proud parent of a tanker! (Charlie Mike, son))
To: Lunatic Fringe
Bush already ruled out the military option, its not really a big surprise.
NK will still go nuts when this resolution passes though.
To: Lunatic Fringe
Hopefully I'm wrong but I have a feeling in a few years we will be reading:
New U.S. draft Security Council resolution would authorize only non-military measures against IRAN over its claimed nuclear test.
Not doing anything now with North Korea is going to send a clear signal to Iran that they can proceed at will with any nuclear development they want.
17
posted on
10/12/2006 7:38:57 PM PDT
by
rwh
To: Hambone02
US troops seem to be a deterrent force. But with as many tubes as they have aimed as Seoul, and the potential army call up they have (5-10% of their population), and the Chinese alliance, it does not seem to be an offensive force.
18
posted on
10/12/2006 7:39:41 PM PDT
by
bnelson44
(Proud parent of a tanker! (Charlie Mike, son))
To: All
Bush already ruled out the military option, its not really a big surprise. If Bush can bluff the North Koreans into attacking the South first, you better believe there'll be a military response and with UN approval to boot.
19
posted on
10/12/2006 7:45:07 PM PDT
by
Doofer
To: Hambone02
but inevitably it will have to be faced. I would bet that will be with in a year. It seems to me that the nut knows that instead of a country he has a billion member military force that he is itching to use and is just looking for an excuse.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
