Skip to comments.
N. Korean threat activates shield U.S. cites a launch as 'provocative'
Drudgereport.com ^
| June 19,2006
| Drudge Report / Bill Gertz
Posted on 06/19/2006 8:47:38 PM PDT by edpc
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-185 next last
To: garbageseeker
The act of war has already happened. If they launch a nuke that goes towards the USA (or Japan) it is an act of war (even to liberals) - and we cannot afford to believe that this is just a test of a three stage ICBM nuke missile. ...They'll send it to Iran and Pakistan once they perfect it you know. Blow the missile on the launching pad - and they get no test with there three stage ICBM missile. ...They'll have to start from scratch. 3 year delay at least.
141
posted on
06/20/2006 2:29:23 AM PDT
by
Pro-Bush
(A nation without borders is not a nation." President Reagan)
To: bnelson44
We are already at war with North Korea.
We have been at war with North Korea since June, 1950. The war ended with an armistice, which is a temporary suspension of hostilities by agreement between the opponents.
So, you are technically correct.
142
posted on
06/20/2006 2:29:26 AM PDT
by
Beckwith
(The liberal media has picked sides and they've sided with the Jihadists.)
To: John Valentine
The South Koreans have modified Nike-Hercules systems that can hit North Korea they have had for a while. The United States for decades has had tactical nuclear weapons.
To have these things in the U.S. arsenal is justified in the Korean peninsula. Because you are dealing with the North Korean army that has one million men and has six million in reserves that is determined to run you off the continent.
143
posted on
06/20/2006 2:31:25 AM PDT
by
garbageseeker
(Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room - Dr. Strangelove)
To: Pro-Bush
No it has not. We need to wait and see. Then we can take the appropriate actions. Those actions will be left to the Pentagon, the Secretary of Defense and the President of the United States. He alone will give the final decision.
144
posted on
06/20/2006 2:33:38 AM PDT
by
garbageseeker
(Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room - Dr. Strangelove)
To: All
I am beginning to think NK must go before Iran. It should have been taken on before Iraq even. I'll tell you why, if KJI was taken out and the command structure dismantled, it would mean that NK would come under S.Korean administration, something that most N.Korean people are not just not averse to, but are looking forward to. This will be the easiest post-war situation management exercise for the Americans.
Iran will be a lot more difficult given its location, close to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Although its predominantly Sunni, Ahmedinejad will rush to Syria, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda for some kind of help. Post-war NK will be much easier than Iran and Iraq.
145
posted on
06/20/2006 2:34:04 AM PDT
by
MimirsWell
(SCO: Slimy Commies and Organ harvesters)
To: garbageseeker
Great logic, lets wait for Tokyo or Hawaii to get nuked first.
146
posted on
06/20/2006 2:39:34 AM PDT
by
Pro-Bush
(A nation without borders is not a nation." President Reagan)
To: Pro-Bush
Wait and see. Then make a determination. In the nuclear age you cannot afford mistakes. It can be very costly.
147
posted on
06/20/2006 2:41:54 AM PDT
by
garbageseeker
(Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room - Dr. Strangelove)
To: garbageseeker
Don't you know, offense is the new defense. ...lol
I stand to respectfully disagree with you on this issue.
148
posted on
06/20/2006 2:46:03 AM PDT
by
Pro-Bush
(A nation without borders is not a nation." President Reagan)
To: Pro-Bush
If you make even the slightest error the consequences are staggering. Proceed with caution.
149
posted on
06/20/2006 2:46:17 AM PDT
by
garbageseeker
(Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room - Dr. Strangelove)
To: garbageseeker
Like you said, it comes down to W et. al.
150
posted on
06/20/2006 2:48:44 AM PDT
by
Pro-Bush
(A nation without borders is not a nation." President Reagan)
To: Pro-Bush
That we agree. The order will be ultimately be given by the President of the United States with the consultation of the Joints Chief of Staff and the Secretary of State.
151
posted on
06/20/2006 2:51:00 AM PDT
by
garbageseeker
(Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room - Dr. Strangelove)
To: LibWhacker
Colonel Hunt said on Fox today that if we shoot it down, it means war. I might interpert that to mean that the United States would only shoot it down if it threatened U.S. territory. Otherwise it's an "intelligence event".
152
posted on
06/20/2006 2:52:50 AM PDT
by
Lonesome in Massachussets
(NYT Headline: 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake But Accurate, Experts Say.')
To: All
Glad I read this thread. I count on you folks for insight on this I just won't get elsewhere. Someone imagine "Juan Williams" trying to explain this on TV. Thanks again...
153
posted on
06/20/2006 2:57:21 AM PDT
by
Caipirabob
(Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
To: LibWhacker
We are still at war with N. Korea. We are only in a state of cease fire.
154
posted on
06/20/2006 2:58:56 AM PDT
by
roaddog727
(eludium PU36 explosive space modulator)
To: garbageseeker
Tactical missile systems can be seen as incremental improvements on existing systems. Nukes would have been a violation.
I agree that the terms of the armistice are and have been largely a dead letter for dacades, and that's why I couched my comment in the vernaccular, as in "Oh, and Dude, you know, keeping a, er, amphibious rodent as a pet, within the city, well, that ain't exactly legal either."
To: Prophet in the wilderness
I recall reading that China is one of the countries observing our current naval exercises in the Pacific. Meaning from an approved vantage point.
I can think of many objections and only one rational for such a thing.
Russia and others were also said to be observing.
156
posted on
06/20/2006 4:42:05 AM PDT
by
prairiebreeze
(“Double or triple our troubles and we would still be better off than any people on earth.”---Reagan)
To: TexasPatriot8
If the Chinese decide to jump in, well. That's a whole different can of ugly.Indeed. Thanks for your comments on this thread.
157
posted on
06/20/2006 4:51:37 AM PDT
by
prairiebreeze
(“Double or triple our troubles and we would still be better off than any people on earth.”---Reagan)
To: LibWhacker
I saw Hunt's comments and I think he is right.
158
posted on
06/20/2006 4:54:21 AM PDT
by
hawkaw
To: prairiebreeze
Ultimately this whole thing is about US-Chinese relations. The Chinese will let NK provoke us and the Japanese to a point, but if he really steps over the line, they will reel him in quickly, even to the put of putting arsenic in his dog meat if they have to. Not to say he won't launch a missile, he may very well do so, and the posters who say this missile launch is really about the Chinese testing our capabilities and resolve are dead on. We have given the Chinese a front row seat for the show, knowing full well that our capabilities are up to the test.
The last thing the Chinese want is a resurgent Japan and a reenergized US mucking about in what they consider their sphere of influence. The Japanese are already taking steps to rearm, and our show of strength here is designed to remind the Chinese that we are still the preeminent Pacific power for the foreseeable future.
Dubya is playing chess with the Chinese, not NK, and both us and the Chinese are well aware of the fact. Little Kimmie, unbeknownst to him, is merely the sideshow. If a missile goes off and it threatens us or our allies we will shoot it down. Right in front of the Chinese.
I love it when the adults are in charge of foreign policy!
To: LadyNavyVet
We have given the Chinese a front row seat for the show, knowing full well that our capabilities are up to the test. Exactly the one rationale I was thinking of, a display of power. I'm sure we keep the stuff that needs to be kept secret out of the view of prying eyes and ears.
I'm ambivalent about Japan re-arming. I see pros and cons.
My dad, who was in the Pacific in WWII would still say a big "NO WAY" to that idea even today. He didn't trust the Japanese to his dying day.
160
posted on
06/20/2006 6:00:36 AM PDT
by
prairiebreeze
(“Double or triple our troubles and we would still be better off than any people on earth.”---Reagan)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-185 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