Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Bush unloaded on Kim Jong-il the other day. Now this. Suddenly the pace of events are picking up.
1 posted on 05/01/2005 12:22:04 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last
To: TigerLikesRooster; AmericanInTokyo; OahuBreeze; yonif; risk; Steel Wolf; nuconvert; MizSterious; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 05/01/2005 12:23:11 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Weakness of the allies started WWII and later encouraged the Soviets and then the Maoists. And weakness invited North Korea to attack the south. Peace can only be held through overwhelming deterrence.


3 posted on 05/01/2005 12:25:49 PM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Kim better practice ducking. And put the final touches on his shelter(s).

Of course what he really needs to practice, is shutting up, but that doesn't appear to be an option with him.


4 posted on 05/01/2005 12:26:15 PM PDT by SusaninOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster

This is a shot across somone's bow.


6 posted on 05/01/2005 12:28:20 PM PDT by Flint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Ya know...planning possible attacks on Iran and North Korea only proves their point in getting nuclear weapons...we might attack them! So they better get in on the M.A.D. plan before its too late. Anyway there is a very good alternative which takes time but would instill permanent change inside the nation...free-market capitalism! The societies in China and Saudi Arabia are slowly liberalizing as we do trade with them. Why not do trade with the Irans, Cubas, and North Koreas of the world? It may seem like we are caving in to dictators, but in order to stay competitive in a capitalist nation, you have to spread ideas and concepts in order to fill niches and continue to be successful or start to be successful. Is it any coincidence that the nations with the freest markets have the freest lives?

And also, wouldn't it be best if that was our policy and we left the manpower to defend the homeland?


7 posted on 05/01/2005 12:31:01 PM PDT by leftwingrightwingbrokenwing (vitriolic libertarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Hey kim Dumb Ill, you better star learning to Duck and Cover (as if that will really work)!


8 posted on 05/01/2005 12:33:22 PM PDT by Paul_Denton (Get the UN out of the US and US out of the UN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster

"Nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles, removed from ships and submarines under the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiative, are secured in central areas where they remain available, if necessary for a crisis," the paper says.
---

Are you telling me we don't have any nukes on ships and subs? 1. I don't believe it. 2. If true, it represents a huge breach in our national security and I can't believe even the Rhino Bush SR would sign something like that.


9 posted on 05/01/2005 12:33:43 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/foundingoftheunitedstates.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster
Is this the tortured fantasy of some Japanese leftist?

I can understand reloading the equipment, but the US publicly committing to first use of nuclear weapons seems unlikely, especially without Congressional authorization. Such would create a furor that might force us into a position that hampers our options more than they are now. I can't imagine that the Pentagon would leak such a story either.

12 posted on 05/01/2005 12:40:30 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster

But allowing preemptive nuclear strikes against possible biological and chemical attacks effectively contradicts a "negative security assurance" policy declared by the U.S. administration of President Bill Clinton 10 years ago on the occasion of an international conference to review the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Dear Kyodo News,
You're not in Arkansass any more.


13 posted on 05/01/2005 12:42:01 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster

How on earth does this stuff get made public ..??

I suppose we still have a bunch of Clinton people in the Pentagon trying to screw things up by informing our enemies what we might be planning. After all, the dems believe we should level the playing field with our enemies by giving them our information - that way they wouldn't have any need to attack us. THESE PEOPLE ARE NUTS!!

Hmmmm?? ISN'T THAT TREASON OR SOMETHING ?? I MEAN WE USED TO CARE ABOUT THAT - BUT I GUESS WE DON'T ANYMORE.


14 posted on 05/01/2005 12:46:39 PM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster
a "negative security assurance" policy declared by the U.S. administration of President Bill Clinton 10 years ago

What is a "negative security assurance"?

[The further I read in the article, the less understandable it becomes.]

Ran this through Google translator:

Creating a treaty on negative security assurances to commit nuclear powers not to use nuclear weapons against countries without nuclear weapons remains one of the most contentious issues for the 35-year-old NPT regime.

Google returned this: "Beats me what it means."
17 posted on 05/01/2005 12:51:41 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster

It's always best to negotiate from a position of strength, and it doesn't take a rocket science to realize that our strength will be tested in these coming years. This is a good plan.


18 posted on 05/01/2005 12:54:18 PM PDT by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster

With Iran or NKorea now, assuming they did have the capability of getting a missile or two to the US, then what?

Say they take out LA or Atlanta. Surely, their leadership knows that within 10 minutes they would occupy a hold in the ground where their nation used to be.

Bin Laden at least thought he could hide safely in the depths of Afghanistan, a landlocked country filled with tunnels and underground facilities.

I just don't see NK or Iran doing more than blustering in their rhetoric -- unless their leader has decided on suicide by US Military.


20 posted on 05/01/2005 12:57:42 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: prairiebreeze; onyx; Texasforever; CyberAnt; BigSkyFreeper; Tamzee; mrs tiggywinkle; EllaMinnow; ...

FYI ping


24 posted on 05/01/2005 1:05:12 PM PDT by Mo1 (Hey GOP ---- Not one Dime till Republicans grow a Spine !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Still wanna play, Kim Jong?


28 posted on 05/01/2005 1:44:02 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (Proud infidel since 1970.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster
"Geographic combatant commanders may request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons for a variety of conditions,"

Kim Jong-il has a bad worse hair day.

AMF!

31 posted on 05/01/2005 1:54:57 PM PDT by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 meant never having to say I was sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster
Let Kim and the Mullahs chew on that for a bit.

They should also make it perfectly clear.....if a terrorist group nukes anywhere in the US, those two regimes (the last two spokes in the axis of evil) will be first to bear the brunt of a full retaliation.....

37 posted on 05/01/2005 2:14:50 PM PDT by b4its2late (Liberals are good examples of why some animals eat their young.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster
But allowing preemptive nuclear strikes against possible biological and chemical attacks effectively contradicts a "negative security assurance" policy declared by the U.S. administration of President Bill Clinton 10 years ago on the occasion of an international conference to review the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

That was then....this is now!

42 posted on 05/01/2005 2:44:24 PM PDT by BulletBobCo (Nuke 'em 'til they glow......then nuke 'em again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Would the United States have the will to respond with nuclear weapons to an attack on Japan or South Korea?


43 posted on 05/01/2005 2:53:32 PM PDT by sushiman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster
Bush unloaded on Kim Jong-il the other day.

During his social Security press conference. Odds are not a reporter in the room understood a word of what he said. His prime time comments were addressed directly to foreign leaders, praise for China and Russia, scorn for N Kor.

47 posted on 05/01/2005 3:34:50 PM PDT by RightWhale (These problems would not exist if we had had a moon base all along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson