Posted on 03/05/2003 8:23:37 AM PST by Heartlander2
And getting smoked won't drag the South down?????
According to The Los Angeles Times, administration officials said in closed briefing
The Post quoted a well-informed US Senate source as saying.
So, all it takes is a bunch of conjecture and leftist make-believe neatly encapsulated from a site named iafrica.com and you guys get your shorts in a bunch.
Of course, it's not like you ever pass up an opportunity to disparage GWB, so why am I surprised? With friends like you guys, who needs enemies?
Not really, IMO. Fits perfectly with the ambitious greed of the SDI faction of the military-industrial complex. Before 9/11 the Bush Admin's foreign policy gave much time to getting various nations to accede to the US building a massive star wars plan. Officials spoke of moving money for troops, etc., into this boondoggle - no less than Star Wars was in the 1980's. Same players on the corporate side. They were 'faced with 9/11 and came up with a smaller, land based plan just for Alaska. Allowing NK to proceed will hasten the more ambitious plans, and despite the fact that proliferated weapons won't come to our shores by missiles from NK.
We're facilitating future losses of cities to benefit the SDI faction. Follow the money.
Plus the infiltration of Soviet-style peacenik ideas has disarmed the SK people, making them pliable dupes. They don't care about the rest of the world, and how many will die. They live in a fantasy, but I believe when we pull out they won't be invaded - they will be extorted for more and more money.
The fact they don't want a regime collapse shows they don't want peaceful reunification, and don't want to help the people of the north.
Well, you're sure wrong on that about me. I don't think Bush is into appeasement. Though if I were wrong about that, I'd sure think he would be wrong about it too.
To: Heartlander2
We simply cannot allow North Korea to have nuclear weapons. Proliferation, activation and use are the only two reasons we need. A war with North Korea might
not be pretty, but it'll be a whole lot neater than it would be in ten or twenty years. One or two nuclear strikes is better than twenty or fifty.
3 posted on 03/05/2003 8:33 AM PST by DoughtyOne
Waranted this:
To: Heartlander2; prairiebreeze; DoughtyOne; onedoug; stimpyone
Citing unnamed officials and analysts, The Washington Post said....
According to The Los Angeles Times, administration officials said in closed briefing
The Post quoted a well-informed US Senate source as saying.
So, all it takes is a bunch of conjecture and leftist make-believe neatly encapsulated from a site named iafrica.com and you guys get your shorts in a bunch.
Of course, it's not like you ever pass up an opportunity to disparage GWB, so why am I surprised? With friends like you guys, who needs enemies?
25 posted on 03/05/2003 11:14 AM PST by Cable225
1. I did not attribute any policy to Bush.
2. I made no detracting comments regarding Bush.
3. I made no detracting comments regarding a policy of Bush's.
4. I made my own policy statement regarding North Korea.
One comment you made was worth repeating. "With friends like you guys, who needs enemies?" I think you'd do Bush a favor if you'd wait to trash people on his behalf for something substantive.
Ah, where?
North Korea probably cannot be prevented from producing a bomb or maybe even two bombs.
The question is: Will North Korea be prevented from building a program capable of producing 200 bombs in the next decade with a missile delivery system capable of delivering them to the U.S.
We simply cannot allow North Korea to have nuclear weapons. Proliferation, activation and use are the only two reasons we need. A war with North Korea might
not be pretty, but it'll be a whole lot neater than it would be in ten or twenty years. One or two nuclear strikes is better than twenty or fifty.
3 posted on 03/05/2003 8:33 AM PST by DoughtyOne
To: DoughtyOne
US media reported on Wednesday
Ah, where?
32 posted on 03/05/2003 11:55 AM PST by Howlin
That's a reasonable question, however I'd like to point out that my comments did not reference the statement you quoted. They simply stated my views on what our reaction must be to North Korea going nuclear, and having the means to deliver WMDs to the United States.
Maybe, maybe not. You're the one that posted this -
"Appeasement begets new and bloodier wars." --Douglas McArthur
I didn't see any disclaimers with that one. How's it go? "we report, you decide".
We simply cannot allow North Korea to have nuclear weapons.
It may be your own policy statement, but you had no problem believing it was true. Not a verifiable statement in the whole article (unless you count the Biden quotes) and you're ready to accept it as gospel.
No disclaimers. If Bush doesn't agree, then I think he's wrong.
(...Though I think he does.)
1. I did not attribute any policy to Bush.
2. I made no detracting comments regarding Bush.
3. I made no detracting comments regarding a policy of Bush's.
4. I made my own policy statement regarding North Korea
We simply cannot allow North Korea to have nuclear weapons.
It may be your own policy statement, but you had no problem believing it was true. Not a verifiable statement in the whole article (unless you count the Biden
quotes) and you're ready to accept it as gospel.
36 posted on 03/05/2003 12:38 PM PST by Cable225
I expressed no opinion regarding this article, so these thoughts are nothing more than conjecture on your part.
When you get through dealing with your own misperceptions, you might want to come back and ask me what I think regarding this article and Bush's policy regarding North Korea. I didn't address that either.
LOL! Maybe this time there'd be a candidate that would actually challenge him!
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.