Slippery Slope
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 2,801
- Reaction score
- 330
- Location
- in a neocon's craw
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Yeah, we showed them that if you got nukes, you're safe from invasion.Well, in truth, there are NO options because of the way the Liberals all over the world and in the US have treated Bush and his administration for actually doing something about Afghanistan and Iraq.
It's so amusing to see neocons bending to the will of the terrorists... why do you care so much what some turd in a cave says?The writing on the wall as stated by Osama Bin Laden is this; the Western Nations have no stomach for war and will run away if they suffer even the most moderate of casualties.
BOO!!!The actions of the Liberal Democrats and Liberals all over the world will once more come back to haunt them.
No they wouldn't because they would have determined that the USA is full of idiots instead of just 51% of the population.Had the world stood behind Bush and his Administration and we as a nation had staunchly supported the efforts our politicians VOTED for; the actions of Iran, Syria and North Korea would be very different.
But alas, we have all but criminalized Bush for being a man of action and decision and clearly told the world that we will NEVER be able to send troops anywhere in the world nor will we torture their combatants for any information that could save lives; they will all get constitutional protections.
Yes you are indeed right Obvious; NOTHING will and CAN be done because the whiney wimpy spoiled brats of today’s world know NOTHING of history or what REAL sacrifice is and will willingly give up their freedoms and morals for peaceful submission to their enemies.
Hmmm...it's only a matter of time before the UN "strenuously" objects to North Korea's blatant ass waving and they feel bad about themselves. Perhaps we should just send in the Marines ahead of the "coalition" and hope that a nuclear blast won't wipe them all out in one push of a button. Well, that won't work.....perhaps there's an element in North Korea not yet hungry beyond civil acceptablilities (the mighty leftists of earth don't seem to care about them anyway) we can starve out still. Well, sanctions, as proven with Iran, don't seem to do much at all. Perhaps we should just suck it up and accept the fact that a nation with nukes can do what ever it wants, which means that if this nation has bad intentions or an antagonizing focus that it is free to slaughter its entire population and repeatedly scare every other nation in their region at will, while the powerful simply sit back and "condemn" them.
All the more reason to refuse Iran their toys.
All I can say is, keep an eye on this sort of thing. Intresting times may arrive soon.
Word to the wise.
G.
USA is stil technically in a state of War with North Korea.
SO like it or not yes North Korea is the USA's business
Be blunt the UN has the ground to start the war right up right now over this if it wanted to or had any nations willing to do anything.
//
This is all a BIG wake up call for Israel. You leave it to the "world" and Iran will not only get a nuke the UN will send a strongly worded letter to them. They won't even stand firm against a nation many of them are still at war with!
Most polls show Israelis evenly divided on attacking Iran...with the attack now segment being slightly ahead. I have zero confidence whatsoever in the dip some of you elected in the USA so Israel must set things in motion and defend us all.
Banging your mother, but we'll get back out in the streets soon enough. :2wave:Where are all our hollywood nut cases now? Seems to me a short while back loonies like Shawn Penn and Rosie Odonnell were screaming for the heads of Americans in the name of anti-nuke tests parading up and down the city streets singing folk songs looking stupid as always. Where are you sacks of dung now?
I'm not fan of the U.N., but let's be realistic. Who has the resources to confront North Korea or Iran right now in any way that has any actual chance of disarming them?
In 1953, there was only a cease-fire, no armstice or peace treaty.Technically at war with NK? Maybe you could, technically, tell us how this is so.
In 1953, there was only a cease-fire, no armstice or peace treaty.
Ah... so Korea wasn't a war. Gotcha.There also was never a declaration of war, so how could we technically be at war with NK?
In 1953, there was only a cease-fire, no armstice or peace treaty.
I'm afraid you are wrong. The USA is not technically at war unless congress declares it. You can use the word "war" all you want but when the rubber meets the road... you're simply wrong.Ah... so Korea wasn't a war. Gotcha.
:roll:
News:
There need not be a declaration of war from Congress for a state of war to exist.
God? Allah? Zoroaster? Buddha?
Let's remember that Bush was done talking to North Korea before the 6 party talks started. Slippery Slope is correct in that once you get a nuke, you're off limits to invasion. Bush didn't do squat because he couldn't do squat and now Bush II, I mean Obama is faced with the same circumstances.
Personally, I think we should be a bit more afraid of North Korea renting out its scientists to anyone who will pay for nuclear expertise.
There also was never a declaration of war, so how could we technically be at war with NK?
No... I'm simply right.I'm afraid you are wrong.
The USA is not technically at war unless congress declares it. You can use the word "war" all you want but when the rubber meets the road... you're simply wrong.
An acute case of Bush Derangement Syndrome, coupled with an terrible lack of knowledge and a complete lack of understading of logic?Why do people continue to suggest that one need "invade" North Korea or farcically intimate that Bush wanted to?
The definition of war so that those who continue to make the farcical claims that no war can exist without a formal congressional declaration can be better informed before making such inane remarks (please not the highlighted definitions):
Main Entry: war !wor
Pronunciation: \ ˈwȯr \
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
Date: 12th century
Results
1 a (1). a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) a period of such armed conflict (3) state of war b. the art or science of warfare c (1). obsolete weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a. a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b. a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end - a class war - a war against disease c. variance odds
The definition of war so that those who continue to make the farcical claims that no war can exist without a formal congressional declaration can be better informed before making such inane remarks (please not the highlighted definitions):
Main Entry: war !wor
Pronunciation: \ ˈwȯr \
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
Date: 12th century
Results
1 a (1). a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) a period of such armed conflict (3) state of war b. the art or science of warfare c (1). obsolete weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a. a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b. a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end - a class war - a war against disease c. variance odds
An acute case of Bush Derangement Syndrome, coupled with an terrible lack of knowledge and a complete lack of understading of logic?
Bush did X in Iraq, and so we must do X everywhere, regardless of circumstance.
:roll:
Sure.Seeing as the excuse to invade Iraq is that they were an "imminent threat", why couldn't that same excuse be used for other countries that are "imminent threats"?
Sure.
But, it does not ligically follow that because we invaded Iraq because of tha imminent threat that we MUST also invade NKorea because of its imminent threat.
I didnt say it wasnt OK to invade NK.What was Iraq that North Korea is not that made it OK to invade Iraq but not North Korea?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?