Pentagon planning for strike on North Korean nuke facilities

....sigh...Once again, interpret the words as you want...

I said that the statement " How do you stop something peacefully when the other side has no respect for its own agreements." could easily be applied to us...which, given any number of recent developments ( Geneva Convention, United Nations agreement, Tokyo, etc.) is patently true...and of course you respond by saying that unless we are sending assassins into Mexico, etc., my statement is absurd. Well, I will respond in kind by saying that, unless you can prove that I was in the Watergate apartments to burgle, I am clealry a better chess player than you.

 

Well, I would not include anything that didn't have to do with North Korea. Have we broken agreements with them? As far as I know, we lived up to the previous agreement only to see North Korea completely ignore it.

But I guess it's okay if they don't live up to that agreement since we've not lived up to other agreements with other nations in the past.

So I guess military action is the only way to go. That was easier to solve than I thought.

 

That reminds me, treeman. You are in violation of a contract I drew up with you. I know you didn't sign it, but in it, you agreed to pay me the sum of $15,000 by March 31, 2003.

 

1)tree...I've explained this before, re: Iraq, and will do so again now...A statement that a country does not abide by it's agreements is either true or not...It is not MORE true about one if they have done it 14 times than an another who has only done it 11 times...Either you are trustworthy, or , as mr paige pointed out, others cease to have faith in your word on agreements.

2) I am talking about several Geneva Convention violations including, as per our very own Donald Rumsfeld, showing POWs on camera...Do I have to sit at the back of the press room now?

3) Un agreement...Security Council, agreement in principle and practice as to definition of defensive action: sub section re: qualifier of pre-emptive/prevenatative actions of 'defense'..Agreement to not undertake ' military aggression', which defintion we agreed to states is the case re:" pre-emptive/preventative defense, outside of the authority of UN Sec. Council ruling...You do remember that whole debate before UN to get approval thingie, right?

4) There are other examples...For example...Rumsfeld, echoed by yourself, as I recall, recently said that the agreement we signed re: chem. weapons should be ignored...You're now arguing the other side? Well, if you live long enough, you get to see everything, the saying goes...

 

Awesome. We're Americans, we blow **** up, that's what we do.

 

peace through superior fire power

 

Just like we paid off Pakistan to call themselves our "ally," even though the Pakistanis have nuclear weapons and millions of people who hate us, among them supporters and members of Al Qaeda?

Just like the U.S. kisses up to Saudi Arabia and sells them weapons and such because they are so rich they have inextricably linked themselves to our economy, even while they have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Al Qaeda, which was certainly used to fund the 9/11 operation? A country so backward they have mass public beheadings (there's some propaganda we don't see).

By kissing up, I mean, having Colin Powell call Prince Bandar to placate him about our intentions in the Mideast.

Bush doesn't just take a nap out at his Crawford ranch. He recently had Prince Bandar visit him out there, right as our invasion of Iraq was starting.

Sorry, but politics is ugly on both sides of the fence. Maybe Bush is smart enough (the only time I will ever call him smart) to keep most of his crap out of the public eye. Daddy could teach him a trick or two on that.

 

Please tell me we are not really going to do that. Where do we get off thinking we are the only ones who can have nukes?

 

I have been so concerned with Iraq that I admittedly haven't studied up on Kim or the N Korean problem. He's a druggie?