6/24/2009 8:09:07 AM From: eddo "you get one idiot who just happens to be a trigger happy fool in the White House and WE become a danger to the world as well. "
ummm, just who did Bush nuke?? |  |
 |
|
| 6/24/2009 8:17:49 AM From: Hack he got nuked during his college years I know... |  |
|
|
6/24/2009 8:58:20 AM From: BCAR To the best of my knowledge George Bush didn't nuke anyone. And also to the best of my knowledge the current idiot hasn't nuked anyone either. And even Clinton didn't accidently hit the button while getting a hummer from a cubby intern in the oval office.
Now then,
"The U.S. already proved that we had become lazy and were sitting on our Laurels when 9-11 happened. I would hate for us to not to take this Korea thing seriously enough, and for something catastrophic to happen yet again."
That seems to be a strange statement considering all the wailing and gnashing of the teeth when we invaded a country about 5 years ago as a deterent to future attacks on the U.S.
All that aside, the nuclear powers of the world, not just the United States, have come to an agreement over who should and should not posess intercontinental nuclear arms. Reason being that some unstable dictator like Mr. Kim Jong Il can not be trusted with such weapons. A track record of over 50 years with no use of nuclear weapons should be a pretty strong case that they can be held responsibly. North Korea has no such record. |  |
|
|
6/24/2009 9:01:23 AM From: BCAR Now for the blunt and unfair version, lets use an analogy. I have a pistol in my hand, Mr. crazy ass dictator standing across the room says he wants one too. I say, "No you can't". he say's "Why not?".
So I point my gun at his head and say, "Because I said so." | |
|
|
| 6/24/2009 9:24:14 AM From: Hack plus we know threatening sanctions won't cure the Ils of the world. | |
|
|
6/24/2009 9:44:49 AM From: MrsK I never said he nuked anyone, I said he was a trigger happy fool, that proved the United States can very easily (and became) a danger to the world.
The statement about being lazy and not taking things seriously BCAR is that 9-11 "could" have been prevented, had the United States and its' administration at the time taken more seriously the threats coming from abroad. Does that mean we should have invaded their country and bombed the shit out of them, taken their cities and killed their citizens? No. It just means that I feel that there could have been provisions made to prevent such actions. |  |
|
|
6/24/2009 10:01:56 AM From: BCAR 9-11 could have been prevented, both by the administration at the time and the one that preceeded it. Primarily by invading Afganistan, blowing the shit out of some cities and camps and killing several thousand crazy bastards and whoever hapened to, unfortunately, been close to them.
Again, just who George Bush, personally, without authorization from congress, get "trigger happy" with.
And finally, all this dwelling in the past lately gives me the impression that certain folks aren't very confident in the current comander in chief. Gee it's only been a hundred or so days.
| |
|
|
6/24/2009 10:02:07 AM From: eddo ^^I agree. Clinton should have done more to prevent 9/11
and I still am not grasping how the US is a "danger to the world" | |
|
|
6/24/2009 10:03:37 AM From: eddo my agree was meant for MrsK's comment.  | |
|
|
6/24/2009 10:27:06 AM From: MrsK Wait... What are you talking about; all this talk about past administrations? I haven't brought anything up about any past administrations (unlike those who take any opportunity to criticize decmocratic presidents dating back to the 1930's and onward) lately.
Now I asked for enlightenment, I asked for someone to give some opinions on the whole NW's issue, and rather than give any reasonable and believable explanations, you would rather attack the current president. You aren't making your point any stronger with me by making this your same-lame-old-argument about how much you dislike Obama soapbox.
Further, when I can quote a president giving justification for invading a nation as "Besides... you have to remember, this the guy that tried to kill my Dad..." I would say he is a trigger happy idiot. No wait, I think I said trigger happy fool. Well, I am sure you get the picture. | |
|
|
| 6/24/2009 10:29:40 AM From: MrsK Eddo, I realize our access to outside opinion is limited in the U.S. and so I won't fault you with not realizing how poor our image as a nation was in the world only 6-12 months ago. | |
|
|
| 6/24/2009 10:46:45 AM From: BCAR Maybe Obama should just talk this whole thing out. Kenyan to Korean | |
|
|
6/24/2009 10:50:11 AM From: BCAR Maybe, and let's just go way out on a limb here. The fact that Kim jong has actually threatened Japan, South Korea and the United States with said missle would be reason enough to say he can't have nuclear weapons.
I mean call me crazy but this one seems self evident. | |
|
|
6/24/2009 10:51:49 AM From: MrsK Also, 9-11 didn't happen on Clintons watch. I think that is the "trend" in the jungle these days right? I mention something about Bush and I am told that he isn't on duty anymore?
9-11 happened squarely on Bush's shift. Should eh take full blame and responsibility - meh maybe not FULL. But the bottom line is it happened on his shift. | |
|
|
6/24/2009 10:54:16 AM From: MrsK Now I agree that Kim Jong Il is a fuking nut. I will give you that one on a silver platter and hand you the electric knife. BUUUUT - it still does not justify our sanctions against other country's having nukes if we have them, too.
If we choose to erradicate the nuclear weapons proghrams accross the globe or in "Most" other countries, we should be leading by example.
Whether or not Kim Jong has that nuke, do YOU believe we will use a nuclear weapon to rectify this sitauation? | |
|
|
| 6/24/2009 10:57:16 AM From: BCAR Obama isn't about to nuke anyone unless his teleprompter tells him to. | |
|
|
6/24/2009 11:00:52 AM From: MrsK So in plain English you realize we will not use nuclear weapons to fix this issue. Good, I am glad you realize this. So again, why tell everyone else they can't have nukes, yet we have nukes stored away someplace?
Is it because the United States needs the intimidation factor? Is this global bullying? | |
|
|
6/24/2009 11:02:44 AM From: Hack so you are saying that every country should have nukes?
say goodbye to Israel
say goodbye to India
say goodbye to Afghanistan
say goodbye to Iraq and Iran
say goodbye to North America...
damn, just say goodbye | |
|
|
6/24/2009 11:03:10 AM From: BCAR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race
Here so you don't have to suffer us fools, just read this article, it explains the nuclear arms race, the reduction in arms since and most importantly The NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY, signed by all the main powers stating quite plainly who should or shouldn't have such weapons. | |
|
|
6/24/2009 11:04:26 AM From: MrsK Definately NOT Hack. I don't think Nukes should be in existence. Period.
Too much destruction, danger, and long long long lasting effects on the environment. | |
|
|
6/24/2009 11:05:17 AM From: MrsK D'oust my eyes deceive me or did you just use Wiki as a reference? You realize I've taken major crap for that. 
lol | |
|
|
| 6/24/2009 11:07:00 AM From: MrsK I'm familiar with the treaty. What bothers me about it is that country's change, adminstrations change, leaders change. Even in a democratic society bad things can and do happen. So what happens when one of those countries gets a leader who is worse than a Cheney-Bush clone? | |
|
|
| 6/24/2009 11:08:05 AM From: MrsK What happens when the generation coming up (the lazy fat bastard blame game generation) elects a new world Hitler into office? | |
|
|
6/24/2009 11:08:16 AM From: BCAR The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is a treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, opened for signature on July 1, 1968. There are currently 189 countries party to the treaty, five of which have nuclear weapons: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China (the permanent members of the UN Security Council).
Only four recognized sovereign states are not parties to the treaty: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. India, Pakistan and North Korea have openly tested and declared that they possess nuclear weapons. Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea acceded to the treaty, violated it, and withdrew it in 2003.
| |
|
|
| 6/24/2009 11:09:36 AM From: BCAR Wiki was fast in this case. | |
|
|
| 6/24/2009 11:19:43 AM From: Hack unfortunately you can't unlearn information. and in this day and age lots of things learned are available on the internet... I am pretty sure any high school student can use the internet to find out how to build a pony nuke or a dirty nuke in a day. so, someone needs to police that, and who better than those that already have the know how and have shown the reserve not to use it at any little skiffle they get into? | |
|
|
| 6/24/2009 12:14:07 PM From: whogo Fortunately, Obama, unlike some, is not a total nutcase, and is following the same policy on nuclear weapons as every President in the nuclear era. | |
|
|
6/24/2009 2:36:08 PM From: ImWithStupid 6/24/2009 10 7:06 AM From: MrsK Wait... What are you talking about; all this talk about past administrations? I haven't brought anything up about any past administrations (unlike those who take any opportunity to criticize decmocratic presidents dating back to the 1930's and onward) lately.
Really?
From MrsK's initial post to start this...
""Because that country is a danger to the world." that excuse doesn't cut it anymore. Because as our previous administration proved, you get one idiot who just happens to be a trigger happy fool in the White House and WE become a danger to the world as well."
|  |
|
|
| 6/24/2009 2:41:32 PM From: MrsK IWS - if you read BCARs reply, he was stating that this is a regular thing. I disagree with that. Also, you can double read my reply that you just c/p'd and the last word in the sentence is lately. | |
|
|
| 6/24/2009 2:42:10 PM From: MrsK Actually I haven't had much to say about politics at all "lately". | |
|
|
| 6/24/2009 3:12:39 PM From: eddo as long as Obama doesn't get "the button" confused with his cigarette lighter, I think Korea is safe... | |
|
|
6/24/2009 3:13:01 PM From: Ali Actually, I think we are taking NK's threat pretty seriously behind the scenes. There is a lot of, uh, military movement up here in ND and I'm pretty sure I know what's being moved.
|  |
|
|
6/24/2009 3:28:39 PM From: ImWithStupid ^^^ I'm guessing you aren't speaking of bowels.
Whatever MrsK. I guess the start of this post isn't "lately".
| |
|
|
6/24/2009 3:31:07 PM From: Ali "I'm guessing you aren't speaking of bowels." - LOL!
Nope. For once, I am not.
| |
|
|
| 6/24/2009 3:52:00 PM From: MrsK Don't get snippy with me just cause you didn't know buster. | |
|
|
6/25/2009 1:13:48 AM From: whogo Democrats are not saying much lately. Even they are starting to realize their messiah is a total frack up.
| |
|
|
| 6/25/2009 5:27:41 AM From: BCAR Yep, If I was an Obama supporter I'd be keeping it on the down low too. | |
|
|
| 6/25/2009 6:42:50 AM From: ImWithStupid It's hard to blame Obama for his slow reaction to this issue. Just like last summer when he was slow to react to Russia invading Georgia (the Republic, not the State), he spent a good part of the first week after the incident started looking for the button to "vote present". | |
|
|
| 6/25/2009 6:47:27 AM From: ImWithStupid Just like smoking, some habits are hard to break. | |
|
|
6/25/2009 10:03:02 AM From: BCAR http://www.2thejungle.com/postview_6736.asp
yep, the real MrsK | |
|
|
| 6/25/2009 9:11:28 PM From: emkay64 I feel snippy tonight...but i have no one to be real snippy with..at least not without getting a cuff. |  |
|
|
| 6/25/2009 9:20:34 PM From: ImWithStupid I have some cuffs for ya, sexy. | |
|
|
| 6/26/2009 10:31:19 AM From: emkay64 Awww...you're just teasing me IWS. You'd probably get me all trussed up...and leave me there by myself. | |
|
|
