The conundrum of North Korea
Sometimes there are problems without solutions. For example, North Korea.
To those outside its borders, the behavior of North Korea seems driven by madness. Its actions make no sense; they seem random and incoherent, carried out with no apparent long-term in mind.
But that’s probably wrong. Those actions — testing nuclear weapons, firing missiles — probably do make some kind of sense when viewed from the only perspective that matters in North Korea, from inside the government. It’s a schizophrenic state, listening only to the voices inside its own head and not at all to those of the outside world.
That makes it a problem to be managed, not solved. The first President Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush all took different approaches, but with equally little or no progress. The same will likely be true of Barack Obama. Again, what’s going on inside North Korea is far more determinative than anything that happens outside.
So, we have to be ready for military action should that come; we have to contain North Korea’s nuclear weaponry, technology and material, so the problem doesn’t spread. And we have to be prepared for the day when it all falls apart.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
212 comments Add your comment
Mrs. Godzilla
May 27th, 2009
8:33 am
Paging President Jintao….
lovelyliz
May 27th, 2009
8:38 am
This could be about trying to save face. North Korea has nothing going for it but its nuclear program and they use that as leverage. Heaven forbud they admit their people are starving and they need help. No, what NK will do is run some nuclear tests, kidnap some South Korean fisherman and then negotiate a trade for million of pounds in food and aid that they will be given because of their “superiority”.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
8:39 am
But didn’t the UN send a strongly worded letter?
I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(
May 27th, 2009
8:40 am
Yeah, hopeandchange.duh doesn’t seem to be making a difference, does it?
And here I thought the world was gonna love us.
Copyleft
May 27th, 2009
8:41 am
Well, let’s check in with our neoconservative friends and see what they recommend, shall we?
“Nuke ‘em! NUKE ‘EM ALL! U-S-A! U-S-A!”
Ahh, thank you. Very helpful. And surprisingly similar to your recommendations for all other foreign-policy issues! Hope you enjoyed your run, now go sit in the corner again. The grownups are talking.
Now: Does anyone have any PRODUCTIVE ideas with a prayer of actually WORKING?
Curious Observer
May 27th, 2009
8:45 am
Contain North Korea’s nuclear weaponry, technology and material? And how do we do that in a country in which the opinion of the outside world counts for nothing and the influence of other countries, even China, is nil?
The beating of the war drum that we read about today may be a symptom of an internal power struggle in North Korea–a struggle to determine the successor to the ailing current leader. It is not unheard of for a country to start a war in order to garner internal support. That’s the truly scary aspect of the current developments in North Korea. That country apparently sees itself as having little to lose if it launches an attack on South Korea, and the disavowal of the truce that has lasted for more than fifty years makes that prospect even more likely. This may be much more than the actions of a three-year-old threatening to hold its breath if it does not get its way. Somebody had better be considering the prospects of another Korean war, with all the diplomatic complications it would bring. It is far too late to be talking about containment now.
I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(
May 27th, 2009
8:48 am
Medicare Part A will run out of funds to pay promised benefits by 2017, with a 20% shortfall in revenues. Paying all promised benefits for Part A alone over the long run would require raising the total Medicare payroll tax from 2.9% today to 12%. That is in addition to the Social Security payroll tax of 12.4% today, which would have to increase to close to 18% to pay all promised benefits for that program. That would result in a total payroll tax rate of 30%.
Given this overwhelming financial disaster, does it make sense for the government to take on even more financial burdens through Medicare? Medicare is supposed to be for retirees. What would all these new financial burdens for everyone do to the program originally intended for them?
Indeed, one has to ask, do the Medicare for All nuts even understand numbers? Or are they what they appear to be, numerically illiterate?-Amspec
My guess is they are illiterate.
But this could be a good thing, why would North Korea/ China want to invade us if it means they get stuck with all the bills we can’t pay?
George American
May 27th, 2009
8:48 am
We need to get tough with this 2nd-rate rice republic.
Strong and decisive military action will show the world that America is the last super power and we won’t tolerate their commie saber rattling.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
8:49 am
Put an embargo on big gold sunglasses and they will crumble.
Brad Steel
May 27th, 2009
8:50 am
Whiner spews: “And here I thought the world was gonna love us.”
Whiner, no one cares what you thought or what you think. Save it for your Hello-Kitty diary.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
8:51 am
George,
Like we did with Iraq?
Austin Powers
May 27th, 2009
8:53 am
I am ready and willing to face Dr. Evil when my country calls.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
8:55 am
Meanwhile back in what’s left of the good old USA….
A little window into the new American business model
I’ve got to head to the forest, but if I run into Paul on an open or dead thread later I’m really starting to rethink my entire position on campaign finance, assuming we’ll still have elections in the future.
Bye!
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
8:58 am
Wait, aren’t we supposed to invade countries that have WMD? Isn’t that the plan?
George American
May 27th, 2009
8:58 am
jewCB,
The watered-down, 1/2-assed effort in Iraq was due to the congressional democrats and surrender monkeys lack of support for the military. Their contempt for the military and anti-American is treason.
With some strong military leadership, we’d have peace and a democratic regime in Iraq. Gas would be $1.50 per gallon.
sd
May 27th, 2009
9:00 am
The country seems to be a cult of personality. It seems that if Kim Jong Il was “removed” that North Korea would be a lot better off. The United Nations should act to “remove” him.
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
9:02 am
Seriously folks, what can we do about it? What rule in the rule book says that North Korea can’t have nuclear weapons while other countries can? And why is the initial reaction to nuclear tests that they are automatically going to start blowing people up?
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
9:02 am
One last thing so as to get back on topic. North Korea has announced they will no longer be bound by the truce of 1953. Technically I guess we’re back at war with them. Better get the UN to write an even more strongly worded letter.
Later kidz!
Brian
May 27th, 2009
9:03 am
All we’ve got to do is hang on until Dec.21, 2012, then it won’t matter anyway.(LOL) By that time Iran will probably have the bomb too.
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
9:05 am
I still think George American is a parody poster like Redneck Convert.
Donovan
May 27th, 2009
9:06 am
“We have to be ready for military action”. Listen to our little chicken hawk liberal who is now fighting right along side of Obama in the valleys of Afghanistan. Boy, I feel safer now that the Dems are forming a convenient backbone. Why doesn’t the new Sec. of State give another autographed basketball to Kim so as to cement our good relations and understanding of the problem?
mike
May 27th, 2009
9:06 am
jewcowboy –
“Like we did with Iraq?”
Say what you want about Iraq, but nobody is worried that they will be producing WMD. That particular problem has been solved.
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
9:06 am
sd,
“The United Nations should act to “remove” him” Why?
Copyleft
May 27th, 2009
9:09 am
Mike: “That particular problem has been solved”
And best of all, it wasn’t even a problem in the first place! Now. THAT’s a good use of a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives.
mike
May 27th, 2009
9:10 am
Bosch –
“And why is the initial reaction to nuclear tests that they are automatically going to start blowing people up?”
The concern is not so much that they themselves will use them, but that they will sell them to folks who would. Let’s not forget that this is a country that is deeply impoverished and has used several unpopular tactics to raise money, from missile proliferation to counterfeiting. This fear is not exclusive to right wing nuts. It is pretty much the consensus of the foreign policy establishment.
Fly-On-The-Wall
May 27th, 2009
9:11 am
George American,
You can’t have it both ways when you state that Democrats and surrender monkeys caused a lack of support for the Iraq War and then point out that Democrats voted for that same war. Those brave Democrats only did their patriotic duty in pointing out the lack of support the Bush Administration gave our brave soldiers. That is something you cannot deny happened – lack of armored Hummvees, lack of body armor, faulty electrical installations, corruption of suppliers who had no-bid contracts. And this is the short list.
Are you saying we don’t have a democratic regime in Iraq now? Then you disagree with Bush, Cheney, and all of their administration?
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
9:12 am
mike,
Sorry, but I don’t buy that paranoid argument of “OMG, the bad guys are gonna get ‘em and blow us all up.”
Please. Only in the movies.
mike
May 27th, 2009
9:12 am
Copyleft –
“And best of all, it wasn’t even a problem in the first place! Now. THAT’s a good use of a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives.”
Yawn. Actually the fact that we didn’t know if he had an active program was a problem, but hey we all know where we stand on that issue and it wasn’t the point I was raising.
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
9:14 am
Maybe we should call James Bond or send in Jack Bauer – they could fix it in a jiffy. Anyone have their numbers?
mike
May 27th, 2009
9:14 am
Bosch –
“Please. Only in the movies.”
You would think so, but there is a verifiable history of NK selling missiles and let’s not forget that this is a regime that kidnapped a famous Japanese director to make movies for them. That’s the kind of thing that only happens in movies…and in NK.
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
9:15 am
BTW, great Luckovich cartoon today – I wonder if Omar is Rush’s tailor! BWA!!!!!
Mrs. Godzilla
May 27th, 2009
9:15 am
From Kevin Drun
“Dan Drezner remarks on the DPRK’s recent nuclear test:
I think the Obama administration has come up with a novel way of dealing with the North Koreans — get everyone to talk about something else.
That is novel — at least compared to the nonsense normally spewed by the Bush administration every time Kim Jong-il decided to yank their chains. And in any case, if meaningless bluster isn’t your thing, there aren’t a whole lot of choices available:
The alternatives to the repeated short-term carrot strategy are even less appealing. There is no viable military option unless everyone is comfortable with the destruction of Seoul; there is no viable sanctions option unless China decides to cut off the energy tap, and they’ll only do this if they’re sure it won’t lead to a stream of North Korea refugees entering Manchuria.
In other words, there’s really not a lot we can do about this unless China, against all odds, (a) finally tires of Pyongyang’s antics, (b) beefs up its suprisingly porous border with North Korea, and (c) decides to cut off aid. There’s some evidence of (a), but not much for anything else.”
China is the key.
sd
May 27th, 2009
9:21 am
The people of North Korea have been told that Kim Jong Il’s birth was predicted by a swallow (a bird) and that upon his birth that a double rainbow filled the skies over the mountains. They are taught in schools from young ages about him and his father and how they are deities. The successor to Kim will be one of his three sons.
Seems to me that by pulling the mask off of the leader, that the people would see the facade. By exposing his lies to the people. By letting them know that relentless toil and extreme poverty for nothing but to pay homage to a fake deity is NOT the only choice in life, would help. Perhaps the people would rise up and revolt if they knew there was a better choice.
jt
May 27th, 2009
9:25 am
“By exposing his lies to the people. By letting them know that relentless toil and extreme poverty for nothing but to pay homage to a fake deity is NOT the only choice in life, would help.”
That sounds like a lesson about 25% of Americans need to learn.
I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(
May 27th, 2009
9:33 am
Seems to me that by pulling the mask off of the leader, that the people would see the facade. By exposing his lies to the people. By letting them know that relentless toil and extreme poverty for nothing but to pay homage to a fake deity is NOT the only choice in life, would help. Perhaps the people would rise up and revolt if they knew there was a better choice.
Lucky for us, Obozo is busy pulling off his own “mask.”
And for what is underneath of it, eewwww.
Redneck Convert
May 27th, 2009
9:34 am
Well, seems to me this N. Korea is getting too big for its britches. Dropping a few A-bombs on them would cut them down to size. And if the Chinese Commies don’t like it we got plenty more bombs where those come from. I’m too old for the draft so I reckon I can look at things in a diffrent way from these whipper-snappers on the blog.
Seems to me somebody could make a mint with bumper stickers and ribbons that say Bomb the N. Koreans. If they got them out just when the war started. Nothing wrong with a little Free Innerprize during a war.
Have a good day everybody.
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
9:37 am
mike,
Oh no! They sold some missiles and kidnapped a movie director? Let’s get in the bunker holes now!!!
Big deal – we sell missiles all the time.
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
9:41 am
Mrs. G.,
“China is the key.” Eggsactly. We can beat our chests all we want, but China has got to be the one to step in and goes “Hey boys, enough.”
Remember boys and girls, we ain’t “all that” anymore. We aren’t in much of a position to tell anyone what to do.
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
9:42 am
And can anyone out there tell me why North Korea isn’t allowed to have nuclear weapons?
AmVet
May 27th, 2009
9:44 am
Six-party talks. Bilateral talks. Red China with its most favored nation status.
Maybe Michael Reagan can follow in his daddy’s footsteps and single-handedly bring down the Yellow menace…
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 27th, 2009
9:49 am
This is all Harry Truman’s fault! If he would have let General McC Nuke the Chinese back across the Yaloo, no North Korea.
Liberals messing up American interests for at least 43 years!
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 27th, 2009
9:50 am
Bosch, it’s simple really..they can’t have nukes because you are a dumbass.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
9:50 am
That makes it a problem to be managed, not solved.
Oh, for politicians with the backbone to say that out loud.
Paul
May 27th, 2009
9:53 am
Jay
[[And we have to be prepared for the day when it all falls apart.]]
That’s pretty chilling. Vince Flynn’s latest novel dealt with just that scenario. I hope fiction does not become fact. BTW – S Korea’s capital, Seoul, is about 30 miles south of the demilitarized zone separating it from N Korea. In the event of a conflict it’d be reduced to rubble quite quickly. And I don’t think the N Koreans would worry about civilian collateral damage as we do in Iraq and Afghanistan.
CopyLeft 8:41
That was pretty funny. Ridicule the ‘neocons’ (are they representative of any significant population?) for having a one-track mind, then ask if anyone has any good ideas on what to do.
Ummm, Democrats have the Executive and Legislative. Shouldn’t they by now have put something forward that can be discussed? Well, they have. My last read of the LA Times said SecState Clinton a few days back had blown off any thought of engagement with the N Koreans. I rather expected those who blasted Pres Bush for his six-party strategy to come unglued. They didn’t. I understand Pres Obama wants to work through the UN and engage China (as did Bush) – all that’s nice, but as Jay says, then what?
Oh, before I forget – LA Times point was that N Korea did what they did because they felt roundly IGNORED by the Obama Administration. So it would appear the Obama Administration bears some responsibility for this deteriorating situation, doesn’t it?
Jewcowboy 8:49
[[Put an embargo on big gold sunglasses and they will crumble.]]
The policy of the Clinton and Bush administrations was to continue food aid so millions wouldn’t starve. Do you really think the Obama Administration will accept videos of millions starving when it is in its power to stop the suffering?
RW-(the original) 8:55
[[I’m really starting to rethink my entire position]]
I haven’t heard that phrase on this board very often!
Mrs. Godzilla 9:15
The source cited: “That is novel — at least compared to the nonsense normally spewed by the Bush administration every time Kim Jong-il decided to yank their chains. And in any case, if meaningless bluster isn’t your thing, there aren’t a whole lot of choices available:”
Cute rhetoric predictably at odds with the record. So Drezner’s idea is to not engage in discussions, not have multiparty talks (involve China and Russia) and not continue humanitarian aid, as the Bush Administration did?
This is a good idea? Wait: it’s meant to only sound good in a partisan kind of way, right?
Kamchak
May 27th, 2009
9:53 am
“And can anyone out there tell me why North Korea isn’t allowed to have nuclear weapons?”
Because they are godless communists lacking the restraint of those who worship Him. Either that, or they are Man U. fans deserving of nothing.
sd
May 27th, 2009
9:53 am
Seems like we’ve forgotten how to use propaganda to influence people. We should be dropping leaflets on those people that encourage them to rise up.
And in those Sharia Law countries where they execute a woman for showing too much ankle, we should be dropping a different leaflet on them. We should cover their cities in the nastiest pornography our great country has to offer. Seems to me that if pictures of naked orgies were ubiquitous in their countries, they’d have a little trouble keeping up with the oppression.
Paul
May 27th, 2009
9:57 am
sd
[[We should cover their cities in the nastiest pornography our great country has to offer. Seems to me that if pictures of naked orgies were ubiquitous in their countries, they’d have a little trouble keeping up with the oppression.]]
We already do – via the Internet. The result has been to increase the oppression. I mean, the enforcement of Islamic Truth and Purity.
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
9:58 am
Kamchak,
“Because they are godless communists lacking the restraint of those who worship Him”
Hahahahaha! Even though, uh, yeah, we’re the only one’s who have ever used one.
“Either that, or they are Man U. fans deserving of nothing”
Better idea.
Seriously, why can’t they have them? I mean, realy, what can we do about it? Nothing, except actually go to war with them, and I don’t think that’s gonna happen.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
10:01 am
George American,
“The watered-down, 1/2-assed effort in Iraq was due to the congressional democrats and surrender monkeys lack of support for the military.”
Hmmm…and who was that Commander in Chief of military forces in 2003 when the invasion of Iraq took place? Take some responsibility, sheesh.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
10:01 am
Since I’m not all that interested in speculating what we should do to contain NK, WARNING an utterly off-topic comment WARNING.
If you want a bit of fun, and would like have a chance to be published in an actual book that’s to be printed and sold this weekend, check this out, and (maybe) submit a contribution by close-of-business today.
It’s a collection of submitted first-lines of imaginary sequels to famous books.
Here’s a sample:
Tom opened the white envelope, and stared at the row of zeros, his rheumy eyes adjusting to the bright light shining on the glossy paper, and he realized that he had nothing, nothing was left of the treasure, that old Judge Thatcher had invested that money with that sneaky-eyed fellow with the fancy apartment, the houses in Palm Beach and France, the thousand dollar suit, and now it was gone, all gone, and there was nothing to be done but tell Huck, tell him that they were done for, and were going back, back again to live with Aunt Polly, and to once more paint that awful fence.
—From Hannibal, Oh Hannibal — Life on the Mississippi (sequel to Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain)
Doggone/GA
May 27th, 2009
10:01 am
“Seriously, why can’t they have them?”
Because then the world would have to treat them as equals? Is the world ready for that? We can’t even bear the thought of treating the Iranians as equals, let alone the North Koreans.
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
10:05 am
Doggone/GA
“Because then the world would have to treat them as equals?”
Well, technically, aren’t they?
Normal
May 27th, 2009
10:06 am
Anybody remember back in ‘69 when they shot up and captured the
U.S.S. Liberty? Our military option was “NO Option At All”. It
has been that way ever since. But this time I think NK screwed up
by negating the armistice of 1953. In doing that, they have reopened
the war. I think that a full scale Naval embargo, such as was done to
Cuba in ‘62 is the answer. They said that would be considered an act
of war but, as I said, by negating the armistice, they have already declared war. This will take away any questions of legalities.
Stop every ship coming and going for a few months and
see if they aren’t more prone to reason.
The other side to this is they might try to invade SK, but if they do,
our Naval air forces are in place and would make an invasion a difficult
thing to do and as in the first Korean war, would give us time to mobilize.
The only other option is to ignore them. Just let them rant like
spoiled children until they exaust themselves.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
10:07 am
mike,
“Say what you want about Iraq, but nobody is worried that they will be producing WMD. That particular problem has been solved.”
Just suicide bomber and next generation jihadists.
Kamchak
May 27th, 2009
10:09 am
Bosch
Well—the phrase “preemptive strike” immediately leaps to mind. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.
or
If we do nothing it will have a “domino effect in the region.” Hmmm… also sounds vaguely familiar.
I think Mrs. G said it: China is the key. I’m not sure what the U.S. can do without looking like we are trying another attempt at nation destruction/rebuilding.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
10:10 am
“Maybe we should call James Bond or send in Jack Bauer – they could fix it in a jiffy. Anyone have their numbers?”
Does anyone else but me think that Jack Bauer has helped killed any analytical and rational thinking in this country?
Mrs. Godzilla
May 27th, 2009
10:12 am
Paul
read the Drum article closer, he tossed out the Drezner quote as a gotcha….Drum and Drezner are miles apart idealogically. you are not normally so easily confused. focus on Drum dear heart….that’s the key to the post.
scratching and swaggergering will not resolve the north korea situation.
China is the key.
(and do you really think there has been no meaningless bluster aimed at lil’ kim? really?)
“To Kim Jong-Il, let me say this,” Bush said. “Abandon your nuclear program at once, or you will face the full fury of the United States of America’s harshest rhetoric.”
Scooter
May 27th, 2009
10:12 am
I may have a good idea here. Let’s try allowing the rest of the world to try and solve the rest of the worlds’s problems for a “change”!
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
10:13 am
Paul,
“The policy of the Clinton and Bush administrations was to continue food aid so millions wouldn’t starve. Do you really think the Obama Administration will accept videos of millions starving when it is in its power to stop the suffering?”
I didn’t say anything about food, I said big gold sunglasses. Jong wouldn’t last a day without his big gold tacky sunglasses. And whatever it is that makes his hat stand up. Starch? Embargo that as well. He’d crumble in a month.
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
10:13 am
You can understand why they might be paranoid with nearly 20,000 U.S. troops stationed on its border. How much more suffering can its citizenry take before they revolt? We need to try to continue to help them with food and other necessities while working to contain and reform their government. It would seem that wasting resources while the people starve would be assuring regime change.
If we aren’t willing to dismantle and destroy our nuclear weapons, and we aren’t, then how can we expect others not to want to acquire them?
Where’s the covert CIA when you need it? Just kidding!
Copyleft
May 27th, 2009
10:16 am
Sounds good to me, Scooter!
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
10:16 am
Does anyone else but me think that Jack Bauer has helped killed any analytical and rational thinking in this country?
Jack’s like God, man. If he didn’t exist we’d have to create him.
Paul
May 27th, 2009
10:20 am
Bosch
Real briefly, as you’ve asked before. Just some thoughts off the top of my head (translation for the rest of you: please don’t ask for cites from national security documents, historians or anything like that – this is simply a quick response).
We developed nukes as we were involved in a total war (surrender without condition) with a strong enemy (Germany) who also had a development program. We employed them to force a surrender (from the Japanese, after the Germans and Italians had surrendered). Russia (our WWII allies, then our enemies) developed them to counter us. France? I don’t think they really wanted to trust their security to us so soon after a world war. England? Our Cold War ally countering the Soviets – the Brits couldn’t match them conventionally – heck, it’s doubtful all of NATO could. Israel? Surrounded by millions of hostiles who attempted their destruction? They weren’t about to risk Holocaust II. And this is critical – they were not developed as first-strike weapons. China? It went hand in hand with the definition of a superpower – and, they considered war with the US AND the USSR as not unlikely. 1969 – they came close with the USSR. India and Pakistan? Just another step in the historical enmity between two countries with large populations, conventional militaries and religious enmity.
During all this time the NATO allies and Russia (as well as China) operated under the assumptions of “one use of these weapons will be met with a //massive// response by those attacked.” Forget proportionality. The response would be massive. There was also the assumption that the devastation would hit both sides, hence the term “Mutual Assured Destruction” (or MAD for short). And through it all there was a sense that the leaders of the US, China, USSR, France, England etc were rational. And a defensive mindset in their use was a common thread.
But N Korea? Iran? Rationality, as we have seen, is not a given. Defense? Not a huge criteria, given their statements. Lack of first-strike intentions? Problematic. Willingness to use as just another weapon in the arsenal, as they doubt the willingness of their opponents to respond massively, not proportionally? That has to be considered.
So that is why we have them and we don’t want them to. Sure, there are holes, there are exceptions, there are differing perceptions of the perceptions of our enemies. But that’s the CliffsNotes version of the Reader’s Digest condensed version. As I see it.
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
10:21 am
Scooter
May 27th, 2009
10:12 am
If Stalin hadn’t died, this problem would have been resolved 55 years ago.
I like your premise, but this isn’t one of those times.
Doggone/GA
May 27th, 2009
10:21 am
“Well, technically, aren’t they?”
The operative word was TREAT. The would would have to TREAT them as equals, instead of treating them like children.
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 27th, 2009
10:22 am
In case you failed to notice, War is still declared on the Korean Pennisula. Operations have ceased due to an Armistice. Please tell me you all remember this?
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
10:23 am
Doggone/GA
May 27th, 2009
10:21 am
Desperate, dangerous children!
But then, maybe it’s just a lot of bluster.
Doggone/GA
May 27th, 2009
10:24 am
“Please tell me you all remember this?”
Well, *I* do…and as they have already repudiated the 1953 agreement, we ARE back in a state of active war. How we choose to act on that fact is another matter.
Bud Wiser
May 27th, 2009
10:26 am
Who says or actually believes that they are making them for themselves? What do you think they’re going to do, threaten the S. Koreans and Japanese for some silk shirts and radios?
They can sell them to the highest bidders, probably some lunatic mad dog terrorists that Obowo and the democrats keep chasing down with biscuits and blankets, then either:
a: deliver a strike on Israel;
b: pop one off in NY or DC;
c: nuclear blackmail the entire planet with “we’ve got 1 and you’ll just have to wait and see where it arrives.
Solution?
Other than have someone take out Il, I don’t know at the moment. Don’t know if that will work either. Give them what they want (food, medicines, technology -oops, Clinton did that already) and they will be knocking louder at the door next time.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
10:26 am
“Jack’s like God, man. If he didn’t exist we’d have to create him.”
Never watched it, never will.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
10:28 am
“a: deliver a strike on Israel;
b: pop one off in NY or DC;
c: nuclear blackmail the entire planet with “we’ve got 1 and you’ll just have to wait and see where it arrives.”
Though it seems someone has been watching “24″ a little too much.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
10:29 am
RW done wrote:
I’m really starting to rethink my entire position on campaign finance, assuming we’ll still have elections in the future.
While I’ve no idea where RW is headed with his re-thinking, I will humbly submit that it it only when you’ve reached the point where one is wondering out loud whether “we’ll still have elections in the future,” that one starts to contemplate this issue seriously.
Of course RW’s linkee is to some rather hilarious fever-swampy right wing blog, but if that’s what it takes to get a guy to re-think an established position, it can’t be all bad.
AmVet
May 27th, 2009
10:30 am
Too bad George and Dick ran out of time. Were they still calling the shots, they might be telling us right now, how we will be greeted as liberators with flowers and Korean candy.
And the slobbering neo-conned and chickenhawks would be wailing for more war…
I had to Google it to remember his name, and notwithstanding that Keifer Sutherland has been a goob since the early 80’s (A Few Good Men and Stand By Me, and a whole boatload of crappola), who watches this stuff?
Seriously.
I gave up on tard prime time TV and tard movies (The PC police are coming for me!) in the early seventies.
Paul
May 27th, 2009
10:31 am
Mrs. Godzilla
Not confused – just scanned your post for highlights. Just got back from a trip, remember? Unwinding with this while I sort out the work pileup.
Point of interest: China engagement was part and parcel of the Bush approach. So to hear now the ‘China is key’ idea is , well, yeah…. But to have an impact it has to be at a time when China sees it in their national interest. Saying ‘hey China, this is really important to us. Will you do such and such, even if it causes problems for you? It’d sure make life easier for us” doesn’t work all that well.
And just watch: some of Obama’s rhetoric towards N Korea will be just as ‘provocative’ as anything Bush said.
Bush threatened ‘our harsh rhetoric’ according to your quote. Obama threatened “If it does not (behave responsibly) then it can expect only renewed isolation.” Renewed isolation. Isolation. Freezing out diplomatically. No cultural or scientific exchanges. No trade. No aid, including food.
Leading to increased sense of isolation, oppression, threatening, mass starvation and internal pressure leading to chaos.
Which president offered the inflammatory remarks, hmmm?
jewcowboy 10:13
I know you didn’t suggest that – I should’ve been clearer I was using the remark as a jumping-off point for where certain policies could lead.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
10:32 am
Never watched it, never will.
Nor have I, save for the obnoxious commercials one has to endure as a price for following the Simpsons or major league baseball.
I have been tempted more recently to see what kind of role they had for Janeane Garofolo, though.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
10:33 am
AmVet,
“who watches this stuff?”
Evidently many on this blog. Some seem to think it’s reality programming.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
10:36 am
DB, Gwinnettian,
“save for the obnoxious commercials one has to endure as a price for following the Simpsons or major league baseball.”
Quite so.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
10:38 am
“And the slobbering neo-conned and chickenhawks would be wailing for more war…”
Would be? Have they ever stopped?
Paul
May 27th, 2009
10:38 am
jewcowboy 10:28
Who believes this stuff? Possibly OBL?
Possibly Pres Obama, given his remarks towards Iran?
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
10:40 am
“c: nuclear blackmail the entire planet with “we’ve got 1 and you’ll just have to wait and see where it arrives.”
Sorry, that is not Jack, that is Dr. Evil and Mini-Me.
getalife
May 27th, 2009
10:40 am
lil kim’s last stand and we should start talking to his son.
Show him how democracy pays well with corruption like in South Korea..
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
10:41 am
Bud Wiser
May 27th, 2009
10:26 am
As a last resort, the facilities could be destroyed. And I’m sure it would have China’s blessing, no matter what it might state publicly.
Normal
May 27th, 2009
10:42 am
TNGelding, your 10:13 post mentioned 20,000 American Troops at the
Korean DMZ. Actually the number is closer to 30,000+, but facing them
is 150,000+ NK Troops. Our boys would be overrun in a day, and the survivors would be doing a fighting retreat, stalling for time. If,
as I said in my earlier post, we had the Naval resources, i.e. Air
Craft Carriers, on station, I don’t think they would be so quick to act.
But the main point here is they do not feel intimidated by our troops
at all, believe it.
Cuz
May 27th, 2009
10:47 am
The missiles are just a distraction. The nukes involved are small in size. It appears that they are building small nukes to sell to the highest bidding terrorist organization. Coming to a city near you, a pretty mushroom cloud. Actually, no telling who will get one first and where they will blow it up.
One answer, Japan announces they will join the nuclear club and China then may try to pull the reigns on the NK’s. But the horse may have already left the barn.
At least the UN will strongly condemn North Korea. Why do we belong to this group? They speak loudly with no actions. Rwanda and Darfur ring a bell? And it was NATO not the UN that stopped the killing in the Balkans.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the Left and Right could get together on this one. We are too busy fighting among ourselves to worry about North Korea and Iran getting nuclear capabilities.
Scooter
May 27th, 2009
10:48 am
TnGelding @ 10:21 am
I guess you are right. It would be putting your head in sand.
I do believe it’s an option we rarely try though.
Cuz
May 27th, 2009
10:51 am
You mean 24 is not a reality show? Guess I will go back to watching Daisy de la Hoya.
Doggone/GA
May 27th, 2009
10:52 am
“Japan announces they will join the nuclear club”
I don’t think that’s an option. Japan’s constitution does not allow them to have offfensive armies or weapons, only defensive. Nuclear weapons are not defensive.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
10:52 am
I think lovelyliz at 8.38 hit the nail on the head. This is about attention seeking, foreign aid and seeking legitimization. North Korea may bluster on, but they will ultimately do nothing that China does not want them to do. And China wants nothing to slow down their economy. If it came down to N. Korea or China’s economy, guess where 2.3 million Chinese troops will be marching.
I have 2 dogs, one weighs 8 lbs and one weighs 40 lbs. The small one barks at every thing that goes by, while the bigger one just watches. When the small one tries to attack something, the bigger one just barks twice and the smaller one stops and runs back to the big one with its tail between its legs.
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
10:56 am
Normal
May 27th, 2009
10:42 am
Sorry, I was a little late to the psrty. Some of the troops are stationed further south. But I think they realize we have enough air power in the area that they wouldn’t cross the border, but apparently you disagree.
It’s just another one of the things that should have been resolved decades ago, but we’re stuck in an us against them mentality. We’ve got to learn that Mother Earth only has so many resources and we must learn to conserve and share them.
Maybe we should get serious about the United Nations Disarmament Commission?
Cuz
May 27th, 2009
10:58 am
Yep, Doggone, Japan would have to change their constitution. More or less wishful thinking as I don’t think the country hit by nukes will suddenly embrace them.
Great analogy jewcowboy.
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
11:01 am
Party, party, party. But I guess that’s what we’ve been doing for too long.
UN commission:
http://www.un.org/disarmament/HomePage/DisarmamentCommission/UNDiscom.shtml
Doggone/GA
May 27th, 2009
11:01 am
“Yep, Doggone, Japan would have to change their constitution.”
Actually, I don’t think they can do that either. The “defensive only” was a condition imposed on them when they surrendered to end WW2.
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
11:03 am
DB and jewcowboy,
I started watching it this season. For some unknown reason. I have no explanation except it just happened. Yes, it’s just as you’d imagine – Jack Bauer is some kind of super agent (think James Bond on cocaine) that has more things happen to him in a 24 hour period than the entire US military or every police force in the U.S. sees in 10 years. AND, he kicks some terrorist booty as a hobby.
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
11:04 am
Paul and his “short” answers –
Paul
May 27th, 2009
11:07 am
Bosch and his ’simple’ questions.
georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky
May 27th, 2009
11:07 am
I have seen that there are those on here who think that there is not a threat at most times. That is strange since there has been a bomb at a starbucks and did we all already forget the planned bombings of jewish places of worship in New York State?
What is it you all think the reason that AQ is trying to basically take over Pakistan? It would not make vaccation rentals so I doubt development is their goal?
I have only seen 1 James Bond movie and watched about 10 min. of 24 way back when but was not interested. So could one of you who have been telling others that this is not 24 or all of that, as if any of you know what others are truely thinking, why it is I have formed these opinions?
I do not think that there are briefcase nukes everyday, however I think with the state of the world and a professed goal of ELIMINATING all who are not in line with their values, these groups are dangerous. What is to stop a poor starving nation from selling a nuke warhead, or any other type of information to a known terrorist organization?
Very odd that in less than 8 years there are those of us who act like we are invincable or that it just couldn’t happen? It seems to me that those who think it can’t happen are in way more of a fantasy world than Jack B.
Normal
May 27th, 2009
11:10 am
Tngelding,
I don’t believe they would cross the border, because I truly believe
that if they played that last card, all would be lost for them. I also
believe that somewhere in the NK there are cooler heads than that.
I’m a poker player and my gut feeling is that it is all a big bluff,
but will take guts to just let them bluster and bellow. They will toe
up right to the line, but they won’t cross it. They just don’t have
the cards. If I was President Obama, I would say “North Korea?”, “north
Korea, who?”, and walk on.
Sally Mae-B
May 27th, 2009
11:15 am
I finished reading a few of the posts here before I got sick to my stomach.Are the “treehuggers” that “puss-a-fied”? The world has tried to deal with N.Korea in a humane fashion for 3 presidents now without success. The only thing that has been accomplished is they’re ability to accelerate their nuke program. I know this might ruffle a few feathers,but possibly a few strategic air strikes might be in order. Or maybe Obama can go to N.Korea, dress up in yung-kin-doo’s official garb(including sunglasses) and do his bow/apologize routine and all will be ok. Or as I read earlier by at least one genius “no rule against them having nukes”,let them do what they will and hope for the best.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
11:18 am
there are those of us who act like we are invincable or that it just couldn’t happen?
Sorry to pick a sentence frag seemingly at random, but I really must ask–who are these people posting here you speak of?
Obviously the worst-case scenarios–the crazy religious fundamentalist blowing up a city for God with a bomb supplied by the crazy NK, paid for with our heroin money perhaps?–is something that could happen. I don’t think anyone denies that. If someone does I’m sure he/she will disavow me of this notion shortly.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
11:20 am
.Are the “treehuggers” that “puss-a-fied”?
Yes. And they want your son to wear a dress and have forced gay abortions.
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
11:20 am
georgian by birth,
And to elaborate on DB’s post a little – who are these people telling you what you think? Please tell me cause I hate that crap, and I’ll yell at them – or type some rather strongly languagized words in their direction.
Cuz
May 27th, 2009
11:21 am
Doggone, defensive only is in Article 9 of the Jappanese constitution of 1947, the surrender was just an unconditional surrender. I believe enough roadblocks could be setup to stop the repeal of Article 9 so the Nippon Nuclear Option goes nowhere but back in my head. A 75,000 national police force for defensive purposes is a pretty large group. I wonder if there are opportunities to open up a Dunkin Donuts by one of those police bases.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
11:21 am
georgian by birth floridian because I’m lucky,
“I have seen that there are those on here who think that there is not a threat at most times. That is strange since there has been a bomb at a starbucks and did we all already forget the planned bombings of jewish places of worship in New York State?”
I do not think there is a state sponsored nuclear threat most times. A bomb that breaks a few windows at a coffee house can hardly be compared in threat level to a 20 kiloton nuclear weapon, and it is silly to do so.
It should be noted in the last 64 years, the only country to use nuclear weapons against a foreign country has been the U.S.
Gaining entry into the “nuclear club” seems to be about gaining respect from other nations. If history has proven anything, states that gain nuclear weapons tend to become more stable. But 64 years is a short history.
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
11:22 am
DB @ 11:20 -
You forgot – and pray to Allah on a prayer mat.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
11:23 am
Bosch,
“think James Bond on cocaine”
Not martini’s? Yikes!
“I started watching it this season. For some unknown reason.”
I can’t really say anything, I’ve been drawn into the Real Housewives of New Jersey. That is a shame I have to live with
Jay rules Andy
May 27th, 2009
11:24 am
Wow, imagine that. The over reaching, socialist, Feds trump all Obama administration said that the states have to work out the “water wars”.
Gee that’s really socialist…
I wonder what’s going to happen with that when the wingbutternuts in GA secede???
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
11:27 am
georgian by birth floridian because I’m lucky,
“So could one of you who have been telling others that this is not 24 or all of that, as if any of you know what others are truely thinking, why it is I have formed these opinions?”
Maybe you watch too much television news?
getalife
May 27th, 2009
11:29 am
I propose for Redneck Convert to start six pack talks.
lil kim is out of booze and oil.
Sally Mae-B
May 27th, 2009
11:30 am
DB-Somehow I don’t think your joking. And sadly I was’nt with my previous assessment. Another thought,how bout a covert action to take out Non-boo-Jil. No,can’t do that cause Obohoo would want to release classified documents and pictures 1st thus negating surprize.
Road Scholar
May 27th, 2009
11:30 am
Mrs G: I agree China is the key. But what if we talked directly to their military? Their president is batty; his bisquit isn’t buttered on both sides. All he wants is his third son to be in charge.(I guess the first two children are idiots or not good commies.) Who do the military want? Why do they feel so threatened?
jlugf
May 27th, 2009
11:33 am
do a flyover of nk and drop cell phones, ipods and dvd players and blue jeans. in 5 yrs they will be just like south korea
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
11:33 am
Normal
May 27th, 2009
11:10 am
That’s what I wrote yesterday, much ado about nothing. If only we were sure.
Paul
May 27th, 2009
11:37 am
Bosch
Regardless of q&a length, was there anything new to think about?
General question (are you there, Mrs. G and CopyLeft?)
The Obama Administration seems to be operating under the ‘assumption’ that Iran has a nuclear military development program and that somehow a nuclear N Korea and/or a nuclear Iran is some kind of a threat.
After all we’ve heard about the Bush years, fear, no proof, etc etc etc
Any idea why the Obama Administration is going down this road?
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
11:38 am
Normal
May 27th, 2009
11:10 am
That’s why we must make sure we never use them again. But as long as they’re available, there’s always that chance.
pat
May 27th, 2009
11:40 am
I think obama should “reach out” to them. It’s worked so well with Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and the taliban. [/sarcasm]
Cuz
May 27th, 2009
11:41 am
jlugf, I think the entire country of North Korea has Stockholm Syndrome. The only thing your flyover would accomplish is an increase in the price of stock for Levi’s, Apple and Sony. Not saying that that is a bad thing.
Dave R
May 27th, 2009
11:42 am
jewcowboy, I was OK until you posted that “states that gain nuclear weapons tend to become more stable”. Sorry, I don’t buy that. Would love to see a study that says that. Nuclear weapons, by their very nature, are destabilizing weapons and should be banned the world over, including ours. The Cold War is over, the formerly named War on Terror doesn’t require them, and conventional “smart weapons” have become so effective that their ability to decimate and target another much larger conventional force negates the use of nuclear weapons.
But this blog has been largely silent on what do we do different. Except for Bosch’s “why can’t other nations have nuclear weapons?” lunacy, it’s been a bunch of what if’s, not what can we try. Note to Bosch: When your neighbor decides to install that 105mm howitzer on the lawn next to you, let me know then why a destabilizing influence such as nuclear weapons needs to be curtailed.
So let’s try this scenario: Due to the policies of Hope & Change in making us the world’s largest debtor nation in order to stabilize a world economy, maybe we need to get a little loving back from the rest of the world, including China. As they own so much of the paper worth of this nations debt, maybe a little bug in the ear of a finance minister or two over in China, hinting that we might not honor all or a portion of that debt if they do not use their significant influence on North Korea to dismantle their nuclear weapons capability, might be the catalyst for China to get their heads out of the sand.
After all, China’s economy wouldn’t look too good with billions of dollars in bad paper, would it?
Of course, we could also negotiate more favorable terms for that debt if they were to prove to be successful as well.
It is certainly something we haven’t tried before, and we have the leverage right now.
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
11:44 am
jewcowboy,
Don’t worry – I’m not in the judging business – we all live with some kind of guilty pleasure that we would never admit. Well, I did admit a guilty pleasure here once: yes, I’ve read the Twilight books. I did it for my daughter just to make sure they were age apropos. I have more free time to read than the other Bosch. I didn’t enjoy them at all.
Paul,
Well, there is always something to think about. Are you being snarky? Trying to challenge me? All that you wrote – (ALLLLL that) is all fine and good, but it still doesn’t answer my question. Why does everybody freak the hell out when a country like NK or Iran tries and develops nukes? The always jump to the conclusion that automatically means the end of times, or heaven forbid, the end of the US.
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
11:46 am
Dave R.,
Note to Bosch: When your neighbor decides to install that 105mm howitzer on the lawn next to you, let me know then why a destabilizing influence such as nuclear weapons needs to be curtailed.
Okay, will do. You’ll be the first to know, Dave.
I Rule You/ You Whine
May 27th, 2009
11:48 am
Does anyone else have no doubt that if Bush were still in office that this wouldn’t be a “conundrum” but instead would be a total failure of the neocon foreign policy, blah, blah, blah?
eewww
Paul
May 27th, 2009
11:51 am
Dave R
[[the formerly named War on Terror doesn’t require them]]
That would be for OUR side…
Bosch
Not snarky at all. You’ve asked the same thoughtful question a number of times, I tried to provide a concise response.
Challenge? You asked for information. “Challenge” would come into play only in the context of “challenge your thinking in this regard.”
I thought I addressed your question regarding why people ‘freak out’ regarding N Korea and Iran: perceived instability of the leaders; no renunciation of first strike; no acceptance of MAD; betting use would be survivable, even preferable; no acceptance of defensive, response use only; also – fear that weapons would be passed off to others.
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
11:52 am
Paul,
“Any idea why the Obama Administration is going down this road?”
Well, they can’t sit around with their thumb up their ass, now can they? Of course, they aren’t gonna be like me and say, “well, no biggies here.” Of course they are gonna have to talk to talk, but the question remains – are we in the position to really do anything about it? No, we’re not. As Mrs. G noted – China is the key here.
Copyleft
May 27th, 2009
11:55 am
Sally Mae: “Another thought,how bout a covert action to take out Non-boo-Jil. No,can’t do that cause Obohoo would want to release classified documents and pictures 1st thus negating surprize.”
Well, that and because it’s… y’know, ILLEGAL. Like torture is.
But hey, why let that stand in the way? Laws are for sissies who care about the Constitution.
I Rule You/ You Whine
May 27th, 2009
11:56 am
Urinal Headline
Metro home prices slide at slower pace
Buried in the Urinal story-
Still, on a year-to-year basis metro Atlanta home prices were down almost 16 percent from March 2008, dropping to levels not seen since late 2000, according to the Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller National Home Price Index.
Obozo has wiped out the entire Bush boom and the Urinal thinks it is good news, what toadies!
eewwww
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
11:56 am
Paul,
Just kidding, geez.
Perceived instability of leaders? Which ones? Us or them?
Does anyone seriously think that the leader of a sovreign nation would pass off nukes to terrorists? AND that the terrorists would be capable of detonating them? I don’t. I know there are some here that do, but I just don’t see that happening. We DO watch these people.
And again, I do not see a sovreign nation attacking someone with a nuke either, unless, of course, they want to commit collective national suicide.
Paul
May 27th, 2009
11:57 am
Bosch
Just going back to the eternal question: was all the vitriol directed at the Bush Administration over actual differences with policy, or was it to score political points?
Given the words and actions of the Obama Administration are so close in substance to what happened under the Bush Administration, I’ll answer “largely politically motivated.”
‘Course, it illustrates that much of what we see is more of an enduring national policy, rather than a Bush or Obama policy, but it’s still kinda fun to ping’em.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
11:57 am
And sadly I was’nt with my previous assessment.
Well, stuff like that isn’t worth taking seriously. Not because I find it especially offensive–more like laughable–but because the whole premise of calling liberals “pussified” essentially confers bravery upon their political opposites. Which is annoying, and stupid, and wrong. It requires zero, zilch, nada bravery to order some military strike that others will have to carry out, and I mean that not just from an intestinal-fortitude perspective (you just bark some orders, obviously) but from a political one as well. Historically, presidents have had little trouble summoning public support for such activities; it takes a very well disciplined and determined political opposition to tarnish such stuff, and (dare I say it) more political bravery to do so. And that’s true whether it’s the lonely bunch who spoke out against invading Iraq, OR those republicans who openly criticized Clinton’s intervention in the Balkans.
Another thought,how bout a covert action to take out Non-boo-Jil. No,can’t do that cause Obohoo would want to release classified documents and pictures 1st thus negating surprize.
You can do it, sure. The arguments against have nothing to do with your assertion, however.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
11:58 am
Dave R,
“So let’s try this scenario: Due to the policies of Hope & Change in making us the world’s largest debtor nation in order to stabilize a world economy, maybe we need to get a little loving back from the rest of the world, including China. As they own so much of the paper worth of this nations debt, maybe a little bug in the ear of a finance minister or two over in China, hinting that we might not honor all or a portion of that debt if they do not use their significant influence on North Korea to dismantle their nuclear weapons capability, might be the catalyst for China to get their heads out of the sand.”
That was my basic premise at 10.52, though you took it to more detail. I agree that China will not let anything happen to derail its economy. They may let N. Korea bluster about a bit, but they will pull them into line one way or another if they get out of hand.
“Sorry, I don’t buy that.”
U.S. – 1945
Russia – 1949
U.K. – 1952
France – 1960
China – 1964
India – 1974
Pakistan – 1998
North Korea – 2006
and possibly Isreal – 1979?
How many on this list have used a nuclear weapon against a foreign country? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating for everyone to have nuclear weapons, but it does tend to make them a big boy on the block, and thus begin to behave as such.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
12:00 pm
“total failure of the neocon foreign policy”
I thought that was a given.
Sally Mae-B
May 27th, 2009
12:00 pm
Copyleft-I agree with “sissies” part. Obama,see bridging the gap between left & right can be done. I feel better knowing the limpwrist left is consistant.
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
12:01 pm
Sally Mae-B
May 27th, 2009
11:30 am
The release was ordered by the court:
http://radioviceonline.com/federal-court-order-results-in-release-of-bush-interrogation-memos/
Bush Intel
May 27th, 2009
12:01 pm
Classified Response to NK:
1. Scramble jets to Antarctica
2. Invade China
3. Activate blame lib machine
4. Prepare for massive cash infusion at the expense of military and their families.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
12:02 pm
I Rule You/ You Whine ,
“Obozo has wiped out the entire Bush boom and the Urinal thinks it is good news, what toadies!”
Have you been in coma? What Bush boom?
demwit
May 27th, 2009
12:02 pm
But, but…, I clearly heard the progressive media outlets, including the AJC, promoting Obama’s foriegn policy CHANGES! You know, the ones that would restore America’s worldly respect!??
Paul
May 27th, 2009
12:02 pm
Bosch 11:56
[[Does anyone seriously think that the leader of a sovreign nation would pass off nukes to terrorists? AND that the terrorists would be capable of detonating them? I don’t]]
Well, the pattern’s been set. Pakistan – a civilian, not the ‘official’ government – sold the wherewithal to make nukes to N Korea. Sold it. And helped them acquire the sophisticated equipment to make it happen.
Russians have sold much of the technology to the Iranians. And made gazillions selling them the military stuff to protect it.
And all the worry about a Taliban takeover of Pakistan is driven partly by the fear (yes, fear) that a radical Islamic gov’t with nukes would, in fact, hand them off.
As far as difficulty in detonating: ain’t that difficult to float one into a harbor… yes, we have some detection devices… but if the Democrats would just get around to harbor security as they promised in their “Real Security” plan of March 2006…
I rule Andy
May 27th, 2009
12:03 pm
hehe…. Bush Boom…. hmmmphhh heheheheh chortle BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
OMG, whew!…. I think Andy means Obama popped the Bush bubble…
Dear God that person lives in a strange place….
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Paul
May 27th, 2009
12:05 pm
jewcowboy
Lots of references here today that we’ve been the only one to use a nuke. And the point of that is what, exactly?
Sally Mae-B
May 27th, 2009
12:05 pm
Sadly I must go,this talking a cat out of a tree mentality is sickening. You boy’s have fun
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
12:05 pm
“I feel better knowing the limpwrist left is consistant.”
I know some “limpwrist” rugby players that kick a** quite well. Especially when called that to their face.
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
12:06 pm
I Rule You/ You Whine
May 27th, 2009
11:48 am
It will be, after O has been in office for a while. Stay tuned.
demwit
May 27th, 2009
12:07 pm
The good news.
NK and Iran’s nuclear weapons tests will reduce global tempatures over the next few years.
of course, scientists 100 years from now won’t be able to state beyond a shadow of a doubt that greenhouse gases caused that change. All they will be able to say with scientific honesty and certainty is that the change was consistent with my nuclear weapons use theory
Bootzilla
May 27th, 2009
12:07 pm
This little guy obviously is hellbent on starting a fight (war), little rat, broke @$$ rat at that. Let’s see, we can’t enter into another war, especially when you run the risk of engaging China.
Sanctions are a joke and only make us continue to look weak. Kim is a psycho and is proving it daily. Only one sensible answer for him…
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
12:09 pm
I Rule You/ You Whine
May 27th, 2009
11:56 am
The “Bush boom”, aka house of (credit) cards, collapsed long before O arrived on the scene, and you know it.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
12:12 pm
the entire Bush boom
So when it’s a carefully calibrated program of modest tax hikes on the wealthiest Americans, international trade-friendly policies and domestic spending reform that produces steady growth and budget surpluses, it’s called the “Clinton Bubble”.
When it’s eight years of “God told me to cut taxes” fueling a short-lived run to stocks that falls apart spectacularly (and as predicted by sane people years earlier), it’s a “Bush Boom.”
Make sure to keep that straight in the future.
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
12:12 pm
Paul @ 12:05 – If I may, for I think I am the one who wrote it first (at least today) – from the perspective of other sovreign nations – well, if say, I were the leader of one – I’d think that the US has alot of nerve worried about some other country setting off a bomb when we have set the precident that we aren’t afraid to use our own. Granted that was during a time of war, but an untold number of civilians were killed and again, in the perspective of another country, I’d be along the lines of “Who the hell are they?”
@ 12:02 -
Those are sovreign nations and can do what the hell they want, when they want, and to whom they want. We aren’t in any position to do anything about it.
Now, the Taliban? That is troubling…….as the story unfolds, we’ll see what to do next.
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
12:12 pm
Sally Mae-B
May 27th, 2009
12:00 pm
Has there ever been a bigger “sissy” in the WH than Bush?
Sally Mae-B
May 27th, 2009
12:13 pm
Jewcowboy@12:05=Maybe so,but still they are limpwristed.
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
12:13 pm
And another thing – why do we as a country collective take seriously the rantings of crazy leaders?
Mort Merkel
May 27th, 2009
12:14 pm
North Korea captured the U.S.S. Pueblo, an intelligence ship in 1968. It was the Israelis who attacked the Liberty.
hryder
May 27th, 2009
12:14 pm
Obviously talk with North Korea has accomplished one thing: provided the time for the development and delivery systems of nuclear weapons. This is a current example of what could easily occur in the Middle East. Appears a great many people will still be talking as their throat is being cut or they are in the final stages of radiation death.
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
12:15 pm
Paul
May 27th, 2009
12:05 pm
That maybe we shouldn’t have?
Bud Wiser
May 27th, 2009
12:15 pm
Thank yoy TnGelding for the actual thought out response. Your drooling buddies all seem to think I watch 24, of which I have never seen 1 episode. The only thing I know about it is that the actor keeps getting himself in trouble with the law.
Unlike these idiots who actually watch garbage like that, and the Battlestar Galactica crowd that comments on the players here, I really don’t put any stock in what actors or any Hollywood types say or think. Someone who makes a living off of being what they are not, or probably never will be, equates in my mind to 3rd graders being told to recite from books in front of them, so the teacher can see if they can read.
These people can read, memorize, and emote all at the same time. Good for the. It makes their real life opinions no better or worse than mine, because their opinions, and mine, are just that – opinions.
Just having to explain this on a daily basis to these dimwits can be tiring, but that is what I am here for; if Obowo were to crap on a cracker, most of them would fight each other to see who could eat it first. In actuality, by supporting him and these destructive economic policies, they have in fact already ingested the cracker.
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
12:16 pm
Since the end of World War II the United States (and Israel) hold the record for threatening or outright invading smaller or less powerful nations, simply because they decided that they wanted to have some means of preventing the United States or Israel from threatening or invading them.
The assertion is always that its the other nation that as a crazy leader who is “hellbent on starting a fight” when the fact is he would like NOTHING more than to have the United States stop threatening regime change, and simply LEAVE THEM ALONE.
Those are the true facts. As usual there is something that exists in North Korea that American corporations want to get their hands on to exploit for their own benefits, and rather than simply leave this other nations alone, there has to be an almost continual line of bullying and threat, both overt and covert, resulting in this buy dediding he needs a nuclear deterent, a nuclear sort of “Brinks” or ADT” alarm system to prevent his nation from being broken into by outside thugs and thieves.
And I do not want to hear one word about spreading liberty and democracy or how downtrodden they are. If they were that downtrodden, they would have overthrown the guy by now, no matter how large his military or power. No dictator can survive without the tacit co-operation of the people he dictates to. Its impossible.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
12:16 pm
Paul,
“And the point of that is what, exactly?”
To point out that of the nations who possess nuclear weapons, the U.S. is the only one to use them of course. Is that fact that N. Korea has between 4 – 5 nuclear weapons serious; certainly. Are they likely to rain them down on Japan, S. Korea, Hawaii or the west coast of the U.S.; not likely.
History has shown nations with nuclear weapons do not use them to fight with; they use them to gain legitimacy and to get a seat at the table.
I think it speaks something to our national character that as the only country to ever us a nuclear weapon against a foreign country, we continue to have many whose reaction to any threat against the U.S. is to “blow them back to the Stone Age.” What does that say about us being responsible citizens of the world with regards to nuclear weapons?
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
12:18 pm
TnGelding,
“Has there ever been a bigger “sissy” in the WH than Bush?”
Yeah, Cheney. How many deferments?
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
12:22 pm
“Has there ever been a bigger “sissy” in the WH than Bush?”
Yeah, Cheney. How many deferments?
I’ll argue Andrew Jackson. Total sissy, beating up on a more or less defenseless Cherokee Nation like that. But that’s just me.
Copyleft
May 27th, 2009
12:22 pm
Sally Mae; So you agree that laws are for sissies?
Great! Then all the rabid right folks no longer have any rights. Let’s round ‘em up and lock ‘em away without trial, just as they recommend!
Still haven’t figured out why you lost the election AND your grip on America, eh? Don’t worry… it’ll come to you. Eventually.
I Rule You/ You Whine
May 27th, 2009
12:23 pm
Suckers-
Nationally, home prices dropped 19.1 percent in the first quarter from a year earlier-Urinal
And that^^ is after hopeandchange.duh.
eewwwww
Bosch
May 27th, 2009
12:26 pm
“and the Battlestar Galactica crowd that comments on the players here”
Hey! Bud, I’m offended!
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
12:26 pm
Almost every dictatorship left in the world thrives on the fear that an external power creates of invasion and attack. Most peasants in the world know the effects that such wars and occupations and conquests have on them, and would rather face the devil they know, than the one they do not. Castro could not have survived in Cuba for very long without the continual harassment, the memory of an invasion, and an external enemy to invoke.
Fly-On-The-Wall
May 27th, 2009
12:26 pm
Ya know, I think IR/YW is really a comedian who’s testing out his latest lines before he puts it in front of a live audience. That’s the only explanation on his Bush Boom/Bubble/Whatever post.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
12:27 pm
Deep Thought:
Has anything worth reading accompanied little up-arrow pointers “^^” favored by such intellectual giants as Whiner and @@?
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
12:28 pm
Yup, hope and change take some time to counteract fear and stupidity.
The current mess took at least 8 years of a mess making that only conservative policy can create, to get into, and it will take more than six months to get get out of it. Come back in four years and then talk about it.
Bush and Reagan asserted that their tax cutting ideas would eliminate both the deficit and the national debt. That Conservative economics for you.
Dave R
May 27th, 2009
12:30 pm
Gee Bosch, maybe because those same leaders ARE crazy – and have nukes. And no opposition to tell them when they consider something wrong. Not a good combination.
Jewcowboy, I fail to see your point regarding the dates that each country got nukes. That does not show a stabilizing influence as I don’t think Britain was unstable, nor France. The acquisition of nukes accelerated the Cold War between us and the Soviets and led us to where we are today.
Paul
May 27th, 2009
12:34 pm
Bosch
[[why do we as a country collective take seriously the rantings of crazy leaders?]]
Because the results of not taking them seriously can be disastrous. Especially if they have nukes.
TNGelding 12L15
Well, if we nuked Hiroshima. Still the Japanese military resisted. Such a mindset. Then we hit Nagasaki. (Truman had already signed the invasion order). The Emperor intervened. They capitulated.
We’d just suffered over 50,000 casualties taking Okinawa. I’ll wager the death toll of US and Japanese (especially civilians) would’ve been far higher if we’d had to invade the home islands.
Which leads me to the conclusion Truman made the correct decision.
NJ
[[Since the end of World War II the United States (and Israel) hold the record for threatening or outright invading smaller or less powerful nations,]]
You think maybe the USSR might be a contender, especially if we count the countries they ‘liberated’ at the end of WWII?
jewcowboy
I trust you read my response to Bosch – I think it’s applicable to your post, also.
[[History has shown nations with nuclear weapons do not use them to fight with; they use them to gain legitimacy and to get a seat at the table.]]
History gets made anew when the new cast of characters do not adhere to the historical model. That, I think, is the concern with N Korea and Iran.
Is it possible an Islamic fundamentalist Pakistan would do a handoff to AQ? The Obama Administration seems to think so. Would they use such a weapon on Riyadh? Entirely plausible. It’s not just a US strike that could gravely affect us.
And I don’t hear many serious policy analysts – conservatives – use the ‘blow them back to the Stone Age’ line. Just about as many on the right say that as, say, on the Left say we’re going to get out of Iraq right now or 9-11 was a Bush plot.
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
12:38 pm
And the more that economists and the business media keeps repeating that there are signs of improvement in the economy, the more the rightwingnuts will be saying “Thats hope and change for you”
The reason housaing prices are plummeting is simple. They were massively overly valued because of the related speculative market based on that housing.
That simple economics. The net value of the securities based on mortgages should NEVER exceed the agregate value of the hard assets that back them up. Thats BASIC market economics.
When the total agregate value of all stock in an economy and the total GDP of that economy is at parity, (the ratio number used is 100=parity) the economy is in perfect shape and can sustain economic growth continually. However as the aggreagate value of shares passed equity then you have what is an overvalued market. That means the shares are worth more than the company that is selling them is worth in its total output. That is called an “overvalued market” and when that occurs you get a correction. If the ratio is 150 or more, that is to say, if the value of the shares or investment instruments exceed 50 percent more than the value of the sector of the economy that the investment is in, you will eventually see what is blithly called a “market correction”
The slump in housing values is intrinsic, and central to a “free market economy” It cannot occur in a Keynesian centered economy because as the ratio between GDP and the market changes, you simply tax the market down to parity. You get economic growth WITHOUT wide market fluctuations.
I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(
May 27th, 2009
12:48 pm
Federal tax revenue plunged $138 billion, or 34%, in April vs. a year ago — the biggest April drop since 1981, a study released Tuesday by the American Institute for Economic Research says.
Now look at the chart and see where the biggest plunge takes place, Obozo’s election, bwahahahahahahaha, losers-
http://www.aier.org/images/stories/research/taxreceipts.png
Totally trashing the economy, gosh, what champions.
Paul
May 27th, 2009
12:51 pm
N Korea wouldn’t use nukes? Or precipitate a crisis leading to their use?
This just in from Reuters:
“By Oleg Shchedrov
MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russia is taking security measures as a precaution against the possibility tension over North Korea could escalate into nuclear war, news agencies quoted officials as saying on Wednesday.
Interfax quoted an unnamed security source as saying a stand-off triggered by Pyongyang’s nuclear test on Monday could affect the security of Russia’s far eastern regions, which border North Korea.”
Well, maybe if Russia and China feel threatened they’ll cooperate. That’s about the only difference Pres Obama will have going for him that Pres Bush didn’t.
I don’t know if this should be a prediction or a request, but I’ll say the Calif Supreme Court’s shutdown of gay marriage would be a fine topic for this forum. Especially given the writings here that “progress” was inevitable…
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
12:56 pm
The very nature of free market economies, regardless of the blathering of Republicans is that recessions and depressions are GOOD THINGS. Totally based on a rather absurd notion called “Social Darwinism”
They allow the rich to eliminate workers, these workers then lose all their assets and their jobs, and when they start working again, they have to start back at the bottom and start building up their personal acquisitions and wealth all over again. That creates consumption which causes economic growth and yada yada.
All ye who praise the free market system should be singing the praises of your hard earned homes losing their value. They would have lost it sooner or later, regardless of the existance of subprime loans. Only the federal government made them available in the first place, and it was only the keynsian idea of having the GOVERNMENT guarantee mortgages that kept the price of homes goung up slowly but steadily, and the removal of those contstraints that created the speculative investment cycle which had to drive up the prices of houses along with the value of the investment instruments based on them. There were only TWO methods by which investors could have made lots of money on their Mortgage Based Securities, and that was either for the base value of the houses to increase much more than the rate of inflation, or for the interest on those mortgages to be very high. (so that momthly mortgage payments would be much higher than inflation so over the term of the mortgage, the purchaser pays MORE IN REAL DOLLARS than he could sell the house for when the mortgage is paid off.
This is a win/win for the banks and investors, and lose/lose for the homeowner regardless of the tax deductions and not paying rent but living in his own home. You pay for all the maintenance etc, and the bank collects whether you pay off the mortgage or default. As long as the rate of default is low enough to keep the value of the homes high, the bankers and investors win big every time.
Sally Mae-B
May 27th, 2009
1:12 pm
Copyleft-sorry for the late response,went to another blog to get my mind refreshed with common sense. Now I’m back here, God help me. Anyway,you missed what I agreed with you on. I agreed with your assumption that the left are a bunch of “sissies”,sorry if that was’nt clear.
Normal
May 27th, 2009
1:14 pm
Thre biggest sissy in the White House, if nobody has posted this yet, was James Buchannon. He was thought to have been gay…not that there
is anything wrong with that…
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
1:16 pm
I Rule You/ You Whine
May 27th, 2009
12:23 pm
Maybe we can persuade O to come home and change yur diaper. Are you still in Chicago?
Sally Mae-B
May 27th, 2009
1:17 pm
Normal-Maybe not now,but then WHOAAAAAA NELLY!!!!
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
1:23 pm
Actually if you notice who is making the biggest stink about small nations getting their own nukes, its all the nations with the largest amount of nukes. Israel is now estimated to have 200 or more. Small wonders its neighbors want their own. Israel can act with impunity, seize terrirory etc, on claims of national security, when in fact, in the last 60 plus years, Israel has started all but two of the conflagrations between itself and its neighbors. In the 1950’s it was continually attacking Egypt, Jordan or Syria, asserting that its intelligence indicated these nations were planning to attack it, which after the fact was proven to be completely false by BOTH U.S. and Soviet intelligence. The U.S. Russia, China, Great Britain, France and Israel, each having a nuclear arsenal capable of turning the smaller nations that have nukes into radioactive glass, all oppose other nations from getting nukes for a single reason. It will make those larges and historically agressive powers think twice before launching a conventional war for purposes of “regime change”. Every nation noted above has had a history of invading, changing regimes, or simply bullying smaller powers into looking after the economic and political interests of those larger powers, while economically screwing the people inside those countries. For example, with Iran, the British sucking out of 80 percent of the nations oil profits between 1899 and 1950 kept that nations people basically below subsistance level. When an oxford educated Iranian ran and won a totally monitored democratic election decided to NOT renew his contract with the British, the United States and Britain funded a group of Islamic radicals, who later became the heads of the current Islamic Republic of Iran, to overthrow the guy, we put the shah back on his throne and another 25 years of one of the most brutal dictatorships on the planet continued. A very small percentage of the Iranian population benefited from the “free market” Most remained in the direst poverty, just as in India only those who live in the “free enterprise zones” which pay them a little more, but in actually constitute a government controlled system of slavery in very poor working conditions in 99.9 percent of the cases, actually benefit a tiny bit from the “free markets” and a small, very wealthy oligarchy has emerged. You dont read it in the American press, but in places like Sri Lanka and India, there are daily strikes and riots demanding socialist states replace the free market zones. By the workers who are working in those zones.
The primary objection to these weapons was invented by Israel. The Masada Complex is just as applicable to the non Jewish states of the world. Basically Israel covertly asserts that if any nation in the region invades it, and it looks like Israel will lose in this war, Israel will release its nukes not just on the invading nation, but all nations that border it. This threat results in each one of the bordering nations suppressing their own neighbors from engaging in actions that they will be made to pay for.
North Korea is doing the same. The United States was talking “regime change” in N.K. before the ink was dry on the cease fire in 1952.
North Korea has only shown the inclination to destroy Seoul in the case that the United States OR any U.S. ally in the region decides to overthrow the regime.
The current nuclear threat is based on the fact that the current leader, lets face it, is about to snuff if, and they know as does our own government, that we will use the period in which a new leader has to emerge to try to destabilize the government of North Korea and change the regime. The nukes were a warning to stay on our side of the border during this period.
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
1:29 pm
I Rule You
/ You Whine 
May 27th, 2009
12:48 pm
The incompetent Bush actually accomplished something, but he wasn’t as lucky as Reagan. It started to unravel before he left office, so it kills your “argument.”
Hang around. It’ll get better, as the economy gushes upward. Can you say Dow 15,000? Where it would be now if not for Iraq and mortgage backed securities, which mushroomed under the Ivy League cowboy.
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
1:29 pm
Its not so much that the liberal lefties are sissies, but that the conservative fear mongers are rather big dumb bullies that can be outthought by most third world leaders.
Lets see what the last 6 plus years have brought in Iraq and Afghanistan. Basically nothing. Some form of dictatorship or fundamentalists extremist groups control both countries. The Taliban is not only on the rise, but has spread its control throughout Afghanistan again and into Pakistan. The pro-Iran Shi’ites control Iraq. Basically what we have running Iraq is the political party that helped the Lebanese Shi’ites create Hezbollah, the Islamic Dawa Party, which blew up the American and French Embassies in Kuwait at the same time that th Lebanese Shi’ites blew up and killed 221 Marines in Beirut. Hezbollah did not exist as a separate organization until two years later. The planning of the Beirut attack was done by Iraqis who advised and directed their Lebanese counterparts. These Iraqis were in exile from Iraq, because they were pretty much the same as Hezbollah is today.
@@
May 27th, 2009
1:29 pm
You’ve got China walking on eggshells. Iran venturing off into international waters and Israel saying “We could have told you so”.
Russia’s helpless? “Nobody wants a war,” says Mr. Bazhanov. “The only alternative is to go back to the drawing board. Put on sanctions, hold talks, try to convince them not to go any further. But it doesn’t look good.”
Not too!
Cooperation in the field of nuclear research will be renewed between Russia and Cuba, the head of Russia’s Rosatom State Nuclear Energy Corp. said May 27, RIA Novosti reported. Rosatom made the announcement during a ceremony in Moscow in which Cuban scientific aide Fidel Angel Castro Diaz-Balart, Fidel Castro’s son, was given the Russian Kurchatov Award for his work in the nuclear field.
I’m beginning to think that Biden had no idea “Obama’s test” would cover so much territory.
They’ve got Obama chasing his tail.
Then there’s the Palestinian opinion
Where’s the love and respect?
DB:
Some people are lost without a ^^ detour sign.
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
1:34 pm
Thanks to the presidential historians on giving us a better understanding of sissy.
Our foreign policy is too often based on what is best for us, not the rest of the world.
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
1:42 pm
As far as the gay marriage issue in California this is little different than the Dred Scot case was in relation to slavery. Within a few years of the court decision, slavery was illegal, and the very lack of rights asserted by the courts was eliminated by law. In the 1950’s when the California legislature made interracial marriage legal, 91 percent of Californians opposed it. In the 1960’s when the United States made interracial marriage legal, more than 75 percent of Americans opposed the decision. In this case, in a few more years, when a large percent of the opposition to gay marriage dies off in California, another ballot initiative or a new State Supreme Court will simply declare this alteration to their constitution unconstitutional and it will start all over again.
Remember this was NOT a decision made against gay marriage, but the constitutionality of changing the California constitution under California law.
Of course at the national level, DOMA is a dead issue. As soon as it hits the courts at the national level its dead, and with six states now having gay marriage, California’s law will be irrelevant. They will have a constitutional obligation to recognize gay marriages from other states when their own citizens have them.
In less that five years, the U.S has gone from NO states allowing gay marriage to having one eighth of the states having gay marriages.
Pretty much the move to gay marriage is occuring in the EXACT same places that the Anti-Slavery movement began. History will repeat itself, probably in the same way. Someone will end up kicking the ass of the anti gay states.
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
1:42 pm
And the berat goes on:
DoD Identifies Air Force Casualties
The Department of Defense announced today the death of two airmen who were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. They died May 26 near Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained from an improvised explosive device.
Killed were:
Lt. Col. Mark E. Stratton II, 39, of Houston. He was assigned to the Joint Staff, Pentagon, Washington, D.C.
Senior Airman Ashton L. M. Goodman, 21, of Indianapolis. She was assigned to the 43rd Logistics Readiness Squadron, Pope Air Force Base, N.C.
For further information on Stratton, please contact the Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs office at (703) 695-0640.
For further information on Goodman, please contact the Pope Air Force Base Public Affairs office at (910) 394-4183.
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
1:52 pm
I am always amused when it is asserted that the incompetant Bush actually accomplished something. Fact remains that his so called accomplishements landed the economy exactly where it is. Especially when he was making the claim that his administration created the largest amount of home ownership in American history, a thread that was in every Bush economic speech for the last five years.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
1:54 pm
What does the ^^ mean anyway?
demwit
May 27th, 2009
1:54 pm
Where are the pictures of our returning dead Jay?
Didn’t Obama signed off on “journalists” taking pictures??
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
1:56 pm
The deaths at Bagram are more blowback from the 1980’s mujhihhadin. Most of those IED’s are made from Russia bombs left behind when they left Afghanistan. There are remnants of these bombs all over the place over there. Just in April, a 1100 pound Russian bomb was found 200 feet from the airstrip at Bagram and blown up in place.
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
2:08 pm
Well fortunately its not the Russians who have been threatening regime change in Iran, North Korea, and Iraq. The invasion of Iraq alone sent the other two nations rather frantically on a quest to obtain nuclear weapons.
Cuba, or course, could have had nuclear weapons 20 years ago.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
2:13 pm
The always-classy demwit asks: “Where are the pictures of our returning dead Jay?”
Here’s one photo.
And here’s an opinion piece about the policy change.
The ban became controversial again when President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates decided to lift it. But the controversy quickly passed because the solution to respecting the feelings of the fallen warriors’ friends and families was simple and obvious: Ask their permission. Some say no, preferring that their grief be private; others say yes, wanting their sacrifice to be publicly acknowledged.
Regrettably, wars do have to be fought and inevitably men and women die fighting them. It is not asking a great deal of the nation to honor those dead, which we do admirably. This is the 141st Memorial Day since the observance was first declared three years after the Civil War.
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
2:15 pm
Cuba Special Weapons
Cuba does not possess nuclear weapons, and there are no credible reports of Cuban efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Cuba is not reported to possess chemical weapons, nor are there credible reports of Cuban posession of long range ballistic missiles. Cuba is generally regarded as having a program of research on biological warfare agents, though the scope and focus of this effort remains obscure and controversial.
In 1990, Cuba’s air force, with about 150 Soviet-supplied fighters, including advanced MiG-23 Floggers and MiG-29 Fulcrums, was probably the best equipped in Latin America. In 1994, Cuba’s armed forces were estimated to have 235,000 active duty personnel. Cuban military power has been sharply reduced by the loss of Soviet subsidies. By 1999 the Revolutionary Armed Forces numbered about 60,000 regular troops…
Nuclear Reactors
Cuba has entered into an agreement with the IAEA to apply safeguards to individual nuclear facilities, including the partially completed Juragua nuclear power plant. The reactors that would be installed are of the VVER-400 type, an advanced model of the Soviet pressurized water reactor. There were serious concerns about the safety of the plant. However, since the plant does not appear to be economically viable, no international investors had been willing to provide funds for completion of the facility.
Construction of the Juragua nuclear power plant began in 1983, as the result of a 1976 Soviet-Cuban agreement. Analysts estimate that the plant could reduce Cuba’s imported fossil fuel dependence by a quarter. The plant is located in Cienfuegos province, 250 kilometers from Havana. Construction of the two 440 MW WWER 440 PWR reactors was suspended in 1992 when Russia terminated its substantial support for Cuba. As of 1995 Unit-1 was about 80% complete and would take about 2 years to finish. Unit-2 wass about 50% completed. Efforts by the Castro regime to preserve the uncompleted structures are continuing at a cost of $2 million to $3 million per year. However, no source of funding for the $1,000 million needed to complete the work is available. The US General Accounting Office reported serious safety problems with the reactors. The safety problems with the plant are associated with poor construction, poor quality-control, lack of Western safety and control equipment, and a poor regulatory program in Cuba. Claims that construction of two Cuban nuclear power plants is nearly complete, and that they would pose a serious health threat to the United States, are apparently overstated.
In the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident, representatives of over 50 nations participated in the development of a Convention on Nuclear Safety, a multilateral treaty that seeks to increase the safety of civil nuclear power reactors. Although Cuba does not yet have any operating nuclear power reactors, it is a signatory to this convention.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/cuba/nuke.htm
So far, the idiotic reference to the Soviets assisting Cuba with nuclear reactors is just that, more of the same saber rattling. Fortunately we have a new president who may be able to reduce the threat level of the United States against just about every small nation that does not cave to its desires to have American corporations control 80 percent of their economies.
Aas far as Iran goes, its nuclear program is largely using stuff given to the Shah by the United States.
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
2:19 pm
Regretably wars do have to be fought, but the Republican party, tends to use them as a first solution rather than the last solution that all the greatest books on warfare refer to them as. And largely the United States has used them agressively, rather than defensively.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
2:19 pm
When did caz become Sally? Ah, who cares….
DB,
Since you apparently don’t know my position on financing campaigns how is it you know that my potential changing of that position is a good thing?
TUESDAY VANDY GIRL
May 27th, 2009
2:21 pm
People like Bosch sicken and disgust me..
oh well, thats all i had to say
georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky
May 27th, 2009
2:21 pm
DB,
I hope you do not feel I was trying to be rude in my earlier post, for the most part those of whom I spoke were from relationships away from this site or any other. However I have noticed from time to time here that comments have been made about how it is an unbelievable thought that something of that nature could happen and it is silly to think or be worried it could. I have posted 2 such comments just from looking through todays post. I also hope the people who posted them do not feel that it is an indictment upon their charecter or any othere indictment. I have posted them below.
Bosch, I never said anyone claimed to know what I was thinking, doesn’t really happen to me that much to me here, but thanks for offering. I have seen your rath when someone offends you in that manner.
JewCowboy,
I understand that the threats from New York were mild, however are you willing to say that if they could have got their hands on something more powerful they would not have. Also you do know the goal of the bombers who were stopped was to KILL as many Jewish people as they could? I know you care more for the Jewish people than that.
Sorry, but I don’t buy that paranoid argument of “OMG, the bad guys are gonna get ‘em and blow us all up.”
Please. Only in the movies.
Who says or actually believes that they are making them for themselves? What do you think they’re going to do, threaten the S. Koreans and Japanese for some silk shirts and radios?…
a: deliver a strike on Israel;
b: pop one off in NY or DC;
c: nuclear blackmail the entire planet with “we’ve got 1 and you’ll just have to wait and see where it arrives. ……….
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
10:26 am
“Jack’s like God, man. If he didn’t exist we’d have to create him.”
Never watched it, never will.
• Link
• Report this comment
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
10:28 am
“a: deliver a strike on Israel;
b: pop one off in NY or DC;
c: nuclear blackmail the entire planet with “we’ve got 1 and you’ll just have to wait and see where it arrives.”
Though it seems someone has been watching “24″ a little too much
TUESDAY VANDY GIRL
May 27th, 2009
2:26 pm
People who think the world is egalitarian and that things should just be fair and equal among people and nations are………. so naive, that I actually get giddy wanting to take advantage of them, to fleece them, to abuse them for fun and profit, and leave them broke and most likely liable for all the legal ramifications:) Ah ..i can’t wait to get out in the corporate world!
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
2:27 pm
Absolutely. Most of the nations that have been reputedly working on nuclear weapons have repeatedly said, stop threating to overthrow our government and we will stop our programs. Simple as that. The Arab nations of the Middle East have put forth making the Middle East a nuclear free zone, which would mean requiring Israel to get rid of its 200 nukes, and they will stop attempting their own programs. Verification is not at all difficult and there is no way to completely hide programs, especially given the state of detection equipment these days. Our satellites are sensitive enough to detect every aspect of fissionable material production from 300 miles in orbit even if its hundreds of feet underground. Too much by product to try to hide or get rid of that leeches into the water tables or into the air to hide, even deep underground.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
2:28 pm
Bosch,
Until April 2003 North Korea was part of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. The announced in early 2005 they had nukes so that was some mighty quick work or they weren’t really honoring the treaty to begin with. Since the latter is a pretty safe bet they can’t really be trusted to have the best intentions.
Back to the forest….
Later!
S GA dem
May 27th, 2009
2:46 pm
Tuesday Vandy Girl is obviously a Republican gubernatorial candidate for the state of GA
Normal
May 27th, 2009
2:47 pm
Tuesday Vandy Girl, I think you will become another Martha Stewart.
Good luck with that.
TW
May 27th, 2009
2:47 pm
Doesn’t say a whole lot about Newt’s reading comprehension that he would label the woman a racist based on the context in which she said her remarks.
Any student drawing the same conclusion from said text would be labeled special ed in a heartbeat.
S GA dem
May 27th, 2009
2:48 pm
Tues Vandy Girl AKA Sen Chambliss
Normal
May 27th, 2009
2:50 pm
TW, anybody who takes Newt seriously should be in special ed, anyway.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
2:54 pm
Since you apparently don’t know my position on financing campaigns how is it you know that my potential changing of that position is a good thing?
Oh, you know, presumption of guilt, figuring that any change has got to be an improvement, that sort of small minded presumptuousness I’m usually puttin’ out there.
(Seriously, I was just throwin’ you a bone, and hoping you’d elaborate later.)
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
2:56 pm
I hope you do not feel I was trying to be rude in my earlier post
Nah. I have some issues with some of the posters here, but you’re generally pretty civilized, and if I ever fail to respond with a modicum of civility in kind just call me “A-hole.”
it’ll be our safe word.
Normal
May 27th, 2009
2:59 pm
A-hole?! That’s what my wife calls me! I thought it was a term of endearment! OMG!!
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
3:02 pm
georgian by birth floridian because I’m lucky,
“What do you think they’re going to do, threaten the S. Koreans and Japanese for some silk shirts and radios?…”
Ummm…Japan has the 3rd largest economy in the world and S. Korea has the 15th largest, hardly silk shirts and radios.
“Who says or actually believes that they are making them for themselves?”
I would say most world leaders believe that based on the statements they’ve made. Let’s see, what would N. Korea gain by selling thier 4 – 5 nuclear weapons…a few million dollars and world military retaliation, especially from China. What do they gain if they keep them; respect and deterrence from invasion by the U.S.
“however are you willing to say that if they could have got their hands on something more powerful they would not have.”
Absolutely not. There is huge difference in setting off a bomb at 3am in front of a coffee shop you know will be deserted and incinerating millions of people, leaving many more millions maimed and trillions in property damage. I know this may be hard to understand, but there are degrees of criminality. Just because you lose your temper and punch someone does not necessarily mean you’re a serial killer.
“I know you care more for the Jewish people than that.”
I care for all people, regardless of faith, and sometimes despite of it.
“Also you do know the goal of the bombers who were stopped was to KILL as many Jewish people as they could?”
There is a lot of hate in the world. These people also bought a fake goo-like substance supplied by a FBI chemist thinking it was C-4. Mental giants, not so much.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
3:06 pm
Of course the funny thing about this is the U.S. itself has still not ratified the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Talk about hypocrisy.
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
3:17 pm
TUESDAY VANDY GIRL
May 27th, 2009
2:26 pm
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
4:36 pm
DB,
Paul and I have had this difference about campaign finance for a while now. His position is basically 100% public funding (if I’m mischaracterizing that position this thread is probably sufficiently dead where he won’t notice) and mine is (or was) that there should be no limits to private funding but 100% disclosure before the candidate could cash the check or process the credit card and that would the same whether the donation was a dollar or a million dollars and so on.
However a flaw in my idea is coming to light lately. I don’t think that car dealer thing I linked to is the full reason for certain closures, although the one where the Clinton guy and the BET guy kept all their dealerships but had their competition all shut down is pretty suspicious. The real problem is what happened to low end financial backers of Prop 8. There aren’t a lot of people that want to deal with harassment by organized community rabble rousers with nothing but time on their hands, so they’ll just drop out of the system.
I also can’t see JUST hiding the names of smaller donors because that is WAY too easy to exploit. I can’t stand the thought of public financing and a whole new can of worms is opened there by figuring out at what level you allow a candidate to take financing, but it almost seems like the way things are going that might be the only thing that works unless we want to have some panel of judges that clears private donations as being within the law and allow the donors to remain anonymous for donations up to the current limits and full immediate disclosure for those above it.
Anyway I was just kidding with the no elections bit. Even Saddam still put himself up for election from time to time.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
4:44 pm
Well I guess my lengthy and quite clean diatribe about campaign finance had a magic word.
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
4:58 pm
Amazing what eight years can produce. In 2000, North Korea had two nuclear reactors. One was not working but could be brought to functionality by rebuilding half of it, its core. The other was completely useless and had to be rebuilt completely. The funniest thing was the Bush claims. In June 2008 the North Koreans, in accordance with the six nation talks blew up the key elements of its main reactor. Its less useful reactor was forgotten.
Shortly after Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech in 2002, N.K withdrew from the non proliferation treaty. Prior to this, the N.K. reactors were under constant observation by video and by IEAE inspectors. Between 1996 and 2002, to all accounts the North Koreans might have been able to have produced enough plutonium for two bombs but their recent reopening of their plutonium reprocessing reactor seems to indicate that they didnt actually get any plutonium to from them. The two recent bombs appear to have been uranium bombs, too big to fit onto a missile. But once they get the techology for a Uranium bomb down, a much smaller and lighter plutonium bomb is simple.
Bush walked away from the 1996 agreement, and the North Koreans walked away from the table. Giving them time, six years, to produce one inefficient bomb in 2006, and a much more efficient one, this year.
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
5:09 pm
No. The fact that they have a bomb now doesnt indicate they had anything BEFORE 2000. America developed the first bomb in just a few yeas and once the basic design is known, the North Koreans could have done so in about 18 months max. Once a reactor is opperational, they can produce enough fissionable material for ten bombs in a single year, and the design of a “canon” type bomb is simple enough, Simply fire a small chunk of fissile material into a larger but still subcritical mass so the smaller mass strikes the larger at at least 1/1000th of a second. Its more than obvious that the N.K.s first bomb was following the designs left behind by the Japanese, which only compressed the fissile masses at 1/100 the of a second, which would result in only ten percent of the mass going critical. You would either have to have ten times as much uranium or have a ten times greater compression of the fissile core to get the recent bomb results. One or the other, they either got faster compression or a physically bigger bomb. Explains their reopening of their plutonium reactor. By next year they can have enough plutonium for ten weapons small enough to fit on top of their missiles.
They did not have to start until five years ago to have their first bomb in 2006.
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
5:12 pm
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
we may hold this, but it does not neccessarily translate to other nations agreeing with it, nor gives us a right to ram it down the throats of other nations.
That was the mistake about Vietnam. Ask the Vietnamese peasant about liberty and he would have looked at you like you were crazy. Its a complete abstraction to this ancient culture, totally devoid of any reality.
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
11:31 pm
N.J.
May 27th, 2009
10:25 pm
True, but the people are equal to us, and their lives and cultures should be valued. As you state, it’s their decision on what kind of government they wish to live under.
ray mc fadden
June 16th, 2009
12:32 am
without china’s support we are dead locked what to you do to stop them when china supports the north we need to cut off the money to all of them the last time i was in south korea they don’t realy like us that much???