That's why they picked on iraqi instead..... they know dammn well that lil kimi has the correct lack of marbles to use them if attacked.
North Korean missile launch on 4th of July
- Thread starter Transcend
- Start date
Changleen said:
You rather speak Japanese? Do your self a favor and ask someone from Nanking (sp) China what it was like and how fun it was to speak Japanese. Or better yet, the people from Burma. And I am a idoit? If you are over the age of 18 you would have been shot in the street like most of the population of that age. Keep studying in school, man.
Largest standing army? How is that defined? A bunch of conscripts (that do not want to be there) holding a gun in a fox hole? North Korea niether has the food, logistics and infrastructure to carry out a succesful campaign against the South. The only thing it does have going for it is big bro China. Barring that, South Korea with its industrial might would steam roll the North. This ain't dad's 1957 anymore.
What the hell are you on about? North Korean soldiers are highly motivated and loyal to Kim Jong Il. Remember these people are taught that they have it better than the rest of the world. Brainwashing can work wonders if conducted in the right closed environment. In a case of conflict, South Korea would face devastation just as the North.SDH said:
BRRAAAP!! said:
Motivation goes quickly when bellies go hungry. Motivated? Loyal? what are your sources for this? This is what was said of the Republican guard in the early 90's. Cut the food and the communication and they were giving up in droves..........
Well fed and well supported armies are the most effective. History have taught us that, there are many many cases. Industry and ability to supply is what wins wars. If the North was left to fend for itself, it would crumble quickly. As far as nukes, yup they have them but if used it would spell disaster for the North also. Deploying nukes on the same land mass as yourself, is cutting your own wrist. Nuclear winter effect would also effect the North if the South was bombed.
PS
The US on the 38th is not for keeping the North out but from keeping the South from going in.....................
Well first of all NK is not Iraq?SDH said:
For the motivation/loyal part, it was mostly speculation. There has also been a few incidents that might showcase some motivation though. "In September 1996, a North Korean submarine got stranded at Kangrung, South Korea, and its crew abandoned the ship. Eleven of the crew committed suicide and the rest fought to the last man except one who was captured. In June 1998, another submarine got caught in fishing nets at Sokcho and its crew killed themselves. Such is the fighting spirit of North Korean soldiers"
To be clear I never hinted that NK would win any wars.
Yeah, I know all about WW2, thanks for the non-history lesson. I seem to remember reading a news report somewhat more recently about an invading army who have been shooting innocent people in the street and torturing people. Who was that again?SDH said:
My point still stands. You want NZ to 'do good' by enabling a huge war against a country with a massive standing army and nukes? Sounds like you come from the George Bush school of dumb to me homes. Do you understand what you're saying?
I'm starting to understand how Bush got elected twice now...SDH said:
Nanking makes Iraq, look like frat party.Changleen said:Yeah, I know all about WW2, thanks for the non-history lesson. I seem to remember reading a news report somewhat more recently about an invading army who have been shooting innocent people in the street and torturing people. Who was that again?
My point still stands. You want NZ to 'do good' by enabling a huge war against a country with a massive standing army and nukes? Sounds like you come from the George Bush school of dumb to me homes. Do you understand what you're saying?
Massive standing army? That is funny there is a huge popular effort in the south to reunify with the north. They are protesting that the US get off the 38th. So I guess the amazingly successful and economicall weathly South want to give up the good life and become communist so they could be one country again or do you think they want to unify the north by some other means...........Doesn't seem like the south is that scared
BTW, What made it a non-history lesson?
How so?Silver said:
The aforementioned info wrt Nanking can be confirmed in any college level history book.
As far as the South's ability to be successful in a conflict with the North based on its Economic standing, just go visit your local college professor in Global economics.
Ask the North or South Koreans how they were treated during Japanese occupation. I still like to think our atrocities were abberations, not authorized.Changleen said:Yeah, I know all about WW2, thanks for the non-history lesson. I seem to remember reading a news report somewhat more recently about an invading army who have been shooting innocent people in the street and torturing people. Who was that again?
My point still stands. You want NZ to 'do good' by enabling a huge war against a country with a massive standing army and nukes? Sounds like you come from the George Bush school of dumb to me homes. Do you understand what you're saying?
I personally believe the NK army would fold if there was an US-SK joint force, but I could be wrong, and who knows what Il-Jong might do in return.
But another Korean War would destablization the entire region, so I hope something can be done peacefully.
Yes, we all know about Nanking. Thanks. I heard Hitler killed a few Jews too, you might want to dig into that for your next scoop.SDH said:
College profs in economics may not be aware that Seoul is within range of North Korean artillery. Unless the US wants to drop multiple nuclear weapons 30 miles away from Seoul, it's going to be tricky to prevent the North Koreans from popping a few hundred thousand shells into the middle of 20 million South Koreans.
Long term, would North Korea win a war? Nope. Would they be able to inflict massive civilian casualties on the South. Oh yeah...
BurlyShirley said:
KIm Jong Il a dickbag? I won't argue with that but I also see just another "leader" who's more interested in keeping the power than he is in his people. No difference from Göran Persson, prime minister of Sweden or GWB. That power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is well known. But NK doesen't have military presence in 120-130 countries, USA does. I don't belive NK/KJIl wants to conquer the conquerer, but only to be left to rule over his little bit.
All the wrong doings he lets his people go through are secondary to what the western world, with the US as it's head and role model society, does to all poorer countries. If I want to clean my house after a fat party I don't start with correcting the paintings from hanging slightly of balance.
Less nukes the better? I agree but even though I don't like or want it, I have to admit that any asshole country in the world has the right to have them.
This whole nuclear thing started in the -90ies with that NK needed to generate more electrical power. NK wanted to build nuclear power plants but the US didn't want them to develop that type of technology so they offered NK to build them heavy-water powerplants (as I remember it) which NK agreed to pay for. Construction of the fundaments started to stop after just a while. Several years passed while NK was trying to get the US to stick with what had been promised (and payed for?) but nothing happened. Finaly they started to build a nulcear powerplant. Immediately the western press started reporting it as NK had started building a-bombs..
Its clear that if Clinton and GWB cared about the starving people of NK they would have shared their heavy-water powerplant know how.
About NK creating a-bombs, we have to remember that GWB said he wanted to create small tactical a-bombs to be used with todays field artillery!!!
I fear GWB a lot more to start using nukes than anybody else.
USA has the history of doing it. But more importantly still justify their bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...
Silver said:
Why do people presume that NK wants to expand/occupy SK, just like we were led to belive by the same powers today and before, that Soviet wanted to occupy western europe/the world?
If we know they don't stand a chanse, surley they must to?
Interesting article: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=17&ItemID=4992
"South Korean people today are more fearful of the United States than of North Korea. "
"South Korean people today are more fearful of the United States than of North Korea. "
Agreed, but I would speculate with the advanced pre-strike capability of the South, I would think all immediate threats to SK population would be neutralized within the first few days (ala 6 day war in the middle east). Our patroit batteries would take care of the mobile stuff. People killed yup, there always is unfortunately, but probably not on a mass scale. I still believe he would not use nukes on SK (US/Europe maybe) just because of the close proxity of the environmental disaster which he could not escape.Silver said:
I speculate the only reason he is making a big deal of his "capability" is because he is scared. Scared that China is starting to follow in the foot steps of the West, USSR is gone and SK is probably knocking on the annexing (sp) door for cheap labor. Kinda like when you see a mtn. lion, you are scared ****less, but try to make yourself appear bigger so he will not mess with you.
On to another subject, I wonder what we are waiting for, we should start invading Cuba, I heard they have great beaches. That should get the big C's panities in a uproar while he studies Japanese.....LOL
SDH said:
What is your countrys problem with Castro?
He is after all a much more benevelent dictator than many of the ones America installs and/or support around the world such as Uzbekistan.
That's the problem. He's not our guy.DaveW said:
Copied from the link Sanjuro posted:
"Under the 1994 agreement known as the "Agreed Framework," North Korea was to freeze its graphite nuclear reactor program, and to hold its 8,000-odd rods of plutonium-containing waste from the reactors in specially constructed ponds, under sealed IAEA camera scrutiny, in return for two electricity-generating light-water reactors to be built by 2003, and an interim annual supply of 3.3 million barrels of oil. The United States and North Korea agreed to "move towards full normalization of political and economic relations" while the US was to provide "formal assurances to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea against the threat or use of nuclear weapons.""
Seems like they want to live in warm houses and under no nuclear threat. Who doesen't?
"The present crisis was initiated in October 2002 by US Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly's claim that North Korea had admitted to a secret program of uranium enrichment. Allegation and denial brought the Framework to collapse. What actually was said to Kelly, and whether he understood it correctly or not, remains controversial. Pyongyang denies any admission. China, Russia and South Korea doubt that North Korea has the kind of program it is supposed to have admitted. It is hard to imagine any possible motive for North Korea to have said what Kelly alleges was said."
The neo cons lying again? I don't belive it. I thought they was all for love, peace, unity and having fun.
"No serious analyst has ever suggested that North Korea was preparing to attack or invade any of its neighbors or constituted any threat to regional peace except if faced with threats to its own survival. North Korea is best seen as a porcupine, stiffening its bristles and looking fierce to try to repel attack, rather than a tiger rapaciously seeking prey."
But they look scary though; big wide jaws and teeth, ears sweapt back and angry looking eyes..
"6. Are the North Koreans paranoid? And, if so, why?
If paranoia means unreasonable, groundless, or grossly exaggerated fear, then the word is inappropriate to describe North Korea, whose fears can hardly be described as unreasonable."
"While in Washington the North Korean "nuclear threat" has been an issue for the past decade, Pyongyang has faced the US nuclear threat for the past half century. North Korea has lived under it for longer than any other nation. During the Korean War it escaped nuclear annihilation by the barest of margins. General MacArthur, his successor as Commander-in-Chief, General Ridgway, presidents Truman and Eisenhower, and the Joint Chiefs, all at one or other stage favored or recommended using nuclear weapons against North Korea."
"Then, just four years after the Armistice and in obvious breach of it, the US introduced nuclear artillery shells, mines, and missiles into Korea, keeping them there, adjacent to the Demilitarized Zone, designed to intimidate the non-nuclear North, for 35 years till they were finally withdrawn at the insistence of the South Korean government. Even withdrawal did little to diminish the threat as perceived by Pyongyang since the rehearsals for a long-range nuclear strike on North Korea continued. Under the "Agreed Framework," however, Clinton finally lifted the threat, pledging no first-use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state. That reprieve was in turn revoked under Bush and North Korea was specifically included on the "Nuclear Target List.""
I'm glad i didn't grow up under that kind of threat.
North Korea's perception of its role in the 20th century (and the 21st to date) is that of victim, suffering from a series of colossal and uncompensated injustices at the hands of colonial Japan and the US. Its demands for lifting of the threat against it and for recognition and normalization may be voiced in strident tones, but that is best seen as a measure of its anxiety. What the world has never recognized is the core of legitimacy in Pyongyang's cry for settlement: of the bitter legacy of colonialism (from Japan) and of nuclear intimidation, economic embargo and diplomatic isolation (by the US).
"No wonder they are starving when there's been an economic embargo on them. Who can prosper in isolation?
"Under the 1994 agreement known as the "Agreed Framework," North Korea was to freeze its graphite nuclear reactor program, and to hold its 8,000-odd rods of plutonium-containing waste from the reactors in specially constructed ponds, under sealed IAEA camera scrutiny, in return for two electricity-generating light-water reactors to be built by 2003, and an interim annual supply of 3.3 million barrels of oil. The United States and North Korea agreed to "move towards full normalization of political and economic relations" while the US was to provide "formal assurances to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea against the threat or use of nuclear weapons.""
Seems like they want to live in warm houses and under no nuclear threat. Who doesen't?
"The present crisis was initiated in October 2002 by US Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly's claim that North Korea had admitted to a secret program of uranium enrichment. Allegation and denial brought the Framework to collapse. What actually was said to Kelly, and whether he understood it correctly or not, remains controversial. Pyongyang denies any admission. China, Russia and South Korea doubt that North Korea has the kind of program it is supposed to have admitted. It is hard to imagine any possible motive for North Korea to have said what Kelly alleges was said."
The neo cons lying again? I don't belive it. I thought they was all for love, peace, unity and having fun.
"No serious analyst has ever suggested that North Korea was preparing to attack or invade any of its neighbors or constituted any threat to regional peace except if faced with threats to its own survival. North Korea is best seen as a porcupine, stiffening its bristles and looking fierce to try to repel attack, rather than a tiger rapaciously seeking prey."
But they look scary though; big wide jaws and teeth, ears sweapt back and angry looking eyes..
"6. Are the North Koreans paranoid? And, if so, why?
If paranoia means unreasonable, groundless, or grossly exaggerated fear, then the word is inappropriate to describe North Korea, whose fears can hardly be described as unreasonable."
"While in Washington the North Korean "nuclear threat" has been an issue for the past decade, Pyongyang has faced the US nuclear threat for the past half century. North Korea has lived under it for longer than any other nation. During the Korean War it escaped nuclear annihilation by the barest of margins. General MacArthur, his successor as Commander-in-Chief, General Ridgway, presidents Truman and Eisenhower, and the Joint Chiefs, all at one or other stage favored or recommended using nuclear weapons against North Korea."
"Then, just four years after the Armistice and in obvious breach of it, the US introduced nuclear artillery shells, mines, and missiles into Korea, keeping them there, adjacent to the Demilitarized Zone, designed to intimidate the non-nuclear North, for 35 years till they were finally withdrawn at the insistence of the South Korean government. Even withdrawal did little to diminish the threat as perceived by Pyongyang since the rehearsals for a long-range nuclear strike on North Korea continued. Under the "Agreed Framework," however, Clinton finally lifted the threat, pledging no first-use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state. That reprieve was in turn revoked under Bush and North Korea was specifically included on the "Nuclear Target List.""
I'm glad i didn't grow up under that kind of threat.
North Korea's perception of its role in the 20th century (and the 21st to date) is that of victim, suffering from a series of colossal and uncompensated injustices at the hands of colonial Japan and the US. Its demands for lifting of the threat against it and for recognition and normalization may be voiced in strident tones, but that is best seen as a measure of its anxiety. What the world has never recognized is the core of legitimacy in Pyongyang's cry for settlement: of the bitter legacy of colonialism (from Japan) and of nuclear intimidation, economic embargo and diplomatic isolation (by the US).
"No wonder they are starving when there's been an economic embargo on them. Who can prosper in isolation?
more copied:
"China: China has the closest of historic ties with North Korea and is today both the source of most of the supplies of food and energy on which North Korea depends and the most likely possible model of how it might develop in the future; in the North Korean present, Chinese see their own past. The Chinese role in brokering a resolution of the problem of North Korea has steadily grown, at the US request."
Can't bash China for that.
"American intelligence first estimated back in 1993 (possibly earlier) that North Korea had "one, or possibly two" nuclear weapons. Like the intelligence on which the US in 2003 went to war against Iraq, it seems to have been false and/or subject to political manipulation. By 2003, the US had shifted to adopt the South Korean, Russian and Chinese view that North Korea actually did not have any nuclear weapons. It then argued that it had the ingredients (plutonium and uranium), and the will and intent, to develop them."
"Objective assessment is complicated by the fact that both US intelligence and Pyongyang share an interest, for different reasons, in having the world think North Korea possesses both nuclear weapons and a delivery system, the US in order to justify its hegemonic role in East Asia, and North Korea in order to deter US attack."
"9. What is the Bush administration currently trying to achieve with respect to North Korea?
The use of the singular begs a major question: does the Bush administration have a policy or is North Korea the axis of contest between rival factions within it. Jack Pritchard, till his resignation in August 2003 a Senior North Korean specialist at the State Department, says of American policy (New York Times, 21 January 2004): "At best it could be described only as amateurish. At worst, it is a failed attempt to lure American allies down a path that is not designed to solve the crisis diplomatically but to lead to the failure and ultimate isolation of North Korea in hopes that its government will collapse." No outside critic could match the severity of this assessment by someone who has been deeply involved in policy implementation."
"10. How would you assess the Bush administration's strategy?
Two major contradictions affect US North Korea policy, nuclear on the one hand, strategic on the other.
The US wants to maintain nuclear-based hegemony over the earth, and indeed over the universe, while blocking any new countries from joining the existing nuclear club. The non-proliferation regime to which it signed up in 1968 was a deal by which those countries that did not possess nuclear weapons pledged not to take steps to get them, while those with weapons pledged not to threaten non-possessors and to take steps to eliminate their existing arsenals and move to comprehensive nuclear disarmament. Until the nuclear club powers take seriously those obligations, their insistence on others fulfilling their obligations is mere hypocrisy. If security can indeed only be guaranteed by possession of nuclear weapons, then there can be no complaint at North Korea. If that is not the case, then the possessing powers must take steps towards elimination of all nuclear weapons."
Can I hear a WORD on that one?
"The second contradiction is between short and long-term US objectives. Regime change in North Korea would remove a thorn in the US side, but at the same time it might serve to undermine US regional hegemony. George W. Bush and Kim Jong Il stand in a paradoxically symbiotic relationship. Bush's loathing for Kim, and his nuclear threat, maintains the isolation and siege conditions that allow Kim to legitimize his rule, mobilize nationalist support, and crush opposition. Bush, for his part, rules and reigns over Northeast Asia because Japan and South Korea feel compelled by the North Korean threat to seek American protection and to shelter under Washington's "nuclear umbrella.""
I feel like a baptist listening to the good reverend on a beautiful Sunday mornin'.
"he framework of US military presence in East Asia is justified in Seoul and Tokyo by the threat from Pyongyang. Without the "North Korean threat" -- whether resolved peacefully or otherwise -- Washington strategists would have to think of some new justification for the bases in Japan and South Korea, and for the massively expensive anti-missile system soon to be constructed in the region. Some might want to declare China the real enemy, but a military alliance with the United States whose orientation was containment and hostility towards China would find little support in contemporary South Korea and Japan. Paradoxically, if the US does accomplish what it wants in North Korea -- regime change -- it could find that its own domination of the region is undermined."
Aaaaaaaamen brother!
"North Korea's neighbors have their reasons for wanting to incorporate North Korea into the emerging Asian community and should be encouraged to take the key role in doing so on their own terms. To accomplish this, the price North Korea seeks for abandoning its nuclear weapons program is not unreasonable: an end to nuclear intimidation, diplomatic normalization and removal of economic sanctions."
"Above all, a resolution of the problem will depend on seeing it not in the narrow frame of North Korean threat but in the broad context of history. That will require taking Seoul seriously and with respect, rather than as a recalcitrant and scarcely reliable ally because it no longer follows Washington uncritically. North Korea is essentially a Korean problem, and South Korea must assume a central role in negotiations and plans for the future because its people must after all live with their northern compatriots."
"11. How does the U.S.-NK impasse impact on issues of peace and security in Northeast Asia? Are there regional approaches to any of the issues that could prove fruitful in resolving the issues both of U.S.-NK conflict and moving toward a reduction of regional tensions?
North Korea is a structural pivot of contemporary US hegemony in East Asia. Washington's post-Cold War vision asks Japan and Korea, in effect, to accept a future world predicated on continued fear and hostility to North Korea, such as to require their continuing military, political, and economic dependence on the United States."
Facts, reason and contemplation doesn't sell as good as fear...And mainstream media is business, just like war.
Wanna get rich? Buy stocks in a US arms manufacturing company!
The church of Sweden did it..
"China: China has the closest of historic ties with North Korea and is today both the source of most of the supplies of food and energy on which North Korea depends and the most likely possible model of how it might develop in the future; in the North Korean present, Chinese see their own past. The Chinese role in brokering a resolution of the problem of North Korea has steadily grown, at the US request."
Can't bash China for that.
"American intelligence first estimated back in 1993 (possibly earlier) that North Korea had "one, or possibly two" nuclear weapons. Like the intelligence on which the US in 2003 went to war against Iraq, it seems to have been false and/or subject to political manipulation. By 2003, the US had shifted to adopt the South Korean, Russian and Chinese view that North Korea actually did not have any nuclear weapons. It then argued that it had the ingredients (plutonium and uranium), and the will and intent, to develop them."
"Objective assessment is complicated by the fact that both US intelligence and Pyongyang share an interest, for different reasons, in having the world think North Korea possesses both nuclear weapons and a delivery system, the US in order to justify its hegemonic role in East Asia, and North Korea in order to deter US attack."
"9. What is the Bush administration currently trying to achieve with respect to North Korea?
The use of the singular begs a major question: does the Bush administration have a policy or is North Korea the axis of contest between rival factions within it. Jack Pritchard, till his resignation in August 2003 a Senior North Korean specialist at the State Department, says of American policy (New York Times, 21 January 2004): "At best it could be described only as amateurish. At worst, it is a failed attempt to lure American allies down a path that is not designed to solve the crisis diplomatically but to lead to the failure and ultimate isolation of North Korea in hopes that its government will collapse." No outside critic could match the severity of this assessment by someone who has been deeply involved in policy implementation."
"10. How would you assess the Bush administration's strategy?
Two major contradictions affect US North Korea policy, nuclear on the one hand, strategic on the other.
The US wants to maintain nuclear-based hegemony over the earth, and indeed over the universe, while blocking any new countries from joining the existing nuclear club. The non-proliferation regime to which it signed up in 1968 was a deal by which those countries that did not possess nuclear weapons pledged not to take steps to get them, while those with weapons pledged not to threaten non-possessors and to take steps to eliminate their existing arsenals and move to comprehensive nuclear disarmament. Until the nuclear club powers take seriously those obligations, their insistence on others fulfilling their obligations is mere hypocrisy. If security can indeed only be guaranteed by possession of nuclear weapons, then there can be no complaint at North Korea. If that is not the case, then the possessing powers must take steps towards elimination of all nuclear weapons."
Can I hear a WORD on that one?
"The second contradiction is between short and long-term US objectives. Regime change in North Korea would remove a thorn in the US side, but at the same time it might serve to undermine US regional hegemony. George W. Bush and Kim Jong Il stand in a paradoxically symbiotic relationship. Bush's loathing for Kim, and his nuclear threat, maintains the isolation and siege conditions that allow Kim to legitimize his rule, mobilize nationalist support, and crush opposition. Bush, for his part, rules and reigns over Northeast Asia because Japan and South Korea feel compelled by the North Korean threat to seek American protection and to shelter under Washington's "nuclear umbrella.""
I feel like a baptist listening to the good reverend on a beautiful Sunday mornin'.
"he framework of US military presence in East Asia is justified in Seoul and Tokyo by the threat from Pyongyang. Without the "North Korean threat" -- whether resolved peacefully or otherwise -- Washington strategists would have to think of some new justification for the bases in Japan and South Korea, and for the massively expensive anti-missile system soon to be constructed in the region. Some might want to declare China the real enemy, but a military alliance with the United States whose orientation was containment and hostility towards China would find little support in contemporary South Korea and Japan. Paradoxically, if the US does accomplish what it wants in North Korea -- regime change -- it could find that its own domination of the region is undermined."
Aaaaaaaamen brother!
"North Korea's neighbors have their reasons for wanting to incorporate North Korea into the emerging Asian community and should be encouraged to take the key role in doing so on their own terms. To accomplish this, the price North Korea seeks for abandoning its nuclear weapons program is not unreasonable: an end to nuclear intimidation, diplomatic normalization and removal of economic sanctions."
"Above all, a resolution of the problem will depend on seeing it not in the narrow frame of North Korean threat but in the broad context of history. That will require taking Seoul seriously and with respect, rather than as a recalcitrant and scarcely reliable ally because it no longer follows Washington uncritically. North Korea is essentially a Korean problem, and South Korea must assume a central role in negotiations and plans for the future because its people must after all live with their northern compatriots."
"11. How does the U.S.-NK impasse impact on issues of peace and security in Northeast Asia? Are there regional approaches to any of the issues that could prove fruitful in resolving the issues both of U.S.-NK conflict and moving toward a reduction of regional tensions?
North Korea is a structural pivot of contemporary US hegemony in East Asia. Washington's post-Cold War vision asks Japan and Korea, in effect, to accept a future world predicated on continued fear and hostility to North Korea, such as to require their continuing military, political, and economic dependence on the United States."
Facts, reason and contemplation doesn't sell as good as fear...And mainstream media is business, just like war.
Wanna get rich? Buy stocks in a US arms manufacturing company!
The church of Sweden did it..
Well folks, it appears we have a Swedish Changleen on our hands
perfect.
Rock, NOBODY want NK to have Nukeready ICBMs. Why do you suppose that is?
perfect.
Rock, NOBODY want NK to have Nukeready ICBMs. Why do you suppose that is?
Have you read the above? If it is correct then it appears that they might not have and in order to prevent them getting any all the US has to do is to start talking to them.BurlyShirley said:Well folks, it appears we have a Swedish Changleen on our hands
perfect.
Rock, NOBODY want NK to have Nukeready ICBMs. Why do you suppose that is?
Hope that is something good...BurlyShirley said:Well folks, it appears we have a Swedish Changleen on our hands
perfect.
Rock, NOBODY want NK to have Nukeready ICBMs. Why do you suppose that is?
Can't speculate why that is. Maybe the politicians don't read Z-net and are as uninformed/missinformed as I was before I read that interview...
I know I posted a lot, but still its a lot less than the original text. Hope people will read it.
Dont trust politicians. Ever.
"We a know how we and dem a go work it out" -Bob Marley