|
Avoiding taxes....
|
Avoiding taxes....
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
... "Larry" wrote in message ... TopBassDog wrote: On Jul 29, 3:30 am, wrote: I said that I was hopeful it would change, and from the last link, it appears to be. So much for him acting as dumb as Bush. D'Plume. Your president isn't dumb like Bush. He's dumb in his own unique way, however he is like Bush in that his approval ratings seem to drop daily. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll No surprise there. Have you noticed how many Obama bumper stickers are gone? 18 months ago they were everywhere. I remember John Kerry stickers on cars well over a year after he _lost_ the election. No surprise that you're a moron. |
Avoiding taxes....
|
Avoiding taxes....
wrote in message ... On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:47:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:11:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... "This is not an American offensive, said Johnnie Carson, the assistant secretary of state for Africa. The U.S. military is not on the ground in Somalia.." And... "Most of the American military assistance to the Somali government has been focused on training, or has been channeled through African Union peacekeepers. But that could change. An American official in Washington, who said he was not authorized to speak publicly, predicted that American covert forces would get involved if the offensive, which could begin in a few weeks, dislodged Qaeda terrorists. " And... http://original.antiwar.com/lobe/201...slamist-group/ "Obama appears to have suspended such attacks, although, in mid-September last year, helicopter-borne U.S. Special Forces ambushed a convoy carrying Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, the leader of an al Qaeda cell in Kenya who, according to U.S. officials, played key roles in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and a 2002 bombing of an Israeli hotel in Mombasa. " "That could change" ... "attack in Kenya" Like I said we are not in Somalia. A lot of things "could" happen. We are training them, we have drone attacks on and off. Feel free to bury your head in the sand. What part of "on the ground" confuses you? So you believe that only "on the ground" qualifies as involvement in another country. Wow. No I think you are mistaken. When I say "on the ground" I mean we have people on the ground. That has not changed. Ok, so in the narrow view of actually having people walking around. In military conflict, I believe that's, umm, from the 1800s? I am only criticizing Obama for acting as dumb as Bush I said that I was hopeful it would change, and from the last link, it appears to be. So much for him acting as dumb as Bush. Yeah he "could" be smarter than Bush, we just haven't seen it yet. I am hopeful but this whole thing was built on "hope" not action. Yes, we have. He didn't start a war for no reason and he's fulfilling many of what he said he'd do. He's not a moron and he doesn't take 1/3 of his time as vacation. The president is never on vacation. He takes the office with him. Sure. Hanging out in Crawford clearing brush is exactly the same as sitting behind a desk in the White House reading reports. Keep defending Bush! Or jetting off to Chicago for a date with your wife? Taking the kids to the beach? Look at the time difference. There's a big difference between taking a few days here and there from spending 1/3 of your time away from the office. Do you really believe it's equivalent? Do you think you would keep your job if you did such a thing? No None of them are on vacation. That colonel with the launch codes is still a few feet away, the president brought a communication system that rivals the data center at AOL and he never really gets very far from his staff. Yeah, and he gets to meet with Congressional leaders by what? flying them out there on the public dime? Sorry, but Bush was a lazy ass. He let Cheney do the work, and this is what we got... an economy in the ****ter, two wars, and a trashed environment, not to mention world-wide condemnation. We have been in Korea for almost 60 years and things are worse now than they were in 1953. ?? In 1953 we were still actively fighting, at least through the first half of the year. How many US troops have died fighting N. Koreans this year? In 1953 big Kim did not have a nuke and he didn't sink any ships. And, how many US troops have died?? Why don't you blame Clinton for the nukes and the ship sinking... You keep ignoring what I write and answering a question I didn't ask. I will rephrase and ask you again Do you think things are significantly better in Korea than they were on July 27. 1953? Yes. No US troops are dying. So you don't think Kim moving from WWII Soviet surplus Nagant rifles and a few aging migs to a nuke and a missile that they tested by shooting over Japan is troubling? That is not a worse situation? In spite of us keeping 50,000 troops there for 57 years. Did we make it better or worse. If we had just come home, they would have finished their civil war and followed the Chinese example of joining the world. I do think it's troubling, but since you're insistent about the specifics of military adventure, no deaths have occurred this year. As I said, we've pretty much kept the peace. They claim a lot, but they do very little. |
Avoiding taxes....
wrote in message ... On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:51:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. He goes farther to say Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. This is about Israel, get over it. which, i suppose, is why he doesnt mention israel, He says "palestine" That is Israel The Zionists are the Israelis Why is that so hard for you to understand? We can debate whether our support of Israel is worth the price but let's not minimize the cost or the fact that it is the only reason we are in the middle east. If this was just about oil we would have invaded Venezuela by now. The Great Game has been going on for a long time in the middle east region. We already messed with countries in South America, so there goes that argument. We have let Chavez go on unmolested for years. The last one we really smacked around was Noriaga since that whole Contra thing. Would Nigeria work for you, they one of are our other big oil suppliers with a broken government.. Hell there is a prince there who has a half billion he is hiding from the corrupt government and I am helping him get it to the US (for a big cut) ;-) We supply all sorts of money for SA countries. We've overthrown gov'ts there. Funny.. I got the same letter! Perhaps we can split it. LOL Well, actually, you should do it. I'm out of here on Wednesday morning for 10 days. I might return a boat owner, but I'm trying to dampen down that urge. |
Avoiding taxes....
On 7/30/10 2:27 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:24:08 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:48:09 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:10:02 -0400, bpuharic wrote: it's pretty hard to say he's blaming us for israel when the entire document deals with sharia in saudia arabia. guess you never learned to read. We can debate whether our support of Israel is worth the price but let's not minimize the cost or the fact that it is the only reason we are in the middle east. If this was just about oil we would have invaded Venezuela by now. and it's irrelevant. fascists like you are experts at inventing reasons to kill. if it wasn't israel (and he did not say it was), there would be AnOTHER reason...like our relationship with the govt of saudi arabia. so i suggest you stop trying to impose YOUR views on the nazis of islamist fascism, and read what they actually say. Let me guess, you are a zionist too. It is no wonder you can ignore the Islamic jihad against Israel. goalpost moving. you claimed bin laden hated us because of israel you posted a link to a letter, written a year AFTER 9/11 saying this was so. i pointed out the truth. the letter was a PR stunt. his real reason for hating us was our presence in saudi arabia and having the 'kufr' (infidels) guarding the '2 holy places' (mecca and medina). now that i've proved you're full of ****, you say i'm a JJJJEEEEWWWW!!!! There is a significant difference between being a Jew and being a Zionist. If you don't understand that then it makes sense why you don't understand the jihad. You posted a letter from 5 years before the 9-11 attack and I posted one from shortly thereafter. Why is yours more valid? Yours came from the time that the US government didn't even think Bin Laden was worth picking up when Sudan offered him up on a silver platter. How big a mistake was that? Sudan did not offer him up on a "silver platter." That's right-wing nonsense. http://mediamatters.org/research/200406220008 That particular story has been circulating on right-wing media outlets for years. Only morons like "Tosk" would believe it. |
Avoiding taxes....
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:51:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... He goes farther to say Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. This is about Israel, get over it. which, i suppose, is why he doesnt mention israel, He says "palestine" That is Israel The Zionists are the Israelis Why is that so hard for you to understand? We can debate whether our support of Israel is worth the price but let's not minimize the cost or the fact that it is the only reason we are in the middle east. If this was just about oil we would have invaded Venezuela by now. The Great Game has been going on for a long time in the middle east region. We already messed with countries in South America, so there goes that argument. We have let Chavez go on unmolested for years. The last one we really smacked around was Noriaga since that whole Contra thing. Would Nigeria work for you, they one of are our other big oil suppliers with a broken government.. Hell there is a prince there who has a half billion he is hiding from the corrupt government and I am helping him get it to the US (for a big cut) ;-) We supply all sorts of money for SA countries. We've overthrown gov'ts there. Funny.. I got the same letter! Perhaps we can split it. LOL Well, actually, you should do it. I'm out of here on Wednesday morning for 10 days. I might return a boat owner, but I'm trying to dampen down that urge. Tootles. Have fun and don't do anything I wouldn't do. Don't come back to rec.boats without a new boat or at least a share in one. -- Me |
Avoiding taxes....
"Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:51:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... He goes farther to say Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. This is about Israel, get over it. which, i suppose, is why he doesnt mention israel, He says "palestine" That is Israel The Zionists are the Israelis Why is that so hard for you to understand? We can debate whether our support of Israel is worth the price but let's not minimize the cost or the fact that it is the only reason we are in the middle east. If this was just about oil we would have invaded Venezuela by now. The Great Game has been going on for a long time in the middle east region. We already messed with countries in South America, so there goes that argument. We have let Chavez go on unmolested for years. The last one we really smacked around was Noriaga since that whole Contra thing. Would Nigeria work for you, they one of are our other big oil suppliers with a broken government.. Hell there is a prince there who has a half billion he is hiding from the corrupt government and I am helping him get it to the US (for a big cut) ;-) We supply all sorts of money for SA countries. We've overthrown gov'ts there. Funny.. I got the same letter! Perhaps we can split it. LOL Well, actually, you should do it. I'm out of here on Wednesday morning for 10 days. I might return a boat owner, but I'm trying to dampen down that urge. Tootles. Have fun and don't do anything I wouldn't do. Don't come back to rec.boats without a new boat or at least a share in one. -- Me - stupid Whatever you say stupid. |
Avoiding taxes....
|
Avoiding taxes....
wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:25:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: So you don't think Kim moving from WWII Soviet surplus Nagant rifles and a few aging migs to a nuke and a missile that they tested by shooting over Japan is troubling? That is not a worse situation? In spite of us keeping 50,000 troops there for 57 years. Did we make it better or worse. If we had just come home, they would have finished their civil war and followed the Chinese example of joining the world. I do think it's troubling, but since you're insistent about the specifics of military adventure, no deaths have occurred this year. As I said, we've pretty much kept the peace. They claim a lot, but they do very little. We may haver somewhat "kept the peace" if you considered Kim sinking a ship a couple months ago "peaceful" but strategically we lost ground. The regional threat is exponentially worse that it ever was. Even if Kim's bomb doesn't work, he can still contaminate a whole city with radiation and effectively destroy it. If that is Seoul it is horrible. If it is Tokyo it is a catastrophe Why would there be a difference in horribleness between the two? In any case, no Americans have died since 1953, which is what you were claiming as better off. |
Avoiding taxes....
YukonBound wrote:
"Larry" wrote in message ... YukonBound wrote: "Larry" wrote in message ... YukonBound wrote: "Harry " wrote in message m... On 7/28/10 9:35 AM, YukonBound wrote: "Harry?" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:54:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:02:31 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:00:28 -0400, bpuharic wrote: and afganistan? guess you havent heard of 9/11. Yeah I heard of it. I also heard the people who planned it have not been in Afghanistan for 6 years. hmmm...again you need to read the news. the taliban just abducted 2 US servicemen the other day The Taliban had nothing to do with 9-11. They are simply reacting to our invasion of their country. Not directly, but they were certainly allowing bin laden to do whatever he wanted inside the Afg. border. That was then, this is now and OBL is not in Afghanistan. We have managed to push that problem into a country that is a lot more dangerous than Afghanistan and almost as unstable, getting worse every day. Then or now, it doesn't matter. If we can stabilize Afg., then we have a better chance of finishing him. We could absolutely dominate Afghanistan and that still does not give us the right to invade Pakistan to get OBL ... unless you think that is our next step. Why does Cambodia seem to be coming up in my mind? OBL might not even be the biggest danger to the US these days. It could be another group in Africa or Indonesia and we are totally ignoring them in our obsession with OBL. I had a dog like that once. He saw a rabbit under the macadamia nut tree once and after that he had to go look there every time he went outside. There were rabbits everywhere but he kept trying to find that one. We always fight the last war and try to prevent the last attack instead of looking for the next one. Our biggest enemies aren't in the middle east. -- Harold Finally said something right... they work on Wall Street. Flajim is now openly spoofing my ID here? What an ass he is. Leopard doesn't change it's spots! Say what? Leopard this! Spot boy! That's about as dumb a response as you'll read in here! Get to work, counterman. I was trying to emulate the dumbest person here. It's hard to even pretend to be as dumb as you actually are, Donny. Forget emulating... you set the gold standard for dummies worldwide. Keep up the dumb work, counterman. Nice try, moron. WTF is "counterman"? |
Avoiding taxes....
|
Avoiding taxes....
wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:41:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:25:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: So you don't think Kim moving from WWII Soviet surplus Nagant rifles and a few aging migs to a nuke and a missile that they tested by shooting over Japan is troubling? That is not a worse situation? In spite of us keeping 50,000 troops there for 57 years. Did we make it better or worse. If we had just come home, they would have finished their civil war and followed the Chinese example of joining the world. I do think it's troubling, but since you're insistent about the specifics of military adventure, no deaths have occurred this year. As I said, we've pretty much kept the peace. They claim a lot, but they do very little. We may haver somewhat "kept the peace" if you considered Kim sinking a ship a couple months ago "peaceful" but strategically we lost ground. The regional threat is exponentially worse that it ever was. Even if Kim's bomb doesn't work, he can still contaminate a whole city with radiation and effectively destroy it. If that is Seoul it is horrible. If it is Tokyo it is a catastrophe Why would there be a difference in horribleness between the two? In any case, no Americans have died since 1953, which is what you were claiming as better off. No that was your criteria. By that standard we won in Vietnam. No Americans have died there since 1975 either and we didn't even have to spend a dime on an occupation. They are essentially demilitarized, not a nuclear state. Economically Vietnam is entering the world marketplace very quickly. Maybe that is the lesson we should take away from the difference in the two policies. I think that sometimes we should just step back and let these countries work out their own problems. You said (first, I might add)... The question is whether we are actually accomplishing anything or are we just prolonging a war for grand children to fight. We have been in Korea for almost 60 years and things are worse now than they were in 1953. There is no relevant equivalency with VN, since that was was lost, and we left. We have left S. Korea alone and only are there to ensure the North doesn't get overly aggressive. We've mostly succeeded. |
Avoiding taxes....
wrote in message
... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:34:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:41:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:25:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: So you don't think Kim moving from WWII Soviet surplus Nagant rifles and a few aging migs to a nuke and a missile that they tested by shooting over Japan is troubling? That is not a worse situation? In spite of us keeping 50,000 troops there for 57 years. Did we make it better or worse. If we had just come home, they would have finished their civil war and followed the Chinese example of joining the world. I do think it's troubling, but since you're insistent about the specifics of military adventure, no deaths have occurred this year. As I said, we've pretty much kept the peace. They claim a lot, but they do very little. We may haver somewhat "kept the peace" if you considered Kim sinking a ship a couple months ago "peaceful" but strategically we lost ground. The regional threat is exponentially worse that it ever was. Even if Kim's bomb doesn't work, he can still contaminate a whole city with radiation and effectively destroy it. If that is Seoul it is horrible. If it is Tokyo it is a catastrophe Why would there be a difference in horribleness between the two? In any case, no Americans have died since 1953, which is what you were claiming as better off. No that was your criteria. By that standard we won in Vietnam. No Americans have died there since 1975 either and we didn't even have to spend a dime on an occupation. They are essentially demilitarized, not a nuclear state. Economically Vietnam is entering the world marketplace very quickly. Maybe that is the lesson we should take away from the difference in the two policies. I think that sometimes we should just step back and let these countries work out their own problems. You said (first, I might add)... The question is whether we are actually accomplishing anything or are we just prolonging a war for grand children to fight. We have been in Korea for almost 60 years and things are worse now than they were in 1953. There is no relevant equivalency with VN, since that was was lost, and we left. We have left S. Korea alone and only are there to ensure the North doesn't get overly aggressive. We've mostly succeeded. We have only succeeded in maintaining the DMZ we established in 1953.The threat form the north is exponentially greater than it was 57 years ago. It really does beg the question, what would have happened if we had just let the north win. Would communism have just collapsed like it has everywhere else where we ignore it? We seem to prolong the system when we fight it. Once we normalize relations the citizens start finding out what the rest of the world is doing and bring change from within. Satellites, cell phones and the internet seems to be a lot more powerful that guns and bombs. -- Me |
Avoiding taxes....
wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:34:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:41:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:25:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: So you don't think Kim moving from WWII Soviet surplus Nagant rifles and a few aging migs to a nuke and a missile that they tested by shooting over Japan is troubling? That is not a worse situation? In spite of us keeping 50,000 troops there for 57 years. Did we make it better or worse. If we had just come home, they would have finished their civil war and followed the Chinese example of joining the world. I do think it's troubling, but since you're insistent about the specifics of military adventure, no deaths have occurred this year. As I said, we've pretty much kept the peace. They claim a lot, but they do very little. We may haver somewhat "kept the peace" if you considered Kim sinking a ship a couple months ago "peaceful" but strategically we lost ground. The regional threat is exponentially worse that it ever was. Even if Kim's bomb doesn't work, he can still contaminate a whole city with radiation and effectively destroy it. If that is Seoul it is horrible. If it is Tokyo it is a catastrophe Why would there be a difference in horribleness between the two? In any case, no Americans have died since 1953, which is what you were claiming as better off. No that was your criteria. By that standard we won in Vietnam. No Americans have died there since 1975 either and we didn't even have to spend a dime on an occupation. They are essentially demilitarized, not a nuclear state. Economically Vietnam is entering the world marketplace very quickly. Maybe that is the lesson we should take away from the difference in the two policies. I think that sometimes we should just step back and let these countries work out their own problems. You said (first, I might add)... The question is whether we are actually accomplishing anything or are we just prolonging a war for grand children to fight. We have been in Korea for almost 60 years and things are worse now than they were in 1953. There is no relevant equivalency with VN, since that was was lost, and we left. We have left S. Korea alone and only are there to ensure the North doesn't get overly aggressive. We've mostly succeeded. We have only succeeded in maintaining the DMZ we established in 1953.The threat form the north is exponentially greater than it was 57 years ago. It really does beg the question, what would have happened if we had just let the north win. Would communism have just collapsed like it has everywhere else where we ignore it? We seem to prolong the system when we fight it. Once we normalize relations the citizens start finding out what the rest of the world is doing and bring change from within. Satellites, cell phones and the internet seems to be a lot more powerful that guns and bombs. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that the S. Koreans would have better off if the North had won?? That's really outlandish. |
Avoiding taxes....
"Harry ?" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:34:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:41:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message om... On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:25:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: So you don't think Kim moving from WWII Soviet surplus Nagant rifles and a few aging migs to a nuke and a missile that they tested by shooting over Japan is troubling? That is not a worse situation? In spite of us keeping 50,000 troops there for 57 years. Did we make it better or worse. If we had just come home, they would have finished their civil war and followed the Chinese example of joining the world. I do think it's troubling, but since you're insistent about the specifics of military adventure, no deaths have occurred this year. As I said, we've pretty much kept the peace. They claim a lot, but they do very little. We may haver somewhat "kept the peace" if you considered Kim sinking a ship a couple months ago "peaceful" but strategically we lost ground. The regional threat is exponentially worse that it ever was. Even if Kim's bomb doesn't work, he can still contaminate a whole city with radiation and effectively destroy it. If that is Seoul it is horrible. If it is Tokyo it is a catastrophe Why would there be a difference in horribleness between the two? In any case, no Americans have died since 1953, which is what you were claiming as better off. No that was your criteria. By that standard we won in Vietnam. No Americans have died there since 1975 either and we didn't even have to spend a dime on an occupation. They are essentially demilitarized, not a nuclear state. Economically Vietnam is entering the world marketplace very quickly. Maybe that is the lesson we should take away from the difference in the two policies. I think that sometimes we should just step back and let these countries work out their own problems. You said (first, I might add)... The question is whether we are actually accomplishing anything or are we just prolonging a war for grand children to fight. We have been in Korea for almost 60 years and things are worse now than they were in 1953. There is no relevant equivalency with VN, since that was was lost, and we left. We have left S. Korea alone and only are there to ensure the North doesn't get overly aggressive. We've mostly succeeded. We have only succeeded in maintaining the DMZ we established in 1953.The threat form the north is exponentially greater than it was 57 years ago. It really does beg the question, what would have happened if we had just let the north win. Would communism have just collapsed like it has everywhere else where we ignore it? We seem to prolong the system when we fight it. Once we normalize relations the citizens start finding out what the rest of the world is doing and bring change from within. Satellites, cell phones and the internet seems to be a lot more powerful that guns and bombs. -- Me Wow... you're really a moron. You can't even post something without help. |
Avoiding taxes....
wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:56:09 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The question is whether we are actually accomplishing anything or are we just prolonging a war for grand children to fight. We have been in Korea for almost 60 years and things are worse now than they were in 1953. There is no relevant equivalency with VN, since that was was lost, and we left. We have left S. Korea alone and only are there to ensure the North doesn't get overly aggressive. We've mostly succeeded. We have only succeeded in maintaining the DMZ we established in 1953.The threat form the north is exponentially greater than it was 57 years ago. It really does beg the question, what would have happened if we had just let the north win. Would communism have just collapsed like it has everywhere else where we ignore it? We seem to prolong the system when we fight it. Once we normalize relations the citizens start finding out what the rest of the world is doing and bring change from within. Satellites, cell phones and the internet seems to be a lot more powerful that guns and bombs. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that the S. Koreans would have better off if the North had won?? That's really outlandish. I agree the growth of the south has been phenomenal but one nuke from the north could tip that scale and that threat definitely exists. Do you really think that's likely? Seems to me that the NKs would know they would be committing suicide. |
Avoiding taxes....
wrote in message ... On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:27:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Are you seriously trying to make the argument that the S. Koreans would have better off if the North had won?? That's really outlandish. I agree the growth of the south has been phenomenal but one nuke from the north could tip that scale and that threat definitely exists. Do you really think that's likely? Seems to me that the NKs would know they would be committing suicide. If we really believed that we would not care who had the bomb. Untrue. I don't believe NK would be foolish enough to use one. I think we need to continue to care and to try and 1) prevent it 2) remove the threat of it. It is clear if someone attacked the US with a nuke they would have their country reduced to a smoking radioactive hole in the ground but it starts becoming less clear what would happen when they attack other countries. We would probably start WWIII over Israel but I am not sure if we would do it over South Korea. Why? And, besides it wouldn't start WWIII. It would be very limited and I think China would stay out of it. It is also up in the air what we do if we were attacked by a stateless terrorist. The precedent is we invade and occupy the last country the terrorist was in whether he is still there or not. Which may be true, but that has nothing to do with the situation in Korea. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:39 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com