NOYB wrote:
... Intel said that N. Korea didn't have an active
ballistic missile program...and they couldn't have been more wrong. That
intel was provided by the same folks that you cited for your "proof" that N.
Korea didn't have an active nuclear program under Clinton.

So? Nobody has a perfect record. If you want to make a big deal of this,
let's list all the major policy blunders committed by President Clinton
due to bad intel (or wilfully ignoring intel that didn't agree with his
preconceptions); and stack them up next to President Bush's.

My advice to you is to be a little more quiet on this subject.



Radiation is hard to hide. Spotting radioactive tailings is one of the few
things satellite spy-eyes are very good at.


You've been reading too much Popular Science. If it were so easy to spot
"radioactive tailings" on a bomb that's never been detonated, then why all
the fear about a suitcase nuke being smuggled into out ports? Afterall, the
satellite spy-eyes are very good at spotting them.

No, the spy-eye is good at spotting the rasioactive plume emitted as
fuel is enriched. You really know nothing about science, do you?

An already-built bomb does not leave a plume of radioactive tailings and
can be shielded from a geiger counter.



One or two produced in the early 1990's! And we're supposed to believe that
Kim agreed to quit building them because Clinton handed him $4 billion and
asked "please"?

Umm, not exactly. Perhaps if you gave up on lies & distortion, you might
realize how sensible the program was... if the Clinton Administration
believed that the North Koreans had already built nukes on Reagan and
Bush Sr's watches, then the options were either 1- a premptive strike to
take them away or 2- give solid incentive to get back on the
Non-Proliferation bandwagon.

The money was to be handed over in smaller sums, over a period of years,
subject to verification that the N. Koreans were abiding by the
Non-Proliferation rules.



Whoa. Wait a minute. If N. Korea developed a nuke in the early 90's during
Clinton's watch, and that was Reagan and Bush Sr.'s fault, then why aren't
nukes built in 2003 (Bush's first term) the fault of the administration that
preceded Bush? You're being quite the hypocrite here, Doug.

Not at all. First of all, N. Korea only announced that they were
re-activating their nuke program after Bush Jr had been in office for
some time, and given them a ration of ****. Bush Jr has been in office
now going on five years... if the N. Koreans had nukes in 1993, then
Clinton had been in office less than a year.

I guess there's no difference between less than one year and more than 4
1/2 years, is there? I guess there's no difference between "might have
had nukes, which were clearly developed & built while under the eye of
the last administration, and announcing DURING one administration that
they plan to start building, activating enrichment plants, and then
claiming (with credibility) to have active nuclear warheads.

No, those two things are pretty much the same, arent't they?

There is a lot of hypocrisy here, but it's all coming from your side of
the fence. 100% lies, distortion, and hypocrisy... don't you ever stop
to think that it might be nice to believe in something that will stand
up to the truth?





Yes. We were disgraced and withdrew...

Disgraced? Why?


Because our forces weren't given the chance to finish what they started.
Their CIC pulled them out too soon.

WHAT?!? The only outcome of not pulling out would have been a massacre.


Yes...a massacre of the Somali warlords and their followers. We could have
and should have gone in with armored vehicles and decimated the population
in that region.

But we didn't. The force in place had to be evacuated or left to be
massacred.

One problem you seem to consistantly have, wishful thinking versus
dealing with the facts as they exist. It's great to daydream about using
overwhelming force, but that force was not in place at the time.



Casualties are not the goal of a military operation, unless you're a
worshipper of Stonewall Jackson.


Inflicting casualties is most certainly a goal of any force that squares off
against the US military.

That is because we are in the lucky position of having unbeatable
logistic & technological resources, provided from an (almost)
unassailable economic base.

Does this mean that you support the 'body count' concept of going after
'terrorists' and feel that as long as we're killing them faster than
they're killing us, we're winning? That seems to be the prevalent
strategic concept in place now.

DSK