I remember all the "brain washing" that I received as a raw recruit in the 80's. Was told that all of USSR wants to nuke us and that they had weapons/troops massed on the euro border(s) which will blitz and take massive amounts of land in short periods of time (US troops and allies would only be able to slow them down, until the president authorized a nuke response- if negotiations failed)
This conflict with NK is similar. Although the sad thing is (as with "All of Russia"), for the most part, citizens of NK do not want a conflict, they are fed with either brain washing propaganda or are threatened with punishment.
The "gov" of NK must be removed. I am totally surprised that NK does not take a lesson or 2 from Lybia/Syria or even the assassination attempts on Hitler.
Nope; I was agreeing with you. Maybe you've been here too long - it is throwing your sarcasm meter off.
That and I'm multi-tasking....
Again, agreed on all counts. They already have the ability to detonate a nuke in our cities. They just don't (we believe) have the ability to deliver it here on a rocket (yet.)
I'm more worried about a few trucks coming across the border, etc.
Better intel means more money for the CIA and Pentagon. Detection and border control go kind of hand-in-hand and both would require more money as well (it's shameful how little of what we import we actually inspect). And defenses is pretty open-ended but I'd assume that means everything else. And I agree on all of them. The problem is where do we get the money? Focusing more on securing our lands and less on trying to invade or occupy other countries seems like a decent plan, assuming that other nations are willing to help lend a hand.
I agree. I think we could easily pay for increasing our own security, if we spent less on foolish missions and waste.
I think it needs to be more than "our" retaliation to be effective though. The world is quickly realizing that the American people lack the resolve to sustain long term military operations, so our threats of such things don't carry with them the same weight they did after WWII, I think. That's why I think I'd try to secure as much support in the UN as I possibly could. We can't do this alone, and it's not our problem alone.
You think the UN has a better reputation when it comes to following through on warnings?
I wasn't talking about sustained military operations. I was talking about sub launched Tridents, cruise missiles, and drones, loaded with high yield goodies, delivered in copious quantities. In NK's case, I'm also talking artillery nukes, which I hope are still deployed.
Despite what your Mama told you, violence does solve problems.
If George W. Bush didn't invade North Korea in 2003 (instead of Iraq) even though it was a far greater threat to our national security than Iraq and it had a verified nuclear weapons program AND Bush didn't invade North Korea even after it exploded its first nuke in 2006, what makes you think the United States is going to invade North Korea based on a video?
Invading North Korea over an internet video doesn't seem too crazy based on our prior history.
Then why didn't George W. Bush invade North Korea after it exploded its first nuke in 2006 under his watch? Why didn't Bush invade North Korea in 2003 instead of Iraq?
Last edited by kharvel; 03-13-2013 at 04:58 PM..
Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Kharvel's First Law: Greed is Goodâ„˘
Kharvel's Second Law: If it is good for the goose, then it must always be good for the gander.
Kharvel's Third Law: Opinions are like as*holes, everybody has one
So you agree that George W. Bush was the biggest "golfer-in-chief" of all, since he didn't do anything to North Korea after it exploded its first nuke under his watch in 2006?
yes, he should have been more forceful, and no he wasn't the golfer-in-chief because he, unlike the tone-deaf Obama, realized it doesn't look good to be on the golf course while he is sending soldiers off to die, and stopped doing something he enjoys, whereas Obama golfed in about 1 year more than Bush did in 8.
The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism.But under the name of 'liberalism',they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program,until one day America will be a socialist nation,without knowing how it happened - Norman Thomas,6-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America
The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people,too much authority from the States,and too much liberty with the Constitution - R. Reagan
yes, he should have been more forceful, and no he wasn't the golfer-in-chief because he, unlike the tone-deaf Obama, realized it doesn't look good to be on the golf course while he is sending soldiers off to die,
OK, I stand corrected Bush was the brush-cutter-while-on-vacation-in-his-ranch-in-chief.
stopped doing something he enjoys, whereas Obama golfed in about 1 year more than Bush did in 8.
Do you DENY that Bush spent many times more vacation hours in 1 year than Obama did in 4 years?
Slickdeals is able to share the best deals because of the contributions of users like you! If you found a great deal,
please share it with others by posting in our forums.
Welcome to Slickdeals!
Save money here by finding the lowest and cheapest price, best deals and bargains, and hot coupons. We're all about
community driven bargain hunting with thousands of free discounts, promo codes, reviews and price comparisons.
Don't worry, we'll help you find your way. If you haven't already, check out this
that explains the features of our site.