Thanks to Bush's Incompetence, N Korea Gets Nuke (GOP =Treason)
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass
Bush then proceeded to invade the one country that had ZERO ability to
make one, while the other two promptly made their nukes so they can't
be invaded. All the while with complete impunity because Bush sunk our
troops in a hellhole.
http://69.20.5.85/archives/010275.php
All diplomatic niceties aside, President Bush's idea was that the
North Koreans would respond better to threats than Clinton's mix of
carrots and sticks.
Then in the winter of 2002-3, the US prepared the invade Iraq, the
North called Bush's bluff. And the president folded. Abjectly,
utterly, even hilariously if the consequences weren't so grave and
vast.
Threats are a potent force if you're willing to follow through on
them. But he wasn't. The plutonium production plant, which had been
shuttered since 1994, got unshuttered. And the bomb that exploded
tonight was, if I understand this correctly, almost certainly the
product of that plutonium uncorked almost four years ago.
So the President talked a good game, the North Koreans called his
bluff and he folded. And since then, for all intents and purposes, and
all the atmospherics to the contrary, he and his administration have
done essentially nothing.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2737 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush fuck up my country: Worthless
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's bullshit:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
David Schwartz
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass wrote:
> Then in the winter of 2002-3, the US prepared the invade Iraq, the
> North called Bush's bluff. And the president folded. Abjectly,
> utterly, even hilariously if the consequences weren't so grave and
> vast.
What bluff?
> Threats are a potent force if you're willing to follow through on
> them. But he wasn't. The plutonium production plant, which had been
> shuttered since 1994, got unshuttered. And the bomb that exploded
> tonight was, if I understand this correctly, almost certainly the
> product of that plutonium uncorked almost four years ago.
What did he threaten to do and then not do?
> So the President talked a good game, the North Koreans called his
> bluff and he folded. And since then, for all intents and purposes, and
> all the atmospherics to the contrary, he and his administration have
> done essentially nothing.
Give me an example, what kind of thing should they have done that they
did not do?
DS
JTEM
David Schwartz wrote:
> Give me an example, what kind of thing should
> they have done that they did not do?
You're being dishonest.
As he pointed out, Clinton's diplomacy worked. It
worked. North Korea did not break their agreement.
Just the opposite. The United States did. We did
not live up to our promises. We made an agreement,
and AFTER Bush made it clear that the United States
was never going to honor it, north Korea RESTARTED
the nuclear program that had been closed down during
the Clinton years.
alohac...@yahoo.com
David Schwartz wrote:
>
> Give me an example, what kind of thing should they have done that they
> did not do?
>
locked up its plutonium. With those threats the doors were opened.
Bush attacks afghanistan and iraq, only proving that weaker nations
need nukes. Now NK has them and enough plutonium to supply Iran or any
other country with the resources or funds to pay for it. Bush talks
sanctions....NK has product.
The law of supply and demand works in favor of NK.
The game is now much bigger than it used to be. Now Japan and SK have
to live with the threat of nuclear attack, but without MAD.
The world has changed a lot today, and bush is the biggest idiot on the
planet. Meanwhile bush goes to the christening of the uss hwbush.
Americans are damn stupid.
Dutch
<alohac...@yahoo.com> wrote
Not all of them, just a small majority of those who voted in the last
election along with all the eligible ones who didn't.
Gene
news:1160381956.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
In a nut shell first Bush stopped any of Clinton's strategies, then he
got in to a third grade name calling match with Kim and then he decided
the best diplomacy is no diplomacy. In the meantime North Korea built
several nuclear weapons and restarted their uranium enrichment efforts
and has been scaring the hell out of our allies in the Pacific like Japan
and South Korea.
Now I'm sure you think it will be witty to say 'Prove it' and fling
around some feces and depart in a huff but not with me kiddo.
It's all in the public, in magazines and newspapers and it's up to you to
be a big boy and read the information before you open that slash below
your nose or you can be a complete idiot.
It's your choice.
--
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much
liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas
Jefferson
"History is earmarked by the successes of liberals and mistakes of
conservatives." - ETG, CW4 USA Retired
Jake
"Gene" <Ge...@polyglot.com> wrote in message
news:Xns985736461832CR...@216.77.188.18...
Peter Galbraith has some interesting observations concerning the history
leading up to and the present situation in his new book: "The End of Iraq."
Gene
news:PxoWg.9993$YO....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
Sounds like I should read it.
Yopu know what is a bit worrisome? The complete lack of any world class
diplomats. We have Rice, Bolton and Cheney's daughter. What a world class
mess we are brewing.
pkgojak
YOu forgot Karen Hughes.
>
> --
> "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much
> liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas
> Jefferson
>
> "History is earmarked by the successes of liberals and mistakes of
> conservatives." - ETG, CW4 USA Retired
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Gene
news:11603894...@sp6iad.superfeed.net:
I thought she was there as a fluff girl.
Shawn Hirn
alohac...@yahoo.com wrote:
> David Schwartz wrote:
> >
> > Give me an example, what kind of thing should they have done that they
> > did not do?
> >
> First bush threatens to attack the axis of evil, even though NK had
> locked up its plutonium. With those threats the doors were opened.
>
> Bush attacks afghanistan and iraq, only proving that weaker nations
> need nukes. Now NK has them and enough plutonium to supply Iran or any
> other country with the resources or funds to pay for it. Bush talks
> sanctions....NK has product.
>
> The law of supply and demand works in favor of NK.
Exactly. NK has technology that Iran needs. Iran is flush with cash due
to its oil supply. NK and Iran are buddies.
> The game is now much bigger than it used to be. Now Japan and SK have
> to live with the threat of nuclear attack, but without MAD.
>
> The world has changed a lot today, and bush is the biggest idiot on the
> planet. Meanwhile bush goes to the christening of the uss hwbush.
>
> Americans are damn stupid.
Not all Americans, just those who support Bush. Its too late now, but
many of those who were stupid enough to vote for Bush regret doing so
now. Sigh!
Morton Davis
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:12ik2v8...@news.supernews.com...
eats dung beetle dung.
D J.@hoyme.com Mark D J.
>
> Yopu know what is a bit worrisome? The complete lack of any world class
> diplomats. We have Rice, Bolton and Cheney's daughter. What a world class
> mess we are brewing.
>
Truth is, the US empire has been a powerful force for half a century. Power
makes people lazy. Laziness makes people stupid. And stupid means you get
Rice, Bolton and Cheney's daughter. QED.
M.
Gunner
North Korea Nukes Clinton Legacy
Charles R. Smith
Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2003
Asian Arms Race Result of Appeasement Policy
The leftist media spin is that the current crisis in North Asia is the
result of George W. Bush calling Pyongyang a member of the 'axis of
evil.' In reality, the soft-line appeasement policy taken by Clinton
against North Korea and China is what has led us to this point.
For example, former Clinton adviser Paul Begala, now serving as a
talking head on CNN, claimed that the Clinton administration contained
the threat from North Korea. Clearly, Mr. Begala missed the 1990s.
Of course, Mr. Begala simply forgot that Clinton's military chief of
staff testified in 1998 that North Korea did not have an active
ballistic missile program. One week later the North Koreans launched a
missile over Japan that landed off the Alaska coast.
During the early Clinton years, hard-liners and so-called conservative
hawks advocated a pre-emptive strike to halt North Korea's nuclear
weapons development before it could field an atomic bomb. Instead of
taking the hard line, President Clinton elected to rely on former
President Jimmy Carter and decided to appease the Marxist-Stalinist
dictatorship.
Carter met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang and
returned to America waving a piece of paper and declaring peace in our
time. Kim, according to Carter, had agreed to stop his nuclear weapons
development.
The Clinton appeasement program for North Korea included hundreds of
millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor.
However, the agreement was flawed and lacked even the most informal
means of verification.
In return, Kim elected to starve his people while using the American aid
to build uranium bombs. The lowest estimate is that Kim starved to death
over 1 million of his own people, even with the U.S. aid program.
Axis of Evil and Friends
North Korea was not left all alone in its effort to obtain nuclear
weapons. North Korea relied heavily on China, its closest ally, to
assist in its all-out effort to obtain the atomic bomb.
Beijing elected to covertly aid its North Asian ally by proliferation.
China allowed Pakistan to send nuclear technology purchased from Beijing
to North Korea in exchange for No Dong missile technology.
Beijing provided Pakistan with its nuclear weapons technology, including
an operational atomic bomb design. Pakistan is now providing North Korea
with equipment and engineering to assist in its bomb-making efforts.
The fact remains that North Korea acquired some key equipment for its
nuclear weapons program from Pakistan in 1998. The key equipment,
including a working gas centrifuge used to enrich uranium, was shipped
to Pyongyang in the coffin of the murdered wife of a North Korean
diplomat.
Beijing's indirect assistance includes allowing Pakistani C-130 cargo
flights over China to Pyongyang that carry key equipment for nuclear
weapons production. The flights return to Pakistan with North Korean No
Dong missile parts.
Missiles for Nukes
Pakistan also benefited from the trade in weaponry. The
missiles-for-nukes trade gave Pakistan an operational means to deliver
its atomic bombs.
Pakistan has since successfully test-fired and deployed its own version
of the No Dong missile, called the Ghauri. The North Korean-designed
missile has a range of nearly 900 miles and can cover virtually all of
India, Pakistan's rival in Southwest Asia.
The ultimate irony here is that the North Korean No Dong and Tae Po Dong
missiles are based on technology given to Pyongyang by China. In 1994,
the Wall Street Journal revealed that Chinese-made CSS-2 missile
technology had found its way into North Korean hands.
China has also allowed North Korea to ship SCUD missiles through its
territory for Middle Eastern customers. According to a Canadian
undercover operative, North Korean agents moved dismantled SCUD missiles
through China into Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran.
The allegations proved to be correct because U.S. satellites were able
to follow Chinese-made M-11 missiles bound for Pakistan over the same
land route in 2000. The illegal export of M-11 missiles brought swift
sanctions against Beijing by the Bush administration.
In recent months China has been much more overt about assisting
Pyongyang with its nuclear weapons program. In 2002, China sold
Pyongyang a large shipment of tributyl phosphate, a key chemical used to
extract plutonium and uranium from spent fuel rods for atomic bombs.
U.S. Pressure on Asian Allies
In contrast, the U.S. repeatedly told India, South Korea, Japan and
Taiwan that they should not develop nuclear weapons. The U.S. position
was that the no one had the right to bring a new arms race to Asia.
The U.S. also backed up this policy by placing severe restrictions on
the export of nuclear and ballistic missile technology to India, Taiwan,
Korea and Japan. The trade agreements also had teeth built into them in
case U.S. technology was abused.
For example, when India developed and tested its nuclear bomb, the U.S.
responded with hefty sanctions and a diplomatic freeze that is just now
beginning to thaw.
Compared to the strict U.S. policy, China did not discourage its client
states, North Korea and Pakistan, from developing nuclear weapons.
Instead, China has overtly and covertly assisted both nations to develop
and deploy active weapons upon working delivery systems.
Nature abhors a vacuum, especially in the case of nuclear weapons. The
whole equation of Asian defense has changed overnight. As a result of
China's nuclear proliferation, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan may now
have to follow Pyongyang's lead and begin their own atomic weapons
programs. That decision will be made in Tokyo, Seoul and Taipei, not in
Washington.
It should shock no one, including the China lobby and DNC apologists,
that Beijing will continue to support North Korea's nuclear weapons
program.
However, some fools continue to be suckered by Beijing's obvious ploy to
dominate Asia. The fools' hope that China will restrain Pyongyang
continues to echo off the lips of the leftist media, as if by simply
wishing it were true will make it so.
The fact remains that Bill Clinton's legacy is an unstable world filled
with hungry dictators and nuclear weapons. The result of the Clinton
appeasement policy toward China is a new arms race.
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Gunner
>
>In a nut shell first Bush stopped any of Clinton's strategies, then he
>got in to a third grade name calling match with Kim and then he decided
>the best diplomacy is no diplomacy. In the meantime North Korea built
>several nuclear weapons and restarted their uranium enrichment efforts
>and has been scaring the hell out of our allies in the Pacific like Japan
>and South Korea.
>
>Now I'm sure you think it will be witty to say 'Prove it' and fling
>around some feces and depart in a huff but not with me kiddo.
>It's all in the public, in magazines and newspapers and it's up to you to
>be a big boy and read the information before you open that slash below
>your nose or you can be a complete idiot.
>
>It's your choice.
Gunner
>Yopu know what is a bit worrisome? The complete lack of any world class
>diplomats. We have Rice, Bolton and Cheney's daughter. What a world class
>mess we are brewing.
World Class Diplomats? Like Neville Chamberlain?
Gunner
bear...@cruller.invalid
> NK has product.
And the means to and the history of sharing its weapons with terrorists.
Good luck, Israel.
--
"I wear boots when I play that ol' squeezebox
Stompin' out rhythms
'till the headstones dance on their graves"
bear...@cruller.invalid
Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
> North Korea was not left all alone in its effort to obtain nuclear
> weapons. North Korea relied heavily on China, its closest ally, to
> assist in its all-out effort to obtain the atomic bomb.
Financed by Walmart and other U.S. manufacturers who need that good ol'
cheap labor (and thus financed by every American who walks through their
doors or buys an HP printer, for instance).
It would have been a LOT cheaper just to give them a few nukes.
Gene
news:2siki213pe2k5213m...@4ax.com:
It's fine to critique Clinton's policies on Iraq, the Palistinian
problem, Iran and North Korea. But the fact remains his policies did not
lead to todays nuclear burst in North Korea, did not lead to the Iranians
resumption of enrichment, did not lead to a Hamas controlled Palistan and
did eliminate all the WMD's
But that all ended 6 years ago and it is completely stupid to think that
somehow Bush has done any thing right when it comes to foreign policy
considering nothing has gotten better.
Bush's laissez-faire diplomacy
Korea popped a nuke.
Iran restarted enriching uranium and removed the cameras and stopped
inspections.
No WMD's were found in Iraq and no ties to Bin Laden existed
The Bush road to peace is a muddy rut to no where.
Hamas was elected and because of complete inaction of the Bush State
Department became saviors to the Lebanese.
China is on the back burner because we can not say anything to the folks
that hold our purse strings
No meathead, it's not time to talk about Clinton's foreign policy - it's
time to talk about Bush's lack of foreign policy.
Gene
news:6uiki2t7opcn766g5...@4ax.com:
Same old shit. You folks are so proud that there is always at least one
other individual in the entire history of the planet that did something
worse than this current group of incompetent fucks. It's a real head
shaker.
Jesus you get dumber with every post. I guess I could drag out a history
book and we could go over the foreign policy successes and the men who
accomplished them but that world mean you'd have to listen - something
you don't do well. Probably why you didn't make it very far in the
military.
Jake
<bear...@cruller.invalid> wrote in message
news:bearclaw-497B49...@news.supernews.com...
> In article <2siki213pe2k5213m...@4ax.com>,
> Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>> North Korea was not left all alone in its effort to obtain nuclear
>> weapons. North Korea relied heavily on China, its closest ally, to
>> assist in its all-out effort to obtain the atomic bomb.
>
> Financed by Walmart and other U.S. manufacturers who need that good ol'
> cheap labor (and thus financed by every American who walks through their
> doors or buys an HP printer, for instance).
>
Clinton was instrumental in pushing for China trade for Wal-Mart and
numerous other American interests throughout his tenure, not to mention
taking illegal Chinese election contributions. Seems these charges were
conveniently dropped after the opposition party won office. Another case of
the opposition using dirt to achieve their objective. Sounds kinda familiar!
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass
wrote:
And yes, you NeoCon traitors are dishonest.
"You're being dishonest.
As he pointed out, Clinton's diplomacy worked. It
worked. North Korea did not break their agreement.
Just the opposite. The United States did. We did
not live up to our promises. We made an agreement,
and AFTER Bush made it clear that the United States
was never going to honor it, north Korea RESTARTED
the nuclear program that had been closed down during
the Clinton years."
-JTEM
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass
wrote:
Oh look, another NeoCon pussy chickenhawk graces us with his deep
foreign policy knowledge
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass
wrote:
Better late than never.
Let's all do something before the NeoCons destroy our country.
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass
wrote:
>On 9 Oct 2006 01:33:40 -0700, alohac...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>
>>David Schwartz wrote:
>>>
>>> Give me an example, what kind of thing should they have done that they
>>> did not do?
>>>
>>First bush threatens to attack the axis of evil, even though NK had
>>locked up its plutonium. With those threats the doors were opened.
>>
>>Bush attacks afghanistan and iraq, only proving that weaker nations
>>need nukes. Now NK has them and enough plutonium to supply Iran or any
>>other country with the resources or funds to pay for it. Bush talks
>>sanctions....NK has product.
>>
>>The law of supply and demand works in favor of NK.
>>
>>The game is now much bigger than it used to be. Now Japan and SK have
>>to live with the threat of nuclear attack, but without MAD.
>>
>>The world has changed a lot today, and bush is the biggest idiot on the
>>planet. Meanwhile bush goes to the christening of the uss hwbush.
>>
>>Americans are damn stupid.
>North Korea Nukes Clinton Legacy
>
> Charles R. Smith
> Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2003
>
>Asian Arms Race Result of Appeasement Policy
LOL! Loser NeoCon gunner resorts to 2003 article, back when NK DIDN'T
have nukes thanks to Clinton diplomacy.
GOP, the party of treason.
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass
wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:00:27 GMT, Gene <Ge...@polyglot.com> wrote:
>
>>Yopu know what is a bit worrisome? The complete lack of any world class
>>diplomats. We have Rice, Bolton and Cheney's daughter. What a world class
>>mess we are brewing.
>
>
>World Class Diplomats? Like Neville Chamberlain?
Like George W Hitler.
middleea...@inmail24.com
Gene
news:DBsWg.10017$YO....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
What a laugh.
Don't forget he killed Vince Foster, scamed folks with land deals in
whitewater, raped several women, smuggled drugs and caused all of Bush's
problems to date.
You wacko's are really something. Nothing in America is better than it
was before Bush took office - nothing.
Yet some how in those tiny pus filled knots between your narrow shoulders
Clinton is the puppetmaster of all that is bad in the world.
We need a draft worse than Pat Robertson needs a blow job just to end
this ridiculous dumbassed crap. You folks need to bleed for your fucked
up beliefs in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else this piece of shit
president you fucks elected twice chooses to send the Ameircan military.
Roedy Green
Cocaine Snorting Ass" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote, quoted or
indirectly quoted someone who said :
>Of the 3 "Axis of Evil", NONE of them had nukes in 2003.
How could Bush have ensured they did not get one?
Global arms reduction treaty with extreme inspections. This would of
course have to include the USA. The USA has always refused reductions
or inspection. How can it expect others to have NONE when it refuses
any reasonable limiting measures?
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
For links to books about George W. Bush see
http://mindprod.com/politics/bushbooks.html
Gunner
wrote:
You left out Kerry, Clinton and Carter, to name a few others.
Jeff McCann
"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:6uiki2t7opcn766g5...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:00:27 GMT, Gene <Ge...@polyglot.com> wrote:
>
> >Yopu know what is a bit worrisome? The complete lack of any world class
> >diplomats. We have Rice, Bolton and Cheney's daughter. What a world class
> >mess we are brewing.
>
>
> World Class Diplomats? Like Neville Chamberlain?
No. He was the Leader of Britain's CONSERVATIVE party.
Jeff
Gunner
>Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in
>news:6uiki2t7opcn766g5...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:00:27 GMT, Gene <Ge...@polyglot.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Yopu know what is a bit worrisome? The complete lack of any world
>>>class diplomats. We have Rice, Bolton and Cheney's daughter. What a
>>>world class mess we are brewing.
>>
>>
>> World Class Diplomats? Like Neville Chamberlain?
>>
>> Gunner
>>
>> "Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
>> Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
>> off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
>> them self determination under "play nice" rules.
>>
>> Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
>> for torturing the cat." Gunner
>>
>
>Same old shit. You folks are so proud that there is always at least one
>other individual in the entire history of the planet that did something
>worse than this current group of incompetent fucks. It's a real head
>shaker.
So you dont want to answer the question?
>
>Jesus you get dumber with every post. I guess I could drag out a history
>book and we could go over the foreign policy successes and the men who
>accomplished them but that world mean you'd have to listen - something
>you don't do well. Probably why you didn't make it very far in the
>military.
Hummm or maybe it was that piece of driving band they dug out of my
skull in Letterman? Or all that chicom cast iron from my back? Or the
trianglular bayonet through the left hand? Or the....
Didnt make it far in the military? What..become a fucking lifer for
Croms sake? Your kidding, right?
Roedy Green
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>Now I'm sure you think it will be witty to say 'Prove it' and fling
>around some feces and depart in a huff but not with me kiddo.
>It's all in the public, in magazines and newspapers and it's up to you to
>be a big boy and read the information before you open that slash below
>your nose or you can be a complete idiot.
The focus should be on preventing a nuclear war in the next few
months. If you don't succeed in that, proving whose fault NK was,
becomes moot.
If I had the power, I would spike the world water supply with valium.
There are far too many people who think destroying our planet is worth
some petty ideology.
Keep in mind your enemies don't want nuclear war either.
GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 09:17:57 GMT, Gene <Ge...@polyglot.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>In a nut shell first Bush stopped any of Clinton's strategies, then he
>>got in to a third grade name calling match with Kim and then he decided
>>the best diplomacy is no diplomacy. In the meantime North Korea built
>>several nuclear weapons and restarted their uranium enrichment efforts
>>and has been scaring the hell out of our allies in the Pacific like Japan
>>and South Korea.
>>
>>Now I'm sure you think it will be witty to say 'Prove it' and fling
>>around some feces and depart in a huff but not with me kiddo.
>>It's all in the public, in magazines and newspapers and it's up to you to
>>be a big boy and read the information before you open that slash below
>>your nose or you can be a complete idiot.
>>
>>It's your choice.
> North Korea Nukes Clinton Legacy
>
Oct. 16, 2006 issue - On Sept. 19, 2005, North Korea signed a widely heralded
denuclearization agreement with the United States, China, Russia, Japan and
South Korea. Pyongyang pledged to "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing
nuclear programs." In return, Washington agreed that the United States and
North Korea would "respect each other's sovereignty, exist peacefully together
and take steps to normalize their relations."
Four days later, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sweeping financial
sanctions against North Korea designed to cut off the country's access to the
international banking system, branding it a "criminal state" guilty of
counterfeiting, money laundering and trafficking in weapons of mass
destruction.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15175633/site/newsweek/
Not NewsMax
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
Jeff McCann
> On 9 Oct 2006 01:33:40 -0700, alohac...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >David Schwartz wrote:
> >>
> >> Give me an example, what kind of thing should they have done that they
> >> did not do?
> >>
> >First bush threatens to attack the axis of evil, even though NK had
> >locked up its plutonium. With those threats the doors were opened.
> >
> >Bush attacks afghanistan and iraq, only proving that weaker nations
> >need nukes. Now NK has them and enough plutonium to supply Iran or any
> >other country with the resources or funds to pay for it. Bush talks
> >sanctions....NK has product.
> >
> >The law of supply and demand works in favor of NK.
> >
> >The game is now much bigger than it used to be. Now Japan and SK have
> >to live with the threat of nuclear attack, but without MAD.
> >
> >The world has changed a lot today, and bush is the biggest idiot on the
> >planet. Meanwhile bush goes to the christening of the uss hwbush.
> >
> >Americans are damn stupid.
> North Korea Nukes Clinton Legacy
>
> Charles R. Smith
> Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2003
>
> Asian Arms Race Result of Appeasement Policy
More old "Newsmax" spin and lies?
Jeff
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass
wrote:
Is there anything from NewHax that's not?
Matt Silberstein
<see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> in
<7goki2truhg0122ra...@4ax.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:18:13 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's
>Cocaine Snorting Ass" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote, quoted or
>indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>>Of the 3 "Axis of Evil", NONE of them had nukes in 2003.
>
>How could Bush have ensured they did not get one?
>
>Global arms reduction treaty with extreme inspections. This would of
>course have to include the USA. The USA has always refused reductions
>or inspection. How can it expect others to have NONE when it refuses
>any reasonable limiting measures?
I am not sure that Shrub could have done anything useful, but what he
has done is at least as counter productive as anything. By pushing
both Iran and North Korea, pushing in entirely irrelevant and
ineffective manners, he has justified their actions internally. For
North Korea I would have showered them with (meaningless) ex-parte
recognition. I would have sent "elder statesmen" who would have said
all kinds of positive things abut Kim and NK. Not *official* though. I
would have held that out as a (meaningless, again) carrot. We are not
going to remove him, the best we can do is lower the risk.
Again, I am not sure at all this would work, sort of a horrible war I
am not sure there was anything we could do to ensure they did not end
up with nukes.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Robert Sturgeon
wrote:
(snips)
>Yopu know what is a bit worrisome? The complete lack of any world class
>diplomats. We have Rice, Bolton and Cheney's daughter. What a world class
>mess we are brewing.
The trouble with some people is that they think they can
talk their way out of any problem...
--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Robert Sturgeon
And he was a fool, thinking he could talk Hitler out of his
plans for aggression -- just like Clinton thought he could
talk Kim out of his plans for nukes.
"You can't serve papers on a rat -- you gotta either shoot
it or leave it alone." (No guarantee on the exactitude of
the quote.)
Robert Sturgeon
<see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 09:17:57 GMT, Gene <Ge...@polyglot.com> wrote,
>quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>>Now I'm sure you think it will be witty to say 'Prove it' and fling
>>around some feces and depart in a huff but not with me kiddo.
>>It's all in the public, in magazines and newspapers and it's up to you to
>>be a big boy and read the information before you open that slash below
>>your nose or you can be a complete idiot.
>
>The focus should be on preventing a nuclear war in the next few
>months. If you don't succeed in that, proving whose fault NK was,
>becomes moot.
>
>If I had the power, I would spike the world water supply with valium.
You don't have that power. No one does. Do you have a Plan
B?
>There are far too many people who think destroying our planet is worth
>some petty ideology.
And your plan for convincing them otherwise is...???
>Keep in mind your enemies don't want nuclear war either.
I doubt anyone but Kim knows what Kim wants. Maybe Kim
doesn't even know what Kim wants. As for the Iranians --
their leadership wants the Islamic version of Armageddon.
That'll bring on some sort of Islamic paradise on earth, or
some such rot. Kinda hard to establish any kind of
meaningful dialog with people who want your destruction --
even if that means theirs, too. If the current Iranian
leadership gets its hands on nukes and the ability to
deliver them to Israel, Europe, and North America, they'll
do it. All the "skilled diplomacy" in the world won't make
a bit of difference.
You'd best keep your Valium for yourself and your close
family and friends -- y'all might need it.
bear...@cruller.invalid
"Jake" <No...@what.com> wrote:
> Clinton was instrumental in pushing for China trade for Wal-Mart and
> numerous other American interests throughout his tenure, not to
> mention taking illegal Chinese election contributions. Seems these
> charges were conveniently dropped after the opposition party won
> office. Another case of the opposition using dirt to achieve their
> objective. Sounds kinda familiar!
And let's not forget the hoorahs and tributes rained upon RMN for
opening China in the first place.
All agreed, but incomplete: without exception, all of these policies
were designed (and heavily or entirely leveraged by business) to
promote immediate and short-term material gains for American corporate
interests while deliberately downplaying or studiously ignoring the
legitimate long-term views of informed opposition interests such as
academia and labor.
The results? Grass-roots calls for desultory wars (typified by the Iraq
conflict); ever-increasing violations of Constitutional law
(undermining the very basis of the this nation's existence); assumption
of immense debt; reduced moral, economic and military authority;
creeping encroachments on the pillars of social stability and security;
and a vastly increased likelihood of global economic ruin.
Hi, and welcome to "America Gone Wild!"
bear...@cruller.invalid
Gene <Ge...@polyglot.com> wrote:
> Nothing in America is better than it
> was before Bush took office - nothing.
Nice of you to acknowledge the truth.
Gunner
wrote:
>
Yes and? The master behind "Peace in our times" wasnt he?
snicker.....
Gunner
And keep enough on hand for an LD50, for when radiation sickness becomes
too much to bear.
Brian Westley
>On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:57:54 -0500, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.org>
>wrote:
>>
>>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>>news:6uiki2t7opcn766g5...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:00:27 GMT, Gene <Ge...@polyglot.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Yopu know what is a bit worrisome? The complete lack of any world class
>>> >diplomats. We have Rice, Bolton and Cheney's daughter. What a world class
>>> >mess we are brewing.
>>>
>>>
>>> World Class Diplomats? Like Neville Chamberlain?
>>
>>No. He was the Leader of Britain's CONSERVATIVE party.
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>Yes and? The master behind "Peace in our times" wasnt he?
>snicker.....
So you're saying that Rice, Bolton, and Mary Cheney
are on par with CHamberlain?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Jeff McCann
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:57:54 -0500, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
> >news:6uiki2t7opcn766g5...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:00:27 GMT, Gene <Ge...@polyglot.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Yopu know what is a bit worrisome? The complete lack of any world
class
> >> >diplomats. We have Rice, Bolton and Cheney's daughter. What a world
class
> >> >mess we are brewing.
> >>
> >>
> >> World Class Diplomats? Like Neville Chamberlain?
> >
> >No. He was the Leader of Britain's CONSERVATIVE party.
> >
> >Jeff
> >
> Yes and? The master behind "Peace in our times" wasnt he?
>
> snicker.....
Your foolish snickering only displays your ignorance of history.
Chamberlain knew two things, at least, at the time of the Munich Accord.
First, he knew war with Nazi Germany was coming. Second, he knew that Great
Britain was woefully unprepared for that war, and needed more time.
British arms had deteriorated very badly during the Great Depression, but
Chamberlain was responsible for implementing many crucial defence
development programs and drastically increasing defence spending. Britain
lagged far behind Germany, though, at this time. Germany already had the
draft and had built a substantial army, and especially a powerful and very
modern air force, in part by using the Spanish Civil War as a development
test bed.
As just one example of the shortfalls faced by Chamberlain, at the time of
the Munich Agreement, The RAF only had five Supermarine Spitfires on hand.
Not five squadrons, five airplanes. Germany was way, way ahead in the most
modern types of aircraft, and started the war with over 1,500 Bf-109s
already on hand.
Care to consider what might have happened if the Battle of Britain was
fought in 1939 instead of 1940?
Probably not. History is complex, and understanding it is difficult;
drawing useful lessons from it is more difficult still. That's beyond you.
But before you parrot the conventional, and naively superficial, wisdom
about Chamberlain, you should at least recognize that he was not able to
confront Hitler from a position of strength, or even anything close to
parity. By the time Churchill took over, things were still bleak, but
Chamberlain had at least bought Britain enough time to begin catching up.
There is little evidence to show that Churchill could have done much better
in Chamberlain's time, place and circumstances, although if the British
government generally had listened to Churchill better in the pre-war years,
they would have been much better off.
Jeff
Andres64
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass wrote:
> Of the 3 "Axis of Evil", NONE of them had nukes in 2003.
>
> make one, while the other two promptly made their nukes so they can't
> be invaded. All the while with complete impunity because Bush sunk our
> troops in a hellhole.
>
> http://69.20.5.85/archives/010275.php
>
> All diplomatic niceties aside, President Bush's idea was that the
> North Koreans would respond better to threats than Clinton's mix of
> carrots and sticks.
>
> Then in the winter of 2002-3, the US prepared the invade Iraq, the
> North called Bush's bluff. And the president folded. Abjectly,
> utterly, even hilariously if the consequences weren't so grave and
> vast.
>
> them. But he wasn't. The plutonium production plant, which had been
> shuttered since 1994, got unshuttered. And the bomb that exploded
> tonight was, if I understand this correctly, almost certainly the
> product of that plutonium uncorked almost four years ago.
>
> bluff and he folded. And since then, for all intents and purposes, and
> all the atmospherics to the contrary, he and his administration have
> done essentially nothing.
On the bright side...the US electorate couldn't be stupid enough to
keep the Repugs in office again, after the fiasco that has been the
Shrub presidency, could they?
Karen Newton
"JimK" <1al...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:id1li29a35u6dme81...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 13:15:36 GMT, Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Charles R. Smith
>> Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2003
>>
>>Asian Arms Race Result of Appeasement Policy
>
> It quoted the North's Kang as having said, ``U.S. President George
> Bush designated North Korea as part of an `axis of evil' and your
> nation has armed forces in the South, so we are pursuing the nuclear
> weapons program.''
>
> The North's move dashed hopes for a nuclear-free peninsula, will
> likely see further tensing of the already chilly relations between
> North Korea and the United States and the security situation around
> the peninsula.
> http://www.hankooki.com/times/200210/t2002101717421040110.htm
>
>
> Talks Were Frozen by New Administration
>
> The Clinton administration had tried to reach an agreement with the
> North Koreans to shut down their missile research program if other
> nations would launch its satellites. However, the Bush administration
> had initially suspended those discussions.
>
> Pyongyang had shown frustration with President Bush's delay in
> restarting talks, and had recently threatened to reconsider its
> previous commitments, including the freeze on its nuclear program and
> missile testing.
>
> But now, as part of an extensive foreign policy review, the
> administration says it is prepared to renew that dialog. But U.S.
> officials say what happens next is up to Pyongyang.
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/korea_bush010606.html
>
> President Bush's Deferral of North Korean Negotiations: A Missed
> Opportunity to Curb North Korea's Missile Program
> President Bush said at a March 7 press conference with visiting South
> Korean President Kim Dae Jung that there were no plans at this time to
> resume talks with North Korea to end its ballistic missile program and
> missile exports because of concerns about Pyongyang's trustworthiness
> and the verifiability of current and future agreements. The North
> Korean missile program is frequently cited as the leading motivation
> for development of a national missile defense. Arms Control
> Association Press Conference Rush Transcript, March 23, 2001
> http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/asia-nor.html
>
> March 8, 2001 Updated Daily
>
> Bush Won't Resume Missile Talks With North Korea
> In a sharp reversal from Clinton administration foreign policy,
> President Bush has told South Korea's president that the United States
> has no plans to resume missile talks with North Korea anytime soon.
> http://www.publicagenda.org/headlines/headline030801.htm
>
> METHOD OR MADNESS?
>
> On January 29, President George W. Bush announced what seemed a new
> U.S. policy toward the Korean Peninsula -- and threw observers
> worldwide into confusion. In his state of the union address that
> night, Bush outlined the steps to come in his administration's "war on
> terrorism." Among them was a tough new approach to what he termed an
> "axis of evil": North Korea, Iraq, and Iran
> http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20020501faessay8059/victor-d-cha/korea-s-place-in-the-axis.html
>
> White House Signals an End to North Korea Negotiations as Bush
> Administration Pursues National Missile Defense Program
> http://www.wpkn.org/wpkn/news/btl033001.html
>
> When South Korean President Kim Dae-jung visited Washington, DC, in
> early March, Bush uttered some pleasantries about Kim's peace efforts
> and congratulated him on winning the Nobel Prize, but otherwise
> rebuffed and embarrassed him saying the US wouldn't talk to North
> Korea about anything
> http://www.atimes.com/editor/CD18Ba01.html
>
> Some analysts in Seoul suspect that Washington might have exaggerated
> what Pyongyang officials said during James Kelly's trip.
> http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2002/10/18/200210180041.asp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>The leftist media spin is that the current crisis in North Asia is the
>>result of George W. Bush calling Pyongyang a member of the 'axis of
>>evil.' In reality, the soft-line appeasement policy taken by Clinton
>>against North Korea and China is what has led us to this point.
>>
>>For example, former Clinton adviser Paul Begala, now serving as a
>>talking head on CNN, claimed that the Clinton administration contained
>>the threat from North Korea. Clearly, Mr. Begala missed the 1990s.
>>
>>Of course, Mr. Begala simply forgot that Clinton's military chief of
>>staff testified in 1998 that North Korea did not have an active
>>ballistic missile program. One week later the North Koreans launched a
>>missile over Japan that landed off the Alaska coast.
>>
>>During the early Clinton years, hard-liners and so-called conservative
>>hawks advocated a pre-emptive strike to halt North Korea's nuclear
>>weapons development before it could field an atomic bomb. Instead of
>>taking the hard line, President Clinton elected to rely on former
>>President Jimmy Carter and decided to appease the Marxist-Stalinist
>>dictatorship.
>>
>>Carter met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang and
>>returned to America waving a piece of paper and declaring peace in our
>>time. Kim, according to Carter, had agreed to stop his nuclear weapons
>>development.
>>
>>The Clinton appeasement program for North Korea included hundreds of
>>millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor.
>>However, the agreement was flawed and lacked even the most informal
>>means of verification.
>>
>>In return, Kim elected to starve his people while using the American aid
>>to build uranium bombs. The lowest estimate is that Kim starved to death
>>over 1 million of his own people, even with the U.S. aid program.
>>
>>Axis of Evil and Friends
>>
>>North Korea was not left all alone in its effort to obtain nuclear
>>weapons. North Korea relied heavily on China, its closest ally, to
>>assist in its all-out effort to obtain the atomic bomb.
>>
>>Beijing elected to covertly aid its North Asian ally by proliferation.
>>China allowed Pakistan to send nuclear technology purchased from Beijing
>>to North Korea in exchange for No Dong missile technology.
>>
>>Beijing provided Pakistan with its nuclear weapons technology, including
>>an operational atomic bomb design. Pakistan is now providing North Korea
>>with equipment and engineering to assist in its bomb-making efforts.
>>
>>The fact remains that North Korea acquired some key equipment for its
>>nuclear weapons program from Pakistan in 1998. The key equipment,
>>including a working gas centrifuge used to enrich uranium, was shipped
>>to Pyongyang in the coffin of the murdered wife of a North Korean
>>diplomat.
>>
>>Beijing's indirect assistance includes allowing Pakistani C-130 cargo
>>flights over China to Pyongyang that carry key equipment for nuclear
>>weapons production. The flights return to Pakistan with North Korean No
>>Dong missile parts.
>>
>>Missiles for Nukes
>>
>>Pakistan also benefited from the trade in weaponry. The
>>missiles-for-nukes trade gave Pakistan an operational means to deliver
>>its atomic bombs.
>>
>>Pakistan has since successfully test-fired and deployed its own version
>>of the No Dong missile, called the Ghauri. The North Korean-designed
>>missile has a range of nearly 900 miles and can cover virtually all of
>>India, Pakistan's rival in Southwest Asia.
>>
>>The ultimate irony here is that the North Korean No Dong and Tae Po Dong
>>missiles are based on technology given to Pyongyang by China. In 1994,
>>the Wall Street Journal revealed that Chinese-made CSS-2 missile
>>technology had found its way into North Korean hands.
>>
>>China has also allowed North Korea to ship SCUD missiles through its
>>territory for Middle Eastern customers. According to a Canadian
>>undercover operative, North Korean agents moved dismantled SCUD missiles
>>through China into Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran.
>>
>>The allegations proved to be correct because U.S. satellites were able
>>to follow Chinese-made M-11 missiles bound for Pakistan over the same
>>land route in 2000. The illegal export of M-11 missiles brought swift
>>sanctions against Beijing by the Bush administration.
>>
>>In recent months China has been much more overt about assisting
>>Pyongyang with its nuclear weapons program. In 2002, China sold
>>Pyongyang a large shipment of tributyl phosphate, a key chemical used to
>>extract plutonium and uranium from spent fuel rods for atomic bombs.
>>
>>U.S. Pressure on Asian Allies
>>
>>In contrast, the U.S. repeatedly told India, South Korea, Japan and
>>Taiwan that they should not develop nuclear weapons. The U.S. position
>>was that the no one had the right to bring a new arms race to Asia.
>>
>>The U.S. also backed up this policy by placing severe restrictions on
>>the export of nuclear and ballistic missile technology to India, Taiwan,
>>Korea and Japan. The trade agreements also had teeth built into them in
>>case U.S. technology was abused.
>>
>>For example, when India developed and tested its nuclear bomb, the U.S.
>>responded with hefty sanctions and a diplomatic freeze that is just now
>>beginning to thaw.
>>
>>Compared to the strict U.S. policy, China did not discourage its client
>>states, North Korea and Pakistan, from developing nuclear weapons.
>>Instead, China has overtly and covertly assisted both nations to develop
>>and deploy active weapons upon working delivery systems.
>>
>>Nature abhors a vacuum, especially in the case of nuclear weapons. The
>>whole equation of Asian defense has changed overnight. As a result of
>>China's nuclear proliferation, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan may now
>>have to follow Pyongyang's lead and begin their own atomic weapons
>>programs. That decision will be made in Tokyo, Seoul and Taipei, not in
>>Washington.
>>
>>It should shock no one, including the China lobby and DNC apologists,
>>that Beijing will continue to support North Korea's nuclear weapons
>>program.
>>
>>However, some fools continue to be suckered by Beijing's obvious ploy to
>>dominate Asia. The fools' hope that China will restrain Pyongyang
>>continues to echo off the lips of the leftist media, as if by simply
>>wishing it were true will make it so.
>>
>>The fact remains that Bill Clinton's legacy is an unstable world filled
>>with hungry dictators and nuclear weapons. The result of the Clinton
>>appeasement policy toward China is a new arms race.
sbm...@shaw.ca
Robert Sturgeon wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:57:54 -0500, "Jeff McCann"
> <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
> >news:6uiki2t7opcn766g5...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:00:27 GMT, Gene <Ge...@polyglot.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Yopu know what is a bit worrisome? The complete lack of any world class
> >> >diplomats. We have Rice, Bolton and Cheney's daughter. What a world class
> >> >mess we are brewing.
> >>
> >> World Class Diplomats? Like Neville Chamberlain?
> >
> >No. He was the Leader of Britain's CONSERVATIVE party.
>
> And he was a fool, thinking he could talk Hitler out of his
> plans for aggression -- just like Clinton thought he could
> talk Kim out of his plans for nukes.
>
Yeah, and of course Clinton's been in power for 14 years now. You
retard.
Karen Newton
<sbm...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:1160417289.1...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Karen Newton
"JimK" <1al...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca2li2tk3ligeg5c2...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 08:53:46 -0700, Robert Sturgeon
> <rst...@inreach.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:57:54 -0500, "Jeff McCann"
>><NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>>>news:6uiki2t7opcn766g5...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:00:27 GMT, Gene <Ge...@polyglot.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Yopu know what is a bit worrisome? The complete lack of any world
>>>> >class
>>>> >diplomats. We have Rice, Bolton and Cheney's daughter. What a world
>>>> >class
>>>> >mess we are brewing.
>>>>
>>>> World Class Diplomats? Like Neville Chamberlain?
>>>
>>>No. He was the Leader of Britain's CONSERVATIVE party.
>>
>>And he was a fool, thinking he could talk Hitler out of his
>>plans for aggression -- just like Clinton thought he could
>>talk Kim out of his plans for nukes.
>>
>
>
>
> "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to
> so few."-- Speech made in the House of Commons as the Battle Britain
> peaked on August 20, 1940.
>
> 620 Hurricane and Spitfire fighters, with an average 9 hours pilot
> training, defeated a German air threat of 3,500 bombers and fighters
> during the "The Battle of Britain".
>
> Squadrons were rapidly equipped with the Hurricane--thanks to the
> foresight of the Hawker Aircraft directors--and at the time war was
> declared, on September 3, 1939, just short of 500 Hurricanes had been
> delivered and eighteen squadrons had been equipped.
>
> The turning point for "World War Two" was September 15, 1940.
> Chamberlain, 30 September, 1938, policy gave Britain the time needed
> to build Hurricane's and Spitfire's, without that time, Britain would
> have been defeated, Britain would have lost "The Battle of Britain".
sbm...@shaw.ca
Gene wrote:
> "Jake" <No...@what.com> wrote in
> news:DBsWg.10017$YO....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
>
> >
> > <bear...@cruller.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:bearclaw-497B49...@news.supernews.com...
> >> In article <2siki213pe2k5213m...@4ax.com>,
> >> Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> North Korea was not left all alone in its effort to obtain nuclear
> >>> weapons. North Korea relied heavily on China, its closest ally, to
> >>> assist in its all-out effort to obtain the atomic bomb.
> >>
> >> ol' cheap labor (and thus financed by every American who walks
> >> through their doors or buys an HP printer, for instance).
> >>
> >
> > Clinton was instrumental in pushing for China trade for Wal-Mart and
> > numerous other American interests throughout his tenure, not to
> > mention taking illegal Chinese election contributions. Seems these
> > charges were conveniently dropped after the opposition party won
> > office. Another case of the opposition using dirt to achieve their
> > objective. Sounds kinda familiar!
> >
> >
> >
>
> Don't forget he killed Vince Foster, scamed folks with land deals in
> whitewater, raped several women, smuggled drugs and caused all of Bush's
> problems to date.
>
> You wacko's are really something. Nothing in America is better than it
> was before Bush took office - nothing.
>
> Clinton is the puppetmaster of all that is bad in the world.
>
> We need a draft worse than Pat Robertson needs a blow job just to end
> this ridiculous dumbassed crap. You folks need to bleed for your fucked
> up beliefs in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else this piece of shit
> president you fucks elected twice chooses to send the Ameircan military.
>
> --
No, he was right about that.
The fact is, Clinton was at best a mediocre president. He failed to
prevent genocide in Rwanda, laid the framework for outsourcing, screwed
up healthcare reform, brought us NAFTA, and made lots of shady deals,
like his last-minute pardons. He only looks good when held up against
a total failure like Bush.
Karen Newton
<sbm...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:1160417725.6...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
sbm...@shaw.ca
Probably would. Half the voters probably don't know the difference
between a Replubican and a Democrat, and are probably just voting for
the guy that most looks like Mel Gibson.
Karen Newton
<sbm...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:1160418488.2...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:00:27 GMT, Gene <Ge...@polyglot.com> wrote:
>
>>Yopu know what is a bit worrisome? The complete lack of any world class
>>diplomats. We have Rice, Bolton and Cheney's daughter. What a world class
>>mess we are brewing.
>
>
> World Class Diplomats? Like Neville Chamberlain?
Wow, not even an American. Had to dig for that attack, eh?
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time to dust off the guillotine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andres64
It's true. As Churchill said: "The best argument against democracy is
a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Karen Newton
"Curly Surmudgeon" <curly@left_the_building.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.10.09.18.40.40.422345@left_the_building.com...
Karen Newton
"Andres64" <andr...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1160419456.8...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Gene
news:jmoki2haje8rj4vb4...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 13:51:35 GMT, Gene <Ge...@polyglot.com> wrote:
>
>>Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in
>>news:6uiki2t7opcn766g5...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:00:27 GMT, Gene <Ge...@polyglot.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Yopu know what is a bit worrisome? The complete lack of any world
>>>>class diplomats. We have Rice, Bolton and Cheney's daughter. What a
>>>>world class mess we are brewing.
>>>
>>>
>>> World Class Diplomats? Like Neville Chamberlain?
>>>
>>> Gunner
>>>
>>> "Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
>>> Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
>>> off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
>>> them self determination under "play nice" rules.
>>>
>>> Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
>>> for torturing the cat." Gunner
>>>
>>
>>Same old shit. You folks are so proud that there is always at least one
>>other individual in the entire history of the planet that did something
>>worse than this current group of incompetent fucks. It's a real head
>>shaker.
>
> So you dont want to answer the question?
>>
>>Jesus you get dumber with every post. I guess I could drag out a
history
>>book and we could go over the foreign policy successes and the men who
>>accomplished them but that world mean you'd have to listen - something
>>you don't do well. Probably why you didn't make it very far in the
>>military.
>
> Hummm or maybe it was that piece of driving band they dug out of my
> skull in Letterman? Or all that chicom cast iron from my back? Or the
> trianglular bayonet through the left hand? Or the....
>
> Didnt make it far in the military? What..become a fucking lifer for
> Croms sake? Your kidding, right?
Thought so - a doper. And you make such a great case when your trashing
the military while using a nym like Gunner. What a laugh, a fucking pussy
who's best time is past and even then he couldn't cut the mustard. Yep,
your real special Mary. You drawing 'my pussy hurts' money from the VA
like the other dumbass 'couldhavebeen' Morty?
What a laugh, making a hundred grand a year flying the best techonology
in the world is way beneath you - I guess getting back to the trailer and
fucking your dog was a priority.
Fucking joke.
Well Mary here's the thing anyone who works for a living and votes
Republican is a total dumbass.
>
>
> "Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
> Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
> off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
> them self determination under "play nice" rules.
>
> Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
> for torturing the cat." Gunner
>
--
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much
liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas
Jefferson
"History is earmarked by the successes of liberals and mistakes of
conservatives." - ETG, CW4 USA Retired
Gene
news:7qrki2ls7fi04rrbe...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:00:27 GMT, Gene <Ge...@polyglot.com>
> wrote:
>
> (snips)
>
>>Yopu know what is a bit worrisome? The complete lack of any world
>>class diplomats. We have Rice, Bolton and Cheney's daughter. What a
>>world class mess we are brewing.
>
> The trouble with some people is that they think they can
> talk their way out of any problem...
>
> --
> Robert Sturgeon
> Summum ius summa inuria.
> http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
>
No the problem with some people is that they don't have the ability and
intelligence to avoid a fight.
Wars start when the limit of intelligence is reached. Bush reached his
early - real early. I see you lime the leap first Bush diplomacy. Well turd
leap on down to the recuiters office and join up - dumbass.
What's a real laugh is that you fucks sure are great cheerleaders 3000
miles from the front. Go serve your dumbassed president.
pyotr filipivich
on Mon, 09 Oct 2006 13:16:56 GMT in misc.survivalism :
>On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:00:27 GMT, Gene <Ge...@polyglot.com> wrote:
>
>>Yopu know what is a bit worrisome? The complete lack of any world class
>>diplomats. We have Rice, Bolton and Cheney's daughter. What a world class
>>mess we are brewing.
>
>
Wasn't it Jimmy's Secretary of State who was concerned that any special
operations force sent into Teheran to recover the hostages would be
shooting to kill. Ah, Warren Christopher, who was only Deputy Secretary of
State.
I still "love" the Peanut's comment that he'd learned more about the
Soviet Union when they invaded Afghanistan in December of 79, than he'd
understood before.
Yeah, those great World Class Diplomats. Who was it who drew the
political cartoon showing Jimmy Cater as a hayseed, holding a deed to the
Brooklyn Bridge, with the caption "You mean this isn't the real deal?"
That's been the effect of the Democrats choices in diplomatic efforts.
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Most of the intelligentsia haven't studied history, so much
as they've absorbed the Correct Position on "History".
Robert Sturgeon
wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 08:53:46 -0700, Robert Sturgeon
><rst...@inreach.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:57:54 -0500, "Jeff McCann"
>><NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>>>news:6uiki2t7opcn766g5...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:00:27 GMT, Gene <Ge...@polyglot.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Yopu know what is a bit worrisome? The complete lack of any world class
>>>> >diplomats. We have Rice, Bolton and Cheney's daughter. What a world class
>>>> >mess we are brewing.
>>>>
>>>> World Class Diplomats? Like Neville Chamberlain?
>>>
>>>No. He was the Leader of Britain's CONSERVATIVE party.
>>
>>And he was a fool, thinking he could talk Hitler out of his
>>plans for aggression -- just like Clinton thought he could
>>talk Kim out of his plans for nukes.
>
>"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to
>so few."-- Speech made in the House of Commons as the Battle Britain
>peaked on August 20, 1940.
>
>620 Hurricane and Spitfire fighters, with an average 9 hours pilot
>training, defeated a German air threat of 3,500 bombers and fighters
>during the "The Battle of Britain".
>
>Squadrons were rapidly equipped with the Hurricane--thanks to the
>foresight of the Hawker Aircraft directors--and at the time war was
>declared, on September 3, 1939, just short of 500 Hurricanes had been
>delivered and eighteen squadrons had been equipped.
>
>The turning point for "World War Two" was September 15, 1940.
>Chamberlain, 30 September, 1938, policy gave Britain the time needed
>to build Hurricane's and Spitfire's, without that time, Britain would
>have been defeated, Britain would have lost "The Battle of Britain".
Nope -- in 1938 the Germans had less of an air force than
the Brits did. The Brits and French could have easily
defeated the Germans in 1938. But the Brits (the people,
that is) weren't willing to fight in 1938. Unfortunately,
the French weren't willing to fight in 1940, either. I
suppose Chamberlain does deserve some credit for
understanding just how feckless his people were. If he had
stood up to Hitler, he probably would have been thrown out
of office.
The nice thing about democracy is that people get the
government they deserve.
Robert Sturgeon
<NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote:
>
>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:7p0li2hdc4val00eh...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:57:54 -0500, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>> >news:6uiki2t7opcn766g5...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:00:27 GMT, Gene <Ge...@polyglot.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Yopu know what is a bit worrisome? The complete lack of any world
>class
>> >> >diplomats. We have Rice, Bolton and Cheney's daughter. What a world
>class
>> >> >mess we are brewing.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> World Class Diplomats? Like Neville Chamberlain?
>> >
>> >No. He was the Leader of Britain's CONSERVATIVE party.
>> >
>> >Jeff
>> >
>> Yes and? The master behind "Peace in our times" wasnt he?
>>
>> snicker.....
>
>Your foolish snickering only displays your ignorance of history.
>
>Chamberlain knew two things, at least, at the time of the Munich Accord.
>First, he knew war with Nazi Germany was coming. Second, he knew that Great
>Britain was woefully unprepared for that war, and needed more time.
In 1938 Britain (along with France) was far more powerful
than the Germans. Hitler ran a bluff, and the Brits fell
for it.
>British arms had deteriorated very badly during the Great Depression, but
>Chamberlain was responsible for implementing many crucial defence
>development programs and drastically increasing defence spending. Britain
>lagged far behind Germany, though, at this time.
No, they did not. The German air force was a shell --
nothing inside.
> Germany already had the
>draft and had built a substantial army, and especially a powerful and very
>modern air force, in part by using the Spanish Civil War as a development
>test bed.
>
>As just one example of the shortfalls faced by Chamberlain, at the time of
>the Munich Agreement, The RAF only had five Supermarine Spitfires on hand.
>Not five squadrons, five airplanes. Germany was way, way ahead in the most
>modern types of aircraft, and started the war with over 1,500 Bf-109s
>already on hand.
But not in 1938. The Germans were weaker than the combined
British/French armed forces -- at least on paper. The
difference was in morale. The Germans had it. Neither the
Brits nor the French did.
>Care to consider what might have happened if the Battle of Britain was
>fought in 1939 instead of 1940?
The British would have won it then, too -- if they were
willing to fight, that is...
>Probably not. History is complex, and understanding it is difficult;
>drawing useful lessons from it is more difficult still. That's beyond you.
>But before you parrot the conventional, and naively superficial, wisdom
>about Chamberlain, you should at least recognize that he was not able to
>confront Hitler from a position of strength, or even anything close to
>parity.
His government's lack of strength was based on the fact that
his people were not emotionally prepared to fight. It had
very little to do with the actual armed forces available,
but instead with the various societies' collective
intestinal fortitude. The Germans had it; the Brits didn't.
> By the time Churchill took over, things were still bleak, but
>Chamberlain had at least bought Britain enough time to begin catching up.
The difference was that the British people had faced up to
the necessity of fighting another war -- a situation that
did not exist in 1938. In 1938, they still hoped they could
avoid another war through diplomacy. They couldn't, of
course, but they didn't understand that yet.
>There is little evidence to show that Churchill could have done much better
>in Chamberlain's time, place and circumstances, although if the British
>government generally had listened to Churchill better in the pre-war years,
>they would have been much better off.
Indeed, but in order to be ABLE to listen to Churchill, they
would have needed to be able to get past the "peace at any
price" nonsense they had bought into as a result of the
gruesome slaughter of WWI. There's hardly any point in
expecting people to do what they can't do. It's like
expecting people to be prepared to stop the 9/11 attacks --
before 9/11. It just doesn't work like that.
Jeff McCann
"Robert Sturgeon" <rst...@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:3mkli25uaceron24d...@4ax.com...
Britain's strength was in seapower, of marginal use in a European land war.
Her army, such as it was, was largely dispersed around the globe, in large
part protecting her empire from the covetous Japanese in places like India,
Burma and Singapore.
In 1938 Germany had 36 infantry divisions of 600,000 men. By 1939, that had
grown to 98 divisions and 1.5 million well-trained men available for action.
It also had 9 panzer divisions. Each one had 328 tanks, 8 support battalions
and 6 artillery batteries. By 1940, Germany had 2.5 million men and 2,500
tanks. Britain didn't even have conscription until May of 1940. The
British Expeditionary Army sent to France had, IIRC 4 divisions of infantry
and about 50 inferior tanks.
Although the French Army had the ability to mobilize about 5 million men,
their army was untrained and ill-equipped for maneuver warfare.
Nonetheless, the Sigfreid Line really was a hollow shell, and if the French
had stepped off smartly onto the offensive as soon as Germany invaded
Poland, the whole might have been over by the proverbial Christmas.
I think the real missed opportunity to avoid WWII and get rid of Hitler was
the Anglo-French failure to react forcefully to his re-militarization of the
Rhineland in 1936.
> >British arms had deteriorated very badly during the Great Depression, but
> >Chamberlain was responsible for implementing many crucial defence
> >development programs and drastically increasing defence spending.
Britain
> >lagged far behind Germany, though, at this time.
>
> No, they did not. The German air force was a shell --
> nothing inside.
When Germany invaded Poland, the Luftwaffe had about 1,600 of the most
modern combat aircraft of all types, except for heavy bombers. Hardly a
shell.
> > Germany already had the
> >draft and had built a substantial army, and especially a powerful and
very
> >modern air force, in part by using the Spanish Civil War as a development
> >test bed.
> >
> >As just one example of the shortfalls faced by Chamberlain, at the time
of
> >the Munich Agreement, The RAF only had five Supermarine Spitfires on
hand.
> >Not five squadrons, five airplanes. Germany was way, way ahead in the
most
> >modern types of aircraft, and started the war with over 1,500 Bf-109s
> >already on hand.
>
> But not in 1938. The Germans were weaker than the combined
> British/French armed forces -- at least on paper. The
> difference was in morale. The Germans had it. Neither the
> Brits nor the French did.
The main difference was in doctrine. Germany trained for and executed it's
"Lightning War" doctrine, which trumped the failed Anglo-French doctrine of
prolonged static defense along the Maginot Line while Britain built up it's
strength. It doesn't really matter if you have the best hammer in the
world, if what you really need is a screwdriver.
The second difference is the lag in Britain's production of Hurricanes and
Spitfires, upon which so much depended, as compared to Germany's earlier
production of it's modern fighter aircraft.
> >Care to consider what might have happened if the Battle of Britain was
> >fought in 1939 instead of 1940?
>
> The British would have won it then, too -- if they were
> willing to fight, that is...
Indeed, a land invasion of Britain, a.k.a., Operation Sea Lion, probably
would not have been successful in either 1938, 1939, or thereafter. But the
destruction of the RAF, and subsequent unrestricted bombing of England, was
much more likely in 1938 than it was in 1939 or 1940. In the actual battle,
it was a close-run thing and the RAF's eventual triumph was significantly
aided by a series of German blunders.
> >Probably not. History is complex, and understanding it is difficult;
> >drawing useful lessons from it is more difficult still. That's beyond
you.
> >But before you parrot the conventional, and naively superficial, wisdom
> >about Chamberlain, you should at least recognize that he was not able to
> >confront Hitler from a position of strength, or even anything close to
> >parity.
>
> His government's lack of strength was based on the fact that
> his people were not emotionally prepared to fight. It had
> very little to do with the actual armed forces available,
> but instead with the various societies' collective
> intestinal fortitude. The Germans had it; the Brits didn't.
>
> > By the time Churchill took over, things were still bleak, but
> >Chamberlain had at least bought Britain enough time to begin catching up.
>
> The difference was that the British people had faced up to
> the necessity of fighting another war -- a situation that
> did not exist in 1938. In 1938, they still hoped they could
> avoid another war through diplomacy. They couldn't, of
> course, but they didn't understand that yet.
The German people weren't on a war footing then, either. In fact, Hitler so
feared popular opposition to the war that civilian production wasn't fully
converted to war production until about 1943. Moreover, German morale and
support for the war was ignited by the successes in the West, and was not a
basis for support of it. The German people were no more prepared for war in
1938 or 1939 than the British people were. Hitler himself was planning for
war to break out in 1942-1945, not 1938 or 1939. You are putting the cart
before the horse.
> >There is little evidence to show that Churchill could have done much
better
> >in Chamberlain's time, place and circumstances, although if the British
> >government generally had listened to Churchill better in the pre-war
years,
> >they would have been much better off.
>
> Indeed, but in order to be ABLE to listen to Churchill, they
> would have needed to be able to get past the "peace at any
> price" nonsense they had bought into as a result of the
> gruesome slaughter of WWI. There's hardly any point in
> expecting people to do what they can't do. It's like
> expecting people to be prepared to stop the 9/11 attacks --
> before 9/11. It just doesn't work like that.
Agreed.
Jeff
Roedy Green
said :
>>If I had the power, I would spike the world water supply with valium.
>
>You don't have that power. No one does. Do you have a Plan
>B?
My plan B is to try to talk everyone I can on the net into calming
down. If we don't panic, it will all blow over. It is no more the end
of the world than Pakistan doing its first test.
According to the CBC, the South Koreans are taking this all in stride.
They are much less alarmed than the Americans.
Bush has a vested interest in getting people panicking. It will help
his ratings.
Plan C is to point out that nuclear proliferation is not a good thing,
and you can't very well stop it if the USA has weapons and threatens
others with them. That creates irresistible motive for proliferation.
Nothing else would deter the USA. ALL the nukes have to go, gradually
and verifiably.
If the USA is stubborn, it will end up with nukes in every terrorist
basement, and a huge pile of its own which are useless for defence.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
For links to books about George W. Bush see
http://mindprod.com/politics/bushbooks.html
Roedy Green
<rst...@inreach.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
>I doubt anyone but Kim knows what Kim wants.
Listen to them. They are perfectly clear. They want to deter the USA
from attacking them. Bush said he was going to in his axis of evil
speech. How else could they deter the USA?
That seems completely plausible to me. North Korea has not attacked
anyone .
What puzzles me is why Bush announced they he going to annihilated
North Korea. On what grounds? What did North Korea do to America?
Morton Davis
Mr. Hitler" who was buying all those aircraft engines....
JoelKatz
JTEM wrote:
> As he pointed out, Clinton's diplomacy worked. It
> worked. North Korea did not break their agreement.
> Just the opposite. The United States did. We did
> not live up to our promises. We made an agreement,
> and AFTER Bush made it clear that the United States
> was never going to honor it, north Korea RESTARTED
> the nuclear program that had been closed down during
> the Clinton years.
Every reputable source that I've been able to find claims that North
Korea breached the agreement. Do you have any reputable source that
claims the reverse?
DS
John R. Carroll
I don't know what reputable sources you have reviewed but it is necessary to
venture back to the late 80's to gain any insight into what went wrong.
By 2000 the N. Koreans were claiming that they had locked up and allowed
verification of the shut down of the facilities they had as required under
the agreement they entered into when BC was in office. The IAEC agreed and
had 27/7/365 monitoring in place.
The reactor technology promised was originally to have been complete and on
line by 2003 aprox., and when delivery of the site was delayed until
2007/2008 the N. Koreans called bullshit, cracked the seals on their site,
kicked the tires and lit the fires.
Bush decided to "play hard ball" and ended up, essentially, being ignored.
Bush was so belligerent that he scared NK and they figured they had better
get a nuke quick. Bush is a little less than anxious to attack properly
armed foes.
That is the short version and it's just history.
Kim Il Dong Dong has just over played his hand but he has also exposed the
weakness of the US position. The regional powers will be the real players.
The US has marginalized itself.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass
How many nukes did NK explode during the Clinton years?
QED
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2749 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush fuck up my country: Worthless
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's bullshit:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
Karen Newton
"JimK" <1al...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:o73mi2d1rqif5treb...@4ax.com...
> On 9 Oct 2006 19:07:16 -0700, "JoelKatz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
>
>>
> This program was publicized in October 2002 when the United States
> asked North Korean officials about the program, [3]. Although the
> Agreed Framework specifically prohibited then-existing plutonium
> programs, not uranium, the U.S. argued North Korea violated the
> "spirit" of the agreement. In December 2002, the United States
> terminated the 1994 Agreed Framework, suspending fuel oil shipments
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
>
>
> RAY SUAREZ: Selig Harrison, same question: Is this a breach of 1994
> agreement and if so how important?
>
> SELIG HARRISON: Well it's certainly incompatible with the spirit of
> the agreement, which did not specifically rule out what they are
> doing.
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec02/nuclear_10-17.html
Karen Newton
"John R. Carroll" <jcar...@machiningsolution.com> wrote in message
news:v8EWg.13072$6S3....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Gunner
>On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 13:15:36 GMT, Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Charles R. Smith
>> Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2003
>>
>>Asian Arms Race Result of Appeasement Policy
>
>It quoted the North's Kang as having said, ``U.S. President George
>Bush designated North Korea as part of an `axis of evil' and your
>nation has armed forces in the South, so we are pursuing the nuclear
>weapons program.''
>
>The North's move dashed hopes for a nuclear-free peninsula, will
>likely see further tensing of the already chilly relations between
>North Korea and the United States and the security situation around
>the peninsula.
>http://www.hankooki.com/times/200210/t2002101717421040110.htm
>
>
>Talks Were Frozen by New Administration
<Snip propaganda>
The Clinton Legacy: North Korea's Bomb
Dave Eberhart,
Monday, Oct. 9, 2006
North Korea's first detonation of a nuclear weapon may have taken place
during the watch of George W. Bush — but it was under the Clinton
administration's watch that the communist regime began gathering
necessary materials and constructing the bomb.
As Western powers race to confirm that North Korea did in fact explode a
nuclear device in Gilju, a remote region in the Hamgyong province, some
see it as a culmination of weak U.S. action during the 1990s that led to
this fateful day.
Fateful Beginnings
After entering into an agreement with the United States in 1994, the
Clinton administration ignored evidence the North Koreans were violating
the agreement and continuing to build a nuclear weapon. "In July of
2002, documentary evidence was found in the form of purchase orders for
the materials necessary to enrich uranium," NewsMax's James Hirsen
previously reported.
"In October 2002, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly met with his
North Korean counterpart for scheduled talks. Kelly confronted North
Korea with the tangible evidence of its duplicity. After a day of
outright denial, North Korea abruptly reversed its position and
defiantly acknowledged a secret nuclear program."
Timeline of a Nuclear Bomb
A review of recent history shows that that the Clinton administration
gave up a clear and perhaps last best chance to nip the North Korean
bomb in the bud:
1985: North Korea signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
1989: The Central Intelligence Agency discovers the North Koreans are
building a reprocessing facility — a reactor capable of converting fuel
rods into weapons-grade plutonium. The fuel rods were extracted 10 years
before from that nation's Yongbyon reactor.
The rods represent a shortcut to enriched plutonium and an atomic bomb.
Spring, 1994: A year into President Clinton's first term, North Korea
prepares to remove the Yongbyon fuel rods from their storage site. North
Korea expels international weapons inspectors and withdraws from the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
# Clinton asks the United Nations Security Council to consider
sanctions. North Korean spokesmen proclaim such sanctions would cause
war.
# The Pentagon draws up plans to send 50,000 troops to South Korea —
along with 400 war planes, 50 ships, Apache helicopters, Bradley
fighting vehicles, and Patriot missiles. An advance force of 250
soldiers is sent in to set up headquarters for the expanded force.
# Clinton balks and sets up a diplomatic back-channel to end the crisis
— former President Jimmy Carter. Exceeding instructions, Carter
negotiates the outlines of a treaty and announces the terms live on CNN.
Oct. 21, 1994: The United States and North Korea sign a formal accord
based on those outlines, called the Agreed Framework. Under its terms:
# North Korea promises to renew its commitment to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, lock up the fuel rods, and let inspectors back
in to monitor the facility.
# The United States agrees — with financial backing from South Korea and
Japan — that it will provide two light-water nuclear reactors for
electricity, send a large supply of fuel oil, and that it will not
invade North Korea.
# Upon delivery of the first light-water reactor, inspections of
suspected North Korean nuclear sites were supposed to start. After the
second reactor arrived, North Korea was supposed to ship its fuel rods
out of the country.
# The two countries also agreed to lower trade barriers and install
ambassadors in each other's capitals — with the United States providing
full assurances that it would never use nuclear weapons against North
Korea.
(None of the above came to pass. Congress did not make the financial
commitment — neither did South Korea. The light-water reactors were
never funded. The enumerated steps toward normalization were never
taken.)
Jan. 2002: In President Bush's State of the Union Address, he famously
labels North Korea, Iran, and Iraq as an "axis of evil."
Oct., 2002: Officials from the U.S. State Department fly to Pyongyang,
where that government admits it had acquired centrifuges for processing
highly enriched uranium, which could be used for building nuclear
weapons.
# It is now clear to all parties that the promised reactors are never
going to be built. Normalization of relations fizzles.
# The CIA learns that North Korea may have been acquiring centrifuges
for enriching uranium since the late 1990s — probably from Pakistan.
Oct. 20, 2002: Bush announces that the United States is formally
withdrawing from the Carter-brokered 1994 agreement.
# The United States. halts oil supplies to North Korea and urges other
countries to cut off all economic relations with Pyongyang.
Dec., 2002: North Korea expels the international weapons inspectors,
restarts the nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, and unlocks the container
holding the fuel rods.
Jan. 10, 2003: North Korea withdraws from the Non-Proliferation Treaty —
noting, however, that there would be a change of position if the U.S.
resumed its obligations under the Agreed Framework and signed a
non-aggression pledge.
March, 2003: President Bush orders several B-1 and B-52 bombers to the
U.S. Air Force base in Guam — within range of North Korea.
April, 2003: North Korea's deputy foreign minister announces that his
country now has "deterrent" nuclear weapons.
May, 2003: Bush orders the Guam-based aircraft back to their home bases.
October, 2003: The North Koreans announce they have reprocessed all
8,000 of their fuel rods and solved the technical problems of converting
the plutonium into nuclear bombs.
Gunner
wrote:
>Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> writes:
>>On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:57:54 -0500, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.org>
>>wrote:
>
>>>
>>>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>>>news:6uiki2t7opcn766g5...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:00:27 GMT, Gene <Ge...@polyglot.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Yopu know what is a bit worrisome? The complete lack of any world class
>>>> >diplomats. We have Rice, Bolton and Cheney's daughter. What a world class
>>>> >mess we are brewing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> World Class Diplomats? Like Neville Chamberlain?
>>>
>>>No. He was the Leader of Britain's CONSERVATIVE party.
>>>
>>>Jeff
>>>
>>Yes and? The master behind "Peace in our times" wasnt he?
>
>>snicker.....
>
>So you're saying that Rice, Bolton, and Mary Cheney
>are on par with CHamberlain?
>
>---
>Merlyn LeRoy
Did the above 3 claim Peace in Our Times and less than 3 months
later..had a blitzkrieg in full process?
Gunner
Gunner
wrote:
>
>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:7p0li2hdc4val00eh...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:57:54 -0500, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>> >news:6uiki2t7opcn766g5...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:00:27 GMT, Gene <Ge...@polyglot.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Yopu know what is a bit worrisome? The complete lack of any world
>class
>> >> >diplomats. We have Rice, Bolton and Cheney's daughter. What a world
>class
>> >> >mess we are brewing.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> World Class Diplomats? Like Neville Chamberlain?
>> >
>> >No. He was the Leader of Britain's CONSERVATIVE party.
>> >
>> >Jeff
>> >
>> Yes and? The master behind "Peace in our times" wasnt he?
>>
>> snicker.....
>
>Your foolish snickering only displays your ignorance of history.
>
>Chamberlain knew two things, at least, at the time of the Munich Accord.
>First, he knew war with Nazi Germany was coming. Second, he knew that Great
>Britain was woefully unprepared for that war, and needed more time.
>
>British arms had deteriorated very badly during the Great Depression, but
>Chamberlain was responsible for implementing many crucial defence
>development programs and drastically increasing defence spending. Britain
>lagged far behind Germany, though, at this time. Germany already had the
>draft and had built a substantial army, and especially a powerful and very
>modern air force, in part by using the Spanish Civil War as a development
>test bed.
>
>As just one example of the shortfalls faced by Chamberlain, at the time of
>the Munich Agreement, The RAF only had five Supermarine Spitfires on hand.
>Not five squadrons, five airplanes. Germany was way, way ahead in the most
>modern types of aircraft, and started the war with over 1,500 Bf-109s
>already on hand.
>
>Care to consider what might have happened if the Battle of Britain was
>fought in 1939 instead of 1940?
>
>Probably not. History is complex, and understanding it is difficult;
>drawing useful lessons from it is more difficult still. That's beyond you.
>But before you parrot the conventional, and naively superficial, wisdom
>about Chamberlain, you should at least recognize that he was not able to
>confront Hitler from a position of strength, or even anything close to
>parity. By the time Churchill took over, things were still bleak, but
>Chamberlain had at least bought Britain enough time to begin catching up.
>There is little evidence to show that Churchill could have done much better
>in Chamberlain's time, place and circumstances, although if the British
>government generally had listened to Churchill better in the pre-war years,
>they would have been much better off.
>
>Jeff
>
>
>
Geeze Jeff..you write like you almost know something. Almost. Kinda
Sorta. Maybe.
But you spin like the typical lawyer.
Chamberlain bought nothing. Hitler was trying desperately to get the
British to JOIN the Axis Powers. It wasnt until the BEF invaded France
that Hitler decided to take on the Brits. If the events leading up to
the clusterfuck at Dunkirk had never transpired..if the British had NOT
declared war on Germany..Hitler would have left them alone till after
the Continent was conqured.
Here is Chamberlains Appeasement speech. (see below)
I strongly suggest you get some remedial education in Chamberlains
actions 1937-1940.
And I STRONGLY suggest you read his declaration of war on Germany.
Germany DID NOT first declare war on Britian, but Britian did declare
war on Germany first.
3 September 1939 11.15 A.M
Neville Chamberlain's Historic Speech To The Nation
"I am speaking to you from the Cabinet Room at 10 Downing Street. This
morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government an
official note stating that unless we heard from them by eleven o'clock,
that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a
state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such
undertaking has been received, and consequently this county is at war
with Germany.
You can imagine what a bitter blow it is to me that all my long struggle
to win peace has failed. Yet I cannot believe that there is anything
more or anything different that I could have done and that would have
been more successful.
Up to the very last it would have been quite possible to arrange a
peaceful and honorable settlement between Germany and Poland, but Hitler
would not have it. He had evidently made up his mind to attack Poland
whatever happened, and although he now says he put forward reasonable
proposals which were rejected by the Poles, that is not a true
statement. The proposals were never shown to the Poles nor to us, and
although they were announced in the German broadcast on Thursday night,
Hitler did not wait to bear comment on them, but ordered his troops to
cross the Polish frontier next morning. His action shows convincingly
that there is no chance of expecting that this man will ever give up his
practice of using force to gain his will, and he. can only be stopped by
force.
We and France are to-day, in fullfrnlment of our obligations, going to
the aid of Poland, so bravely resisting this wicked and unprovoked
attack on her people. We have a clear conscience, we have done all that
any country could do to establish peace. The situation in which no word
given by Germany
's ruler could be trusted and no people or country could feel safe has
become intolerable. Now we have resolved to finish it, I know you will
all play your part with calmness and courage. At such a moment as this
the assurances of support that we have received from the, Empire are a
source of profound encouragement to us.
When I have finished speaking certain detailed announcements will be
made on behalf of the Government. Give these 'your closest attention.
The Government have made plans under' which It will be possible' to
carry on the work of the nation in the days of stress and strain which
may be ahead of us. These plans need your help you may be taking your
part in the fighting Services or as a volunteer in one of the branches
of civil defense. If so, you will report for duty in accordance with the
instructions you have received. You may be engaged in work essential to
the prosecution of war, or for the maintenance of the life of the people
in factories in transport in public utility concerns, or in the supply
of other necessaries of life. If so it is of vital importance that you
should carry on with your job.
Now may God bless you all, and may he defend the right. For it is evil
things that we shall be fighting, against brute force, bad faith,
injustice, oppression and persecution, and against them I am certain
that Right will prevail.
Peace in our Time
Speech given in Defense of the Munich Agreement, 1938 Neville
Chamberlain
The Prime Minister:
Before I come to describe the Agreement which was signed at Munich in
the small hours of Friday morning last, I would like to remind the House
of two things which I think it very essential not to forget when those
terms are being considered. The first is this: We did not go there to
decide whether the predominantly German areas in the Sudetenland should
be passed over to the German Reich. That had been decided already.
Czechoslovakia had accepted the Anglo-French proposals. What we had to
consider was the method, the conditions and the time of the transfer of
the territory. The second point to remember is that time was one of the
essential factors. All the elements were present on the spot for the
outbreak of a conflict which might have precipitated the catastrophe. We
had populations inflamed to a high degree; we had extremists on both
sides ready to work up and provoke incidents; we had considerable
quantities of arms which were by no means confined to regularly
organised forces. Therefore, it was essential that we should quickly
reach a conclusion, so that this painful and difficult operation of
transfer might be carried out at the earliest possible moment and
concluded as soon as was consistent, with orderly procedure, in order
that we might avoid the possibility of something that might have
rendered all our attempts at peaceful solution useless. . . .
. . . To those who dislike an ultimatum, but who were anxious for a
reasonable and orderly procedure, every one of [the] modifications [of
the Godesberg Memorandum by the Munich Agreement] is a step in the right
direction. It is no longer an ultimatum, but is a method which is
carried out largely under the supervision of an international body.
Before giving a verdict upon this arrangement, we should do well to
avoid describing it as a personal or a national triumph for anyone. The
real triumph is that it has shown that representatives of four great
Powers can find it possible to agree on a way of carrying out a
difficult and delicate operation by discussion instead of by force of
arms, and thereby they have averted a catastrophe which would have ended
civilisation as we have known it. The relief that our escape from this
great peril of war has, I think, everywhere been mingled in this country
with a profound feeling of sympathy.
[Hon. Members: Shame.] I have nothing to be ashamed of. Let those who
have, hang their heads. We must feel profound sympathy for a small and
gallant nation in the hour of their national grief and loss. Mr.
Bellenger: It is an insult to say it.
The Prime Minister: I say in the name of this House and of the people of
this country that Czechoslovakia has earned our admiration and respect
for her restraint, for her dignity, for her magnificent discipline in
face of such a trial as few nations have ever been called upon to meet.
The army, whose courage no man has ever questioned, has obeyed the order
of their president, as they would equally have obeyed him if he had told
them to march into the trenches. It is my hope and my belief, that under
the new system of guarantees, the new Czechoslovakia will find a greater
security than she has ever enjoyed in the past. . . .
I pass from that subject, and I would like to say a few words in respect
of the various other participants, besides ourselves, in the Munich
Agreement. After everything that has been said about the German
Chancellor today and in the past, I do feel that the House ought to
recognise the difficulty for a man in that position to take back such
emphatic declarations as he had already made amidst the enthusiastic
cheers of his supporters, and to recognise that in consenting, even
though it were only at the last moment, to discuss with the
representatives of other Powers those things which he had declared he
had already decided once for all, was a real and a substantial
contribution on his part. With regard to Signor Mussolini, . . . I think
that Europe and the world have reason to be grateful to the head of the
Italian government for his work in contributing to a peaceful solution.
In my view the strongest force of all, one which grew and took fresh
shapes and forms every day war, the force not of any one individual, but
was that unmistakable sense of unanimity among the peoples of the world
that war must somehow be averted. The peoples of the British Empire were
at one with those of Germany, of France and of Italy, and their anxiety,
their intense desire for peace, pervaded the whole atmosphere of the
conference, and I believe that that, and not threats, made possible the
concessions that were made. I know the House will want to hear what I am
sure it does not doubt, that throughout these discussions the Dominions,
the Governments of the Dominions, have been kept in the closest touch
with the march of events by telegraph and by personal contact, and I
would like to say how greatly I was encouraged on each of the journeys I
made to Germany by the knowledge that I went with the good wishes of the
Governments of the Dominions. They shared all our anxieties and all our
hopes. They rejoiced with us that peace was preserved, and with us they
look forward to further efforts to consolidate what has been done.
Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work
for the pacification of Europe, for the removal of those suspicions and
those animosities which have so long poisoned the air. The path which
leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question
of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that
we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further
progress along the road to sanity.
From Great Britain, Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Vol. 339 (October 3,
1938)
Gunner
wrote:
>
>I think the real missed opportunity to avoid WWII and get rid of Hitler was
>the Anglo-French failure to react forcefully to his re-militarization of the
>Rhineland in 1936.
The Remilitarization of Germany and the Rhineland started in 1926.
The Industrialists like Krupp were already putting tanks, subs and
artillery on the proving grounds by then. The German 88 was designed and
put into production in 1928, improved in battle fields all across the
planet (Germany still was the Cannon maker to the World), Krupp, in
conjunction with Bofors of Sweden, were the producers until Krupp got
his own factories in full production by 1931.
Sigh..you know so little.
Gunner
Gunner
>> >No. He was the Leader of Britain's CONSERVATIVE party.
>>
>> And he was a fool, thinking he could talk Hitler out of his
>> plans for aggression -- just like Clinton thought he could
>> talk Kim out of his plans for nukes.
>>
>
>Yeah, and of course Clinton's been in power for 14 years now. You
>retard.
The Clinton Legacy: North Korea's Bomb
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Monday, Oct. 9, 2006
Fateful Beginnings
jte...@gmail.com
JoelKatz wrote:
> Every reputable source that I've been able
> to find claims that North Korea breached
> the agreement.
#1. What was the agreement?
#2. How did they breach it?
Now I'll answer for you. The U.S. promised "light water
reactors" -- which could not be used for a bomb
program -- in exchange for north Korea abandoning
it's nuclear reactors. The U.S. also promised oil
deliveries (fuel) until the new reactors were built.
The new reactors were started but never completed,
and Bush cancelled the fuel deliveries in 2002... at
which point north Korea re-started its nuclear weapons
program.
Gunner
<rst...@inreach.com> wrote:
Phony War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Phony War (Phoney War in Britain), or in Winston Churchill's words
the "Twilight War", was a phase in early World War II marked by few
military operations in Continental Europe, in the months following the
German invasion of Poland. Although the great powers of Europe had
declared war on one another, neither side had yet committed to launching
a significant attack, thus there was relatively little fighting on the
ground. The term has equivalents in many other languages, notably the
German Sitzkrieg ("sitting war," a pun on Blitzkrieg), the French drôle
de guerre ("strange war") and the Polish dziwna wojna ("strange war").
In Britain the period was even referred to as the "Bore War" (a pun on
"Boer War").
While most of the German army was fighting against Poland, a much
smaller German force manned the fortified defensive lines along the
French border (Westwall). At the Maginot Line on the other side of the
border, British and French troops stood facing them, but there were only
some local skirmishes. The British Royal Air Force dropped propaganda
leaflets on Germany and the first Canadian troops stepped ashore in
Britain, while western Europe was in a strange calm for seven months.
Meanwhile, the opposing nations clashed in the Norwegian Campaign. In
their hurry to re-arm, Britain and France had both begun buying weapons
from manufacturers in the USA at the outbreak of hostilities,
supplementing their own productions. The United States, technically
neutral in the war effort, contributed to the Western Allies by
discounted sales, and, later, lend-lease, of military equipment and
supplies. It should be noted that in the 1930s, private companies in
Britain and the US were also supplying Germany, without government
sanction. Engines of a few German fighters were made in Britain and raw
materials were being sold in America to Germany. German efforts to
interdict the Allies' trans-Atlantic trade at sea ignited the Second
Battle of the Atlantic.
Contents
Winter War
A notable event during the Phony War was the Winter War, which started
with the Soviet Union's assault on Finland on November 30, 1939. Public
opinion, particularly in France and Britain, found it easy to side
emotionally with democratic Finland, and demanded from their governments
effective actions in support of "the brave Finns" against the
incomparably larger aggressor, the Soviet Union, particularly since the
Finns' defence seemed so much more successful than that of the Poles
during the September Campaign. As a consequence, the Soviet Union was
excluded from the League of Nations, and a proposed Franco-British
expedition to northern Scandinavia was much debated. British forces that
began to be assembled to send to Finland's aid were not dispatched
before the Winter War ended, and were sent to Norway's aid in the Battle
of Norway, instead. On March 20, after the Winter War had ended, Édouard
Daladier resigned as Prime Minister in France, due to his failure to aid
Finland's defense.
[edit]
German invasion of Denmark and Norway
The open discussions on an Allied expedition to northern Scandinavia,
also without consent of the neutral Scandinavian countries, and the
Altmark incident on February 16, when (in the Germans' view) the British
Royal Navy demonstrated grave disrespect for Norway's neutrality,
alarmed the Kriegsmarine and gave strong arguments for a German securing
of the Norwegian coast, codenamed Weserübung. The German occupation of
Denmark and Norway commenced on April 9. The Royal Navy was nearby and
on April 10 the First Battle of Narvik resulted in the sinking of two
German and two British destroyers. On April 15–16 Allied troops were
landed in Norway, but within two weeks most of Norway was in German
hands and the Allied troops were evacuated from southern Norway.
[edit]
Fall of British government
The debacle of the Allied campaign in Norway, which actually was an
offspring of the never-realised plans to aid Finland, forced a famous
debate in the House of Commons during which the British Prime Minister
Neville Chamberlain was under constant attack. A nominal vote of
confidence in his government was won by 281 to 200, but many of
Chamberlain's supporters had voted against him whilst others had
abstained. The humiliated Chamberlain found it impossible to continue to
lead a National Government or to form a government of national unity (in
Britain often called a "coalition government", to distinguish it from
Chamberlain's existing national government) around him. On May 10
Chamberlain resigned the premiership whilst retaining the leadership of
the Conservative Party. The King, George VI, appointed Winston
Churchill, who had been a consistent opponent of Chamberlain's policy of
appeasement, as his successor and Churchill formed a new coalition
government that included members of the Conservative Party, the Labour
Party and the Liberal Party as well as several ministers from a
non-political background.
Later that day, German troops marched into Belgium, the Netherlands and
Luxembourg. It was the 10th of May, 1940, a short eight months after
Britain and France had declared war on Germany. The Phony War was over.
[edit]
Other military events during the Phony War
Admiral Graf Spee alight after being blown up and abandoned
Most other major actions during the Phony War were at sea, including the
Second Battle of the Atlantic fought throughout the Phony War. Other
notable events among these were the following:
* In October 1939 the obsolete British battleship HMS Royal Oak was
sunk in Scapa Flow, Orkney (north of Scotland) by the German U-boat
U-47.
* In November 1939, the German pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee
was attacked by the Royal Navy cruisers HMS Exeter, HMS Ajax and HMS
Achilles in the Battle of the River Plate. The Admiral Graf Spee fled to
Montevideo harbour to perform repairs on damage sustained during the
battle. She was later scuttled rather than face a large British fleet
the Kriegsmarine falsely believed was awaiting her departure. The
support vessel for the Admiral Graf Spee, the tanker Altmark, tried to
return to Germany by going around the north of Great Britain and then
along the Norwegian coast.
* In February 1940, the Altmark was boarded by the British destroyer
HMS Cossack, in Jøssingfjord, Norway. Some 300 British merchantmen
captured during the Admiral Graf Spee's campaign and interned in the
Altmark were freed.
* On April 10, 1940, the mining of Norwegian fjords by British
warships, intended to block Swedish iron ore shipments to Germany,
followed by two months of battle around the harbour of Narvik in
northern Norway (see: Battles of Narvik).
The warring air forces also showed some activity in that period, running
reconnaissance flights and several minor bombing raids during this
period. The Royal Air Force also conducted a large number of combined
reconnaissance and propaganda leaflet flights over Germany. These
leaflet flights were jokingly termed "Bomphlet raids" or "Confetti War"
in the British press.
For those of you who are not students of military history...Jeff.....
you may also wish to read this fascinating bit of history you evidently
were not aware of....
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/History/MacKinder/mackinder.html
And this....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal
"In July 1920, Britain announced it would send huge quantities of World
War One surplus military supplies to Poland, but a threatened general
strike by the Trades Union Congress who objected to British support of
"White Poland" ensured that none of the weapons that were supposed to go
to Poland went any further than British ports."
And this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Expeditionary_Force
.....Following the German invasion of Poland in 1939, the British
Expeditionary Force was sent to the Franco-Belgian border. By May 1940,
when German attacks began, it consisted of ten infantry divisions in
three corps, a tank brigade and a RAF detachment of about 500 aircraft.
Commanded by General Lord Gort, although constituting only a tenth of
the defending Allied force it sustained heavy losses during the German
advance and most of the remainder (roughly 330,000 men) were evacuated
from Dunkirk in June, leaving much of their equipment behind. However,
the 51st (Highland) Infantry Division was left behind at
Saint-Valéry-en-Caux, as it was not trapped by the Germans at the time;
it surrendered along with elements of the French 10th Army later in
June. The short lived second Expeditionary Force commanded by General
Alan Brooke was evactuated from Western France during Operation Ariel.
And if you are not too ignorant to understand an Order of Battle
report...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Expeditionary_Force_order_of_battle_%281940%29
Gunner
Gunner
>>
>> Hummm or maybe it was that piece of driving band they dug out of my
>> skull in Letterman? Or all that chicom cast iron from my back? Or the
>> trianglular bayonet through the left hand? Or the....
>>
>> Didnt make it far in the military? What..become a fucking lifer for
>> Croms sake? Your kidding, right?
>
>Thought so - a doper. And you make such a great case when your trashing
>the military while using a nym like Gunner. What a laugh, a fucking pussy
>who's best time is past and even then he couldn't cut the mustard. Yep,
>your real special Mary. You drawing 'my pussy hurts' money from the VA
>like the other dumbass 'couldhavebeen' Morty?
Doper? Hell boy..to be a lifer you have to be a drunk. I neither drink
nor do drugs.
>
>
>What a laugh, making a hundred grand a year flying the best techonology
>in the world is way beneath you - I guess getting back to the trailer and
>fucking your dog was a priority.
Dont put your perversions on me, boy.
>
>Fucking joke.
Not very funny.
>
>Well Mary here's the thing anyone who works for a living and votes
>Republican is a total dumbass.
Sure Jody. In your dreams....or DTs..
Gunner
Fateful Beginnings
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass
wrote:
>On 9 Oct 2006 19:07:16 -0700, "JoelKatz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>JTEM wrote:
>>
>>> As he pointed out, Clinton's diplomacy worked. It
>>> worked. North Korea did not break their agreement.
>>> Just the opposite. The United States did. We did
>>> not live up to our promises. We made an agreement,
>>> and AFTER Bush made it clear that the United States
>>> was never going to honor it, north Korea RESTARTED
>>> the nuclear program that had been closed down during
>>> the Clinton years.
>>
>>Every reputable source that I've been able to find claims that North
>>Korea breached the agreement. Do you have any reputable source that
>>claims the reverse?
>>
>>
The Bush Legacy: North Korea's Nukes
http://nitpicker.blogspot.com/2006/10/hey-thanks-george.html
The US Government has announced that it will release $95m to
North Korea as part of an agreement to replace the Stalinist country's
own nuclear programme, which the US suspected was being misused.
Under the 1994 Agreed Framework an international consortium is
building two proliferation-proof nuclear reactors and providing fuel
oil for North Korea while the reactors are being built.
In RELEASING the FUNDING, President George W Bush WAIVED the
Framework's REQUIREMENT that North Korea ALLOW INSPECTORS to ensure it
has not hidden away any WEAPONS-GRADE plutonium from the original
reactors.
President Bush argued that the decision was "vital to the
national security interests of the United States".
And he did that roughly three months after saying they were
part of the "Axis."
Gunner
<ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote
>on Mon, 09 Oct 2006 13:16:56 GMT in misc.survivalism :
>>On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:00:27 GMT, Gene <Ge...@polyglot.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Yopu know what is a bit worrisome? The complete lack of any world class
>>>diplomats. We have Rice, Bolton and Cheney's daughter. What a world class
>>>mess we are brewing.
>>
>>
>>World Class Diplomats? Like Neville Chamberlain?
>
> Wasn't it Jimmy's Secretary of State who was concerned that any special
>operations force sent into Teheran to recover the hostages would be
>shooting to kill. Ah, Warren Christopher, who was only Deputy Secretary of
>State.
>
> I still "love" the Peanut's comment that he'd learned more about the
>Soviet Union when they invaded Afghanistan in December of 79, than he'd
>understood before.
>
> Yeah, those great World Class Diplomats. Who was it who drew the
>political cartoon showing Jimmy Cater as a hayseed, holding a deed to the
>Brooklyn Bridge, with the caption "You mean this isn't the real deal?"
>That's been the effect of the Democrats choices in diplomatic efforts.
>
>
>tschus
>pyotr
Not to mention what damage the Dems did to Humint..unforgivable.
Gunner
Mitchell Holman
news:3g7mi2l2lhnc2r9h3...@4ax.com:
> On 9 Oct 2006 19:07:16 -0700, "JoelKatz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>JTEM wrote:
>>
>>> As he pointed out, Clinton's diplomacy worked. It
>>> worked. North Korea did not break their agreement.
>>> Just the opposite. The United States did. We did
>>> not live up to our promises. We made an agreement,
>>> and AFTER Bush made it clear that the United States
>>> was never going to honor it, north Korea RESTARTED
>>> the nuclear program that had been closed down during
>>> the Clinton years.
>>
>>Every reputable source that I've been able to find claims that North
>>Korea breached the agreement. Do you have any reputable source that
>>claims the reverse?
>>
>>
> The Clinton Legacy: North Korea's Bomb
>
> Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
> Monday, Oct. 9, 2006
>
>
If it happened on Clinton's watch, it is Clinton's fault.
If it happened on Bush's watch, it is still Clinton's fault.
In all things, Blame Clinton First.
Gene
news:ac7mi21levni2mqj6...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:52:26 GMT, Gene <Ge...@polyglot.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Hummm or maybe it was that piece of driving band they dug out of my
>>> skull in Letterman? Or all that chicom cast iron from my back? Or
>>> the trianglular bayonet through the left hand? Or the....
>>>
>>> Didnt make it far in the military? What..become a fucking lifer for
>>> Croms sake? Your kidding, right?
>>
>>Thought so - a doper. And you make such a great case when your
>>trashing the military while using a nym like Gunner. What a laugh, a
>>fucking pussy who's best time is past and even then he couldn't cut
>>the mustard. Yep, your real special Mary. You drawing 'my pussy hurts'
>>money from the VA like the other dumbass 'couldhavebeen' Morty?
>
> Doper? Hell boy..to be a lifer you have to be a drunk. I neither drink
> nor do drugs.
>>
>>
What a laugh another Repug slimsac who's true colors show.
Give me a break you were a doper. I kicked out enough in 25 years to know
you were and probably still are. Got tossed out and now the nerve is
exposed and you call all career military drunks - what a laugh.
And the Gunner nym - Real sad. It's always sad when supposedly grown men
hark back to the one year in their lives they saw men they could never
be. Only losers are stuck in that one year when they stood in their own
piss while better men did their duty. Sad boy, real sad.
I hear that PTSD scam works out real well for you sick, lame and lazy
shits.
Must sux being the welfare scum you hate one day a month when the VA
check comes in and a dumbass the other 29.
Adios Bunny, I hear the pups look a little like you - must piss off the
bitch.
--
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much
liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas
Jefferson
"History is earmarked by the successes of liberals and mistakes of
conservatives." - ETG, CW4 USA Retired
Gene
news:2siki213pe2k5213m...@4ax.com:
> The leftist media spin is that the current crisis in North Asia is the
> result of George W. Bush calling Pyongyang a member of the 'axis of
> evil.'
In 2002
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_03/focmarch02.asp
Name-Calling or Nonproliferation?
Daryl G. Kimball
In a potent political one-liner delivered in January, President George W.
Bush prominently labeled Iran, Iraq, and North Korea an “axis of evil”
that is supporting terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction and
the means to deliver them. While the threat of terrorism involving
weapons of mass destruction is real, the problems of terrorism and
proliferation are not identical and cannot be addressed with a one-size-
fits-all approach.
The president is to be commended for focusing attention on the ongoing
threat of nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile proliferation in
dangerous regions. But his gratuitous name-calling in the absence of
practical, country-specific nonproliferation strategies has complicated
the task of addressing proliferation problems, particularly in North
Korea.
Bush’s statement puts North Korea and Iran in the same category as Iraq
and has raised concerns about military action against all three. Our
friends and allies may eventually agree to collective military action to
enforce Security Council mandates for UN weapons inspections in Iraq, but
leaders in South Korea, Japan, and Europe correctly understand that the
most effective approach to Pyongyang is resuming the North-South-U.S.
dialogue.
While in Seoul for a February state visit, Bush had to clarify that the
United States “has no intention of invading North Korea,” and he
reiterated his administration’s willingness to talk “anytime, anywhere”
with Pyongyang on a range of security issues. Yet, in the same speech, he
repeated harsh recriminations that substantially undermine the
possibility that the North will re-engage. The president’s tough talk may
play well in Washington’s conservative political circles, but it has
plunged the United States and North Korea into another cycle of mistrust
and missed opportunity.
Rather than launching verbal jabs and waiting for the North to resume the
security dialogue, the United States should take concrete steps on the
most significant issues: averting a looming crisis on the implementation
of the 1994 Agreed Framework to dismantle Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons
program and resuming negotiations on a verifiable freeze of the North’s
ballistic missile enterprise. To start, Bush should appoint a new, high-
level coordinator for North Korea policy. The coordinator’s first task
would be to bring some practical ideas and proposals—not harsh
recriminations—to the bargaining table.
The Agreed Framework is a good, but imperfect, deal that both parties
must honor. Under the agreement, the United States is facilitating
construction of two safeguarded light-water nuclear power reactors, and,
in exchange, North Korea is to verifiably abandon its nuclear weapons
program. So far, this deal has effectively frozen Pyongyang’s nuclear
program, but difficulties lie ahead.
North Korea will soon be obligated to comply with all International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, which prohibit military nuclear
activities. It must do so when a “significant portion” of the two light-
water nuclear power reactors are completed but before delivery of their
nuclear components. Due to construction delays, a significant portion of
the reactors will not be built until approximately 2005. IAEA inspection
of declared and undeclared nuclear facilities in North Korea could take
two to three years. Further slippage could set off a new high-stakes
confrontation.
Prompt initiation of inspections is important, even though the Agreed
Framework does not yet require North Korea to admit the IAEA. If the Bush
administration is interested in results, it should re-affirm its support
for the Agreed Framework, not threaten to stop implementation as some in
Congress have suggested. Working with South Korea and Japan, Bush should,
if necessary, be prepared to offer incentives—including in-kind food and
electricity aid—for North Korean cooperation on early inspections. Such
an arrangement could simultaneously improve the likelihood of completing
the inspections and address shortcomings in the Agreed Framework’s
implementation.
Through dialogue, not diatribes, Bush also has an opportunity to halt
North Korea’s ballistic missile program—a prime source of global missile
proliferation. In the final days of the Clinton administration,
negotiators reportedly came “tantalizingly close” to an agreement. Sadly,
the Bush administration has failed to pursue this possibility, though it
is clearly in U.S. security interests. Given the North’s pledge to halt
missile testing through 2003, there is still a window of opportunity to
secure a sufficiently verifiable agreement that bans further missile
exports, production, and testing and that bars further missile
deployments.
Though Kim Jong-Il’s regime is difficult, undemocratic, and uninterested
in its people’s welfare, history shows that pragmatic, principled
engagement with such states can produce results that enhance U.S.
security. Unless he is willing to seriously pursue such a course, Bush
may fumble one of the United States’ better opportunities to solve one of
the world’s thorniest nuclear and missile proliferation challenges.
Gene
> In reality, the soft-line appeasement policy taken by Clinton
> against North Korea and China is what has led us to this point.
>
Saturday :: May 7, 2005
Sure, It's Clinton's Fault That Bush's North Korea Policy Is A Total
Failure
by Steve Soto
There has been much in the news over the last couple of days about the
North Koreans and the signs emerging that they are readying to conduct a
nuclear test. Of course, our friends on the right think that the only
response is to maintain the tough Bush line of doing nothing and making
empty threats, like the administration did yesterday, or even worse,
asking the Chinese to get Pyongyang back to the table for the six-party
talks that stalled last year into name-calling.
Naturally, when you bring up North Korea, the default position for our
friends on the right in defending Bush?s abdication of responsibility
during the last four years has been consistent and quite predictable: ?
blame Clinton!? And like other default positions the right has used in
blaming Clinton for Bush and the GOP?s own failures over the last four
years, it is utter crap. For all we know, what the North is up to now in
making very visible preparations for an underground nuclear test is
nothing more than a ruse to get direct talks with Washington, which is
what they have wanted all along since time ran out at the end of Clinton?
s term and since Bush humiliated Seoul at the start of his term by
declaring that such direct talks were a waste of time.
Since Bush has come into office, we no longer have inspectors on the
ground in North Korea. When Bush came into office, notwithstanding CIA
and various commission assertions that our intelligence capabilities are
nonexistent in the North, Pyongyang has gone from having no ready nuclear
weapons to possibly having several now and as many as another 6-8 more in
the coming months. Yet the right?s default position in support of Bush?s
unwillingness over four years to do anything except name-calling and
posturing is to say that it was Clinton?s fault for leaving Bush with an
opportunity to close a deal, and that it remains Clinton?s fault that
Bush has done nothing to improve the situation for four years now. And
while they blame Clinton, it somehow justifies Bush doing nothing. This
is a fallacious and unconvincing argument, but then our friends on the
right aren?t bothered by the rest of Bush?s failures and irresponsibility
around the world, so why should we expect them to provide a rational
defense now?
To me, it is understandable that Bush and Cheney despise the notion of
talking directly with North Korea and their unstable leadership. Kim Jong
Il is a petty nutcase, who craves the respect of the rest of the world
and face time with Washington. Dealing with these types of people is like
lowering yourself into a freak show that you think is beneath you. But
the tragic thing about the Bush policy for the last four years is that
while keeping to their insistence that they not deal with the North
directly, our capabilities to manage and improve the situation have
deteriorated. In other words, the policy has failed, and the North has
gone nuclear. The righties can say that Pyongyang was nuclear when
Clinton left office, even though the CIA isn?t even sure about that, but
the fact is that even if Pyongyang was nuclear when Clinton left office,
they were still willing to deal at that time and had inspectors on the
ground. Bush through his inaction and macho bluster has squandered that
opportunity into where we are now, with even fewer options than were
available then.
So we are left with either ignoring the North further and letting them
conduct the test if in fact that is what they are readying, at which
point we will be unable to buy them off and keep them from formally
becoming a nuclear power. Or we can beg the Chinese to talk the North
into more six-party talks, and hope the Chinese will do so, which given
the North?s attitude since the talks broke down last year doesn?t seem to
offer much promise.
Or we can conduct direct talks under the table through the Chinese and
see if the North can still be bought off, even if these latest moves to
ready for a test are a ruse to push us. Sure the right wing purists will
reject this out of hand and say that the North should not be rewarded for
their hostile acts, but the right wing is arguing from a weakened hand
given that 1) this position has utterly failed the last four years; and
2) the Bush Administration is in no position to argue with anyone about
responsible behavior and moral authority. And letting the Chinese be the
intermediary lets them take credit for the deal while pushing the North
not to make them look bad by scuttling it. Of course I'd rather not have
to let the Chinese have any such opportunity, but this is where we are
with Bush's ineptitude.
I, like the next guy, would love to take the position that the North can
eat their plutonium and we should let them starve and stay in their caves
for the next several decades. But the difference between me and the guys
on the right is that I would rather eat a little crow and talk with petty
and unstable people to get a deal, get inspectors back inside the
country, and give Kim Jong Il the face time and phony respect he wants,
than let him go nuclear and then give the technology and material that he
got from our friends the Pakistanis to nonstate terrorists.
But that?s just me. Our right wing friends would rather ignore the
problem for another several years, make empty threats against Pyongyang,
and blame it all on Clinton, and then look stupid when a dirty nuke goes
off in Chicago later this decade. And when find out from the rubble that
the nuke is traced back to Bush?s friend Pakistan, A. Q. Khan, and North
Korea, they?ll still blame Clinton for something that Bush sat on his ass
watching unfold for eight years.
But that's the point. Bush has no intention of dealing with North Korea,
and has decided since Day One of his administration to treat Pyongyang as
just another Cold War threat that can be ignored and dealt with through
Star Wars. Yet even though Bush and Cheney understandably can't stomach
even dealing indirectly with a petty nutcase like Kim Jong Il and giving
him the face time he wants, they ingore the fact that it worked to a
degree in Libya, and Libya didn't have a million men ready to run
roughshod over Egypt. So the inconsistency here is harder to understand,
especially from two guys who claim to be so good in protecting us from
terrorists that they would allow a source of dirty nukes to flower on
their watch, all while blaming a guy who left office over four years ago.
Gene
> Of course, Mr. Begala simply forgot that Clinton's military chief of
> staff testified in 1998 that North Korea did not have an active
> ballistic missile program. One week later the North Koreans launched a
> missile over Japan that landed off the Alaska coast.
>
The test was a failure it did not reach the altitude and the missile could
not carry a nuclear warhead. That seems to escape all this crap the right
is busy tossing in the air to hide the simple fact that in 2000 North Korea
was containable and now it isn't and the only thing that is constant during
that time is Bush's failed diplomatic policy of no diplomacy.
Heck let's go blame Truman for stopping at the DMZ - what a joke you fucks
are.
Gene
> The fact remains that Bill Clinton's legacy is an unstable world filled
> with hungry dictators and nuclear weapons. The result of the Clinton
> appeasement policy toward China is a new arms race.
>
What a laugh - a right wing dildo has the nerve to mention China? The same
China that owns much of the American debt? The same China that Bush hasn't
squaked about once.
Jesus, Loser what were you thinking or was that pot buzz to loud to hold
back from posting such a worthless pile of crap?
Gene
news:1160417725.6...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
>
> Gene wrote:
>> "Jake" <No...@what.com> wrote in
>> news:DBsWg.10017$YO....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
>>
>> >
>> > <bear...@cruller.invalid> wrote in message
>> > news:bearclaw-497B49...@news.supernews.com...
>> >> In article <2siki213pe2k5213m...@4ax.com>,
>> >> Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> North Korea was not left all alone in its effort to obtain
>> >>> nuclear weapons. North Korea relied heavily on China, its closest
>> >>> ally, to assist in its all-out effort to obtain the atomic bomb.
>> >>
>> >> Financed by Walmart and other U.S. manufacturers who need that
>> >> good ol' cheap labor (and thus financed by every American who
>> >> walks through their doors or buys an HP printer, for instance).
>> >>
>> >
>> > Clinton was instrumental in pushing for China trade for Wal-Mart
>> > and numerous other American interests throughout his tenure, not to
>> > mention taking illegal Chinese election contributions. Seems these
>> > charges were conveniently dropped after the opposition party won
>> > office. Another case of the opposition using dirt to achieve their
>> > objective. Sounds kinda familiar!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> What a laugh.
>>
>> Don't forget he killed Vince Foster, scamed folks with land deals in
>> whitewater, raped several women, smuggled drugs and caused all of
>> Bush's problems to date.
>>
>> You wacko's are really something. Nothing in America is better than
>> it was before Bush took office - nothing.
>>
>> Yet some how in those tiny pus filled knots between your narrow
>> shoulders Clinton is the puppetmaster of all that is bad in the
>> world.
>>
>> We need a draft worse than Pat Robertson needs a blow job just to end
>> this ridiculous dumbassed crap. You folks need to bleed for your
>> fucked up beliefs in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else this piece of
>> shit president you fucks elected twice chooses to send the Ameircan
>> military.
>>
>> --
>
> No, he was right about that.
>
> The fact is, Clinton was at best a mediocre president. He failed to
> prevent genocide in Rwanda, laid the framework for outsourcing,
> screwed up healthcare reform, brought us NAFTA, and made lots of
> shady deals, like his last-minute pardons. He only looks good when
> held up against a total failure like Bush.
>
>
I don't care - Clinton was a globalist - that much is true and he did
American labor no favors. But and this is a huge big assed BUT nothing
excuses the last 6 years - nothing.
Clinton was an average president - Bush couldn't make a capable fluffer
in a gay Chinese porn flick.
AND and this is a big assed AND the people that voted the second time for
Bush are traitors. They deserve no wiggle room and no shifting of blame.
This mess is squarely in their laps and it's uncomfortable, uncomfortable
to the point that they are reaching back six years for a scape goat.
Gunner
>Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in
>news:ac7mi21levni2mqj6...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:52:26 GMT, Gene <Ge...@polyglot.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Hummm or maybe it was that piece of driving band they dug out of my
>>>> skull in Letterman? Or all that chicom cast iron from my back? Or
>>>> the trianglular bayonet through the left hand? Or the....
>>>>
>>>> Didnt make it far in the military? What..become a fucking lifer for
>>>> Croms sake? Your kidding, right?
>>>
>>>Thought so - a doper. And you make such a great case when your
>>>trashing the military while using a nym like Gunner. What a laugh, a
>>>fucking pussy who's best time is past and even then he couldn't cut
>>>the mustard. Yep, your real special Mary. You drawing 'my pussy hurts'
>>>money from the VA like the other dumbass 'couldhavebeen' Morty?
>>
>> Doper? Hell boy..to be a lifer you have to be a drunk. I neither drink
>> nor do drugs.
>>>
>>>
>What a laugh another Repug slimsac who's true colors show.
>
>Give me a break you were a doper. I kicked out enough in 25 years to know
>you were and probably still are. Got tossed out and now the nerve is
>exposed and you call all career military drunks - what a laugh.
Actually nope. Again you prove yourself to be a fool or worse, an
idiot. In my MOS..if I went into the bush fucked up..I would die in the
bush. Same as a fucked up rotor head.
>
>And the Gunner nym - Real sad. It's always sad when supposedly grown men
>hark back to the one year in their lives they saw men they could never
>be. Only losers are stuck in that one year when they stood in their own
>piss while better men did their duty. Sad boy, real sad.
Gunner Asch harkens back to two tours in the Southeast Asian War Games?
Odd..Herbert Asch never even heard of Vietnam. I think it was French
Indochina at that time. Though a shitload of Waffen SS wound up there
with the Legion de Estrange after 1945.
>
>I hear that PTSD scam works out real well for you sick, lame and lazy
>shits.
>
Huh? What PTSD? Blink blink? Hell..Ive not been back to the VA since
'75. It sucked shit then, never bothered to go back. Been too busy
working since then to bother. So..hows life riding that sofa and
sucking up JW Black Label and cursing the TV?
>Must sux being the welfare scum you hate one day a month when the VA
>check comes in and a dumbass the other 29.
What VA check? You mean I could be getting one? Hey! Nobody told me
this! Hummm but for what? Im not a terminal drunk..so its unlikely Id
get one. How much do you get every month?
>
>Adios Bunny, I hear the pups look a little like you - must piss off the
>bitch.
>
Du Ma, Jody.
Gene
news:qsmmi2p1h0mma1o11...@4ax.com:
What a laugh. Another pissed off loser got the boot and gets real defensive
about his service burning the shit of better men. Be proud, shit burning
was important too.
No ass wipe you were no combat soldier worth a shit because to be that you
would have to be capable of self-sacrifice and that's not anything a repug
does - ever. No, Bunny, in real serious combat the repugs either die
because nobody likes their selfish get over ass, gets a rear escholon job
or becomes a liberal. What a laugh. So Bunny what job did you have, mess
hall, supply room or clerk. I'm guessing a clerk in Hotel 3 giving backrubs
to some repug general there to get his DFC for overflying Saigon.
Any real soldier would not have disrespected Kerry for his service and
embraced a draft dodger that lost his wings like Bush. That boy made you a
dumb fuck. The second vote for the turd made you a traitorous dumb fuck.
Jeff McCann
Except that both the British and the French had treaty obligations to
Poland, and the interregnum between the Polish invasion and the invasion of
the low countries and France was a valuable mobilization period for Britain
and, unfortunately, Germany too.
Hitler never sought to get the British to join the Axis powers, and the very
notion is preposterous on it's face. It was a faint hope of a few ignorant
Nazis, and that's all there was to it. Where do you come up with this
stuff?
> Here is Chamberlains Appeasement speech. (see below)
The one below his declaration of war speech?
> I strongly suggest you get some remedial education in Chamberlains
> actions 1937-1940.
If you have some point to make, just make it, if you can. I require no
remediation, but you obviously have some seriously misinformed ideas that
need correcting. Chamberlain made plenty of mistakes. After all, he was
the Conservative party leader, and dealing with anti-war isolationists in
the Conservative Party, much as FDR had to deal with the anti-war
isolationists in the Republican Party.
I don't care at all for the weak-kneed actions of the Conservative
governments in Britain and France in the years leading up to September of
1939, especially not the selling out of Czechoslovakia. But the fact
remains that the Munich agreement bought Britain time it needed to get ready
for war.
> And I STRONGLY suggest you read his declaration of war on Germany.
>
> Germany DID NOT first declare war on Britian, but Britian did declare
> war on Germany first.
Spare me. So what's your point? Are you trying to blame WWII on Britain?
Hitler gambled that France and Britain could be pushed that much further.
They couldn't. As for his pipe dream that he could take the European
Continent and make a separate peace with Britain, that never could have
happened.
Jeff