All Hank, all the time. - Page 93

ltl/fb · 06-23-2006, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ironweed
When Colin Powell took out those little toy birds and made those little dying-bird calls ("peep! peep!") in front of the UN General Assembly to demonstrate how Saddam was destroying the Iraqi wetlands, I thought to myself, "we have never embarked, as a nation, upon a nobler or more justified enterprise." I am not ashamed to say there was a tear in my eye.

Thanks.

Not Bob · 06-23-2006, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Point isn't whether we'd get it for sure, that would be the point V. a country with hundreds of missiles. point w/ Korea is to create the impression that we might get it. Deterent to them striking.

Agreed, although Club's re line is a bit inaccurate.

Hank Chinaski · 06-23-2006, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ironweed
When Colin Powell took out those little toy birds and made those little dying-bird calls ("peep! peep!") in front of the UN General Assembly to demonstrate how Saddam was destroying the Iraqi wetlands, I thought to myself, "we have never embarked, as a nation, upon a nobler or more justified enterprise." I am not ashamed to say there was a tear in my eye.

mmmmm little dead birds!

Spanky · 06-23-2006, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
I take it you are now in favor of invading Russia, North Korea, Syria, Burma, Egypt and half of the countries in Africa, right?

Russia - I wouldn't call him a genocidal dictator, although what he is doing in Chechnya is rather bad. But we don't have the option of taking him out (the cost would be way to high).

Egypt: Definitely not a Genocidal dictator. And the economy is improving in Egypt.

Syria: Taking junior out would be great idea. Our military is right there.

Burma: We need to take these guys out also.

North Korea: Can't take him out without losing Seoul. Otherwise he would need to go.

Africa: We should have done something about Darfur.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 06-23-2006, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
point w/ Korea is to create the impression that we might get it. Deterent to them striking.

Why is it a deterrent? So there's a 50% chance of success instead of a 100% chance of success? If they want to blow us up, wouldn't they still be willing to roll the dice? The deterrent is 1000 warheads ready to turn north korea into a radioactive desert.

What it does, if anything, is possibly take a bargaining chip off the table.

NK "We have a missile; give us food and oil"
US "We have Star Wars; your puny missile doesn't bother us. No soup for you."

Hank Chinaski · 06-23-2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why is it a deterrent? So there's a 50% chance of success instead of a 100% chance of success? If they want to blow us up, wouldn't they still be willing to roll the dice? The deterrent is 1000 warheads ready to turn north korea into a radioactive desert.

What it does, if anything, is possibly take a bargaining chip off the table.

NK "We have a missile; give us food and oil"
US "We have Star Wars; your puny missile doesn't bother us. No soup for you."

here's how i define deterrent:

NK "We have a missile; give us food and oil"
US "We have Star Wars; your puny missile doesn't bother us. No soup for you."

Adder · 06-23-2006, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Russia - I wouldn't call him a genocidal dictator, although what he is doing in Chechnya is rather bad. But we don't have the option of taking him out (the cost would be way to high).

Egypt: Definitely not a Genocidal dictator. And the economy is improving in Egypt.

Syria: Taking junior out would be great idea. Our military is right there.

Burma: We need to take these guys out also.

North Korea: Can't take him out without losing Seoul. Otherwise he would need to go.

Africa: We should have done something about Darfur.

Russia: The Chechens would disagree with you. And I thought it was always good to take out the bad guys?

Egypt: I think you need to study your history. But then again, he mostly kills people we don' t like, so that doesn't count, right? And certainly there have been many points in the current dictator's reign when the economy wasn't growing (seriously, you arguments is only to invade those with bad economies?)

The rest: You are nuts if you think military intervention is desirable or viable option.

Spanky · 06-23-2006, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why is it a deterrent? So there's a 50% chance of success instead of a 100% chance of success? If they want to blow us up, wouldn't they still be willing to roll the dice? The deterrent is 1000 warheads ready to turn north korea into a radioactive desert.

Deterrent implies that he is rational. We can't be sure he is rational. If you live with in the missiles range a 50% chance it a hell of a lot better than 100%.

Anyone that has ever been against missile defense has been caught up in partisan stupidity.

Spanky · 06-23-2006, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
Russia: The Chechens would disagree with you. And I thought it was always good to take out the bad guys?

Not if you lose your country while you are doing in. We could attack Iraq without any threat to the Continental United States. We attack Russia and we could lose every major city in American.

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
Egypt: I think you need to study your history. But then again, he mostly kills people we don' t like, so that doesn't count, right? And certainly there have been many points in the current dictator's reign when the economy wasn't growing (seriously, you arguments is only to invade those with bad economies?)

Do you understand the meaning of Genocide? If you do then how could ask those questions? The leader of Egypt is not a genocidal dictator.

ltl/fb · 06-23-2006, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Do you understand the meaning of Genocide? If you do then how could ask those questions? The leader of Egypt is not a genocidal dictator.

What genocide is going on in North Korea and Syria? And Burma?

sgtclub · 06-23-2006, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
What genocide is going on in North Korea and Syria? And Burma?

preemptive bombing of NK proposed by DEMOCRATS: http://www.kare11.com/news/news_arti...storyid=127766

ltl/fb · 06-24-2006, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
preemptive bombing of NK proposed by DEMOCRATS: http://www.kare11.com/news/news_arti...storyid=127766

Non-responsive. What genocide is going on in NK or Syria? I'm not as sure on Burma.

taxwonk · 06-24-2006, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
What genocide is going on in North Korea and Syria? And Burma?

Kim is currently starving the entire population of his country to prop up his weapons systems. It isn't really for cultural reasons, but I'd imagine letting your entire country die is kind of like genocide.

Adder · 06-25-2006, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
What genocide is going on in North Korea and Syria? And Burma?

okay, so Syria is a stretch. But certainly its regime is in many ways as bad the former Baathist regime in Iraq. And certainly it's history of involvement in Lebanon is not without controversy.

As for North Korea, well, I'm not sure that we have reliable information about exactly what has happened there for the last fifty years, but letting your population starve is a step in the genocide direction. Do you think that everyone has equal access to food?

As for Burma, that one is easy. And here

Tyrone Slothrop · 06-26-2006, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This story is everywhere, not just FOX.

Speaking of stories, how about that "Pay for Favorable Coverage" scandal currently going over at KOS (a/k/a Kos-ola)?

It would be a great scandal if only the New Republic could (a) prove that someone paid someone for favorable coverage, and (b) wasn't publishing fabricated documents, a la Dan Rather (though I guess that stuff bothers you guys only in certain circumstances).