Obama brings a word processor to a ballistic missle fight.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Wyldgusechaz, Apr 6, 2009.

  1. Wyldgusechaz

    Wyldgusechaz New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Thats how neo rads fight and get their asses kicked. Obama strongly admonishes North Korea to not launch a missle and NK does so anyways, in defiance. So our Commander in Chief's answer?

    More words.

    Iran, China, Russia are licking their chops and Israel is saying "what a pussy."
     
  2. joyboytoy79

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,557
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    DC-ish
    *yawn*

    Yah, I get it. You don't like Obama. You never will. He could cure cancer and you'd say how fond you were of cancer.

    Do you have anything fresh to say? Anything new to contribute?

    No. I didn't think so.

    *yawn*
     
  3. Wyldgusechaz

    Wyldgusechaz New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    His entire foreign policy platform was to *engage rogue countries in constructive dialogue. That will make the difference." Every neo rad was enamored of our new reasoned approach because *Obama is a good guy and the bad guys will listen to a good guy like him.* Well they won't and its now proven.

    He had the ability to shoot this missle out of the sky upon launch, that would have given meaning to his strong admonition but he chicken shitted out.

    Or don't look foolish by simply ignoring the launch or saying the US has no strategic interest in this launch. Instead North Korea shit on his shoes.
     
  4. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    I've responded to this topic already on a couple of star's threads, but will combine a couple of my posts for another response:


    Countries with Nuclear Capability


    • Acknowledged: Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, United States, North Korea(1)
    • Unacknowledged: Israel
    • Seeking: Iran(2)
    • Abandoned: South Africa—Constructed but then voluntarily dismantled six uranium bombs. Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine—When Soviet Union broke up, these former states possessed nuclear warheads that they have since given up.
    1. North Korea tested its first nuclear device on October 9, 2006.
    2. In Aug. 2005, U.S. intelligence estimated that Iran would possess nuclear weapons in the next decade. In Jan. 2006, Iran announced its decision to restart nuclear research. Source: U.S. State Department, TIME magazine and the Nuclear Threat Initiative.


    North Korea, for all practical purposes, has made its way into to the big boy's "Nuclear Club". That's why the United Nations is ineffectual. When military action is largely off the table, what constructive approaches are left?

    North Korea is laughing at us - has been laughing at us - for over a decade. You're not suggesting another pre-emptive invasion? If not, Wildgusechaz, your hyperactive posting - "...in defiance. So our Commander in Chief's answer? More words... Iran, China, Russia are licking their chops and Israel is saying "what a pussy" - is just psuedo-ballsy bluster.

    Wildgusechaz. When you engage us in psuedo-ballsy bluster, for the sake of partisanship, and you can offer no workable solutions to ameliorate the problem, then YOU are the pussy (hiding behind standard issue "tough talk" drivel).

    --------------------


    Except for engaging in a handful of "Six-Party Talks" (between South Korea, North Korea, the U.S., China, Japan & Russia), the United States has slapped North Korea with the "Axis of Evil" label (along with Iran and Iraq) and has done little else.

    "Axis of Evil" was a term coined for Bush's 2002 State of the Union Address, delivered January 29, 2002.

    Bush's "pre-emptive invasion" of Iraq (where a country invades another before a supposed threat materialized), also known as "Operation Iraqi Freedom", began on March 20, 2003.

    The first of the "Six-Party Talks" were initiated August 27, 28, 29, 2003, 5 months after the invasion.


    If the pre-emptive Iraqi invasion was also supposed to serve as a deterrent for North Korea, it failed. In fact, it did the opposite. North Korea seemed more determined than ever to develop nuclear capabilities for self-protection, to avoid finding itself in Iraq's predicament.

    Now, ironically, North Korea has developed a marketable missile - a Taepo-dong 2 missile, a three-stage rocket with potential range of more than 4,100 miles - and Iran, a fellow "Axis of Evil" member, is a potential buyer of these rockets (N.K. remains years away from building a ballistic missile capable of hitting the United States mainland with a nuclear warhead).

    North Korea handed over an accounting of its nuclear activities in June, 2008, and "W"'s administration removed N.K. from it's "Axis of Evil" list.

    It seems there is very little the U.S. can do to stop North Korea's eventual nuclear capabilities. China may have power to influence North Korea, but the U.S. policies have always garnered the opposite response.

    --------------------

    The United States tried to bypass the United Nations when invading Iraq. We may have nabbed Hussein, but the whole Iraqi adventure has been a disaster. Yes! The "surge" worked -- but who cares? Because the war didn't. If a group of Iraqis or Saudi Arabians or Pakistanis want to set up a sleeper cell in the United States and blow up shit with pipe bombs and improvised explosive devices.... then how exactly has this adventure "worked"? We spent a trillion and a half bucks, tens of thousands died, and if a suicide bomber is smart enough to hijack another Boeing 747 jumbo jet and fly it into a building, we're back at square one.


    All of this is by way of saying that the United States "tried" to deal with Hussein, bypassing the United Nations, and only managed to exacerbate the problem. George W. Bush compiled an "Axis of Evil" list and only managed to exacerbate the problem.

    If individual countries are ineffectual at combatting the big issues (North Korea has given us the finger for over a decade), why slam the U.N.?
     
  5. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    Wyldebeast, you nitwit. That was no word processor. That was the box with the codes. Now you've given it all away. Thanks for nuttin'.
     
  6. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    The device that North Korea exploded does not appear to have been completely successful. The resulting explosion, which was less than 1 kiloton, did not have the characteristics of a complete nuclear detonation though radiation was detected at the site. It may have been a nuclear test that became, instead, one giant dirty bomb. As of right now, it means that scientists around the world consider North Korea to be a quasi-member of, the nuclear club.

    Wylde, what would you do in Obama's place?
     
  7. Pecker

    Pecker Retired Moderator
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    83,922
    Likes Received:
    34
    It was a teleprompter.
     
  8. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    And what did Bush do back in '06? If he would have grown some balls and not allowed NK to test fire their initial missile then, we wouldn't have this problem now...

    On top of that, what would you propose the US do about it? Invade? Start another war? You're a fucking coward, and a douchebag WGC, and clearly have no common sense. You want to protect America? Join the fucking army, pussy. In case you haven't realized it yet, there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop a country from testing missiles and obtaining nuclear arms. If a country wants weapons and has the means to make them, they will make them...unless we sell them to them first. The only thing we can do is enhance our own defense system to protect ourselves from an actual attack. That's it
     
  9. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow

    OK, I'll bite...

    I see you (and only you) continually using this term in your diatribes, and I gather from context that you're using it pejoratively in reference to those who don't agree with your particular political philosophies.

    A quick search only turns up several medical ultrasound imaging device links and a couple hits in the archives of "blogsforbush.com". :rolleyes:

    For those of us who don't subscribe to your puerile false dichotomy, would you mind explaining the meaning and genesis of this term?
     
  10. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    you forgot Syria in the "seeking" category
     
  11. Penis Aficionado

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,135
    Likes Received:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    The problem with trying to stop North Korea, Iran, etc. from developing nuclear weapons is this: When in history has a piece of technology, once invented, not become increasingly cheaper, more readily available, and more commonly built and modified by reasonably intelligent people the world over?

    I don't even understand what it means when I hear things like "so-and-so has the capability to build a nuclear bomb, but has not yet figured out how to mount it on a ballistic missile." Don't they have a schematic? How have we kept this secret between us, the British, the Chinese, the French, the Indians, the Pakistanis, the Russians and the Israelis all these years?

    Granted, I know next to nothing about the mechanics of nuclear weapons. But I do know that technology gets more and more widely disseminated. Always.

    That's why I think our number-one military priority should be a nuclear-missile shield, just like good ol' Reagan talked about back in the day.
     
  12. Wyldgusechaz

    Wyldgusechaz New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male

    I would have asked thru proper diplomatic channels to not to fire the missile and if they did, the US military would shoot it out of the sky.

    He looks weak now. We have 2 incidents where our interests have been assaulted and we have done nothing.

    If you were Iran what would you say? "Well Obama talks a lot but he is just talk."

    He could have also said " North Korea and its actions are not in our strategic interest so a missile launch means little to us."

    Admonishing and getting rebuffed has weakened him. Ignoring would have been better.
     
  13. Wyldgusechaz

    Wyldgusechaz New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I made it up.
     
  14. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    I realize that many of your sort have one-track minds, but understand that I asked you a compound question.

    You certainly explained the genesis of your jargon, but you failed to shed any light on its meaning. Are we to understand that there actually is none? Or did you not understand the multifaceted nature of the query?
     
  15. Zeuhl34

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,104
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    40
    Gender:
    Male
    You explained the genesis, now please explain the meaning.
     
  16. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    Two problems there. We have no proper diplomatic channel to speak to North Korea. No other country would deliver a message that amounted to an ultimatum. That's not how mediated diplomacy works. Sweden or Ireland or Switzerland or some other neutral country might have delivered a humanitarian message for us or an invitation to talk, but never an ultimatum. That's a case of making the messenger look bad.

    The second problem is that we cannot, under international law and our own accord with North Korea (in tatters as it is), shoot down a missile that has no hostile intent. If it's not an armed weapon, you can't shoot it out of the sky. If any country had a right to do so, it was Japan as the missile did pass through Japanese airspace however their constitution is so restrictive regarding when Japan can use force, that they could not shoot down the missile either unless it appeared it was going to land or break-up in Japanese territory.
     
  17. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    it seems that Obama and his bean counter have a problem visualizing missiles, chinese, Russian, or anyone else's, as a credible threat worthy of articulating a sound defense strategy against

    seems they believe the future is fraught with Islamic insurgents hiding out in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan (and Beverly Hills?)

    planned missile shields will not be forthcoming under Gates' proposed budget, and a great part of the budget will be allocated to special forces units who will be hunting down the insurgents


    Cuts To F-22s, Presidential Copter Planned - Indiana News Story - WRTV Indianapolis
     
  18. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    hopefully the Congress shoots the Obama-Gates initiative down:

    Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman and Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe urged in a letter "not to allow deep cuts in U.S. missile defense programs that are critically important to protecting our homeland and our allies against the growing threat of ballistic missiles." The Missile Defense Agency budget is being cut by $1.4 billion.

    Pentagon Pushes Weapon Cuts - WSJ.com
     
  19. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    even as the peoples republic of china forges ahead on a strategy that has identified our communications networks and satellites as our Achilles Heel, and rushes to develop laser weaponry, Gates sees fit to cut projects that would have gone to strengthen our weaknesses there:

    The $26 billion Transformational Satellite program, which was to provide jam-proof and encrypted communication central to the Army&#8217;s Future Combat System

    and:

    The $26 billion Transformational Satellite program, which was to provide jam-proof and encrypted communication central to the Army&#8217;s Future Combat System

    The Multiple Kill Vehicle missile defense program built by Lockheed Martin because of what Gates called &#8220;its significant technical challenges

    Gates Starts Huge Acquisition Shift; Congress Wary Blog Archive DoD Buzz
     
  20. BobLeeSwagger

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,481
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, he doesn't have the ability to shoot a ballistic missile out of the sky. Not a single missile interception test that resembles a real-world scenario has ever worked. There is no reason to believe that any of our current missile defense system works right now. If a president (W, Obama, whomever) were to try to intercept a missile and fail, he'd look like a complete fool.


    It doesn't work. And there's no reason right now to think that we'll have a missile defense system that works within the next five years. And who exactly can hit us with a nuclear missile? Russia can, but it won't because they are just as vulnerable to nuclear retaliation as they have been for the last 60 years. China could hit Alaska. I suppose it could change someday, but right now "missile defense" is a massive boondoggle, a black hole for money that politicians tout as necessary but really only enriches their campaign supporters.

    Missile defense is currently a bigger waste of money than anything that Obama has proposed, even more so than Bush's effort to go to Mars. Even if you think it will work someday, cutting the program by $1.4 billion is not going to make much difference, not after at least $100 billion has already been thrown at it with few results.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted