Let's talk about NK

Posted by: lanovami

Let's talk about NK - 10/07/06 01:36 AM

Man has the Bush administration got us looking like ineffectual idiots!<br><br>Saddam swears he doesn't have WMDs and we take his country and he was telling the truth.<br><br>Kim Il Jong swears he does have WMDs and will very possibly test a nuclear weapon and all we can say is, "don't do it, or else....ummm....".<br><br>Why? Because we are mired down in Iraq, at the end of our rope and breeding more terrorists.... No need for a link right? The news is everywhere.<br><br>Don't want to be too much of a whiner but look at a map. Find Tokyo, then find North Korea. Bungling NK messes this us and the wind is blowing the right way and me and my family (and 100s of millions of other people) get irradiated. Where are you Matt? Yes, I am seething!!!!!<br><br><br>[img]/images/wwwthreads/icons/mad.gif[/img][img]/images/wwwthreads/icons/mad.gif[/img][img]/images/wwwthreads/icons/mad.gif[/img][img]/images/wwwthreads/icons/mad.gif[/img][img]/images/wwwthreads/icons/mad.gif[/img][img]/images/wwwthreads/icons/mad.gif[/img][img]/images/wwwthreads/icons/mad.gif[/img][img]/images/wwwthreads/icons/mad.gif[/img][img]/images/wwwthreads/icons/mad.gif[/img][img]/images/wwwthreads/icons/mad.gif[/img]<br>[img]/images/wwwthreads/icons/mad.gif[/img][img]/images/wwwthreads/icons/mad.gif[/img][img]/images/wwwthreads/icons/mad.gif[/img][img]/images/wwwthreads/icons/mad.gif[/img][img]/images/wwwthreads/icons/mad.gif[/img][img]/images/wwwthreads/icons/mad.gif[/img][img]/images/wwwthreads/icons/mad.gif[/img][img]/images/wwwthreads/icons/mad.gif[/img][img]/images/wwwthreads/icons/mad.gif[/img][img]/images/wwwthreads/icons/mad.gif[/img]<br><br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/07/06 04:44 AM

Right. What was I thinking? How can this little drama compete with the Foley underage cyber-sex scandal and cover up? [jaded] [jaded]<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: DLC

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/07/06 08:43 AM

I doubt you'll get him to show up - he and the other Bush apologists have been laying pretty low the past 4-5 months... oh some will pop in now and again to plaster the board with 4-5 messages (mmm.. wonder who did that !?) and then leave... never intending "real discussion"... and if they do return they just post more articles... <br>where's the "head to head" dialogue ?<br><br>but they would really look even more rediculous trying to defend Bush and the latest findings on about everything, so I understand them not responding very often - IF the tables were turned and this was someone I voted for and things were such a mess- I'd not comment often either !! How could one?<br><br>However, let me put in this one last comment:<br>[color:blue] Over the last 5 years I have been branded a "Bush-hater", a "Bush-Basher" etc... to those who gave me that label... NOW maybe you see why I was so adamant about Bush's stinkin policies... everything he has done has failed! [color:red] Iraq, Afghanistan, deficits, education, environment, energy, medical coverage issues, Senior citizen issues, immigration,... </font color=red> <br>I challenge them to name ONE single success except he made the wealthy , MORE wealthy. That;s it. All I can say is I (and others) have been telling you this for 4-5 years... you guys denied it, denied it, denied it..... and now it appears MANY of us were RIGHT !! I don't balme you for not showing up. </font color=blue><br><br>David (OFI)
Posted by: Lea

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/07/06 09:29 AM

I'm ashamed to say the obvious ~ Americans don't pay much attention unless something bites us in the butt. We're a self-centered, self-serving nation. I have never been surprised that we are so disliked by the rest of the world.<br><br>Betcha money ~ we'll collectively get bored with the Foley story by the end of next week. Sigh. We really do suck on a regular basis. I mean our national "persona," not all the folks here. OK, not most of the folks here.<br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]Like the devil in the deep blue sea . . .</font color=blue>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/07/06 11:23 AM

The only thing that would get Foley off the front page is North Korea lighting up a nuke this weekend. But only for a day.<br><br>Yes, we are idiots. Iraq, the debt, Korea and it is 24/7 rock hard Foley.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/07/06 02:16 PM

Exactly, Lea and Poly. Dave, I wasn't particularly picking on Matt, but I found myself almost "seething" at the Bush admin's "painted into a corner" powerlessness in this and some of Matt's posts about "seething" liberals came to mind.<br><br>Actually, over the past few years Japan has been obsessed with the fates of 10 or so Japanese nationals secretly kidnapped and forced to live in NK in the 70s-80's. All media (and it seems gov't) attention stayed way too focused on this one issue when there were obviously much bigger fish to fry. Though I still think the US takes the biggest piece of cake in self-centeredness.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/07/06 02:22 PM

IMHO the difference for the Bushies between Iraq and NK is that they thought that NK was dangerous because of its historic ties to China and the USSR (forgetting that the USSR doesn't exist any more and that China's "communism" is so notional that it too doesn't exist), but they didn't recognize that there is such a thing as pan-Islamism, and especially pan-Arabism. Ignorance on both sides of the coin.<br><br>____________________________________________________<br>Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,<br>But to be young was very heaven!
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/07/06 02:26 PM

"thought that NK was dangerous"<br><br>Are you saying, they thought NK was too dangerous to intervene militarily as compared to Iraq? I, agree, this was probably their logic. Regardless, and large invasion and/or occupation is out of the question as well, because Kim's party has the populace brain-washed and a US-led invasion would simply totally confirm all the propoganda/mind-control fed to the populace all these years. However, there would certainly be a lot more wherewithal to face up to NK if we weren't doing whatever the hell it is we are doing in Iraq.*<br><br>*digging trenches around Baghdad I guess?<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/08/06 07:27 PM

Damn... I just can't get any love anywhere!<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey
Posted by: DLC

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/08/06 07:56 PM

Well NK.... if you weren't so dangerous !!<br><br>and if you'd just sit down and talk to US... <br><br>maybe you wouldn't go so "atomic" so quickly !! <br><br>David (OFI)
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/09/06 06:14 AM

BBC NEWS<br><h1>North Korea claims nuclear test</h1><br><br>North Korea says it has carried out its first test of a nuclear weapon, the state news agency (KCNA) has reported.<br><br>It said the underground test, carried out in defiance of international warnings, was a success and had not resulted in any leak of radiation.<br><br>The White House said South Korean and US intelligence had detected a seismic event at a suspected test site.<br><br>The White House said the reported test was a "provocative act", while China denounced it as "brazen".<br><br>------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <br>N KOREA NUCLEAR PROGRAMME<br>Believed to have 'handful' of nuclear weapons<br>But not thought to have any small enough to put in a missile<br>Could try dropping from airplane, though world watching closely<br>------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>In an unusually strong statement against its ally, China expressed its "resolute opposition" to the claimed test and said it "defied the universal opposition of international society".<br><br>The BBC's Jonathan Marcus says North Korea's claimed test does not necessarily mean it has a fully-fledged nuclear bomb or warhead that it can deliver to a target.<br><br>Our correspondent says there will now be pressure on the UN Security Council to push for a resolution condemning North Korea and probably demanding a stiff menu of economic sanctions.<br><br>US White House spokesman Tony Snow said: "We expect the UN Security Council to take immediate actions to respond to this unprovoked act."<br><br>The BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Beijing says China's statement is an indication of how strongly it is angered by North Korea's action, although Beijing will still be loath to support tougher sanctions against Pyongyang.<br><br>Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who is in Seoul for a meeting with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, said the test was "unpardonable".<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------<br>We expect the UN Security Council to take immediate actions to respond to this unprovoked act<br>Tony Snow<br>White House spokesman<br>---------------------------------------------------------------------<br>Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso said Japan had detected seismic waves, but could not confirm whether they were from a nuclear test.<br><br>President Roh said the claimed test had created a "severe situation" that threatened stability in the region.<br><br>He said Seoul would react "sternly and calmly".<br><br>The South Korean military - which has been put on a heightened state of alert - had the capability to cope with any North Korean provocation, he said.<br><br>Seoul also suspended a scheduled aid shipment of concrete to North Korea, the state news agency reported.<br><br>'Historic event'<br><br>When it announced the test, KCNA described it as an "historic event that brought happiness to our military and people".<br><br>"The nuclear test will contribute to maintaining peace and stability in the Korean peninsula and surrounding region," KCNA said.<br><br>------------------------------------------------------------------<br>KOREAN NUCLEAR CRISIS <br><br>Sept 2005: At first hailed as a breakthrough, North Korea agrees to give up nuclear activities<br>Next day, N Korea says it will not scrap its activities unless it gets a civilian nuclear reactor<br>US imposes financial sanctions on N Korea businesses<br>July 2006: N Korea test-fires seven missiles<br>UN Security Council votes to impose sanctions over the tests<br>Oct 2006: N Korea claims to have carried out nuclear test<br>-------------------------------------------------------------------<br>South Korea's Yonhap news agency reports that the test took place in Gilju in Hamgyong province at 1036 (0136 GMT).<br><br>Russia's defence ministry said it was "100% certain" that an underground nuclear explosion had taken place, ITAR-Tass news agency reported.<br><br>The Japanese and South Korean foreign ministers have held a telephone conference call with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to discuss the issue, South Korea's foreign ministry said.<br><br>The development comes three days after the UN Security Council agreed on a formal statement urging North Korea to cancel any planned nuclear test and return to disarmament talks.<br><br>The Security Council had already imposed an embargo on the import and export of missile-related materials in July, after North Korea test-fired several missiles.<br><br>Story from BBC NEWS:<br>http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm<br>Published: 2006/10/09 09:05:52 GMT<br> BBC MMVI<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/09/06 06:19 AM

<br><h1>From atom to bomb</h1><br>What does it take to make a nuclear weapon?<br><h2>Mining</h2><br><h2>Conversion</h2><br><h2>Enrichment</h2><br>--------------------------------<br><h2>Reactor</h2><br><h2>Processing</h2><br>--------------------------------<br><h2>Uranium Bomb</h2><br><h2>Plutonium Bomb</h2><br><br>
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/09/06 09:12 AM

I said from day one the B-52's should have been flying over NK<br><br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!
Posted by: DLC

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/09/06 09:57 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> I said from day one the B-52's should have been flying over NK <p><hr></blockquote><p>I think we'd need more than 30,000 (is there that many left?) troops in SK if we did !!<br><br>GW has boxed us in... we can't do cr@p.<br>Now we really look Stupid !<br><br>David (OFI)
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/09/06 10:40 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I said from day one the B-52's should have been flying over NK<p><hr></blockquote><p>I can never tell when you are kidding. You seemed to not be kidding way back when you thought shock and awe was a great idea in Iraq. Why do you think it would have a better chance of working in North Korea?<br><br>North Korea has an army of one million and a populace well indoctrinated with fear and loathing of the US. I can see B-52s stirring up one hell of a hornet's nest. What would the point be and what is the hoped for end result? (And don't tell me ridding the world of a mad man.)<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/09/06 12:01 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>North Korea has an army of one million<p><hr></blockquote><p>And they're all name Kim! <br><br><br><br><br>Sorry. Couldn't resist. Can we talk about Poland next?<br><br>
Posted by: OSXaddict

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/09/06 12:33 PM

Personally I think that China should lead whatever plan is implemented (negotiations, sanctions, etc) so that NK sees that it's not a US-led agenda. <br><br>While I voted for Bush both times doesn't mean that I agree with a lot of his decisions. I think that he has screwed up a lot lately and a lot of Republican politicians have too. Nobody is perfect but damn...we (as in the collective "we") vote in the most [censored] up people in office a lot of times. Occasionally a good guy {Dem or Rep) will somehow slip into office (congress or senate) and actually do a good job or try to, but that seems to be a rarity.<br><br>The only reason now that I would vote for Republicans is for other issues that I believe in which the Democrats stand on the other side of. (if you really want to know, it's abortion. But then that's another can of worms that I really don't want to get into a discussion about right now).<br><br>All politicians in my opinion are nothing but a bunch of narcisistic individuals who love money and power.<br><br>
Posted by: DLC

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/09/06 12:48 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> ...if you really want to know, it's abortion.<p><hr></blockquote><p>not to pick on you, but the Bushies just killed tens of thousands due to their BS in Iraq... it was all Lies.<br><br>while I agree I would never participate in supporting abortion personally- I don't think it should be legislated becasue NO ONE can answer short of birth, when does one cell become a "human being" ?<br>I also dispise the far right's refusal to make exceptions for rape or incest.<br>but you are intitled to your opinion...<br><br>I just wish those like you would weigh all the issues evenly on a scale and then pick the side that tilts the way you like it- not saying you do OSXer, but many give this issue 10lbs weight and something like not raising the minimum wage, no health care, war mongering, etc 1 oz. @<br>many are blue collar workers and the GOP doesn't give a ahoot about your jobs or wages. Go figure.<br><br>David (OFI)
Posted by: OSXaddict

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/09/06 12:53 PM

Oh, I understand about iraq a lot...my nephew served there.<br><br>Want to know the reason for my stance on abortion? (you will love this). Religion. I'm Catholic. Enough said eh? heh<br><br>Anyway, enough OT in this thread. <br><br>Bombing NK isn't a good plan and I really don't have a clue as to how to handle it..that's why I'm not president. Just trust him to do what's best and if he doesn't, then get him out of office (vote or impeachment).<br><br>
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/09/06 03:02 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>What would the point be<p><hr></blockquote><p>The point being NK was and is the threat to the US that Iraq wasn't. Had we taken out their nuclear ability instead of cowering from it Iran probably wouldn't be in the position it was today. They may have an army of one million, but it's a starved army and ultimately I think it would have put up as much resistance as Iraq's - if it even came to that. Had a mass of colalition troops formed in south korea I think lil kim would have changed his tune pretty damned quick. He's not developing nukes for himself, he's developing them to sell and make money.<br><br>I supported Iraq only because unlike many I realize there's no way we'd ever have left the region without going in there. But we could have stayed in the region just as we were much longer while we greeted NK's reactors with lots of high explosives. I think if you search through my old posts you'll see that's what I've said that all along.<br><br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/09/06 04:41 PM

I can't find this online yet, but on CNN an analyst was pointing out (with no bipartisan spin) that the US that is trying to sound resolute on NK, has actually moved the red line three times in the last few months:<br><br>First, the Bush Admin said it would not put up with missile tests and when they went thru with it, nothing was done.<br>Then, when NK was going to test a nuclear explosive, the US set another red line.<br>Now, the Admin is saying it won't tolerate NK sharing/selling military nuclear technology.<br><br>Sounds about as ineffectual as the UN.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: DLC

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/09/06 05:23 PM

are you nutz?<br><br>when a GOP President gives missles to Iran for $ and captives that is NOT "trading arms for hostages" !! <br>Same with Bush - he always does what he says- he's the Deee -cider ! {rolling eyes}<br><br>Hatza matta you, lano? <br><br>back in 2002 Bush gave NK $95 million to try to buy their cooperation.<br>found that in a thread I went back and looked up !<br><br>he is such a "flip-flopper" !! <br><br>David (OFI)
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/10/06 02:43 AM

Now it's all over the news about the explosion. It was either:<br><br>1. A partial failure, and not as big as planned.<br>2. Deliberately smaller for one reason or another (not enough material, to keep it controlled etc.)<br>3. A deliberate deception, fudged with 100s of tons of TNT.<br><br>Everyone is hoping for number 3, but either way NK has said it has attempted to get nukes in the face of international opposition and sanctions and the like won't change much.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: steveg

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/10/06 03:28 AM

NK is now a festering wound that began decades ago as a paper cut. One take on it.<br><br>While you cannot place all of the blame on the current administration, Bush by tying our hands and feet with his maniacal goose chase has put us in a compromising, almost powerless, position directly relative to NK and indirectly relative to Iran. Rather than take steps to mitigate the threat, he has exacerbated it. More dangerous than the possibility of NK launching nukes is the probability that they'll sell them. Which almost completely negates any shred of predictability.<br><br>Ya done good George. NOT! <br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/10/06 05:31 AM

Anyone seen yet<br><br>that the new proposed Secretary General of the UN is Korean?<br><br>Seems that it had been in the works before all this went down,<br>It also seems that John Bolt-On wasn't pleased with the news.<br><br><br><br>As for option #3<br>While I hope that's true (that it was all a bluff)<br>the truth would have been evident from space, since <br>the NASA Satellites are equipt with Geiger-Counters<br><br>
Posted by: Mississauga

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/10/06 06:08 AM

I'm curious; which countries are allowed nuclear weapons and which aren't? And who decides?<br><br>It's all BS political posturing and pandering!!!<br><br>- alec -
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/10/06 07:58 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I'm curious; which countries are allowed nuclear weapons and which aren't? And who decides?<br><br>It's all BS political posturing and pandering!!!<p><hr></blockquote><p>Well cheese and crackers! With attitude like that, I guess Canadania is out of the club.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>Just in case:<br><br><br><br>____________________________________________________<br>Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,<br>But to be young was very heaven!
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/10/06 07:59 AM

It doesn't make sense. If I can follow your logic. We should have sent in B52's to bomb the nuclear facilities in North Korea and this would have scared Iran into rethinking their own nuclear policy. They disband any intentions because of what they saw on the Korean peninsula.<br><br>But what would they see? Do you think we could have eliminated North Korea's ability to make nukes so cleanly? That they would not have struck back perhaps against South Korea? China sits on its hands while we get bogged down in some escalating tit for tat with North Korea?<br><br>Or do you think the North Korean regime would be ousted quickly and the North Koreans would be throwing flowers at our feet because we were bring them much needed food and water?<br><br>The United States completely misestimated the use of military force in Iraq. It did not work. It emboldened North Korea to think they could set off a nuclear device and we can do nothing because we are still wearing the Iraqi egg on our face. <br><br>So instead Bush continues with empty threats. They're the worst kind. We now have another example of the United State's impotence. We'll slap some sanctions on which will only bring misery to the people out in the country then we will negotiate a year or so down the line. Maybe a Democratic president can be made to look as an appeaser. <br><br>No scenario I can come up with frightens Iran. All they see is that to get the united State's attention you have to set off a nuclear device.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/10/06 08:04 AM

I have no doubt that Iran and NK have been working towards nuclear weapons for a long time. But part of what's at work in both of them coming out of the nuclear closet has to be that "axis of evil" speech followed by the invasion of Iraq. Put the shoe on the other foot: suppose that the USSR had stated as belligerently as Mr. Bush did that there was an axis of evil extending from New Zealand to the US to Britain, and then had invaded New Zealand. Wouldn't that have encouraged the US and Britain to go on a war footing? One thing that Bush and the Bushies seem not to recognize is that reckless talk has dire consequences.<br><br>____________________________________________________<br>Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,<br>But to be young was very heaven!
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/10/06 08:24 AM

If I had a nickel for every time Bush uses reckless talk I would ... have a big pile of nickels.<br><br>The definition of reckless whether it is talk or action is the act of doing something and not fully understanding the consequences. The axis of evil were labeled such in 2002. Directly because of George Bush's reckless talk and reckless action the three, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran, are now a much greater danger to US interests.<br><br>But how the additional reckless action of B52's over North Korea could possibly be seen as a panacea which would have prevented our current situation boggles my mind.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Mississauga

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/10/06 08:40 AM

"Well cheese and crackers! With attitude like that, I guess Canadania is out of the club."<br><br>Look... if you're going to slander The Great White North, it's Canuckistan!<br><br>The "winkie" is appreciated, but not really needed. I think I understand your brand of wit and sarcasm... 'cause it's just like mine! <br><br>- alec -
Posted by: Trog

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/10/06 08:48 AM

When Bolton was first being nominated for the UN he was asked what message Iran and North Korea should take from the Iraq invasion. His response was, "take a number".<br><br>Take a number. Yeah. Reckless talk indeed. What did that do for those two countries? They became more emboldened, ramped up their nuclear ambitions and their rhetoric. This administration has no idea what foreign policy is.<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/10/06 09:30 AM

<br>"Canuckistan!" !?!?! whew... that's a keeper!<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/10/06 09:37 AM

"Take a number" I hadn't heard that before. Statements like that should be considered reckless endangerment. And those who issue such statements should be prosecuted as would anyone who leaves a loaded gun within the reach of children. <br><br>How is is that this government is infected with these walking warts?<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/10/06 10:02 AM

My problem is that <br>(A) with John (the bully) Bolt-On himself<br>(B) his blatantly UN-diplomatic kissing & dissing different nations<br>(C) that he and Fearless Leader have ALSO managed to threaten MORE<br>than just the two above mentioned countries with their 'AXIS of EVVVIL' List.<br><br>We also now have to deal with Venezuela, Mexico, & Pakistan as well.<br>In the last few weeks ALL 5 (6 including Iraq) have stepped forward<br>and admitted that they too had been bullied by Bush & his henchmen.<br>The latest (The President of Pakistan) had DUHbya stuttering that he<br>had NO idea that he was being offensive in addressing the head of state.<br><br><br><br>Yeah! BUT "KEEP BRINGIN' 'EM ON!!!" <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/10/06 10:06 AM

What a tough guy, huh? Kinda reminds me of someone else...<br><br><br><embed src="http://weinertlab.kicks-ass.org/~hunter/temp/bringem.mov" autoplay="false" width="200" height="180"></embed><br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/10/06 10:15 AM

Eggzactamundo!<br><br>A Friggin' Two-Bit Sound-Byte in Size Ten Shoes. <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/10/06 10:21 AM

<br><br>
Posted by: Mississauga

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/10/06 10:34 AM

GREAT image!!!<br><br>- alec -
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/10/06 04:49 PM

Let's talk about NK anyone?<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: steveg

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/10/06 05:03 PM

Kim Jong Il is a creep. George Bush is a creep. John Bolton is a creep. And the U.S. is looking stoopider and stoopider because all we can do now is wag our finger at NK and say tsk tsk while KJI is busy taking orders for nukes. And to think that we may have been within reach of better relations with NK until ZIppy The Pinhead's Axis of Evil speech shortly after 9/11.<br><br>What else would you like to discuss about NK?<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/10/06 05:27 PM

<center><br><br><br><br></center><br><br>
Posted by: DLC

Re: Let's talk about NK - 10/10/06 05:33 PM

"A Friggin' Two-Bit Sound-Byte in Size Ten Shoes."<br><br><br>and a Size - 0.1 Condom !!<br><br><br> <br><br>David (OFI)