N Korea and testing Nukes

Pedronicus · Post by **Pedronicus** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 5:59 pm

2dimes wrote:You're more popular than you realise.

We were in Egypt Febuary and everyone was nice to us and insisted we were 'mericans.

Egyptians seeing :shock:

tourists (wether your American, English, Hez bolah, or North Korean) - it means money to them. They'll embrace anyone that comes along with a wallet.

After all the bombs in Egyptian tourist resorts - they'll welcome anyone - even little green men from Mars with heat rays.

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:04 pm

2dimes wrote:Well part of it is they're just friendly there but yes the hands were out.

They were still nice when we didn't tip very well though.

As far as religion running things no body does that better than those middle eastern places.

i dunno, i still think people as a whole hate americans

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:09 pm

P Gizzle wrote:
2dimes wrote:Well part of it is they're just friendly there but yes the hands were out.

They were still nice when we didn't tip very well though.

As far as religion running things no body does that better than those middle eastern places.

i dunno, i still think people as a whole hate americans

It's not really us they hate, it's our government. However, they take it out on us because they can't exactly walk up to bush and give him a stern talking to.

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:17 pm

well, what i mean is, let's say N. Korea blows us to smithereens. What does the world do? they send a couple million $ our way and laugh behind our backs. why? because, A.) they dont like conservatives, B.) they find the irony that we spend all our time helping them and they don't help us one bit, and C.) Most of them would probably rather have a Communist lifestyle anyways. it'd be easier to boss the lessers (citizens of the world) around

slash1890 · Post by **slash1890** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:04 pm

Tragedy is in the news, because the news is only selling what you want to hear. What story would be more appealing to you, some church building houses in Mexico, or an amish school being held up in Pennsylvania? News isn't about anything that happens, it's about selling the tragedy. It's a buisness. They get money for it. Wouldn't it be a smarter buisness move to do what earns more money?

Edit: The same policies apply to lying in the media. If it's a slow news day, or a story is somewhat dull, why not tweak it up a bit? It will in turn spark the interest of the reader, and the news companies will continue to exist.

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:23 pm

P Gizzle wrote:well, what i mean is, let's say N. Korea blows us to smithereens. What does the world do? they send a couple million $ our way and laugh behind our backs. why? because, A.) they dont like conservatives, B.) they find the irony that we spend all our time helping them and they don't help us one bit, and C.) Most of them would probably rather have a Communist lifestyle anyways. it'd be easier to boss the lessers (citizens of the world) around

Maybe, but they aren't going to. They know that if they fire nukes at us that we will retaliate with our own nukes. Mutually Assured Destruction.

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:31 pm

but they might wait for us to get an extremely liberal pres, so that he's all like "world peace man" and we'll just die off. or, they'll persuade our future pres with money, to not retaliate, or something. im wayyyyyy more scared of N. Korea than the terrorists

haha · Post by **haha** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:40 pm

vtmarik wrote:
P Gizzle wrote:well, what i mean is, let's say N. Korea blows us to smithereens. What does the world do? they send a couple million $ our way and laugh behind our backs. why? because, A.) they dont like conservatives, B.) they find the irony that we spend all our time helping them and they don't help us one bit, and C.) Most of them would probably rather have a Communist lifestyle anyways. it'd be easier to boss the lessers (citizens of the world) around

Maybe, but they aren't going to. They know that if they fire nukes at us that we will retaliate with our own nukes. Mutually Assured Destruction.

if they fierd nookes at us we would shoot them out of the sky were not afraid of the sending a newk at us were afraid there going to blow up one of there nabers like isreal or china. the goverment doesnt plan on invading them there going to try to get them to give up there nukes some other way if that fails the us will get suport from France wich wont help a lot and from a lot of other contries like china and isreal and england

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:42 pm

the only country we'd get support from, is Israel. China would be like, "Sweet, go Commies" and France would be, "ha!!!!! let's go get some escargo to go"

haha · Post by **haha** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:47 pm

P Gizzle wrote:the only country we'd get support from, is Israel. China would be like, "Sweet, go Commies" and France would be, "ha!!!!! let's go get some escargo to go"

i was being sacastic with france but china would help because some how i dought they wont to be noked

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:03 pm

by what? if N. Korea tried they could nuke pretty much the entire US. it wouldnt be hard

haha · Post by **haha** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:05 pm

we have a nuke defense sistem wich is baiscly a houl bunnch of guns that can shoot down nukes unles n korea has a sh** load of deacoy misles they wount have a chance

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:06 pm

who says they dont. if they're smart enough to get nukes, they're smart enough to make decoys. never underestimate Commies. Look at the Cold War. how did that start? we thought that the Russians weren't powerful enough

haha · Post by **haha** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:09 pm

first of they would need like 200 - 400 decoy missle i dont think they have hafe that much and i dont think there nuke can hit us from n karia its to far of a distans unless they have the type of nukes we have they cant tuch us

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:14 pm

i wouldnt be so sure of yourself and our nation

haha · Post by **haha** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:20 pm

unless u know more about the us defens sitem then me i wount be talking

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:21 pm

im not saying that, im just saying we always underestimate our enemies, and overestimate our selves. look at 9/11

haha · Post by **haha** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:30 pm

has there bin a terorist attack on american soil ever since 9/11
[-X

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:45 pm

no, but it took more than 5 years to plan for 9/11

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:12 pm

Wow, how very riveting and misspelled.

P, decoys don't matter. If they launch a missle at us, we'll launch a couple dozen at them. That's what will happen, without any question and so an attack will never occur.

And we don't have a missle shield because it has never worked.

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:14 pm

all right, im just trying to prepare for the worst.

I Officially declare this thread

DEAD!!!

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:04 am

heavycola wrote:
And the news has always been bad. So what.

Maybe you're alot younger than I. Because I can clearly see the difference in todays headlines then say in the 80's. When I was a kid I respected my elders.... today? Forget about it. Each generation that passes gets worse.Ask anybody who has studied sociology.

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:08 am

vtmarik wrote:
And we don't have a missle shield because it has never worked.

Lets be accurate... we don't have a missle shield because Clinton scrapped Regans SDI program.

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:31 am

jay_a2j wrote:Lets be accurate... we don't have a missle shield because Clinton scrapped Regans SDI program.

Not to mention that SDI violated the ABM and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaties. And that it has very little defensive capability against non-spacefaring missles, cruise missles, and bombers (which would be more likely in case of an attack from a rogue nation and/or terrorists).

Yeah, it's all Clinton's fault. Let's just ignore that Reagan created a program that violated international agreements that the US signed.

Right.

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:55 am

vtmarik wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:Lets be accurate... we don't have a missle shield because Clinton scrapped Regans SDI program.

Not to mention that SDI violated the ABM and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaties. And that it has very little defensive capability against non-spacefaring missles, cruise missles, and bombers (which would be more likely in case of an attack from a rogue nation and/or terrorists).

Yeah, it's all Clinton's fault. Let's just ignore that Reagan created a program that violated international agreements that the US signed.

Right.

Are you serious? You'd rather us be sitting ducks on the receiving end of a nuclear attack? Screw the treaty. Hopefully we will never see the day where that SDI coulda came in handy.