I wasn't, actually, just speaking in general.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Im not calling for military action. I am making observations and predictions. that is if you were referring to me...
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-10-12 10:09:37)
Japan annexed Korea and controlled it for 35 years. There were no battles. To me if someone says "Country A defeated Country B in a war" they mean that the two sides engaged in military conflict. What is your definition of war?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
am I mistaken in saying that korea was under military occupation prior to the end of WW2? I consider that some kind losing in a war.
naive??? dude what gives the americans the right to have wmd's and no other country. mabie you shouldn't be so naive man, or better yet mabie the americans should nuke N.K. and kill all of the people there that would be a course of action you would agree with....Kmarion wrote:
Sure lets pass weapons out to everyone, makes no difference. Don't be so naive.manitobapaintballa wrote:
its a bluff...........
and besides they haven't done anything wrong yet they got every right to have nuclear weapons.
did you just say the americans will hesitate to use nukes???? are you stupid? they are the ONLY country to use nukes..... it is the rest of the world who is hesitating to use them (thank who ever you pray to for tat one)Miller wrote:
There is a difference between NK having them and the US. We actually hesitate to use them, will NK, or Al Quada for that matter? I don't think so. Please, stop trying to make this harder than it already is. By disarming everyone, you let those who follow the law get destroyed while the others break it and nuke away. Or, if you give them all nukes, welcome to the apocalypse.dquinner wrote:
Why shouldnt North Korea have nuclear weapons? Its not like they are the only country with them. The USA, France, Russia, China, Pakistan and India all have them. Some of you claim Kim Jong Il is mad and should not be trusted but you trust Bush the man that described North korea as being part of "the axis of evil" along with Iraq. Do you not think Kim Jong Il saw this as a threat from America? North Korea and Iraq being mentioned together and Iraq being invaded, of course Kim Jong Il feels the need to develop weapons although if he just explains that he has no oil or other resources America could make money from he will probably be ok. Either nobody should be allowed have nuclear weapons or everybody should be allowed have them, fuck this double standards bullshit.
Fail.manitobapaintballa wrote:
naive??? dude what gives the americans the right to have wmd's and no other country. mabie you shouldn't be so naive man, or better yet mabie the americans should nuke N.K. and kill all of the people there that would be a course of action you would agree with....
let me guess you are against iran having nuclear POWER too........
Or maybe you should read a damn textbook or dictionary. You have no room to accuse anyone of anything when you spell maybe as mabie not once, but twice in the same sentence. Kiss whatever credibility you have goodbye.manitobapaintballa wrote:
mabie you shouldn't be so naive man, or better yet mabie the americans should nuke N.K.
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-10-12 10:47:53)
Any action would be a surpirse. The only nation that said military action was NK.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
God, our 15-35 year-old male demographic sure is bloodthirsty, aren't we. It's funny how quick people are to call for military action at the first hint of provocation.
Heaven forbid these people ever find their way to a poker table.
I'm not suggesting what would actually happen - just amused at what people on this forum believe should be done in response.Kmarion wrote:
Any action would be a surpirse. The only nation that said military action was NK.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
God, our 15-35 year-old male demographic sure is bloodthirsty, aren't we. It's funny how quick people are to call for military action at the first hint of provocation.
Heaven forbid these people ever find their way to a poker table.
Ah but people like to talk out of their ass. I bet maybe a 1/3 of the people who say they would enlist actually would.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
I'm not suggesting what would actually happen - just amused at what people on this forum believe should be done in response.Kmarion wrote:
Any action would be a surpirse. The only nation that said military action was NK.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
God, our 15-35 year-old male demographic sure is bloodthirsty, aren't we. It's funny how quick people are to call for military action at the first hint of provocation.
Heaven forbid these people ever find their way to a poker table.
So you think every nation should have wmds because others do? Are you really incapable of seeing how unintelligent that idea is? Spend 5 minutes and think about your response.manitobapaintballa wrote:
naive??? dude what gives the americans the right to have wmd's and no other country. mabie you shouldn't be so naive man, or better yet mabie the americans should nuke N.K. and kill all of the people there that would be a course of action you would agree with....Kmarion wrote:
Sure lets pass weapons out to everyone, makes no difference. Don't be so naive.manitobapaintballa wrote:
its a bluff...........
and besides they haven't done anything wrong yet they got every right to have nuclear weapons.
let me guess you are against iran having nuclear POWER too........
I highly doubt he has the ability to think. Even a donkey is smarter it seems.Kmarion wrote:
So you think every nation should have wmds because others do? Are you really incapable of seeing how unintelligent that idea is? Spend 5 minutes and think about your response.manitobapaintballa wrote:
naive??? dude what gives the americans the right to have wmd's and no other country. mabie you shouldn't be so naive man, or better yet mabie the americans should nuke N.K. and kill all of the people there that would be a course of action you would agree with....Kmarion wrote:
Sure lets pass weapons out to everyone, makes no difference. Don't be so naive.
let me guess you are against iran having nuclear POWER too........
Your sarcasm is merely a failed attempt (one of many) at being clever. Here is why: In a debate, no one is going to take anything you say seriously if you present your argument with a second-grader's mastery of the English language. The occasional typo is inevitable, but this is simply blatant butchering of the English language (this is frowned upon in the TOS). The irony of the situation is that he even stooped to your level and made several personal attacks because he had no point. So we have someone with the spelling skills of a 9-year-old girl using AOL attempting to one-up another forum user. No one is going to take that person seriously. That is credibility in a nutshell. Do you care to argue otherwise?IRONCHEF wrote:
manitoba, be careful, the CREDITIBILITY police are after you too! I was chased down and stripped of my credibility too so my words now mean nothing. And how dare you misspell words in this thread!!! lol
Capt. Foley wrote:
I highly doubt he has the ability to think. Even a donkey is smarter it seems.
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-10-12 14:34:06)
Korea may have abdicated soverignty but they had a resistance movement which thousands of people died so techincally there was definately 2 sides engaged in a conlfict.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
Japan annexed Korea and controlled it for 35 years. There were no battles. To me if someone says "Country A defeated Country B in a war" they mean that the two sides engaged in military conflict. What is your definition of war?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
am I mistaken in saying that korea was under military occupation prior to the end of WW2? I consider that some kind losing in a war.
Last edited by ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ (2006-10-12 15:06:12)
Ok great. I believe you. I have no credibility. None. But guess what, I'm still going to give true opinions and facts on these boards anyway, so how bout getting over yourself? Also, please stop insulting me, it's getting old and you're not very funny anymore.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Your sarcasm is merely a failed attempt (one of many) at being clever. Here is why: In a debate, no one is going to take anything you say seriously if you present your argument with a second-grader's mastery of the English language. The occasional typo is inevitable, but this is simply blatant butchering of the English language (this is frowned upon in the TOS). The irony of the situation is that he even stooped to your level and made several personal attacks because he had no point. So we have someone with the spelling skills of a 9-year-old girl using AOL attempting to one-up another forum user. No one is going to take that person seriously. That is credibility in a nutshell. Do you care to argue otherwise?IRONCHEF wrote:
manitoba, be careful, the CREDITIBILITY police are after you too! I was chased down and stripped of my credibility too so my words now mean nothing. And how dare you misspell words in this thread!!! lolCapt. Foley wrote:
I highly doubt he has the ability to think. Even a donkey is smarter it seems.
IRONCHEF wrote:
Ok great. I believe you. I have no credibility. None. But guess what, I'm still going to give true opinions and facts on these boards anyway, so how bout getting over yourself? Also, please stop insulting me, it's getting old and you're not very funny anymore.
IRONCHEF wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't read any articles lately saying that North Korea actually sold weapons or technology to anyone. Did you read that or something? or do you also not know what you're talking about?
IRONCHEF wrote:
Oh, and I'd love for you to cite some of the "science" that proves evolution. Then I'd love for you to tackle the truth that scientist are just dumb, slow, vain men and women trying to discover how God created things, seasons, time and space. They get it now and then, but mostly they are dealing with adversaries beyond their understanding.
IRONCHEF wrote:
Again, is there proof or a theory. Judging by your citations, I see that you don't know. Discovery channel and Nat'l Geographic channel are television producers and they play films created by people reporting things both true and not. But if that's the proof you need, then by goly, continue to live in ignorance.
ive been following Kim Jong Il for a few years.IRONCHEF wrote:
Again (from another thread), who knows if he's a madman? I saw the same discovery channel/cnn/msnbc/john stewart satire/ shows that make fun of him and say he wears pumps, loves US movies (who doesn't), and that he is a crazy short man. But I've not seen anything credible that was not US propaganda. Bush named him part of the axis of evil, then all of a sudden, all the reports of him being psycho come out of the woodwork.Jenkinsbball wrote:
But the problem is that nuclear weapons are being put into the hands of a madman.
He may be crazy, but I'd highly doubt my US media would be the ones telling us. I'd trust a defector who actually knew first hand if he was..but i haven't seen any of those interviews.
Anyway, not arguing, just questioning your claim honestly.
7 other countries h ave confirmed nukesmanitobapaintballa wrote:
naive??? dude what gives the americans the right to have wmd's and no other country. mabie you shouldn't be so naive man, or better yet mabie the americans should nuke N.K. and kill all of the people there that would be a course of action you would agree with....Kmarion wrote:
Sure lets pass weapons out to everyone, makes no difference. Don't be so naive.manitobapaintballa wrote:
its a bluff...........
and besides they haven't done anything wrong yet they got every right to have nuclear weapons.
let me guess you are against iran having nuclear POWER too........
Last edited by beerface702 (2006-10-13 01:40:57)
Do you think it is a good idea for them to have nukes? Do you know anything about that country? They pretty much ban anyone from entering that country. All contact from the outside world is cut off. Why do you think that is? Don't you think that is alarming?.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
I wonder why NK feels threatened.
1) US names NK as one of the 3 countries in the `axis of evil`
2) US + other countries invade and occupy one of those three countries.
3) One down.............
Oh and as far as nukes go, I imagine that Kim's at least dimly aware that although he has a handful of nukes the US has 10,000. Enough to pretty much immolate every inch of NK ten times.