North Korea Missle Launch

---

You have issues, you just need a good beating.

Is there the issue with Portugal and Brazil still going?? I'm not sure if Romania and Hungary are done. What about England and France? their relation ship?

what ?! wait!so nearly my entire family originated in Scotland.so your telling me that Im not a scot ??simply because iv never been but hope to go there in teh future?well shit.I guess that makes me a fucking american then, the same as it makes purple a wanna be canadien.wast there a whole discussion on this recently and he cant go back and he cant go elsewhere that hes stuck in canada?My uncle retired from ATK, and oved to Florida (palm beach area) that was 3 monts ago. Hes still a fucking utahn, not a floridian. its the same damned thing, he doesnt know what is going on back here and what the current political bullshit is. the longer he lives there, the less his ties to here matter.Iv given up steve, purple is an idiot, a fucking moron who spouts unrelated and disconected shit, Iv given up dealing with him, I only wish this site had an ignore button next to his name.

What?? No big speech that makes no sense? Damn i guess i didn't do well enough!

Add this word to your vocabulary: Descendant.

Now add this one too: Dictionary. And go use it.

Do....You... Un...Der..Stand?

In his defence Purplestain is a genuine Romanian and European and thinks very highly of the continent.

Well good for him. Perhaps he should learn a little something about the place and its people. He seems to think that knowlege passes through the genes, so he doesn't have to.

@ Steve and Purple: Can we stop with the name calling? There's no point in it guys!

Well it appears that the U.S. is once again wrong with accusing another country of war. There is no evidence to support the fact that North Korea wants to launch a missle. All they know is that it appears to look like fuel canisters near the rockets. But nothings happening. When I looked on Google Earth I saw something that appeared to be Bush and Saddam making out.

"Well it appears that the U.S. is once again wrong with accusing another country of war."LOL! I suppose it depends on your spin on things. One might as easily say that the US found a way to avoid another war. But then if we didn't bother to do that we'd get a lot of crap flung at us by folks who have benifitted from our protection for years, so what's the difference? I suppose we could always take the European stance, act like we don't want war and turn around and do everything that's historically proven to make war happen, then cry foul as the US comes to bail us out again. Wait...we are the US...hmmmm....

The problem is that the U.S. has a demonstrated record of making big decisions based on inadequate intelligence, or manipulation and cherry picking the intelligence that they do have. I refer you to the Downing Street memo, among other things. People don't take what the U.S. government says at face value, because they're not naive. Even if what the U.S. says about North Korea is true, why should the rest of the world just roll over and believe it? Every time Dick Cheney speaks, we dig ourselves deeper in the hole.Talking about the U.S. bailing out Europe is an appeal to emotions. It does not make the case for North Korea's having missiles, and it does not excuse everything the U.S. does that people in other parts of the world find disagreeable. If someone saves your life, but then keeps raping your cousin, is that person forever off the hook? How long do we get to wave our involvement in front of the Europeans? Forever?Once again, we have two opposing ideas: the Europeans may be grateful for the U.S.'s support in WW II, but still not approve of the U.S.'s military invasion of a particular country.

"Once again, we have two opposing ideas: the Europeans may be grateful for the U.S.'s support in WW II, but still not approve of the U.S.'s military invasion of a particular country."It's when we invade a country to save somebody else or prevent trouble that doesn't directly involve Europeans that they get all upset about it. When we do it to help them they're nice and quiet. Double Standard."The problem is that the U.S. has a demonstrated record of making big decisions based on inadequate intelligence, or manipulation and cherry picking the intelligence that they do have."I'll give you a clue...things are rarely as they appear. Especially not with the media spin that's put on things whenever a Republican holds office these days. No, I'm not a Bush fan...but facts are facts. As for people not being naive, they are just as naive as they always have been...only now instead of blindly believing the US government they are blindly believe the media! Different agenda...but the game is the same.

In reply to:It's when we invade a country to save somebody else or prevent trouble that doesn't directly involve Europeans that they get all upset about it. When we do it to help them they're nice and quiet. Double Standard.World War II ended 60 years ago, if that's what you're referring to. It's time to let it go. The "they always..." line of reasoning feels good, but does not advance your argument. Either what the U.S. does is good on its own merits, or it's not. They Europeans have a right to question the U.S.'s decision to go into Iraq, even if the U.S. did save Europe's keister in WW II.In reply to:I'll give you a clue...things are rarely as they appear.The problem is that we live in a democracy, and we have an administration that has not been forthcoming with information since day one. Now that we're on a semi-permanent war footing (will the "war on terror" ever end?), it's even worse. Things that have been released through the Freedom of Information act show that the government has a habit of classifying embarrassing things.In reply to:Especially not with the media spin that's put on things whenever a Republican holds office these days.And what spin might that be? It appears to me that the media has pretty much rolled over and played dead. Big investigative stores are a thing of the past. Some of the television media has been running government infomercials (some of which has been ruled as propaganda by the federal government, which is illegal) as news stories, with no disclaimer. Speaking of spin, have you watched White House press conferences, or speeches in Congress and the Senate, or Cheney's speeches? All you hear is "cut and run", "death tax", and other useless slogans that convey no information.The Pentagon has had a very bad record conveying facts truthfully at least since the early 80's, when I started paying attention. The same goes for most of the government. Without press scrutiny, the game would be over, as the Founding Fathers understood.In reply to:instead of blindly believing the US government they are blindly believe the media! Different agenda...but the game is the same.Who are the people who are blindly following the press? Polls show that the public has an even lower regard for the press than they do for politicians. That's pretty low.The U.S. public greatly supported the effort in Iraq, based on the reasoning presented by the U.S. government. It turned out to be a crock, and then the reason for the U.S.'s involvement kept drifting around, finally to the idea that we're fighting for democracy and women's rights in Iraq, or Middle Eastern stability, or something like that. Would American voters have supported the war if they knew that the original reasons were wrong? Certainly not, if you can believe the polls. That's why Cheney kept making speeches implying that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack, even after Bush admitted in a speech that there were none. The Republicans in Congress are still conflating Iraq, Islamic terrorism, and the 9/11 attack. People in the U.S. aren't that ignorant, I hope.The fact is that the U.S.'s original reasons for invading Iraq were wrong, and it is pretty clear that the U.S. was making plans to invade Iraq even before 9/11. So they went ahead and did it, based on faulty and manipulated intelligence, even though there was no link between Iraq and 9/11. Classified or not, you can be sure that the Bush administration would have come out with the data if it existed. So, given that, you don't think the Europeans have a right to be critical?

"World War II ended 60 years ago, if that's what you're referring to. It's time to let it go. The "they always..." line of reasoning feels good, but does not advance your argument. Either what the U.S. does is good on its own merits, or it's not. They Europeans have a right to question the U.S.'s decision to go into Iraq, even if the U.S. did save Europe's keister in WW II."It's not my fault the Europeans haven't gotten into trouble recently enough to satisfy you that things haven't changed...but stick around. They're in the process of blowing it over the whole internal Muslim issue. Before they day is done on that one, the bad, ugly Americans may just have to pull the European fat outta the fire again. Anyway, time will tell.The main reason Europeans didn't want anybody going into Iraq is because they didn't want anybody finding the WMD (Chemical and Biological) that was made in France and Germany turning up in Saddams hands only to be spread all over the newpapers of the world. But Saddam threw them a bone by having the stuff airlifted to Syria at the last minute...so the Europeans can go on whining for other supposed reasons for being against the invasion of Iraq as they wish. Oh well. Pay no attention to the 70% majority of Iraqis that are glad we came and want the US there."The problem is that we live in a democracy, and we have an administration that has not been forthcoming with information since day one."Wake up and smell the coffee. This is nothing new...it's been going on since before the turn of the century. The big difference is that the media now tosses the responsibility for what they report out the window and says whatever it can to tear down the administration, while administration DOES have the best interests of this country in mind. Do you have any idea how many innocent people have been killed due to irresponsible reporting by the media? Thousands...and growing. Why don't we see a report on that? Because the folks all trust the media now the way they used to trust the government. As I said, different agenda, same game."The Pentagon has had a very bad record conveying facts truthfully at least since the early 80's, when I started paying attention. The same goes for most of the government."As I said, nothing new. However you seem to blindly believe the press as opposed to the government, now. When will people learn not to blindly believe things without considering anothers person (or groups) agenda!??? The press is at least as corrupt as the government and, through omission and spin, lies ten times as much.If you didn't believe what you read in the press, we wouldn't even be having this discussion."So, given that, you don't think the Europeans have a right to be critical?"Everyone has the right to be critical...just don't come across as "holier than thou" when you're doing it, and do it for valid reasons. As for the reasons for invading Iraq, is it a coincidence that so many people who claim not to blindly follow the press' lead on issues still tout the same mantra spouted by the leftist media? Methinks not. BTW, it has come to light (as I mentioned before) that Saddam did have WMD when we invaded. Syria has the stuff now. Why don't I see the media (and Europeans) apologizing? I'm sure there's at least some who think (as I do) that posession and recent unprovoked use of such weapons is reason enough to invade and put a stop to it.Anyway, this is an old issue.

In reply to: It's not my fault the Europeans haven't gotten into trouble recently enough to satisfy you that things haven't changed...but stick around. Kosovo?

In reply to:

---

The fact is that the U.S.'s original reasons for invading Iraq were wrong, and it is pretty clear that the U.S. was making plans to invade Iraq even before 9/11. So they went ahead and did it, based on faulty and manipulated intelligence, even though there was no link between Iraq and 9/11. Classified or not, you can be sure that the Bush administration would have come out with the data if it existed. So, given that, you don't think the Europeans have a right to be critical?

---

To be honest I dont give a damn what reasons the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq becuase whatever they could have siad it would have been quite rightly a lie. Quite rightly a lie, I said.

We are not in Iraq for...

WMD's
Democracy
Oil
Benefit of the Iraqi people

We there because of Iran. After 9/11 the USA believed (incorrectly) that the world would be happy with them attacking whomever they choose for a little while. They chose Afghanistan and Iraq. Why? Because it is neccesary to have pacified these countries to invade Iran. Bush doenst give a damn about Iraq or Afghanistan, but I damn well bet he gives several great damns about Iran. Iran is a genuinely scary nation and has been for a long time. We are going to have to invade Iran at some point (maybe a ddecade or so down the line), and to do so we need to install governments in Iraq and Afghanistan that allow us to use their countries as military bases. Its not nice to ssay so, but in this sense 9/11 has benefitted the west. Without 9/11 we'd have to find another way to start a conflict, cos I have no doubt that Iraq is just a means to an end, and that the plan to take on Iran has been formulating at least since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Dude, I understand that its easier to use such terms as European but I do want to highlight how its neither fair nor correct. What about the European governments that have supported the war to varying degrees? The European people that support the war. I post on various European dominated forums and there are plenty of us who support the war. Just because Germany and France are a bunch of whiney tossers doesnt mean you get to brand us all with the same brush. Its worse than a generalisation, its down right silly. If India adopted some policy on an issue would you say "Asia thinks this", suggesting that China, Japan, and Kazakhstan were doing similarly? It doesnt bother you that much you saying "European" (I understand its just easier), as long as your aware thats its not really a correct term.

OK...my bad...but when I think of Europeans, I generally think of Germany, France and Spain. I apologize to those that don't fit my ideas. As for your other post, FINALLY somebody is thinking! I was thinking Syria may "get it" before Iran, though...they have all that WMD of Saddams and have had Israel on their hit-list for a long time now. But Iran is up and coming for sure. Bush & Co. saw Iraq as a way to broach democracy to a predominantly Muslim (and dangerously so) section of the world in hopes that it might catch on. We've yet to see any real fruit of this as it's too early...but Lebanon did oust the Syrians shortly after (which was nice).

Well lets at least give our gratitude and respect to those Spaniards that died fighting, for whatever cause, in Iraq and Afghanistan.I was wondering if perhaps Syria (I dont know if they had WMD's but they're certianly our opponents in the grand strategy) would be taken out simultaneausly, by Israel, which would have a free hand to concentrate on the lone Arab state while we keep the leader of the Islamic world, Iran, occupied (Iraq wouldnt be involved due to us havign set up a friendly government, Egypt has long given up on Israel, and the King of Jordan is placing his bets with America and has been getting closer with the West). This would make most sense than having two entirely seperate conflicts, as the war in iran will be a large war regardless, its a well-armed country of 70 million, it wont be a quick carpet-bomb-and-march-in affair like Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh and we may well end up having India attack Pakistan for us. We are looking at a proper war.

Oh and heres the European countires to support the war (at least initially)...

Spain, Portugal, United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, Hungary, Ukraine, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Iceland

Thats twenty-one European states. Adding up the states that opposed the war (excluding countries smaller than Luxembourg) only comes to 17.

> We there because of Iran.

And now Iran, which was contained at the Iraq border, is all over the place in Shi'ite Iran. The war in Iraq has strengthened Iran's hand politically and strategically. The U.S. is now stretched a bit thin to take any near-term action in Iran, and politically, the U.S. will likely get less support than they might have has we not had a debacle in Iraq.

If (or when) there is a civil war in Iraq, a large chunk of what's left of it will be aligned with Iran. As if they didn't already have enough oil.

Iran are a big problem? And from where did the 9/11 terrorists hail? Mostly from those great friends of ours, Saudi Arabia. Egypt as well. Great democracies, they are. Don't you think it looks hypocrtitical to the world that the U.S. invades Iraq, but defends Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and gives tons of aid to Egypt?