Missile Attack

---

Check out this link...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090624/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_nuclear

thoughts??

im a little scared.. WW3??? If we have a world war 3 then it will be the end of the world..

Quote:

If we have a world war 3 then it will be the end of the world..

And I've got to believe that the North Koreans realize that too. The US has defensive missiles to shoot down any that may be fired upon it; North Korea doesn't. It would be suicide for them to start anything.

It's worrying, but at the moment it is all sabre-rattling. I don't think there is any expectation that the missile launches would be more than tests.The trouble is that people can paint themselves into such a corner that war becomes impossible to avoid.And Seoul is very close to the border.

They could have warnings that such events are happening.. and ignore them!! Remember 9/11?? Hopefully Obama is smarter than bush!!

I feel like if the US doesnt invade these countries.. they will fuck us up.

WW3? A bit extreme don't you think? N. Korea is a very isolated country. Even China is stepping back from these knuckleheads. Their reach is pretty limited. They could wreack havoc in the region but that's about it. China is to the North so nothing would happen there. They could invade South Korea and launch missles at Japan but that's the extent of it.

I guess we'll have to see :S.

There's an airbase out in Guam where we used to have attack bombers stationed many years ago. A few years back, after North Korea started rattling swords again, we silently remanned the station. If they did start something serious (which I highly doubt would happen), we'd turn N Korea into a parking lot.

Like others I doubt North Korea will act on anything it says. Though Kim Jong-Il scares me... more than a little. The guy reminds me of a psychopath. Lets just hope its nothing more than his ego talking and not backed up by words... (Though if he would act he'd be foolish).

Kim Jong' may not be the problem right now. He's reportedly had a severe stroke and may be mostly incapacitated. The saber rattling is do, for the most part, to one of two things. Possibly, as a demonstration that even though he is severely handicapped he still wheedles power or, more likely so, that there is power vacuum in his declining health and factions of his government are trying to take power from other competing factions and show stability by exercising their authority and issuing ultimatums. The second possibility is more than likely what's going on and is also the more dangerous of the two.

The ego is the most dangerous of the 3 components of the psyche.Alot more bad is acted out because of peoples egos and being backed in to a corner than any other reason.Korea is fucked, wipe us off the globe? The missle (satellite launches, HA HA!)tests they have conducted show they do not have the resources to attack the US, they can however attack South Korea, thus pulling the US into a new chapter of the korean war. We have bases there, troops there, and the entire cease fire is based on a truce that never ended the korean war, just sorta put a hold on it. It wouldnt take jack shit to strat it back up again. Now, thanks to Bushs need to attack Iraq for bullshit reasons when they never did pose any threat to us, and the conflict in afganai, we do not have the troops or the means to defend S. Korea if the need arose to fight a ground war, we do not have the budget to support an air war either.Even N Koreas closest allie, China, says they are infuckingsane. Korea is not the problem, the allies of korea are, and in this case china is on the worlds side, not koreas. For them to start some shit, they would be acting alone. World war 3? pretty unlikely, since we have so much shit with south korea and troops and civilians stationed there. Any nuclear threat from korea would be dealt with with nonnuclear means. and we would have UN approval and support of several other countries, if it came down to it.Korea is batshit crazy, and a threat, but not a threat to the level they like to claim.

Originally Posted By: Grvtykllr Now, thanks to Bushs need to attack Iraq for bullshit reasons when they never did pose any threat to us... Agreed...but they did pose a threat to Israel, which is what it was really all about. Lame as the Scud missile is, it can be modified to carry nerve agents (gas)...and there were several remote control jets set up for dispersing gas found in Iraq. The liberal media always buries the truth when it conflicts with their agenda, and the sheeple who rely on mainstream media don't really know what's going on. They just think they do, and believe what they're told to believe. The media also buried the story of a convoy of trucks carrying barrels of chemical agent into Syria just as we approached to within about 100 miles of Bagdhad (it was picked up AND PHOTOGRAPHED by satellite). The book written by an ex-Iraqi pilot that details how passenger planes were stripped of seats and used to ferry more WMD into Syria via that route didn't get much publicity, either. However, thanks to a Syrian defecter, we do know the location of the three seperate stashes the WMD were deposited in...but you won't find much about it on the web. You really have to look hard to find it. So much for truth in reporting.

Originally Posted By: StephieJI feel like if the US doesnt invade these countries.. they will fuck us up. Americaaaaa, fuck yeah!!!America should only get involved in any conflict if they have the support of the other nations that will be afected. I think we're all tired of America going to war.

Originally Posted By: thor

The liberal media always buries the truth when it conflicts with their agenda, and the sheeple who rely on mainstream media don't really know what's going on. They just think they do, and believe what they're told to believe. The media also buried the story of a convoy of trucks carrying barrels of chemical agent into Syria just as we approached to within about 100 miles of Bagdhad (it was picked up AND PHOTOGRAPHED by satellite).

Thats fascinating! I also had a dream last night, I was riding a unicorn through a field of boobs!

Quote:Americaaaaa, fuck yeah!!! Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah,

Until something is independently verified, it's just a claim, and the media rightly treat it cautiously. (You may remember the story of the Kuwaiti premature babies ripped out of their incubators in the first Gulf War, widely reported, and in the end found to be fabrication.) Claims that WMDs were being shipped to Syria were in fact widely reported in the early days of the invasion, but the Bush administration's silence on the matter since suggests they found no evidence to back it up - and there would have to have been quite a lot of Iraqi drivers involved. (I can't see how satellite photos could tell what was in barrels.)Even later books by different authors aren't verification. Books make money, and the 'Bermuda Triangle' is a good example of how a fabrication by one author can be taken up by others who see a good story.

Originally Posted By: IneligibleClaims that WMDs were being shipped to Syria were in fact widely reported in the early days of the invasion, but the Bush administration's silence on the matter since suggests they found no evidence to back it up - and there would have to have been quite a lot of Iraqi drivers involved. (I can't see how satellite photos could tell what was in barrels.)Satellites can read the cover of a matchbook...I think they can read what was written on the sides of the barrels. I also remember seeing the media broadcast the report AND AIR THE FOOTAGE. They did it only once...as if they realized they just stepped on their own crank. Meanwhile, reporting of the same lame "status" every twenty minutes continued as if nothing happened. If the media are just reporting facts of what was seen, why try to bury it afterwards? They don't have to make any claims to report what was seen, do they. But somebody might get the idea that WMD did indeed exist in Iraq prior to the invasion...and we certainly can't have that, can we. And as for the silence of the administration regarding this, on what basis do you draw your conclusion? Any evidence to back it up? You see, you are so willing to believe what you want to that you don't even apply the same standards of acceptance when it comes to something you wish to believe in. You have been well trained.

Quote:However, thanks to a Syrian defecter, we do know the location of the three seperate stashes the WMD were deposited in...but you won't find much about it on the web. You really have to look hard to find it. So much for truth in reporting.I didn't have to look very hard on the Web to find it: it is here in the Wikipedia article on the WMD question, which also lists the three sites. This allegation was made in January 2004.The CIA's report on WMDs can be found at https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html The original report (September 30 2004) decided that Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs. Their evidence included extensive interviews with Hussein's military scientists.The result of their investigation into the possibility of transfer of WMDs to Syria was published in an addendum, published March 2005, released publicly on April 25 2005. The addendum can be found at https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/addenda.pdf and the report on Syria is on a single page, the fourth of that 84-page PDF, numbered page 1.It finishes: "Based on the evidence available at present, ISG [Iraq Survey Group] judged it is unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."This was reported at the time - see for example http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/26/iraq.main/

People seek out, watch, listen to and read, almost solely, media that support their views and media panders to it's viewers, listeners and readers political predispositions.Reality is the only casualty.

Originally Posted By: IneligibleIt finishes: "Based on the evidence available at present, ISG [Iraq Survey Group] judged it is unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. roflmao Quote:However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."That's some serious spin...trying to get away from saying, based on the satellite footage, testimoney of an ex-Syrian official and a pilot who flew A/C carrying WMD into Syria, that's it's quite possible...VERY possible. Considering that Syria had been smuggling (read "not official") weapons illegally into Iraq while smuggling oil out of Iraq (under OPECs nose) at the same time...and that Syria has been looking for a sword to wave at Israel for a long time now. The only piece missing from the puzzle is to actually have some in our hands. But I stronly suspect you and the other sheeple would find a way to disbelieve that as well. Ah, well...you can lead a horse to water...The only thing I'm disappointed about is that we haven't gone after Syria. But since that would turn up the WMD (and a host of other evils) it will never happen with a liberal in the Whitehouse...it would prove Bush told the truth; at least as far as the existance of WMD was concerned. And we can't have that, can we.