The announcement is real chutzpah on the part of Kim Jung Il, don't you think. Is it smoke and mirrors or someone walking tall, and shaking a big stick? It sounds like they are asking to be carpet bombed, no?
I have friends in South Korea, I'll have to jingle them up on the old email and see what they think of this mess.
Slice:
North Korea boasted publicly for the first time Thursday that it has nuclear weapons and said it will stay away from disarmament talks, dramatically raising the stakes in the 2-year-old dispute. The Bush administration called on Pyongyang to give up its atomic aspirations so life can be better for its impoverished people.
... "We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's ever-more undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the (North)," the North Korean Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency. The agency's report used the word "nukes" in its English-language dispatch.
... "The U.S. disclosed its attempt to topple the political system in (North Korea) at any cost, threatening it with a nuclear stick," North Korea's Foreign Ministry said. "This compels us to take a measure to bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal in order to protect the ideology, system, freedom and democracy chosen by the people in (North Korea)."
...The nuclear crisis began in 2002 when U.S. officials accused North Korea of running a secret uranium-enrichment program in violation of international treaties.
Washington and its allies cut off free fuel oil shipments for the impoverished country under a 1994 deal with the United States made under the condition that North Korea halt nuclear weapons development.
North Korea retaliated by quitting the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in early 2003 and restarting its plutonium-based nuclear weapons program, which had been frozen under the 1994 agreement.
The CIA has estimated that with a highly enriched uranium weapons program and the use of sophisticated high-speed centrifuges, North Korea could be making more. Some analysts and observers have put the estimate at six to eight.
End slice:
Sounds like W and co aren't itchin' for a fight there as they are in Iran. I wonder why, perhaps moving to a Southeast Asian theater from the mideast would be too much of a strain on our military.
Two questions come to mind, 1) do you feel safer with Bush at the helm given that they mention the guy directly in their message to us?
And 2) Hey, what's the Bush administration done for our impoverished people here in the Good Old USA, by the way? Just a little off topic, but since they brought it up...just thought I'd ask.
2 comments:
Yes, as a matter of fact i feel much safer with Bush in office. People around the world, (read terrorists) now know that we will not wait for them to attack any longer. People know that we are serious about protecting ourselves by chasing these guys down, along with their allies.
And the question is not what has Bush done about the impoverished in this country, but rather what are the impoverished in this country going to do for themselves?
It is a common misconception that the people that are poor are poor because the government won't help them enough. They are poor because they are either A) Unskilled, B)Can't work due to illness of some kind or C) Stupid and/or lazy.
It is not our job, as citizens, to take care of these people, except as we see fit through charity, nor is it the governments job to force us to do so. It is the governments job to provide the opportunity to succeed. It is the citizens responsibility to take advantage of those opportunities, not to sit and expect things to be given to them.
The opportunities are there. The people are lazy.
Ignorance is bliss
Kender, have you read Clausewitz? The attacker sets the time, place and weight of the attack.
Have you heard of the beltway sniper(s)?
Have you heard of Tim McVeigh?
If you have a method for securing accurate info on prospective attacks, please share it with Homeland Security.
Bush helps the impoverished?
Tax cuts for millionaires is a good start? (Millionaires are people who make $1m/year, not people who have a net worth of $1m.)
The weakness of ''Trickle Down'' is that the rich don't spend all of their tax cut. The poor spend it immediately. The poor's tax cut passes through several hands before it ends up in the pockets of the rich.
The rich always do well no matter who gets the tax cut. But when you give the tax-cut to the poor, several middle-class intermediaries benefit, too, at no additional expense (the cost of the tax cut).
The rich get more help from the government than the poor. E. g: GPS permits you to fly your private jet on auto-pilot from coast to coast. The poor have no use for GPS. What good are national parks to the poor, they can't afford to go there.
How much more worse off would the poor be were everyone slaves? Whereas the rich would find slavery a real hardship. The poor live in a collapsing infrastructure that the rich can flee, underfunded schools, public transportation, 100-y.o. housing.
Post a Comment