The house of cards falls

[livetofall 0]

some interest news on Korea and why:
http://www.cnsnews.com/Pentagon/Archive/1998-2000/DEF20000417a.html

www.911missinglinks.com the definitive truth of 9/11..the who and why, not how

You can handle the TRUTH www.theforbiddentruth.net

[Tonto 1]

Yeah!

And he got a blowjob!

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

some interest news on Korea and why:
http://www.cnsnews.com/Pentagon/Archive/1998-2000/DEF20000417a.html

Quote

For the past six years the United States has been trying to put in place two 1,000-megawatt light water reactors in North Korea.

Bush has rewritten the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, removing overtime pay from millions of American workers, illegally wiretapped, vetoed Clinton's bill to lower arsenic in our drinking water, engaged in a war based upon false pretense, and so many other things, so wh is it that he can't stop the aid going to N Korea? Clinton did it for 6 years, Bush watched it for 6 years, so Clinton is the culpable one? Usual logic....

Another point is that the right seems to think an armed society is a polite society, well, why not an armed world is a polite world?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

some interest news on Korea and why:
http://www.cnsnews.com/Pentagon/Archive/1998-2000/DEF20000417a.html

Quote

For the past six years the United States has been trying to put in place two 1,000-megawatt light water reactors in North Korea.

Bush has rewritten the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, removing overtime pay from millions of American workers, illegally wiretapped, vetoed Clinton's bill to lower arsenic in our drinking water, engaged in a war based upon false pretense, and so many other things, so wh is it that he can't stop the aid going to N Korea? Clinton did it for 6 years, Bush watched it for 6 years, so Clinton is the culpable one? Usual logic....

Another point is that the right seems to think an armed society is a polite society, well, why not an armed world is a polite world?

What the hell does domestic policy have to do with DPRK?

It's pretty clear that US aid to DPRK, nuclear reactors, and heavy fuel shipments, turned into an enabling factor, rather than a bridge to better relations. I don't agree with route that President Clinton took in the 90s (though it appears that President Carter may have forced that play), but it was an honest effort -- the US met its obligation. DPRK did not.

To lay blame on the Clinton Admin -- that's one way to approach it. Even if you don't "blame" them, it's undeniable that DPRK used the aid as a means to perpetuate their own tyranny. About the time that President Bush was elected, the CIA was uncovering evidence that DPRK was not meeting its obligations under the agreed framework.

The Bush Administration confronted DPRK on this, they not only admitted it, they bragged about it. We suspended our heavy fuel shipments.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

the right seems to think an armed society is a polite society, well, why not an armed world is a polite world?

I'm sure that if you try you can discern the difference between a firearm and a nuke. Hint: one kills only the person at which it is aimed, and the other kills tens of thousands, guilty and innocent alike.

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Quote

the right seems to think an armed society is a polite society, well, why not an armed world is a polite world?

I'm sure that if you try you can discern the difference between a firearm and a nuke. Hint: one kills only the person at which it is aimed, and the other kills tens of thousands, guilty and innocent alike.

Of course, no innocent person has ever been killed by a gun.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

the right seems to think an armed society is a polite society, well, why not an armed world is a polite world?

I'm sure that if you try you can discern the difference between a firearm and a nuke. Hint: one kills only the person at which it is aimed, and the other kills tens of thousands, guilty and innocent alike.

Of course, no innocent person has ever been killed by a gun.

It's a matter of scale, professor. I'm sorry that my hint wasn't explicit enough for you.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

the right seems to think an armed society is a polite society, well, why not an armed world is a polite world?

I'm sure that if you try you can discern the difference between a firearm and a nuke. Hint: one kills only the person at which it is aimed, and the other kills tens of thousands, guilty and innocent alike.

To bring a gun to an international fight is like bringing a BB gun to a neighborhood shootout. SO these are the same weapons, just on a larger scale.

Quote

guilty and innocent

I like that, it is frought with subjectivity. If you snapped your fingers and became an Iraqi insurgent, the US would be the bad guys, so keep that in context.

Point is, teh US has taught the world if you have a Nuke, we won;t fuck with you nor will any superpower. In fact, this is the primary definer of a superpower or not.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

the right seems to think an armed society is a polite society, well, why not an armed world is a polite world?

I'm sure that if you try you can discern the difference between a firearm and a nuke. Hint: one kills only the person at which it is aimed, and the other kills tens of thousands, guilty and innocent alike.

Of course, no innocent person has ever been killed by a gun.

It's a matter of scale, professor. I'm sorry that my hint wasn't explicit enough for you.

That was my point, same design of these devices - to kill people - larger scale for nukes. If all countries had nukes, we ould all work together.

[livetofall 0]

well gawain, lesson to learn. If you say stuff that is anti gay, you wil get a gay thread stalker, that will follow and follow and follow, and if they cant fight a point, whether it be from a independent or conservative view, they will bring up domestic policy or something to try to attack you or your intellect, whether it makes sense or not. Dont believe me? start looking at other threads."dem senators are crooks" comes to mind for a recent one.

www.911missinglinks.com the definitive truth of 9/11..the who and why, not how

You can handle the TRUTH www.theforbiddentruth.net

[billvon 2,435]

>one kills only the person at which it is aimed . . .

Easily shown to be false.

-------------
Albany Police Kill Bystander on New Year's Eve in Car Chase
2 Jan 2004

Albany Police killed a bystander when they opened fire on crowded downtown streets during New Year's Eve while trying to stop a fleeing motorist. A second bystander was injured. The officer who fired most of the shots had been involved in a prior case of police brutality against a black basketball player.

On New Year's Eve, Albany police killed a bystander, David Scaringe, on a crowded downtown street corner just before the First Night event was starting. A second bystander was wounded.

Police shot eight shots at a car that was backing up towards them on a sidewalk.
-------------


>and the other kills tens of thousands, guilty and innocent alike. and the
>other kills tens of thousands, guilty and innocent alike.

Since 1945, nuclear weapons have killed approximatey 350,000 people total.

Since 1945, firearms have killed approximately 600,000 people in the US alone.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>one kills only the person at which it is aimed . . .

Easily shown to be false.

-------------
Albany Police Kill Bystander on New Year's Eve in Car Chase
2 Jan 2004

Albany Police killed a bystander when they opened fire on crowded downtown streets during New Year's Eve while trying to stop a fleeing motorist. A second bystander was injured. The officer who fired most of the shots had been involved in a prior case of police brutality against a black basketball player.

On New Year's Eve, Albany police killed a bystander, David Scaringe, on a crowded downtown street corner just before the First Night event was starting. A second bystander was wounded.

Police shot eight shots at a car that was backing up towards them on a sidewalk.
-------------


>and the other kills tens of thousands, guilty and innocent alike. and the
>other kills tens of thousands, guilty and innocent alike.

Since 1945, nuclear weapons have killed approximatey 350,000 people total.

Since 1945, firearms have killed approximately 600,000 people in the US alone.

How does that refute what John Rich said? A bullet doesn't have a mind of it's own. Barring a richocet it goes in a straight line and hits whatever target it is aimed at. If the police hit innocent bystanders, it's because they aimed it at them.

Your analogy of nuclear weapons is ridiculous. The blast from a nuclear weapon cannot be controlled in the same way a gun can.

Hope you didn't strain any muscles from that stretch.

[billvon 2,435]

>A bullet doesn't have a mind of it's own.

Neither does a nuclear weapon. Both are merely tools, weapons that can (and have) been used against other people.

>If the police hit innocent bystanders, it's because they aimed it at them.

Interesting. So the dozens of cops in LA alone that have been 'accidentally' shot by other cops - are victims of murder (or at least manslaugher) attempts? Hmm. Best get on the horn to the LA district attorney and get all those cops arrested!

The proposition that the only people who can get hurt by a gun are the people you aim at is laughable. Anyone who can read a paper knows that isn't true - and gun owners who think it _is_ true are a danger to themselves and others. Guns are dangerous devices, and will kill you (or someone else) in seconds if you do not respect them. Even if you don't "aim it at them."

>Your analogy of nuclear weapons is ridiculous.

It's not my analogy.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>A bullet doesn't have a mind of it's own.

Quote

Neither does a nuclear weapon. Both are merely tools, weapons that can (and have) been used against other people.

Correct. A gun has a limited kill area whereas a nuclear weapon is much broader.

>If the police hit innocent bystanders, it's because they aimed it at them.

Quote

Interesting. So the dozens of cops in LA alone that have been 'accidentally' shot by other cops - are victims of murder (or at least manslaugher) attempts? Hmm. Best get on the horn to the LA district attorney and get all those cops arrested!

Sarcasm aside, the police may not have intentionally aimed a weapon at someone, but obviously they did.

Quote

The proposition that the only people who can get hurt by a gun are the people you aim at is laughable. Anyone who can read a paper knows that isn't true - and gun owners who think it _is_ true are a danger to themselves and others. Guns are dangerous devices, and will kill you (or someone else) in seconds if you do not respect them. Even if you don't "aim it at them."

Right.. guns kill people.

>Your analogy of nuclear weapons is ridiculous.

Quote

It's not my analogy.

Really? Who's is it?

• Quote

[livetofall 0]

Hey you have any idea of my news thread turned from Koreas nuclear beginnings to the old"guns kill people" vs "people kill people"?

All I have to say is:

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!

www.911missinglinks.com the definitive truth of 9/11..the who and why, not how

You can handle the TRUTH www.theforbiddentruth.net