Aviatsiya From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1190 times:
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last week called North Korea the "single biggest proliferator of ballistic missiles" and said the communist nation is "a danger to the world."
A danger to the world? Or a danger to the American military machine who because of North Korean missile sales is losing business which it thinks only it is entitled to?
President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, earlier this year called North Korea a "merchant for ballistic missile technology" and said Pyongyang was willing to sell the weapons "to just about anybody who will buy."
What international laws prohibit Country A from selling Country B military hardware, if Country B is willing to pay for it?
"The North Koreans have been known to go around with glossy brochures about their ballistic missiles. They're stocking a lot of the world right now," Rice said.
So do American companies. Take a look at the literature available at various arms shows around the world, especially the salon held in Dubai. So whats the point?
On the other hand, it did not appear the Bush administration intends to take punitive action against Yemen, which has been cooperating in the war on terror.
Punitive action for what? Isn't Yemen fully entitled to buy military hardware for its armed forces?
Different people are needed in the White House I think. Or at least journalists with the balls to ask questions such as these is needed.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1185 times:
Different people are needed in the White House I think. Or at least journalists with the balls to ask questions such as these is needed..
Or maybe different posters who don't apologize for and kiss the asses of nations like North Korea and Iraq, even when caught red-handed with weapons that are not defensive. Amazing, how fast the usual crowd is on here to dismiss any culpability of North Korea, or even QUESTION why a North Korea "pirate ship" is delivering Scuds to somewhere in the Middle East or Africa.
At least, Aviatsiya, you didn't blame Pan Am for this one.
Vafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (12 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1177 times:
We talked about this in our Geography class....Well, America says no missiles and stuff, and tries to cut other countries from building/testing/exporting, while America builds/tests/exports them all of the time.....Go figure...
I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
Aviatsiya From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1155 times:
I do believe that Iraq needs to be disarmed (if he does still have WMD). But face facts, Saddam is no worse today than he was when he was being armed and openly supported by "the West". But I guess his digressions whilst receiving "Western" support were overlooked, as long as those digressions were taking out those evil Iranians.
North Korea is a different story.
You say that they have been caught red-handed with missiles which are not defensive.
Please do show me the international law which says that North Korea can not have offensive weapons. Because if there is such a law, what is America, Russia, China, Israel, UK, etc still doing with them? Add all of these countries to the "rogue states" list shall we?
I will now hear some arguments from various people citing old lines such as:
1) North Korea is using the missiles for blackmail
* Well inherently, that is what armed forces are for. You better not attack us because we have Weapon ABC. Or you better do what we say because we can do this to you with Weapon XYZ.
2) North Korea is aiming these weapons and threatening its neighbours in Asia
* Well, Japan, South Korea and American forces in those countries also have even worse weapons (read: nuclear) aimed at North Korea. So whats the big deal
Also, Alpha1, can you please show to me where I have blamed Pan Am for anything?
Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1117 times:
You're joking right? I'm not reading the above am I? You stuck your foot down your throat nearly to your stomach with that comment in the other thread, and now you're nitpicking on word selection? Goodness, this is definitely a new tactic in the history of the a.net discussion boards.
Oh, and nice insult at the end. Can you debate a little better than that? And yes, I did pass my 3rd grade English class.
Zauberfloete From Austria, joined Nov 2000, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1114 times:
North Korea tried to smuggle medium range missiles to a country or an organization in the middle east.
What comes from the usual anti-us bashers:
"What international laws prohibit Country A from selling Country B military hardware, if Country B is willing to pay for it?"
Wouldn´t you know it? Now North Korea just sold missiles to another country, and the ship transported this legal shipment.
And because this sale and shipment was a legal one, they camouflaged it as a cement transport?
If that is legal trade why mask it with wrong papers?
"So do American companies. Take a look at the literature available at various arms shows around the world, especially the salon held in Dubai. So whats the point?" - oh really?
That is the normal way such deals are made?
I tell you what - when a US company sold Blackhawk helicopters to the austrian airforce, the helicopters arrived onboard a freight plane as "S70-Helicopters".
They didn´t arrive as a load of raw iron onboard a ship.
I think that issue shows that Mr. Bush was right in his axis-of-evil speech. And it shows more and more.......and that is it what really hurts some people.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1094 times:
Aviatsiya, you have lost all credibility now. You posted on the Pearl Harbor post that the whole God damned conflict was the fault of Pan Am, which, in and of itseslf, was one of the lamest, dumbest and outright hysterical things ANYONE has ever typed on here.
But then you have the absolute balls to come on here and say you didn't do so? Grow up, will you? At least take some responsibility for things you type on here. You said that, and now own up to it, will you.
You're getting worse than Neil ever was on here-he'd say something, then a day later, he'd have all kinds of trouble recalling what he said, until it was pointed out to him in plain english. You've really killed your credibility to day, son.
Ben From Switzerland, joined Aug 1999, 1391 posts, RR: 50
Reply 20, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1083 times:
Mr. Aviatsiya, with that "unfortunate" comment, you have just been added to my Disrespected Users list
1. Since Mr. Aviatsiya isn't a know-it-all teenage armchair general, Im not convinced that he's going to be worried about a lack of respect from anyone here
2. Id love to know how you lot are going to answer Mr Aviatsiya's question above: What international laws prohibit Country A from selling Country B military hardware, if Country B is willing to pay for it? .....and why does the USA see itself as having to 'authorise' every arms deal before it can go ahead?
3. The government of the USA needs to learn some diplomacy skills: Firstly Iran and North Korea were about to normalise relations, everything was looking good and then came the "Axis of Evil Speach"... and now calling them a "Danger to the World"? Years and years of hard work are now down the toilet! for what? One friggin Bushism soundbite! How exactly is that going to make them do what you say? Spread peace and understanding? Help non-proliferation?
It's clear that the USA needs an enemy right now, to keep the arms manufacturers in business and to keep the normal everyday dumb people (who all have votes) under the impression that GW is a 'hero' for flighting all the evil in the world. Good on ya Dubya! Youre my hero too
The American economy NEEDS an enemy... and now you cant even find a good quality enemy like the Russians were.
N202PA From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1562 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1069 times:
The aircraft crash was caused by the wing falling off. The blame for the wing falling off lies with the engineer because he forgot to tighten a screw.
I don't think that's an accurate comparison to what you wrote. I think a more accurate statement would be the following:
"The drunk driver drove crossed the median and plowed into a school bus full of kids, killing five."
The cause of the deaths would be the drunk driver crossing the median (or, in the case of WWII, the actions that you allege PA took). The blame for the deaths would be placed on the drunk driver (or PA, according to the implication of your statement).
Twaneedsnohelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (12 years 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1049 times:
As I read today, legally the US and Spain had every right to board and investigate the boat because it was, as the Spanish put it, a "pirate" vessel in that it had no official flag or formal national affiliation. Anyone could have boarded the boat. So that puts that issue to rest.
Next, I asked why the Spanish intercepted the vessel so far from Yemeni waters. That answer was also provided today. This was undetaken allow the Yemenis to save face. If the US or Spanish intercepted the boat 10-50 miles off the Yemeni coast - it would be a clear slap in the face to Yemen. By intercepting it near Yemen but possibly en route somewhere else, the US gave the Yemenis the chance to deny it.
Why one might ask? Quite simply, Yemen has becoming an important American aly in the War on Terror and while US-Yemeni relations have rocky in the past, the US has no interest in ruining them further. Yemen has long been a safe haven for Islamist terrorists - everyone from Al Qaida to Hamas - the US and aparently the current Yemeni government have an interest in changing this.
So, the US stopped the ship, Yemen first denied it, then after high-level consultations admitted it was their arms, and the US in the interest of maintaining friendly ties between the two, allowed the ship to sail on to Yemen.
The scuds are expected to be used for the Yemeni military - despite their promises to the US this past February (when the US intercepted Scud parts en route to Yemen) they would make no efforts to acquire the missiles or build a Scud missile program.
Interesting developments. Let's hope US military inteligence keeps a close eye on these weapons. I have a fealing Israel will too.