The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

TOKYO (April 5) - The State Department says that North Korea has launched a rocket, following through on its promise of a launch despite international criticism.
State Department spokesman Fred Lash confirmed the event, saying it occurred at 10:30 p.m. EDT Saturday.

http://news.aol.com/article/north-korea-launches-rocket/412587?icid=main

This event could end up leading to war. This will be a big test for Barack Obama to see how he handles this.

We should launch a .50 caliber rocket from a sniper rifle towards that nut job in charge. Crisis averted.

Oh, that's no big deal. We'll just go to the U.N. and demand action. We'll impose sanctions, we'll...

wait, who's our secretary of state again? Hillary Clinton?!

...jeezus, we're screwed!

We won't get far with the U.N. and we'll pay "blackmail" to North Korea so they'll promise not to build nukes (where we could see them, if we bother looking).

She'll fix Korea just like she fixed healthcare! YAY!

The only way to resolve the issue with North Korea is if the U.S. ahem U.N. takes out pyonnangojgng kim or whatever his name is and takes out their nuclear power plants. The sad thing is the world will just wag its finger and say don't do that again.

"The Globe reports that North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il raises money by selling fake Viagra pills. What it is about this guy? None of his missiles seem to launch." --Jay Leno

Maybe he switched to levitra?

Guys, I can share the following a bit dated but still accurate de-classified brief document for your perusal:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rs21582.pdf

Maybe you want to read a little -before- you jump into the formula of "blasting anybody out of the water" as a solution to all problems.

Trust me, a peaceful resolution is the -ONLY- available option at present with most of the NATO military already over-extended in the midddle east and elsewhere.

As long as you know the price of your options, you know what you are getting into. I do not use Levitra or Viagra but my doctor says that if I ever get asked about it, viagra is better. So, who knows where the real good option is?

Redskin in Canada wrote:Guys, I can share the following a bit dated but still accurate de-classified brief document for your perusal:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rs21582.pdf

Maybe you want to read a little -before- you jump into the formula of "blasting anybody out of the water" as a solution to all problems.

Trust me, a peaceful resolution is the -ONLY- available option at present with most of the NATO military already over-extended in the midddle east and elsewhere.

As long as you know the price of your options, you know what you are getting into. I do not use Levitra or Viagra but my doctor says that if I ever get asked about it, viagra is better. So, who knows where the real good option is?

As is so often the case, RiC, those with the least familiarity are the first to cry "To the armory!"

Redskin in Canada wrote:Guys, I can share the following a bit dated but still accurate de-classified brief document for your perusal:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rs21582.pdf

Maybe you want to read a little -before- you jump into the formula of "blasting anybody out of the water" as a solution to all problems.

Trust me, a peaceful resolution is the -ONLY- available option at present with most of the NATO military already over-extended in the midddle east and elsewhere.

As long as you know the price of your options, you know what you are getting into. I do not use Levitra or Viagra but my doctor says that if I ever get asked about it, viagra is better. So, who knows where the real good option is?

Too late. Blasting the North Koreans is the only way to take care of their psycho leader. Granted, it isn't an ideal situation, but diplomacy is a farce to Kimmy Jong. He cannot wait until NK can create a missile that can hit U.S. territory so he can try to bully us into graveling at his feet. We know they already have nukes as evident by their underground test. Bottom Line: Diplomacy with a nation such as NK who continually defies the rest of the world doesn't and will not work.

We don't need to take out the entire country. Just the one lunatic in charge.

Maybe some of you guys are right.

Maybe if we just ignore him, he'll go away. It worked for the Nazis. Don't see many of them trying to invade Poland anymore.

Maybe we should just let him be. If he wants nukes, he should be allowed to have them, right? He's certainly a rational human being filled with mercy and compassion. Hell, Obama said we should scale back our nuclear stockpile, maybe we can sell our leftovers to him! It'll help the economy!

While we're at it, we can sell to Iran too!

Come on down to Barry-O's Nuclear Weapon Emporium where all of our ICBM's are half-off every day! Why buy your Strategic Multi-Warhead Nuclear arms on the black market, when you can get our top-of-the-line models garunteed to wipe your enemies off the face of the Earth or your money back!

Tired of that stinking cess-pool that is Israel? Sick of having South Korea meddle in your affairs? Wipe 'em off the face of the map with one of Barry-O's Discount ICBM's!

Bathe the world in Holy Fire! Start Armeggedon! Improve Global warming with a Nuclear Winter! Hold the whole world hostage! The possibilities are endless!

And if you call within the next 30-minutes, we'll throw in a lifetime supply of American suffering and countless American dollars absolutely free! You know we can't do this all day; so order now!

Just Call 1-800-We-Give-Up now!

(Visa/Mastercard Accepted)

If there is conflict with N Korea, we also have to deal with their big brother, China. That's the real problem.

Certainly we don't want a war with N. Korea, we tried that once and it didn't seem to work for us.

But we can't sit on our hands, and we can't allow King-Kong-Ill or whatever his name is to hold us hostage to an agreement he isn't going to follow through on his end.

In the '90's we just shipped him oil, and ignored him. We can't do this again.

So what do we do?

We shouldnt have pulled out of S Korea. Ironic N Korea starts to flex as soon as we reduce our presence in S Korea.

As for what we do; it's not our responsibility, contrary to popular belief. This is a UN issue. The US has to STOP being the world police on its own and the subsequent target for all the bad guys.

VetSkinsFan wrote:The US has to STOP being the world police on its own and the subsequent target for all the bad guys.

Completely agree, I am tired of the bulls eye on our backs and the wanting hands in our face. I am all for helping others, but believe we need to solve our own problems first.

Old business before new business, if you know what I mean.
Let's put N. Korea on the docket for sometime in... oh, say...2014.
Or after the world's tallest actual terrorist is caught and tried. Whichever comes first.

tcwest10 wrote:Old business before new business, if you know what I mean.
Let's put N. Korea on the docket for sometime in... oh, say...2014.
Or after the world's tallest actual terrorist is caught and tried. Whichever comes first.

Yeah, because the 1950s in which we never finished comes before 2001.

Bob 0119 wrote:Hell, Obama said we should scale back our nuclear stockpile, maybe we can sell our leftovers to him! It'll help the economy!

While we're at it, we can sell to Iran too!

May be. It certainly worked for Reagan and Saddam, didn't it?

Deadskins wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:Hell, Obama said we should scale back our nuclear stockpile, maybe we can sell our leftovers to him! It'll help the economy!

While we're at it, we can sell to Iran too!

May be. It certainly worked for Reagan and Saddam, didn't it?

Saddam was our ally in the '70s. That is a twisted past with the US and him.

VetSkinsFan wrote:We shouldnt have pulled out of S Korea. Ironic N Korea starts to flex as soon as we reduce our presence in S Korea.

As for what we do; it's not our responsibility, contrary to popular belief. This is a UN issue. The US has to STOP being the world police on its own and the subsequent target for all the bad guys.

Yea Vet I agree but isn't the US the strongest/powerful country in it? I'm not saying we should be the ones responsible all the time but it seems like the WORLD looks at us for the most help.

Deadskins wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:Hell, Obama said we should scale back our nuclear stockpile, maybe we can sell our leftovers to him! It'll help the economy!

While we're at it, we can sell to Iran too!

May be. It certainly worked for Reagan and Saddam, didn't it?

Oh, but this'll be so much better, don'tchasee!

See, while Reagan was selling arms to the Iraqis, there were two key differences.

1) The Iraqis were our friends at the time, and we were selling them our B-list stuff.

B) We were putting together one of the biggest nuclear stockpiles in world history.

This made the Country a lot of money, and left us with all of these stupid nuclear weapons just laying around.

But now we can fix all that! We'll sell off those nuclear weapons, but this time to people who hate us, and then we'll turn around and give those people all the money they gave us right back (and whatever money we have on us) in exchange for their promise not to use the weapons we just sold them!

Kinda like when you sell your gun to a mugger!

No more pesky nuclear weapons! Nobody gets rich (because rich=bad)! it's perfect!

Bob 0119 wrote:1) The Iraqis were our friends at the time, and we were selling them our B-list stuff.

I agree because dieing from chemical weapons is so much better than dieing from nuclear weapons. When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

Deadskins wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:1) The Iraqis were our friends at the time, and we were selling them our B-list stuff.

I agree because dieing from chemical weapons is so much better than dieing from nuclear weapons. When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

Hey, at least with chemical weapons you stand a chance of protecting yourself!

At least until we invent a 10 billion SPF sunblock!

All kidding aside, we backed Iraq as the lesser of the two evils when they were at war with Iran. We ignored them using the weapons we gave them on their own people as "none of our business."

And then many in congress ignored the fact (20 years later) that the WMD's that we didn't find were technically the same WMD's that we sold to them! That's how we knew he had them!

So instead of being worried about where they went (most likely sold to Syria), it was much sexier to say "we went to war under false pretenses; we were lied to. There were no WMD's."

Bob 0119 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:1) The Iraqis were our friends at the time, and we were selling them our B-list stuff.

I agree because dieing from chemical weapons is so much better than dieing from nuclear weapons. When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

Hey, at least with chemical weapons you stand a chance of protecting yourself!

At least until we invent a 10 billion SPF sunblock!

All kidding aside, we backed Iraq as the lesser of the two evils when they were at war with Iran. We ignored them using the weapons we gave them on their own people as "none of our business."

And then many in congress ignored the fact (20 years later) that the WMD's that we didn't find were technically the same WMD's that we sold to them! That's how we knew he had them!

So instead of being worried about where they went (most likely sold to Syria), it was much sexier to say "we went to war under false pretenses; we were lied to. There were no WMD's."

I understood it different. It went from, "Possessing WMDs," to, "the INTENT to possess WMDs."

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:1) The Iraqis were our friends at the time, and we were selling them our B-list stuff.

I agree because dieing from chemical weapons is so much better than dieing from nuclear weapons. When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

Hey, at least with chemical weapons you stand a chance of protecting yourself!

At least until we invent a 10 billion SPF sunblock!

All kidding aside, we backed Iraq as the lesser of the two evils when they were at war with Iran. We ignored them using the weapons we gave them on their own people as "none of our business."

And then many in congress ignored the fact (20 years later) that the WMD's that we didn't find were technically the same WMD's that we sold to them! That's how we knew he had them!

So instead of being worried about where they went (most likely sold to Syria), it was much sexier to say "we went to war under false pretenses; we were lied to. There were no WMD's."

I understood it different. It went from, "Possessing WMDs," to, "the INTENT to possess WMDs."

I don't see how the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.