Chavez to automakers: Share know-how or leave town

tigger

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
5,737
Car(s)
'88 Vic Wagon, '92 Honda VFR
Alright, given the UN that could actually happen, but I'm pretty sure US forces would be in NK before Kim could refill his class of Hennesy, with a mandate from the UN or not. I'd sure hope so.
I don't think there's any question of that. If NK attacked SK, Japan and anyone else they could hit, possibly killing tens of millions of people, the last thing we would be waiting for is UN approval. Seriously, if that happened I would be at the recruiters the same day.

He's got China.
You really think that China would risk starting World War III, possibly full on nuclear war, over that crazy little bastard and his third world country?

I'd love to see one of those nice KDX-II Frigates or KDX-III Destroyers (nicknamed "Death Stars" in the Aegis world) take a few shots at the North Koreans.
:lol: All that would be left of the NK force would be craters. Craters in the ocean.
 
Last edited:

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
You think they are just going to get nukes from the grocery after Kim has wiped out South Korea? And what if they did get nukes, they are your allies are they not?

Would you also think that the rest of the world would just stand around and wait, have a meeting, a powerpoint orgy and vote for what to do after South Korea got nuked?

Alright, given the UN that could actually happen, but I'm pretty sure US forces would be in NK before Kim could refill his class of Hennesy, with a mandate from the UN or not. I'd sure hope so.

Noticed our "peace at all costs, we'll only do new things if everyone in the UN approves" current leadership? Yeah, no, we would be calling for sanctions, 'deploring the actions of' and demanding new negotiations, not sending troops.

I'd also think that if Kim was going to start a war he would bomb and shoot everything at the same time. Going to war would be a suicide because it's everyone against him, so you might as well try take much as you can with you. It's hard to say what kind of man he actually is, but I doubt he is that stupid he'd believe he could win a nuclear war so he doesn't try to.

Hypothetically, what would be his motivation in the first place? If he did invade something what could he do with it? He is already short of friends to play with.

The current Big Lie he's telling his people is starting to look threadbare - he's going to have to have an actual war sooner rather than later if he wants to keep his head. It's gotten so bad his troops are ordered to shoot people attempting to flee North Korea.
 

Ladamaha

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
1,286
Noticed our "peace at all costs, we'll only do new things if everyone in the UN approves" current leadership? Yeah, no, we would be calling for sanctions, 'deploring the actions of' and demanding new negotiations, not sending troops.
It's always Obama with you. You should be happy for the kissing up he does for your country. He has made the rest of you look much better than the previous gun toting Texan cowboy with his "America, fuck yeah" attitude.

The current Big Lie he's telling his people is starting to look threadbare - he's going to have to have an actual war sooner rather than later if he wants to keep his head. It's gotten so bad his troops are ordered to shoot people attempting to flee North Korea.

Blow something up and blame someone else for it. Old trick, should work in those conditions better than Sarah Palin for FOX ratings.
 

tigger

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
5,737
Car(s)
'88 Vic Wagon, '92 Honda VFR
Noticed our "peace at all costs, we'll only do new things if everyone in the UN approves" current leadership?
Speaking of threadbare ...
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
It's always Obama with you. You should be happy for the kissing up he does for your country. He has made the rest of you look much better than the previous gun toting Texan cowboy with his "America, fuck yeah" attitude.

If that's the case, why are we now getting even less cooperation from other countries on any matter than we did under Bush?

Copenhagen? Nope, sorry, even hundreds of billions of dollars in more or less bribes wasn't enough to get cooperation.

Afghanistan, something that everyone agreed was a NATO problem? France won't send any more troops. Neither will anyone else.

Olympics? Nope, didn't get those either.

North Korea? Complete failure.

Iran? Nope.


I challenge you to find one single foreign policy initiative that Obama and his tame Congress has actually succeeded at in the last six months.
 
Last edited:

AiR

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
11,985
Location
Suecia
Car(s)
Bulgogi Knedliky 1.6 GDI (Hyundai i30)
Ha, I don't even want to think about how bad Copenhagen would have gone with that old what's-his-name at the helm of the US delegation, I doubt they'd even show up. The Republican senator that showed up with the big "you're all gay and stupid, oil is harmless"-sign was proof enough. :D

COP15 failed because of China saying "FU we don't care about anyone but ourselves" and bickering amongst the african banana republics (headed by Sudan), not because of Obama.
 

Dogbert

Helsinki Smash Rod
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
6,458
Location
N38? 43', W90? 22'
Car(s)
Roger Dean's Rocks
Even though, big shocker here, Spectre has managed to derail another thread into talking about Obama/Texas/Guns/etc...

Copenhagen? Nope, sorry, even hundreds of billions of dollars in more or less bribes wasn't enough to get cooperation.
Because nobody else but Obama "failed", and furthermore, because you really wanted the talks at Copenhagen to succeed. Had they succeeded, you would have just claimed Obama "failed" to keep the US out of ridiculous, legally-binding environmental laws.

Afghanistan, something that everyone agreed was a NATO problem? France won't send any more troops. Neither will anyone else.
lolwut

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%27s_role_in_the_invasion_of_Afghanistan#2010:_troop_surge

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8389908.stm

Olympics? Nope, didn't get those either.
So why are you complaining? Weren't you one of the ones that was campaigning against the Olympics coming here?

You also know as well as the rest of us that Rio was picked because it's the first South American Summer Olympics, too, so don't try and play it off as an "Obama failure".

I also can't think of anyone that's ever said that a failure to secure an Olympic bid is "a foreign policy failure".

North Korea? Complete failure.

Iran? Nope.
Really? Someone else has failed to sensibly negotiate with two of the most zealous, paranoid, authoritarian leaders in the world? Color me just absolutely appalled.

I challenge you to find one single foreign policy initiative that Obama and his tame Congress has actually succeeded at in the last six months.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/13/some-cuba-travel-restrict_n_186197.html

http://forums.finalgear.com/politic...nds-ban-on-foreign-travelers-with-aids-41612/
 
Last edited:

Ladamaha

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
1,286
If that's the case, why are we now getting even less cooperation from other countries on any matter than we did under Bush?
Because Bush ruined your image and it's not been salvaged from the pit it is in?

Copenhagen? Nope, sorry, even hundreds of billions of dollars in more or less bribes wasn't enough to get cooperation.
Are you saying that you cared for Copenhagen and actually thought it was going to bring some sort of results? I thought you were anti-greenwash all along. Copenhagen was a failure, but it was a team effort. Only to wash the dirty consciousness of the west with giving money to the poor.
Afghanistan, something that everyone agreed was a NATO problem? France won't send any more troops. Neither will anyone else.
You started the whole mess, you should deal with it. While I think sending more troops shows commitment to what has been started, it might also be a very stupid move. European allies seem to think that presence of foreign forces will only increase the instability, thus not wanting to send more troops to get shot at. They think it should be better to help the Afghan government to take over the country soon as possible. It's next to impossible to win a war again freedom fighters in that terrain.

Olympics? Nope, didn't get those either.
What h-p said.
North Korea? Complete failure.
Well Clinton got those two reporters out. :lol: Has anyone done anything with NK in the last 50 years or so? Bush said it was on the axle of evil but don't think it has gone much past willy waving. I don't think NK has become more of a threat since Obama took office or has it?

Iran? Nope.
Was already a problem during Bush. I always thought it was going to be his next target after Iraq, but he never got quite that far with it.

What they should do with Iran anyway? Attacking there with force would probably mean another Iraq, plus the Iranian army is probably more competent defending the country than Iraq ever was. Another country to look after, destroy and rebuild.

I challenge you to find one single foreign policy initiative that Obama and his tame Congress has actually succeeded at in the last six months.
He hasn't started a new war with anyone and has avoided not making Yemen another Afghanistan.

It's easy to critic someone from the outside. What would have you done different and how actually?

edit. Blah I'm slow. Yeah, they said it above.
 
Last edited:

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
Am I the only one who thinks of how ludicrous it would be if dems startet touting Bush for being a misrable failiure in not getting abortion banned?

Spectre, we know how you feel about Obama, enough already.
 
Top