North Korea

[taranaki]

Originally posted by YogsVR4


I am quite confident that he will be reelected.

as the saying goes,you can fool all of the people some of the time........

Of course he will get re-elected,Yogs.Even if he has to start a war in order to achieve it.His economic policies don't work,he got in on a shoestring last time,the logical swing would take him out of power,the only way he can possibly stay in is to divert attention from his piss poor performance by starting a war.

I've said it before,I'll say it again.This invasion of the Middle East is about oil and votes.Bush is a liar to pretend any different.

[Chris]

And once February 5th rolls around, we will have another CNN war, as Bush promised last night.

[Monkey-Magic-S15-R]

Originally posted by Chris
And once February 5th rolls around, we will have another CNN war, as Bush promised last night.

anyone catch the line in Goldeneye where 'M' says "unlike the US government we prefer not to get our news from CNN"

i just thought that would fit


anyway what do you mean by CNN war specifically?

[Cbass]

Lots of pretty staged footage for CNN, while American youths get slaughtered in the inner cities.

YogsVR4 stated earlier this war will be quick and decisive. Well it will for that part that the US is interested in, the open desert where the oil fields are. It won't be for the inner cities, that they'll have to capture and hold. There, they won't be dealing with a society that doesn't care much who rules them, as they did in Afghanistan, but instead against a people who revere their leader, as the only man who will stand up to the nation that starves and bombs them.

It's going to be ugly, very ugly.

[Monkey-Magic-S15-R]

Originally posted by Cbass
Lots of pretty staged footage for CNN, while American youths get slaughtered in the inner cities.

YogsVR4 stated earlier this war will be quick and decisive. Well it will for that part that the US is interested in, the open desert where the oil fields are. It won't be for the inner cities, that they'll have to capture and hold. There, they won't be dealing with a society that doesn't care much who rules them, as they did in Afghanistan, but instead against a people who revere their leader, as the only man who will stand up to the nation that starves and bombs them.

It's going to be ugly, very ugly.

yea i've heard to things

one is that they want him out and he supresses them (probably his opponents voice)

and two they like him


why can't they just talk to the ass have they tried that yet? EVER?

[Cbass]

Because he's not going to say "Here, have all my oil! I don't want it!"

Also, because America really needs a war right now, to take peoples minds off of politics, and the economy needs the boost.

[Monkey-Magic-S15-R]

Originally posted by Cbass
Because he's not going to say "Here, have all my oil! I don't want it!"

Also, because America really needs a war right now, to take peoples minds off of politics, and the economy needs the boost.

i heard that one I guess there's no avoiding it. Typical

[Cbass]

What do you mean by that?

[Monkey-Magic-S15-R]

Originally posted by Cbass
What do you mean by that?

it was on BBC.co.uk

financial Analysts at some research facility of some sort ...i can't find the article anymore said that a short sharp war would boost the American Economy

and Bush seems so desperate to run in for a good war.

I think i heard that before .............. it went something like

"there's nothing like a good war to boost the economy"

[supratuner]

Originally posted by Cbass
and the economy needs the boost.

bush has been promising for the pass year that he will fix the economy, he hasnt yet, now he wants to cut taxes, dont get me wrong but right now tax cuts are the last thing we need, in school we have to buy a lot of shit for the first time ever, cuz they wont give the teachers money, my high school alone has to cut spending by $70,000 next year,

taxs are where the troops get their pay, how r we gonna pay an army when all we do is cut taxes?

o wait, we gave so much money to the familys of the fire fighters of 9-11, once again dont get me wrong, but we did not need to go aroud giving each kid, wife, and family member of the fire fighters who lost their lifes on 9-11 $1,000,000. why did we do that? $500,000 would have been more than enough, then we could have used more money for the army that is busting their ass's for us

[Cbass]

The money given to those families does not add up to much, when you consider the budget of the US.

Rest assured, the troops will always be paid, they're the ones who would keep the government in power should the shit hit the fan.

The tax cuts are largely for corporations, based on the principle that if the rich have more money, they will spend more! If you consider someone might make $3 million in a year, how much are they really going to spend? With houses, cars, boats, what else are they going to buy? The only option left is to invest in making more money.

Of course the tax cuts come at the expense of the standard of living of the 95% who can't afford private schools, medical care when their family gets sick.

The tax cuts do go to those who pay the most taxes, as YogsVR4 is quick to point out, but these are the people who already have everything, and more money than they can actually spend, barring extravagant purchases, such as apartment buildings, small islands etc.

The people who really do need the tax breaks are the people living paycheck to paycheck, who are gaining debt at an alarming rate. Who do they owe the money to? The banks who lend it to them, the same banks who recieve the massive tax cuts, the same banks who contribute vast amounts of money to both parties.

If your net worth is less than $1 million, you mean nothing to the US Gov't.

[Monkey-Magic-S15-R]

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentSe...=1012571727085

that is all

[Cbass]

That seems pretty biased to me, they didn't mention how the agreement they reached in 1994 called for the US to build 2 nuclear power facilities for them, in exchange for the used plutonium. This never happened, and there is only speculation on the part of America that they intend to build nuclear weapons.

In fact, it seems to me, that the only thing that the US can really say they are doing is resuming construction of a nuclear power plant, and there is nothing threatening, illegal or otherwise bad about that.

From FT

The spent fuel rods have been in secure storage since 1994, under a nuclear freeze agreement struck with the United States that year. But after American officials confronted Mr. Kim's government last October with evidence that it was violating the agreement by pursuing a new, clandestine nuclear program, North Korea renounced the 1994 agreement. It threw out international inspectors on New Year's Eve, and now appears to be moving the rods.

After the US failed to meet ANY of it's obligations in the agreement of '94, the Bush administration "confronted Mr. Kim's government last October with evidence that it was violating the agreement by pursuing a new, clandestine nuclear program", yet there is no mention of what this evidence is, or any proof that there was evidence. This smacks of propaganda.