|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Temporarily. Counter measures will be developed. |
what ? There is no counter measure . |
Oh really? So Russia couldn't slip OBL a warhead? China couldn't start lacing all their exports with anthrax? It's outright recklessness to not even consider that there could be ramifications.
| Quote: |
| You know North Korea has lots of big guys focused on Seoul , the US can't take them all out except with nuclear weapons. But the US can't use nuclear weapons cause of the radiation. However if the US had ROG different story. |
We've been through this. The RsOG are unfeasible along the DMZ. Unless you've decided that wiping out the South's border patrols is acceptable collateral damage.
You also forget that China supports North Korea and they have nuclear weapons. Are we going to be able to take out every single Chinese warhead instantaneously? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Oh really? So Russia couldn't slip OBL a warhead? China couldn't start lacing all their exports with anthrax? It's outright recklessness to not even consider that there could be ramifications. |
What would the US do to them.
and Russia would give OBL a nuke and China or would ? they have their own problems with Chenchnya or the Uhgars
And giving OBL a nuke would not save Iran or Wazeristan from RoG.
| Quote: |
| We've been through this. The RsOG are unfeasible along the DMZ. Unless you've decided that wiping out the South's border patrols is acceptable collateral damage. |
Why would they be unfeasible? the US could just target them a little into NK?
| Quote: |
| You also forget that China supports North Korea and they have nuclear weapons. Are we going to be able to take out every single Chinese warhead instantaneously? |
That is why the US has nuclear weapons. YOu think China would go to nuclear war over North Korea? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
JOE WILSON DID NOT TELL THE TRUTH
| Quote: |
End of an Affair
It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.
Friday, September 1, 2006; A20
WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.
Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. Jeffrey
Smith, who quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.
It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.
That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified.
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously. �
2006 The Washington Post Company |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Oh really? So Russia couldn't slip OBL a warhead? China couldn't start lacing all their exports with anthrax? It's outright recklessness to not even consider that there could be ramifications. |
What would the US do to them. |
Hmm, what do you think? And what would they do in return?
| Quote: |
| and Russia would give OBL a nuke and China or would ? they have their own problems with Chenchnya or the Uhgars |
Minor problems compared to an imbalance of power. See Russia's threat to put missiles in Kaliningrad as an example. An imbalance of power creates a situation where one side must attempt to reestablish balance. Granted, it's what drove the Soviets out of business. But with terrorists, the costs are a lot lower.
| Quote: |
| And giving OBL a nuke would not save Iran or Wazeristan from RoG. |
At this point, Iran wouldn't be of much concern now, would it?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| We've been through this. The RsOG are unfeasible along the DMZ. Unless you've decided that wiping out the South's border patrols is acceptable collateral damage. |
Why would they be unfeasible? the US could just target them a little into NK? |
And are you going to be able to strike every NK missile installation in a matter of minutes? Are you going to able to wipe out the entire NK forces in a matter of minutes? Once the ROG start falling, it's open season on the ROK. If you don't utterly destroy North Korea in the first few minutes, your supposed strategic advantage is nothing.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| You also forget that China supports North Korea and they have nuclear weapons. Are we going to be able to take out every single Chinese warhead instantaneously? |
That is why the US has nuclear weapons. YOu think China would go to nuclear war over North Korea? |
They just might go nuclear over an otherwise insurmountable US strategic advantage.
FWIW, one possible counter to the ROG:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/12/INGS6HID5A1.DTL
| Quote: |
And even if rods from God did succeed, it would probably be a one-time thing, like the Israeli raid on Osiraq. Rogues would soon figure out that they now had to build their deep underground sites beneath densely populated cities instead of in remote areas, which has already been done by the Russians, who built amazing subterranean command and control facilities below Moscow during the Cold War.
Who would order a rod strike on a city? It would take either a sociopath or someone with exceptionally steely resolve to drop iron rods on an innocent civilian populace. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:54 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
In defense of Joo (  ), you can't test nukes sanely under a populated city, so I don't necessarily see it as a one-off deal. On the other hand, I don't take much stock in a largely theoretical weapons system as some easy solution to the world's woes.
Then we have this:
| Quote: |
| Exactly. Whiners and bedwetters take note. |
while at the same time, we have several apparent "whiners and bedwetters" still talking about Clinton.
Am I to take it that, when a liberal takes control of the White House, the whole cast of Hee-Haw here is going to take the "stiff-upper-lip approach" and not say jack if the liberals' flying monkeys out a CIA agent and then get off doing time for such actions?
Or are the whole lot of you gonna whine and wet your beds? 
What I find even more interesting is that the board's very own "dispassionate historian" was one of the first to jump in here and say that the Constitution provides for this action.
Well, guess what!? The Constitution also provides for impeachment. That isn't illegal, either. But when people bring up impeachment, our "dispassionate historian" says that's a no-no. Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.
But he's ready to rant about CIA agents getting outed...(by liberals) and Hollywood exporting anti-Americanism... (via liberals).
Bravo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Missing Eighteen Minutes?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/07/04/not_all_would_put_a_heroic_sheen_on_thompsons_watergate_role/
| Quote: |
Not all would put a heroic sheen on Thompson's Watergate role
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | July 4, 2007
WASHINGTON -- The day before Senate Watergate Committee minority counsel Fred Thompson made the inquiry that launched him into the national spotlight -- asking an aide to President Nixon whether there was a White House taping system -- he telephoned Nixon's lawyer.
Thompson tipped off the White House that the committee knew about the taping system and would be making the information public... It was one of many Thompson leaks to the Nixon team, according to a former investigator for Democrats on the committee, Scott Armstrong , who remains upset at Thompson's actions.
"Thompson was a mole for the White House," Armstrong said in an interview. "Fred was working hammer and tong to defeat the investigation of finding out what happened to authorize Watergate and find out what the role of the president was."
The view of Thompson as a Nixon mole is strikingly at odds with the former Tennessee senator's longtime image as an independent-minded prosecutor who helped bring down the president he admired...
Indeed, the website of Thompson's presidential exploratory committee boasts that he "gained national attention for leading the line of inquiry that revealed the audio-taping system in the White House Oval Office."
But the story of his role in the Nixon case helps put in perspective Thompson's recent stance as one of the most outspoken proponents of pardoning I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. |
Indeed.
| Quote: |
| Thompson declared in a June 6 radio commentary that Libby's conviction was a "shocking injustice . . . created and enabled by federal officials." |
Yeah, those "liberal" Republican judges! Traitors, I's tells ya! Traitors!
| Quote: |
| Thompson, in his 1975 memoir, wrote that he believed "there would be nothing incriminating" about Nixon on the tapes, a theory he said "proved totally wrong."Continued.. |
Well, of course! He gave them time to erase those parts. They just weren't thorough enough... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Huff and Joo,
It's bad enough that you hijack a thread.
Then you toss out an undefined TLA.
The you expand the TLA to QsLA.
How do expect the rest of us to follow along? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:29 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:02 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
I think someone posted a list like that back on page 2 or so. You might be a bit late.
How many of them served as hatchetmen for Clinton?
Moreover, who said they approved of Clinton's commutations?
Moral relativism.
Again though, it's good to know that this is all hunky dory. Once the Republicans vacate the White House, there will be no more of this bedwetting.
Those will be very noble days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Speaking of the Clintons' attacking the W. Bush Administration for this pardon and "hypocrisy," there are some interesting names on this list... |
To you and all others making this illogical assertion: Irrelevant. What Clinton did or did not do (and I objected to the Rich pardon) has nothing to do with what Bush has done. At all. The only discussion that belongs in is one of the character of Clinton. You can start another thread on that, so why hijack this one?
If you want to look at whether Bush's actions are consistent, fine. Look at his other 100+ pardons. If you want to look at Bush's ethics, look at how his pardon of Libby broke virtually all the typical procedures and guidelines for pardons. If you want to compare Bush's pardon of Libby to other Presidents' pardons, you'll have to find one where:
1. It interfered with an on-going legal process that the president had previously said it was wrong to interfere with.
2. The pardon protected the president issuing it.
3. The pardonee had not served any time or any part of his sentence.
4. The president had claimed anyone involved in any leak would be punished, but then renegged when his administration was caught red-handed.
Etc.
I don't think you will find many, if any, that fit.
Further, if you are going to attack Clinton, you have to also attack Bush I and Reagan, who also pardoned more than 300 people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1. It interfered with an on-going legal process that the president had previously said it was wrong to interfere with.
The process was over.
The pardonee had been found guilty and had been sentenced.
Done. Over. Finished.
2. The pardon protected the president issuing it.
How? The president didn't do anything, he was exonerated.
3. The pardonee had not served any time or any part of his sentence.
Don't lie. That's not true. He paid his fine.
4. The president had claimed anyone involved in any leak would be punished, but then renegged when his administration was caught red-handed.
He paid a fine. That is punishment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Imbroglio wrote: |
Good!
The whole thing was a politically driven liberal witch hunt anyway. |
This kind of post reveals much about what is wrong with America. The truth shall out:
[quote]Go down the list.
1. Attorney General John Ashcroft. Decided a special prosecutor was needed and then recused himself from the decision because of his proximity to the probable targets of the investigation.
2. James Comey. Yes, he's the darling of the Dems now because he spilled the beans about the hospital stand-off. But Comey is, dare we say it, a REPUBLICAN. And not just any Republican but a pretty tough law-and-order type who only months earlier had been appointed Deputy Attorney General by President Bush. He had it in for Scooter? He let his partisanship get in the way?
3. Patrick Fitzgerald. Again, a darling of the Dems now for obvious reasons. But anyone who knows the guy's history knows that while this registered independent may not lean ideologically right (in the way movement whacks might recognize) he certainly doesn't lean to the left. It's no accident that his appointments have come under Republicans.
4. Judge Reggie Walton. Let's start with this: He was appointed by George W. Bush. And if that doesn't do it for you, he was appointed to previous judicial appointments by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
A mere calling of the roll like this puts into a razor-sharp relief just how silly these claims are. At every step in the process Libby's fate was in the hands of someone who was either himself a staunch Republican or had been repeatedly appointed by staunch Republicans. The only thing is that no one ever passed him off into the hands a Bush loyalist. And that's the key.[/quote
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015021.php |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
By the way the leak did not come from the White House.
Why was the leaker never prosecuted? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's on quite like Libby's but it was for money rather than politics.
Henry Gabriel Cisneros (born June 11, 1947) is an American politician, businessman, and community leader. He was the first person of Hispanic background elected as mayor of a large American city, and later served as U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 1993 to 1997. He left public office, after pleading guilty to making false statements to federal officials. He is currently Executive Chairman to CityView an investment company that finances homebuilders with over 6,000 homes in its investment portfolio.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Hmm, what do you think? And what would they do in return? |
I would guess it isn't worse than the worst that the US can give them.
More importantly if big if Iran runs to Russia and China for protection that is not a bad thing. Why cause Russia and China will then place limits on Iran's actions.
| Quote: |
| and Russia would give OBL a nuke and China or would ? they have their own problems with Chenchnya or the Uhgars |
| Quote: |
| Minor problems compared to an imbalance of power. See Russia's threat to put missiles in Kaliningrad as an example. An imbalance of power creates a situation where one side must attempt to reestablish balance. Granted, it's what drove the Soviets out of business. But with terrorists, the costs are a lot lower |
.
Again the Soviets are not going to give stuff to AQ? ROG would not really change the balance with the Soviets anyway since they still have thousands of nuclear weapons.
| Quote: |
| And giving OBL a nuke would not save Iran or Wazeristan from RoG. |
| Quote: |
| At this point, Iran wouldn't be of much concern now, would it? |
No Iran is a lot weaker than Russia or China but they are more irrational and less willing to compromise.
Russia and China for the most part want to make money most of all . Iran is interested in other things.
| Quote: |
| And are you going to be able to strike every NK missile installation in a matter of minutes? Are you going to able to wipe out the entire NK forces in a matter of minutes? Once the ROG start falling, it's open season on the ROK. If you don't utterly destroy North Korea in the first few minutes, your supposed strategic advantage is nothing. |
ROG + the hypersonic cruise missile + the rest of what the US has would do the trick.
But yes ROG is very powerful, for more powerful than anything anyone has ever seen since the atomic bomb.
It would in fact do the trick it would in combination be enough to virtually destroy the forward based portion of the North Korean army.
| Quote: |
| They just might go nuclear over an otherwise insurmountable US strategic advantage. |
ROG would not be enough to take out all of Chinas nuclear forces but it would do the job on North Korea or Iran.
FWIW, one possible counter to the ROG:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/12/INGS6HID5A1.DTL
| Quote: |
And even if rods from God did succeed, it would probably be a one-time thing, like the Israeli raid on Osiraq. Rogues would soon figure out that they now had to build their deep underground sites beneath densely populated cities instead of in remote areas, which has already been done by the Russians, who built amazing subterranean command and control facilities below Moscow during the Cold War.
Who would order a rod strike on a city? It would take either a sociopath or someone with exceptionally steely resolve to drop iron rods on an innocent civilian populace. |
[/quote]
Well some one like Iran or North Korea would never know. Besides it would still be used to target their military.
and the US could always give a months notice of the strike.
Also ROG would be deployed to counter states that probably would have no qualms about killiing off an innocent civilian populace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
