luckydog71 said:
It should not surprise you FK that I do not subscribe to your theory that it is all Bush's fault. To believe your theory would mean you would have to believe that North Korea developed the nuke in 5 short years. I believe they had a nuke program long before W came to office.
While it's not all Bush's fault he is, obviously, the guy who is presently sitting in the Oval Office. He's got to deal with the situation. And it is, obviously, a situation made worse by his idiotic "Axis of Evil" bullshit.
luckydog71 said:
It is possible that China is actually supporting these tests and for world consumption is showing their displeasure. There is no way China could perform the tests inside Chnia, but they would benefit greatly from the advances made in the North Korea tests.
What advances? The nuke test in NK is widely thought to be have been of a low yield. Perhaps much smaller than the yields the US atomic bombs used over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
luckydog71 said:
The world is definitely dividing into 2 major camps and it is possible we could see a major eruption.
Creating two major camps is usually the goal of those who preach silly shit like "if you're not for us then you're against us." Gees why do the Republicans come to mind?
luckydog71 said:
It is very possible North Korea or Iran could provide a bomb to a terrorist organization. The terrorist detonate the bomb in the U.S.
LD, terrorists interested in such really don't need to call on North Korea or Iran. There has been missing nuke weapons or parts for them for a good 30-40 years, and I'm not referring to those missing from accidents.
luckydog71 said:
If that happens you know the US will retaliate against whoever they think is responsible. No proof will be required, if there are 100,000 Americans killed in the streets of their home town. The reaction will be quick, the B1s will be loaded and airborne before the nuclear cloud has disapated.
Careful, that is a Republican wet dream.
luckydog71 said:
There seems to be a large group of countries who believe they can be neutral. I do not support Ws approach “you are with us or you are against us”, but those who want to be neutral are not part of the solution.
That doesn't make sense. I suggest to you that you're use of "neutrals" is skewing your view of the world. See them as moderates and not as countries wholly neutral.
luckydog71 said:
Bush only has 2 years left, it is possible but not likely something will happen on his watch. However if the next president is seen by our enemies as being weak, watch out.
So then what? Have a president that starts unnecessary wars just prove how manly he is? Seems to me the cliche of "been there, done that" aptly applies to the US already.