Skip to comments.
Trulying Sickening Picture - Caption if you will
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20041121/capt.sge.hut10.211104064536.photo00.photo.default-372x274.jpg ^
| 11-20-04
| None
Posted on 11/20/2004 11:08:02 PM PST by tallhappy
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: apec; bluetie; bush; chicoms; china; communist; crankying; dopeying; funnying; grumpying; happying; hu; ifiwereking; ineed2bitch; malcontents; noredtie; scum; sleepying; smile; smileying; tallhappytwit; trulying; walmartgreeter; wheezying; why
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-126 last
To: tallhappy
As I said. Grow up. What?
121
posted on
11/21/2004 9:13:30 PM PST
by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
To: tallhappy
Same as us, lean on him; covertly threaten Jong-Ill with the possibility of a joint American-Chinese military reaction to any N. Korean nuclear aggression.
Behind us, China is the only remaining superpower in the world, and the possibility of retaliation or reaction from Korea's stronger nation to the North is a useful bargaining tool. I think that this possibility (however slight) is the unspoken "elephant in the room" that Bush is using to make certain that Kim doesn't leave the table for good.
122
posted on
11/21/2004 10:06:57 PM PST
by
RockAgainsttheLeft04
("America...F**K YEAH !" -Team America: World Police)
To: RockAgainsttheLeft04
Same as us, lean on him; covertly threaten Jong-Ill with the possibility of a joint American-Chinese military reaction to any N. Korean nuclear aggression.
Why do we need China for this if it is a "military reaction"?
Why do we need a "joint" reaction of any kind?
Why would a joint reaction have to be with China?
123
posted on
11/21/2004 10:18:11 PM PST
by
tallhappy
(Juntos Podemos!)
To: tallhappy
Because the U.S. + China is a nuclear deterrant like the world has never seen. No argument can be made to stop Korea's nuclear weapon programs that is more effective that the fact that the U.S. and China run #1 & 2 in worldwide nuclear might, and we are not to be toyed with by a tin-pot loony like Kim Jong-Ill.
The presence of China, another communist nation and dictatorship (but one with a vested interest in containing the rogue nation to it's southern border) at the negotiating table also gives the situation a kind of good-cop/bad-cop attitude that we may need if we are to convince Jong-Ill that giving up the nukes is his only option.
"Trust but Verify".
124
posted on
11/21/2004 10:59:32 PM PST
by
RockAgainsttheLeft04
("America...F**K YEAH !" -Team America: World Police)
To: RockAgainsttheLeft04
Is the US not a "nuclear deterrant like the world has never seen" itself? Do we not have enough nuclear firepwoer alone to act as a deterence? What does China bring? And, your same argument can apply to Russia or France. Why are they not crucial?
PS, check you geography.
125
posted on
11/22/2004 12:36:40 AM PST
by
tallhappy
(Juntos Podemos!)
To: tallhappy
Los crikitos el chirping.
126
posted on
11/24/2004 7:44:11 AM PST
by
tallhappy
(Juntos Podemos!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-126 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson