The older part is what is making the idea of playing nice with a little
more likely going forward. However, the fact it isn't reliable is
exactly why the Cubanos have had such sway for all these years. A small
group can very much make the difference in a tight race where it is
winner take all. Thus, both parties spent a lot of time sucking up to
?Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.?
No, I don't think so.
Normally, whenever there's new leadership in a country, that new leader
will strive to establish personal ties with the leaders of other
countries that his country has economic, cultural and military ties to.
That's done just so that the leaders of those countries can pick up the
phone and discuss matters with each other that need to be discussed.
Un visiting Russia first IS a snub to China. Un is saying that his
economic, cultural and military ties with Russia are more important to
North Korea than those with China, and the Chinese won't be laughing
this one off.
I expect your CIA is watching to see if and how China responds. Surely
Un isn't stupid enough to offend the Chinese, who are probably the only
reason that the South Koreans haven't taken Un out yet.
The US made a tremendous effort after 9-11 to find out who was behind
the attack. They found out it was the Al Queda group headed by Osama
Bin Laden, which had basically taken over the country of Afghanistan.
But, at the time, G. W. Bush had his sites set on ridding Saddam Hussein
of weapons of mass destruction. And, truth be told, Saddam Hussein did
every thing he could to convince the world he was hiding something.
Iraqi officials would argue with UN inspectors to stall them while
trucks were hurriedly leaving inspection sites, and that made everyone
believe that Iraq had WMDs.
In fact, it came out afterward that Saddam's intent was to convince Iran
and the rest of the Arab world that he had WMD's so that he would
command more fear and respect in the arab world.
So, largely because of Saddam Hussain pretending he had WMD's, the Bush
WhiteHouse adopted the "Al Queda first" policy of trying to wipe out Al
Queda before setting their sites on Iraq.
On Sunday, December 21, 2014 7:17:11 PM UTC-5, nestork wrote:
All of that is correct and makes sense, except the last part. Bush went
after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan first, because Saddam was acting like he had
WMDs? Bush went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan because of the 911 attack,
end of story. At the same time, he started ratcheting up the screws on
Iraq, to comply with the cease fire agreement, UN orders, etc. that called
for them to fully cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors, account for all
WMDS, etc. When Iraq refused to comply, over a year after Afghanistan already
had been invaded, he then made the case for action against Iraq
Now there's a thought. Have the original emigres go head to head with the
original Fidelistas. Gentlemen, start your wheelchairs. It would be like
Terry Pratchett's 'The Last Hero' when Cohen the Barbarian and the Silver
Horde set off on their last mission.
I think that's part of Iran's coyness. Persians aren't Arabs and they're
mostly the wrong flavor of Muslims. They're trying to convince the Saudis
they've really got something, while trying to convince the Israelis they
don't. You have to be good at camel trading to live in that neighborhood.
Meanwhile Israel isn't talking. It would be funny if they've been running a
bluff all these years too.
On Monday, December 22, 2014 8:44:26 AM UTC-5, dadiOH wrote:
I'd like to see what you read. Clearly, the day after 911, Bush, speaking
at the WTC site, said we were going after those who did this. Within days
or weeks he was giving Afghanistan Taliban an ultimatum and the invasion
commenced shortly after, with about a month, as I recall.
This is the first I've ever heard that Bush was reluctant to go after the
Taliban, Al Qaeda in Afhanistan.
Well, that's exactly what I meant.
Bush knew that Al Queda was responsible for 9-11. All of the
information he had suggested that Saddam was hiding WMD's. So, the Bush
Whitehouse adopted an "Afghanistan first" policy of getting rid of Bin
Laden while UN weapons inspectors were dealing with Iraq, and then,
after dealing with Bin Laden, getting rid of Saddam in Iraq.
On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 7:43:58 PM UTC-5, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
That's for sure. You can ask the guy they just freed that spent years in j
there for leaving a bible at a bar.
On another NK front, I've seen two credible internet security experts
on nightly news now that say they don't believe it was NK that attacked
Sony. The latest one, from a silicon valley company, says they did their
own investigation and they believe they've indentified the real culprit
by tracking the attack, emails, etc.
They believe it was a former female employee who left Sony in May.
Apparently she knew the vulnerable ways to get in, knew their security
settup, etc. They say that there was a smoke screen put down to try
to point the finger at NK, but every one of those that they ran down,
ultimately proved to be false.
Another interesting aspect is that when this first started, the attackers
never said anything about the movie. It started with demands for money...
So, IDK. On the other hand, you would think the FBI would have better
access to all the data as to what went on, including search warrants,
cooperation from other countries, etc.
The FBI sometimes finds answers that are politically convenient. NK's
problem is like Hussein's was; throw out a constant stream of bullshit and
bluster people will eventually start to believe it.
Whether Hamlet was just woofin' when he threw his two cents in remains to be
On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:20:41 AM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
But in this case, blaming NK if it;s really a pissed off former employee,
make no sense for obvious reasons. The PO'd employee could be tracked
down, arrested, stopped. A quick victory for the FBI.
The last thing the govt or Obama needs is the issue of how to retaliate
against NK, where there are no good options and it just makes them all
Also, if it's some individual/s and they strike again, eventually it gets
figured out, then the FBI is going to look really, really dumb.
North Korea doesn't recognize any religion.
Karl Marx declared that religion is the opium of the people. He meant
that people ingest that stuff to make them forget about the pathetic
condition they live in. If they were liberated from the chains of their
kings, queens and monarchs and worked together instead, they could
improve their lives immensely without having to rely on some sort of
Diety to give them heaven in their afterlife for all the suffering they
tolerated while alive.
No communist regime that follows the teachings of Karl Marx will
tolerate any form of religion. Neither North Korea, nor China, nor
Russia, nor Cuba recognize any religion. Despite that, people in those
countries still practice their own religions in small private groups.
True. Under a repressive regime people are still going to carry their
beliefs no matter what.
My dad always told me that "if your religion makes you a better person,
I'm all for it. "
I agree with that.
It's too bad that all too often in makes people worse.
Right. That's why Pussy Riot was charged with hooliganism motivated by
religious hatred. Cuba hasn't been officially atheist since 1992. China
hosted the World Buddhist Forum in 2006 although the Dalai Lama wasn't
China has found out Buddha statues are good for the tourist trade although I
understand the one the government erected in Tibet somewhat resembles Mao.
Didn't you get the memo? The Cold War is over.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.