Subject:
|
Re: More on the DPRK
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:14:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
272 times
|
| |
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:HC3xvn.14rq@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Joakim Olsson writes:
> >
> > "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
> > news:HC3vLD.wMn@lugnet.com...
> > > In:
> > >
> > > http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz032103.asp
> > >
> > > Kurtz makes the case (partly by reanalysing a New Republic article • making
> > > the opposite case!) that either
> > > - war with the DPRK
> > > or
> > > - an eventual loss of a US city to terrorist nukes
> > > is inevitable as they have already been reprocessing and are not likely • to
> > > allow inspection of their facilities.
> >
> > Yeah.. better safe than sorry. Nuke em all.
>
> If that's a serious suggestion, it is a terrible idea. If sarcastic, well
> then, not reading very closely, are we? Or perhaps you were referring to • the
> DPRK strategy? Mr. Kurtz is not saying we should definitely nuke anybody.
No, I´m not reading wery closely. English is my second language. And yes, it
was sarcasm.
"Nothing short of war will stop the North Koreans from developing and
selling nuclear weapons and fuel. The question is whether we will go to war
before, or after, North Korea spreads its nuclear material"
This sounds pro-war to me, but then again.. this is my second language..
Why would DPRK sell it´s nuclear material? I don´t get it. (Language again,
perhaps)
/J
> Too bad we're at least 10 years behind on missile defense, though...
> http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller032103.asp ... all thanks to
> luddites in the DP (Democratic Party), and elsewhere.
>
> AAN(as an aside) I used DPRK just a couple of days ago, and thought I
> elaborated it then... apologies if not.
>
> BTW (By The Way), when referring to CF (Cedar Fair) properties, most • people
> use DP not DPRK for Dorney Park.
>
> ++Lar (who did KBF, WoF, MA, CP, and DP last year, only missed VF)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: More on the DPRK
|
| (...) Doesn't say nuclear there. (...) Saying that nothing else will work does not make you "pro" war. It merely makes you resigned to the inevitable (assuming your analysis is correct). (...) Their track record speaks for itself. They sell anything (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: More on the DPRK
|
| (...) If that's a serious suggestion, it is a terrible idea. If sarcastic, well then, not reading very closely, are we? Or perhaps you were referring to the DPRK strategy? Mr. Kurtz is not saying we should definitely nuke anybody. Too bad we're at (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
