LTR Visa is Now available for Long Term Residency

[Kwasaki]

21 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Great for who?

Will be a horrendous mistake for anyone to attack any country who is capable of defending it'self but that said seems they're forgotten what idiots countries are made to look by the Afghanistan people. 

[craigt3365]

18 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Will be a horrendous mistake for anyone to attack any country who is capable of defending it'self but that said seems they're forgotten what idiots countries are made to look by the Afghanistan people. 

Yup. Britain, Russia and the US.  LOL

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

What absolute rubbish.  Truman issued similar warnings to Japan, which they ignored.  They then got nuked. Twice.  Richly deserved.

 

"Sage diplomats" my aching butt.   Their "sagacity" is what led up to the situation we're in today!   Trump is simply taking all the ambiguity and double-speak OUT of it, in hopes that Kim will realize the worm has turned and there'll be no more appeasement and that the usual threats, provocations, and attempts at intimidation will get Kim absolutely nowhere. 

Once again, you mean like Trump did in Syria? Why would anyone believe anything Trump has to say?

[Kwasaki]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Yup. Britain, Russia and the US.  LOL

Yep a laugh indeed and UN wants more Brit troops there, hopes it's a NO, l wouldn't go. 

 

And of course the pathetic US General is blaming Russia for supplying arms to the Telebanies,  nothing sad about all the arms they leave dumped around everywhere. 

[Salerno]

On 15/08/2017 at 11:40 AM, boomerangutang said:

Remember the 1st Iraq war?  Israel places US-made Patriot missiles protecting its cities.  Raytheon and others had an excellent showcase for their products.

Little good they did; "possibly" intercepted 1 SCUD.

 

21 hours ago, nasanews said:

It has been more 25 years sine Gulf war I remember Patriot intercept missiles were pretty effective against Saddam Scud missiles...

You remember the propaganda that they were pretty effective.

 

11 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Credible links,  please.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/21/world/patriot-missile-s-success-a-myth-israeli-aides-say.html

http://www-users.math.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/patriot.html

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/scud_info/scud_info_refs/n41en141/Patriot.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2003/03/patriot_games.html

etc.

 

Determine the credibility yourself.

[Kwasaki]

13 minutes ago, Salerno said:

Little good they did; "possibly" intercepted 1 SCUD.

Reminded me of thinking that Trump was told we have 59 old Tomahawk missiles,  OK get rid of em in Syria when you get the chance. 

[craigt3365]

6 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Yep a laugh indeed and UN wants more Brit troops there, hopes it's a NO, l wouldn't go. 

 

And of course the pathetic US General is blaming Russia for supplying arms to the Telebanies,  nothing sad about all the arms they leave dumped around everywhere. 

Russia is supplying arms to the Taliban. And it is causing problems and killing more people. Hardly pathetic for the general to complain.

 

Arms sales by all major countries is out of control.

[Kwasaki]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Russia is supplying arms to the Taliban. And it is causing problems and killing more people. Hardly pathetic for the general to complain.

 

Arms sales by all major countries is out of control.

OK the US don't supply arms they leave them lying about, no problem at all.

Blaming Russia,  just another excuse for their failure.   

[craigt3365]

11 hours ago, Salerno said:

Little good they did; "possibly" intercepted 1 SCUD.

 

You remember the propaganda that they were pretty effective.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/21/world/patriot-missile-s-success-a-myth-israeli-aides-say.html

http://www-users.math.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/patriot.html

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/scud_info/scud_info_refs/n41en141/Patriot.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2003/03/patriot_games.html

etc.

 

Determine the credibility yourself.

From 1993? Things have progressed a bit if you do some research.  LOL

[hawker9000]

20 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Once again, you mean like Trump did in Syria? Why would anyone believe anything Trump has to say?

I must've missed that.  So Syria is testing ICBMS and threatening to nuke the U.S.?

 

ROFL

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by hawker9000

[Salerno]

8 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

From 1993? Things have progressed a bit if you do some research.  LOL

You're point being?

 

Perhaps reread the posts I was replying to. LOL indeed.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, hawker9000 said:

I must've missed that.  So Syria is testing ICBMS and threatening to nuke the U.S.?

 

ROFL

 

No, it's about the fact that those on the right endorsed Trump's attack on the Syrian air base saying such things as it was a statement that needed to be made. And now Trump has withdrawn support from the faction of rebels supported by the US and has pretty much abandoned any US role in Syria.

[ilostmypassword]

23 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

What absolute rubbish.  Truman issued similar warnings to Japan, which they ignored.  They then got nuked. Twice.  Richly deserved.

 

"Sage diplomats" my aching butt.   Their "sagacity" is what led up to the situation we're in today!   Trump is simply taking all the ambiguity and double-speak OUT of it, in hopes that Kim will realize the worm has turned and there'll be no more appeasement and that the usual threats, provocations, and attempts at intimidation will get Kim absolutely nowhere. 

The reason Kim Jong Un threated to attack Guam was because that's where the B1 bombers are based that recently did a Korean flyover. Since he made that threat, no more B1 flyovers have occurred. You think Kim is the only one who backed down? 

Kim Jong-un follows familiar playbook with Guam reversal

"North Korea was particularly sensitive about the dispatching of B-1B bombers from the US Air Force base on Guam, the initial stated impetus for the North’s most recent threat, said Euan Graham, director of the international security program at the Lowy Institute for International Policy, an Australian think tank. The US hasn’t conducted any further B-1B flyovers since the threat against Guam."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-street-journal/kim-jongun-follows-familiar-playbook-with-guam-reversal/news-story/d22250a4953bc7f88c4d6c66a77fa0b0

 

And as the article points out, North Korean backtracking is not unprecendented.

 

And now Trump is actually praising North Korea for being wise.

[hawker9000]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

The reason Kim Jong Un threated to attack Guam was because that's where the B1 bombers are based that recently did a Korean flyover. Since he made that threat, no more B1 flyovers have occurred. You think Kim is the only one who backed down? 

Kim Jong-un follows familiar playbook with Guam reversal

"North Korea was particularly sensitive about the dispatching of B-1B bombers from the US Air Force base on Guam, the initial stated impetus for the North’s most recent threat, said Euan Graham, director of the international security program at the Lowy Institute for International Policy, an Australian think tank. The US hasn’t conducted any further B-1B flyovers since the threat against Guam."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-street-journal/kim-jongun-follows-familiar-playbook-with-guam-reversal/news-story/d22250a4953bc7f88c4d6c66a77fa0b0

 

And as the article points out, North Korean backtracking is not unprecendented.

 

And now Trump is actually praising North Korea for being wise.

The B-1s flew over SOUTH Korea, genius.  Kim has, and should have, absolutely nothing to say about that.   Not his country, not his territory, not his airspace; and the fact that they were Guam-based therefore has nothing to do with anything.   Furthermore, with the range they have, not to mention aerial refueling capability, they could as easily been from any number of other AFBs, so the fact that they were Guam-based is really totally irrelevant.   Last but not least, the flyovers taking place in someone ELSE'S airspace are certainly no more provocative than Kim's outlawed nuclear development program and testing, his threats and the North's outright acts of war.

 

If there's more missile testing, I'd expect (and hope) there'll be more flyovers.  No missile testing, then the psychopath has somehow managed to get the message and no need for more B-whatever "reminders".  Simple, isn't it?

 

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, hawker9000 said:

The B-1s flew over SOUTH Korea, genius.  Kim has, and should have, absolutely nothing to say about that.   Not his country, not his territory, not his airspace; and the fact that they were Guam-based therefore has nothing to do with anything.   Furthermore, with the range they have, not to mention aerial refueling capability, they could as easily been from any number of other AFBs, so the fact that they were Guam-based is really totally irrelevant.   Last but not least, the flyovers taking place in someone ELSE'S airspace are certainly no more provocative than Kim's outlawed nuclear development program and testing, his threats and the North's outright acts of war.

 

If there's more missile testing, I'd expect (and hope) there'll be more flyovers.  No missile testing, then the psychopath has somehow managed to get the message and no need for more B-whatever "reminders".  Simple, isn't it?

 

 

 

 

Hey, intellectual giant, the question isn't whether the USA had the right to do flyovers. It's about the US response to Kim's threats. In fact, if the US has stopped doing these flyovers in response to Kim's threats, the points you raise actually make the US look weaker. Kim Jong Un thanks you.