Forums / Political & Legal / Ronald Reagen to Kim Yong-IL

6 years 1 week ago, 12:05 PM

LLE

LLE's picture

Rank:
General
Points:
2869
Join Date:
Jul 2008
Location:
United States

I am really angry and frustrated at Bush's removal of North Korea from the Terrorist list, and I began fantasizing what a REAL President would have done, rather being suckered, along with five other countries. This led me to consider what Ronald Reagen would have said to Premier Kim, as we approached the point of no return.
It is the height of irony that our present President would invade Iraq and depose Saddam, based on analysis by the PNAC and his own desire to demonstrate to his father, that he was a better, stronger man, with bigger cojones than his dad ever had--demonstrated by his father's failure to "go all the way" in the Gulf War. G.W. knew there was no reasonable chance that there actually were WMD's in Iraq; so compulsive was his hatred for his previously abusive father, that he resolved to justify the invasion no matter what got in the way--most importantly intelligence reports that would have to be modified, distorted or ignored, and no matter who had to be hung out to dry politically, or killed or maimed in combat. He did what had to be done to achieve his objective to humiliate his dad, and laugh at him when GHW said "don't do it". Contrast that, with the following: We KNOW about North Korea's nuclear research, reactor capability, fissionable material production, nuclear device testing, ICBM testing and almost virulent animus toward the free world. And what has Bush done? All of a sudden we see caution, reasonableness, willingness "to talk", and inordinate patience. Where in hell was that behavior with Iraq?----we now know the answer to that.
So, I asked myself, "what would Ronald Reagen be doing at this point?".
Let me share with you, what I think Ronnie would be up to. He was a believer in "speak softly, and carry a big stick", knowing also, that the big stick sometimes must be brandished. You need to remember that he was an actor, and enjoyed putting on the mask of his own brand of Cowboy/good old boy, when it suited his purpose. But many people learned that the more you heard the self-efacing, aw shucks, and chuckles, the more you better be watching your ass!

EYES ONLY---KIM YONG-IL from Ronald Reagen------------------------------
Sir; Recently, you have seen fit to threaten the security of the world by testing ICBMs and nuclear devices. The UN has asked you nicely not to do those things, but you have ignored their politely expressed concerns. I, however, on behalf of the people of the United States of America, do not privately have to be similarly polite. I will be direct and clear.
Should you, however, see fit to have this communication leaked to the media, I will, in my next international press conference, chuckle, shake my head, and state before the world, "Well, we thought he was kind of unusual in his thinking, and somewhat strange in his behavior, and I guess this pretty much proves it. I wonder why he would want to fabricate something like this". [Your Staff may recognize this as plausible denial, and I am sure they will tell you that my credibility is excellent around the world].

Now, Mr. Premier, to business: If you test launch another ICBM while I am in office, you should expect that we will be doing some testing of our own, in your vicinity. My guess is we will test several of our new, advanced developmental stage, submarine launched IRBMs, and experimental ship launched cruise missiles. I am sure you are familiar with the vagaries of such tests, and how such things as launch paths and trajectories can sometimes unexpectedly become compromised. We remember in fact, several of your tests that came dangerously close to our friends in Japan. We certainly will do everything to prevent such problems, and especially to prevent impacts on any land masses, including especially the remote areas of your missile test complexes. But who can tell what might happen? Similarly, should you see fit to test another nuclear device, we undoubtedly will test some of our tactical nuclear devices installed on several experimental delivery systems. You might be interested in knowing that we are developing a homing system that seeks geographical locations in which nuclear explosions have left even the smallest radiation footprints. Of course, if one of our tests flights got away from us, right after one of your nuclear tests, that might endanger your nuclear test complex. We certainly would hope to avoid such a possibility. But again, who knows what might happen?
Mr. Premier: Many people around the world believe that the USA no longer has the resolve to use nuclear weapons, because of the terrible aftermath of the two used against Japan, in WW II. Many believe that we have been in a remorseful state of self-flagellation for having done so.
If that is your belief, let me remind you that President Truman's very difficult decision saved the Allies an estimated 1 1/2 million military lives. I want you to know that I could do no less, on behalf of my country and our Allies.
The "bottom line", as we capitalists like to say: You will not be permitted to threaten the security of the world, either by missiles, nuclear weapons, or other WMDs --and this is very important-- whether used by you, or because you sold such weapons to Islamo-Terrorists or other such internationally ambitious criminals. The consequences of such actions would be grave for North Korea, indeed. One more thing: if the State of Israel is attacked with weapons you provided, this will be considered an attack on the United States of America, and such an action will be met with the full retalliatory force and resolve of my country. However, Mr. Premier, it does not have to be that way. If you would like to talk, please by all means give me a call.

Have a very nice day,

Ron Reagen

Too old to fight, Too old to run, guess that's why I carry a gun! "would someone show this asshole the way out of town".[Rabbi Avram Belinski-aka "The Frisco Kid"]
6 years 1 week ago, 2:31 PM

Pkato

Pkato's picture

Rank:
General
Points:
3348
Join Date:
Aug 2008
Location:
Fort Walton Beach, Florida, United States
LLE

You know I couldn't let this go without conmment...but, in a previous message I alluded to this type of commenting. The first part you blame our invasion on GW's hatred of and abuse by his father (This was actually the first I ever heard of this, but then again maybe I just missed it). Yet you give no proof of it...no supporting evidence, no website etc etc...that amounts to heresay and STRICTLY opinion. Next point I have a problem with is your REAL President part (Bush is a REAL president). You do not get to decide this...whether you disagree with everything he has done or not, he is still the REAL President and he is YOUR REAL President.

Next, you write like you know what is going on between the US-China-Russia-South Korea-Japan and North Korea...well, I can tell you with almost certainty, that you DO NOT have any inside information and once again you offer no proof of anything...I know what is talked about on television, on the news shows, etc. But do you really know what's behind taking N. Korea off the terror sponsoring states list? I haven't heard jack-shit (but then again I don't have all the access to the news as you do in the US).

Now, I do like your made up conversation between the two leaders and it is evident that you do admire Reagan (but least spell his name correctly)...and I do agree, that what you wrote would probably be very close to an actual dialogue between the two, if Kim Jeong il could speak English (he may, I don't really know).

I guess my biggest point to all of this and I don't really disagree with you, except on a few things, overall I think we actually have similar ideas. However, I do feel that the war we are fighting in Iraq and elsewhere is bigger, more complex than most people can even understand. (I will explain what I mean later).

It just bothers me when opinions, ideas, rantings, etc...whatever you want to call it, are portrayed as truth. I always try to portray what I write as my opinion or when I forward stuff, I usually (unless I just forget or I know it will viewed as a joke) try to attribute it with websites, where I found it, etc etc. That's the biggest problem I had with your post...it comes off as if it's fact. The media uses this tactic and many people just blindly follow it and believe it.

OK...back to Iraq and I really do want your input on this (although I know you will respond to all of this and I enjoy going back and forth and I have absolutely no hard feelings...I actually enjoy it). First and foremost, IRAQ did possess CHEMICAL WEAPONS and BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS. Did we find them after we invaded? NO! Does that mean they weren't there? NO! Could they have been moved out? YES! Was there enough time to move them? YES! We warned Saddam for months of what his actions/non-actions were going to mean (that we would invade his country). He had plenty of time and anybody with a brain in his head, once he realized he was going to be invaded, would have two options in my mind: 1. use them 2. get rid of / hide them

From the state of the union address by President Bush in 2003:

"Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons."

"Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction."

"For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country."

"It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened. The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it."

"The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it."

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them."

"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

Now...as we did state our intentions, the whole thing could have been avoided, if Bush just decided not to invade, however he did and congress authorized it. However, Saddam also could have just given in to the pressure and it would have possibly been avoided too. Well, we all know the history and it did occur.

The reason I think we truly went to Iraq and I also found it written in an article, that actually is against us going to Iraq: Now, I can't find Bush's words, stating this, but from the beginning this is how I thought (Back then I was in the US Air Force, about 3 years from retirement). I always thought we went in, because fighting terrorism is bullshit, it can't be defeated totally by an Army. It's a war of ideals...they believe, they are better than us, that their religion makes them better in everyway and the only way to make everyone understand this is to make them Muslim or kill them (us). Terrorism can only be defeated by other Muslims, by the people being oppressed and Iraq was a perfect place to put in a government that was 1. sympathetic to us 2. was a democracy (or as close as possible in the middleast) and 3. replace a dictator who at the very least was supportive of suicide bombers in Israel/Jerusalem, West Bank etc. Will it work? I don't really know, but I do believe that we won't know for a longer time than we have given it so far. I believe this is and always was a long term strategy, no matter what the media stated or even what Bush was willing to admit publicly. Here is the information from the website:

"Nowadays, Bush's praises are sung for bringing democracy to the Middle East. There is no question that we must support the best outcome possible for the citizens and government of Iraq. But we should not overlook how we arrived at this point. Should we hold our government accountable for the supreme crime, condemned at Nuremburg—a war of aggression?

Bush probably did use benevolent arguments saying something like we need to 'plant democracy in the Middle East,' and the best way to begin is by attacking Iraq. It definitely wasn't something he said very often compared with the WMD line, but he probably did give this as a reason. Many people now believe that Bush's "over-marketing" of the WMD angle was despicable, but the more hidden reasons of democracy and liberation were still good reasons, so he's given a vote of support for that. And it may turn out to be true, that we were able to spread democracy throughout the Middle East this way (or perhaps despite this atrocity—most likely there are much more productive and humane methods to go about that agenda)."
This was posted on this website:
http://www.teresi.us/html/writing/iraq_war.html

Anyway, I know there are ways to manipulate every bit of information...I tried not to do that an supplied what verfication I could.

One more thing...I never thought I would quote an article, that quoted moveon.org...
Hey LLE, I have a Reagan Calendar on the inside of my door here in Kuwait, so I am too a big fan of Reagan and do wish Bush was more like Reagan...I agree with you wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, the closet the Republicans could come this year was Fred Thompson, who just didn't have the personality to pull it off. I do believe that the guy who shares a lot of the Reagan ideals is Bobby Jindal from Louisiana!

Patrolman Kato
Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.
They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone
under independence. -- George Washington
6 years 1 week ago, 12:07 AM

LLE

LLE's picture

Rank:
General
Points:
2869
Join Date:
Jul 2008
Location:
United States

I will try to be brief, but complete.
I really do know how to spell his name, but somehow, my brain did not connect well with my fingers!

I try not to offer opinion for fact, but sometimes they do get conglomerated. My posting was not an academic paper or thesis, and I do not feel constrained to offer "proof", as you put it. There is plenty--books and many psychological/psychiatric analyses. You might want to look at "Imperial Overstretch, Bush at War, Plan of Attack" to start. {Incidentally. the script writers of the upcoming movie "W", read 17 existing books before they ever wrote a word, so there is plenty out there].

In my first paragraph, I acknowledge that [GW] is the present President. You, however, do not have the authority to decide who I consider MY President. It is not a matter of perception of reality, it is a matter of heart and emotion. I find your statement about what I do not get to decide at least curious, and at most somewhat arrogant, and I fail to understand what it adds to the conversation.

What I know about the deliberations of the six power talks is from reportage. It will have to do as factual until it is refuted. I can tell you that it is my opinion, based upon observation of DPRK behavior over time, they have learned the primary lesson of the ancient Treaty of Hudaybiya from their Islamo-Terrorist customers. Hudaybiya teaches all true believers that disinformation, misinformation, lying, misleading, stonewalling, and all other forms of dishonesty and treachery are perfectly sanctioned, when dealing with any party that you plan [covertly] to attack. So powerful is the lesson, that Yasser Arafat, when preaching in the mosques, never forgot to remind the congregations that adherence to the principles of Hudaybiya would lead to ultimate victory over the dhimmis.[It was a code word/phrase that he thought outsiders would not understand if they overheard the sermon, but alas, the Israelis DID.]

With repect to WMD: There is little doubt that they were being worked on, and some were used on his own people; however, by the time GW was using those "facts" to support the war, many labs and supplies were destroyed, and some secreted away to Syrian mountain storage caverns with the upshot being no further production was possible. You will remember the disgraceful cohersion of Colin Powell to present before the UN. Those "facts" and pictures of mobile labs are now known to be Administration fabrications.
GW knew from intelligence reports that WMDs were gone, and nuke development never happened. GW's state of the union address has no credibility to me. He used age old UN estimates and aged intel as more of the same ammunition to justify invasion.

I do not mean to be a wise ass , but I do not need instruction on Islamo-Terrorist goals and objectives. I have read the Koran and Haddith. First, equating war with Iraq with the war on terrorism is sheer lunacy, but a good rationale for the invasion. There is no credible intel that Saddam was in league with alQaida or fellow travelers. Giving financial support?--Yes, but if that logic is used to support the attack, we also should have attacked Syria, our friends the Saudis and later Iran, at the very least.
We will never imho defeat the widespread Islamo-Terrorist regime with the attempted implantation of "democracy" in Iraq, because true believers will continue to be terrorized by their own co-religionists, Sunnis and Shiites will still be at each others throats, and both will be at the throats of the Kurds. A paper constitution has done nothing to bring them together. There is no chance imho of a shining example in Iraq, and that plays into the hands of the new Manifest Destiny purveyors. As Cheney is alleged to have said to Powell, we will be there forever. Can you guess why?

I want to thank you for your military service to this country. I recognize the pay of a contractor in harms'way may be high, but I admire that service too.
I'm glad you enjoyed my flight to fancy. I really admired old Dutch.

Sorry to say I have not heard Jindal, but people tell me he is sharp and quick.

Too old to fight, Too old to run, guess that's why I carry a gun! "would someone show this asshole the way out of town".[Rabbi Avram Belinski-aka "The Frisco Kid"]
6 years 1 week ago, 8:32 AM

STEVE WILLIAMS

STEVE WILLIAMS's picture

Rank:
Colonel
Points:
111
Join Date:
Sep 2008
Location:
allenstown, new hampshire, United States
i agree

ronald reagan was the last president worth anything, since then its been con men and complete idiots...

steve williams
6 years 1 week ago, 9:49 AM

LLE

LLE's picture

Rank:
General
Points:
2869
Join Date:
Jul 2008
Location:
United States
I'm Not sure.....

I would use those descriptive terms. Both Clinton and Bush exhibit pathological personality characteristics that could have, and sometimes did, cause great harm.

Too old to fight, Too old to run, guess that's why I carry a gun! "would someone show this asshole the way out of town".[Rabbi Avram Belinski-aka "The Frisco Kid"]

Who's Online

Guns Lot Activity
Users
Currently Active Users: 454 (0 members and 454 guests)

Users Active within the last 24 hours
captmax, DanO, tallguy007, Caber, nobile157, presslerms
Guns Lot Statistics
Stats Topics: 8,654, Comments: 161,088, Members: 23,517
Welcome our newest member: Hank6046

Recent Activity