# North Korea War Fever



## Circe (Mar 28, 2013)

The news today 3/28 is leading on most sites with the USA sending Stealth bombers to South Korea against the threats North Korea is constantly making.

I am interested to see that there is NO THREAD here on this entire forum about North Korea, but not surprised because this is a "Boy Crying Wolf" situation. The crazy NK style of "diplomacy," if you can call it that, is repeated threats and aggression and generally crazy talk, while nuking up as fast as possible. Iran, obviously, has also adopted this style, so I guess on some level, it works.

So NK constantly threatens war against us, but nothing has happened for decades except their small aggressions, like shooting down planes and sinking ships and firing on island populations. They kill people, but they don't actually charge over the border with their Million Man Army. And nobody here is interested, because we assume that will go on and on forever.

But what if it didn't? My belief is that people mean what they say: that's why they say it. Just because a madman talks aggressively about guns and knives for months but doesn't do anything doesn't mean he'll NEVER attack shoppers in Walmart or Target, or run around shooting up his trailer park. 

We ignored bin Laden's aggression talk, and then he started acting and took out two embassies and a Navy ship, and we STILL ignored him, because Americans care nothing about whatever goes on in other countries. But with bin Laden, this was a mistake: tearing his hair with frustration that he could not get our attention even with the embassies and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, he figured out that the only way to get our attention is to aggress against us here at home, and he bombed New York. And that worked.

I think that could be going on with North Korea. Or maybe not! Maybe it's just more of the same crazy talk. But I notice our military IS responding with caution and a beef-up of fighting capacity, wisely, IMO. Anyone else care about the possibility of war with North Korea, or are you all sure nothing can possibly happen?


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 28, 2013)

North Korea's angry rhetoric for decades with nothing happening occurred under Kim Jong Ill.  There is a different leader today.  Kim Jong Un is mostly and unknown quantity.

We have a different leader.   obama is the most incompetent president this nation has ever had.  Not only is he incompetent, but he does not permit competent people around him.  He has been systematically firing competent military leaders who don't pander to his good will.  America has no coherent foreign policy.  

Peace depends, not on obama, but on Kim Jong Un.  It isn't obama's expertise and skill that's keeping whatever peace there is, but the North Korean leader's.  And that leader, unfortunately, smells blood in the water.


----------



## Circe (Mar 28, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> North Korea's angry rhetoric for decades with nothing happening occurred under Kim Jong Ill.  There is a different leader today.  Kim Jong Un is mostly and unknown quantity.



Yeah, I've been reading just that point in several op-ed analyses. I'm somewhat reassured to see that others are taking this new strange aggression seriously, too. He's the most aggressive, so far. True, they always do a provocation after a new SK prez is sworn in, check; and it MAY be a way to unify his people: since he's not getting the food aid because of his nuclear test and there are extra UN sanctions, so threaten everyone to get his people behind him? Still, I'm not persuaded there is method to this madness: there could just be madness.



> He has been systematically firing competent military leaders who don't pander to his good will.  America has no coherent foreign policy.



I don't know who you mean, K&D? Those two generals whose affairs with women got them retired or not going on to the NATO post? There was another general in Afghanistan who got in trouble with the Rolling Stones article; IMO we're having a surprising rash of major IQ deficit in our military leadership, but I can't think of firings of generals not related to incredibly stupid and immoral behavior.




> Peace depends, not on obama, but on Kim Jong Un.  It isn't obama's expertise and skill that's keeping whatever peace there is, but the North Korean leader's.  And that leader, unfortunately, smells blood in the water.



I agree. Peace depends on Kim Jong Un not starting a war. The question is, does he want to start a war? He SAYS so, but really, we can't tell what he really intends till we see the behavior. What I like right now is that we aren't saying, "Oh, no problem, it's just talk, he doesn't really mean it." That's what Chamberlain said about Hitler, poor Chamberlain! Well, that's unfair, Hitler explicitly promised him he wouldn't go further than Czechoslovakia if they would appease him. 

German militarism before World War I. They wanted to rule Europe: they were perfectly clear about that, saying it often. And, we now know, they really meant it, and for the next 30 years, too. 

What does Kim Jong Un WANT? Does he want the whole Korean penninsula? Does he want us to back off and give him stuff? Does he want his people unified behind him the war leader?

The whole thing puzzles me. Our record surely is clear? When attacked, America absolutely hauls off and destroys the other side. I don't see any obvious reason, not China even, why we wouldn't do that this time. Does Kim somehow not recognize this rather obvious historical fact?


----------



## Circe (Mar 28, 2013)

> US sends B-2 bombers to South Korea
> 
> SEOUL (AP) - In a show of force following weeks of North Korean bluster, the U.S. on Thursday took the unprecedented step of announcing that* two of its nuclear-capable B-2 bombers dropped munitions on a South Korean island *as part of joint military drills.




Whoa, we're practicing.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 28, 2013)

Military leaders fired by obama.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal
Gen. Carter Ham
Maj. Gen. Peter Fuller
Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaourette
General David M. McKiernan
General John Allen
General James Mattis.

All total, there are 15 Generals fired by obama during his short presidebtcy.   I don't have all their names.   I did not include David Petreus who resigned due to a sex scandal.

15 generals fired.   This would be a systematic decapitation of our military leadership by any stretch.   General William Shelton was not fired, because he lied to a congressional committee on obama's behalf.  

Ham and Gauourette were fired because they colluded to create a plan to rescue the personnel at Benghazi in violation of stand down orders.  They did stand down, because their plan was to create the plan then wait for an order to execute it.   That order never came but they were fired for even thinking about rescue.

What does Kim Jong Un want?   He wants an end to the United States.  That's all.


----------



## WethePeopleUS (Mar 28, 2013)

I honestly think if NK does pop off at the South, that would be the worst mistake they ever made. I hardly think taking out the NK regime would be difficult for the U.S. but that is just my opinion.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Mar 28, 2013)

You think those Stealth Bombers are gonna' drop a few on that Joint Manufacturing Facility that South Korea has set up in N.Korea?

Neither do I.

Why would Obama sign a Free Trade Agreement with South Korea that utilizes that facility just last year and then bomb it?

Because he won't.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Mar 28, 2013)

The US should send a huge fleet of ships just off the North Korean shore and then *say* the North fired at them!

Worked in the Gulf of Tonkin.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 28, 2013)

Here is the reality of the situation.   North Korea has an insane leader, but so do WE!   At least Un was raised by a father who was the leader of North Korea.  He's got some background.  obama has nothing maintaining him but a need for an increasingly lavish lifestyle.  Un might be absolutely crazy, but he's competent.  obama is crazy and incompetent.   Not only is he incompetent, but he has eliminated anyone around him who might accidentally be competent.


----------



## ThirdTerm (Mar 28, 2013)

North Korea's threats and provocations are seen as efforts to provoke the new government in Seoul, led by President Park Geun-hye, to change its policies toward Pyongyang. North Korea's moves at home to order troops into "combat readiness" are seen as ways to build domestic unity as young leader Kim Jong Un strengthens his military credentials. Park so far has outlined a policy that looks to re-engage North Korea, stressing the need for greater trust with North Korea while saying Pyongyang will "pay the price" for any provocation.

Korean Border Open Despite NKorean Hotline Cut - ABC News


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 28, 2013)

American Communist said:


> You think those Stealth Bombers are gonna' drop a few on that Joint Manufacturing Facility that South Korea has set up in N.Korea?
> 
> Neither do I.
> 
> ...



Do you think he cares about a FTA?   If it isn't happening in his living room, it isn't happening.


----------



## Circe (Mar 28, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Military leaders fired by obama.
> 
> Gen. Stanley McChrystal
> Gen. Carter Ham
> ...



McCrystal was the Rolling Stones idiot, so I don't think you should count him.

Okay, I haven't heard anything about this "decapitation," so you know more about it than I do. There doesn't seem much about it in the news. The Benghazi thing was disgraceful, of course.




> What does Kim Jong Un want?   He wants an end to the United States.  That's all.



 Iran may well want that, because we give them NOTHING and keep them from getting stuff and from destroying Israel. We give North Korea stuff, though lately we have been preventing them from getting stuff and from selling weapons and lots of contraband like counterfeit dollars. It would make sense that NK wants the U.S. to disappear IF they want the whole penninsula: we definitely prevent that, it's our main function there.

Hmmmm. You may have a point there. Our existence does no good to NK, only harm. Still, it doesn't make sense re their constantly talking about a war. Surely they know they cannot destroy us and that we can and probably will destroy them? They have to know that, so what are they doing, I wonder.


----------



## whitehall (Mar 28, 2013)

Apparently NK is in it's starving season so they rattle sabers hoping they can extort food and money from less ignorant and savage countries.


----------



## Circe (Mar 28, 2013)

American Communist said:


> The US should send a huge fleet of ships just off the North Korean shore and then *say* the North fired at them!
> 
> Worked in the Gulf of Tonkin.



True................worked well in Havana Harbor in 1898, too. Remember the Maine.

I hope such a thing doesn't happen this time. I approve of defensive wars -- if they hit, we hit back bigtime -- but not this sort of manufactured "he started it!!" stuff to fool the American public.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 28, 2013)

Circe said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Military leaders fired by obama.
> ...



Your reliance on our leadership having an interest in protecting the nation is inflated.   This regime has no such interest, no more than it did in protecting the embassy in Benghazi.     obama would do nothing, because when and if he did anything, it would be too late.  He is the presidebt of dithering.


----------



## Bleipriester (Mar 28, 2013)

We have threads about North Korea. At least this ones:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...-reactedwith-strength-and-nuke-with-nuke.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-global-topics/267185-north-korean-satellite-in-orbit.html

While all those sanctions and embargos which threat N. Korea are simply made to keep the country "down" it is very hard to believe that the USA and EU wonder about its reactions.


----------



## Circe (Mar 28, 2013)

Bleipriester said:


> We have threads about North Korea. At least this ones:
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...-reactedwith-strength-and-nuke-with-nuke.html
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-global-topics/267185-north-korean-satellite-in-orbit.html
> ...


The first thread is yours and no one replied; I wouldn't call that a "thread," exactly. It was you saying you are on the side of North Korea and against the USA, noted. And you continue that on this thread. I don't find it useful to have discussions with overt foreign enemies of my country, as you seem to be.


----------



## Circe (Mar 28, 2013)

North Korea leader orders rocket units on standby to hit U.S. bases: KCNA 

7:00pm EDT 3/28

SEOUL - North Korean leader Kim Jong-un orders the country's rocket units to be on standby to attack U.S. military bases in South Korea and the Pacific in an emergency meeting on Friday after the United States flew Stealth bombers in a show of force to Pyongyang.
********************************************


I'm almost beginning to wonder if he means it.

Naaaaaaah, impossible.


----------



## Bleipriester (Mar 28, 2013)

Circe said:


> The first thread is yours and no one replied; I wouldn't call that a "thread," exactly. It was you saying you are on the side of North Korea and against the USA, noted. And you continue that on this thread. I don't find it useful to have discussions with overt foreign enemies of my country, as you seem to be.


Not exactly. How is North Korea a threat to the USA? 
And is North Korea really an enemy to the USA? I think it is just the USA, who is an enemy to North Korea. I just try to show the other side of the medal. You cannot call something diplomacy when only one side has a say.

"We oppose the reactionary policies of the U.S. government but we do not oppose the American people. We want to have many good friends in the United States."
- Kim Jong Il


----------



## Circe (Mar 28, 2013)

Kim seems to be trying desperately to get American attention. He can't, though -- bin Laden had the same problem. We simply are not interested in anything going on outside this country, except colorful things like the Pope washing prisoners' feet, which is a headline running now instead of Kim's threats to start a war.

There really are only two ways to get our attention. The best way is to hit our homeland; we tolerate that poorly.

The other way is to hit bases abroad, but unless there is a massive kill, that doesn't work either. That's why we have so many personnel in South Korea: the treaty always called for those to be "tripwire" troops, whose death (there are 30,000 now) would provoke a for-sure war with an indignant and angry America. I THINK that might still work.........

Does anyone think it wouldn't? It didn't work to hit the U.S.S. Cole, we blew that off. It certainly didn't work to hit the Benghazi embassy ---- we were angry, but only at other Americans, not the Libyan killers. So I'm not perfectly sure hitting our base in Korea would work to start a war, if that is what NK wants.


----------



## Bleipriester (Mar 28, 2013)

Circe said:


> Kim seems to be trying desperately to get American attention. He can't, though -- bin Laden had the same problem. We simply are not interested in anything going on outside this country, except colorful things like the Pope washing prisoners' feet, which is a headline running now instead of Kim's threats to start a war.
> 
> There really are only two ways to get our attention. The best way is to hit our homeland; we tolerate that poorly.
> 
> ...


That´s wrong.
North Korea does not plan to hit America´s homeland or kill Americans. South Korea´s Army is strong enough to be an enemy to the North. No need for US Troops to be deployed in order to defend S. Korea! 27.000 US-Troops are not that much anyway.


----------



## Circe (Mar 28, 2013)

I believe you to be a North Korean propagandist, Bleipriester. Enemy propagandists have been showing up since the beginning of the Internet whenever we are at war with a sufficiently sophisticated enemy. Iraq and Afghanistan didn't have them, but I have personally seen Russian, Iranian, Pakistani, and Serbian propagandists, and either a Chinese or North Korean propagandist already years ago. 

I will put you on ignore now because as an American I do not want to get involved in dialogue with an enemy propagandist.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 28, 2013)

Circe said:


> I believe you to be a North Korean propagandist, Bleipriester. Enemy propagandists have been showing up since the beginning of the Internet whenever we are at war with a sufficiently sophisticated enemy. Iraq and Afghanistan didn't have them, but I have personally seen Russian, Iranian, Pakistani, and Serbian propagandists, and either a Chinese or North Korean propagandist already years ago.
> 
> I will put you on ignore now because as an American I do not want to get involved in dialogue with an enemy propagandist.



The left in the US will always be an enemy propagandist.  They always have.


----------



## Bleipriester (Mar 28, 2013)

Circe said:


> I believe you to be a North Korean propagandist, Bleipriester. Enemy propagandists have been showing up since the beginning of the Internet whenever we are at war with a sufficiently sophisticated enemy. Iraq and Afghanistan didn't have them, but I have personally seen Russian, Iranian, Pakistani, and Serbian propagandists, and either a Chinese or North Korean propagandist already years ago.
> 
> I will put you on ignore now because as an American I do not want to get involved in dialogue with an enemy propagandist.


He dares to criticize. He must be an enemy propagandist.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 28, 2013)

Circe said:


> Kim seems to be trying desperately to get American attention. He can't, though -- bin Laden had the same problem. We simply are not interested in anything going on outside this country, except colorful things like the Pope washing prisoners' feet, which is a headline running now instead of Kim's threats to start a war.
> 
> There really are only two ways to get our attention. The best way is to hit our homeland; we tolerate that poorly.
> 
> ...



It's the only way that Junior Kim starts a war.. IF he has the capacity to inflict major damage on the US homeland or vital assets. That would put him (posthumously) in the Hame of Fame amongst the America haters. Won't be too long before he has a 50/50 chance of hitting SOMETHING on the West Coast. Even if it arrives on a Malyasian freighter.

I think Junior needs to procreate first and do it quickly so that there is a chance that his divine whacko legacy gets celebrated in the future crater that WAS North Korea.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 29, 2013)

Junior Kim is confident that infant obama will do nothing except threaten to scowl.


----------



## percysunshine (Mar 29, 2013)

I knew sending Dennis Rodman over to smooth things out would come back to haunt us some day.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 29, 2013)

Having Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense might be worse than Rodman.   That speech Hagel gave was no doubt most encouraging to Kim Jong Un.   Hesitant, dithering, filled with space using um, uh, if that's our dear leaders choice of who to run our defense, it's an invitation to attack.


----------



## WethePeopleUS (Mar 29, 2013)

With us sending the B-52 bombers over their, I think Kim Un will have to proceed very carefully. He threaten nuclear strikes, but is for the most part, unable to deliver. WE on the other hand, can deliver and them some. We can wipe the memory of them from the Earth. I hope he really doesn't test us. I would HATE for his people to suffer any more than they already have. If we need to liberate anyone, it should be them. There are countless humanitarian violations going on in that country.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 29, 2013)

obama will do nothing.  No matter what Kim Jong Un does, obama will do nothing.  He is more incapable of moving past bluster to action than Un is.


----------



## percysunshine (Mar 29, 2013)

North Korea plan to attack US mainland revealed in photographs - Telegraph

"The images show a chart marked "US mainland strike plan" and missile trajectories that the NK News web site estimates terminate in Hawaii, Washington DC, Los Angeles and what is thought to be Austin, Texas."


EGADS! They are shooting at liberals.


----------



## Circe (Mar 29, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Having Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense might be worse than Rodman.   That speech Hagel gave was no doubt most encouraging to Kim Jong Un.   Hesitant, dithering, filled with space using um, uh, if that's our dear leaders choice of who to run our defense, it's an invitation to attack.



It was Hagel, however, who did order the B-2s from Missouri to drop the fake munitions, in daylight so they could be seen, on a mountain near North Korea. 

I think this has a lot more style than the silly and presumably empty threats Kim constantly spouts. And it is a good warning that we can deliver a lot and they can't deliver much.


----------



## Wiseacre (Mar 29, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> North Korea plan to attack US mainland revealed in photographs - Telegraph
> 
> "The images show a chart marked "US mainland strike plan" and missile trajectories that the NK News web site estimates terminate in Hawaii, Washington DC, Los Angeles and what is thought to be Austin, Texas."
> 
> ...



Not in Austin they ain't.   It's understandable that the young new guy wants to show how tough he is, yada, yada, yada.   But the real problem is whether he knows where the line is that he can't cross.   AND what the Obama administration would do if he crosses it.   MY guess?   Nothin', a lot of talk and no action.


----------



## percysunshine (Mar 29, 2013)

Wiseacre said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > North Korea plan to attack US mainland revealed in photographs - Telegraph
> ...





WWI was stumbled into by misperceptions of intent and delays and misunderstandings in diplomatic communications.

I am sure Joe Biden will clear all this up.


----------



## WethePeopleUS (Mar 29, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> North Korea plan to attack US mainland revealed in photographs - Telegraph
> 
> "The images show a chart marked "US mainland strike plan" and missile trajectories that the NK News web site estimates terminate in Hawaii, Washington DC, Los Angeles and what is thought to be Austin, Texas."
> 
> ...



HAHA that is funny! I think the funniest thing is that analysts all over the world have said repeatedly that NK Long-Range Missiles could not reach the continental US. The closest he could get was the west coast, but we have a hell of a missile defense system there. Not to mention NORAD who watches the skies 24 hours a day. If missiles started being shot at the US jets would be scrambled in minutes, and those missiles wouldn't even see our shores. I would be however worried about our troops closer to him, in SK and Guam, etc.. I honestly think it is coming down to war. All the NK rhetoric before has never amounted to this severity. I mean Washington actually sent over a fleet of top of the line B-52 Nuclear Capable Stealth Bombers 2 days ago. That was a show of force to NK like, "Hey, we aren't bull shittin if you attack us." 

The thing that worries me is that Kim Un is young, and could be trying to carry on his family honor by attacking the US. Maybe his father told him before he died that he wanted him (Un) to complete his task and attack the US. We have no idea what was said or why he (Un) is taking this so far. Some people have said this is a response to the new round of UN sanctions that were imposed for NK last nuclear test. I don't buy that, because we constantly through sanctions on them. Something about this time is different, and all signs point to war. It is sad that it has come to this, but I think we can all agree this is long overdue. There has been constant tension since the end of the Korean War in 1953. If tension keeps building, obviously it is going to break, and that will not be good.


----------



## WethePeopleUS (Mar 29, 2013)

Wiseacre said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > North Korea plan to attack US mainland revealed in photographs - Telegraph
> ...



I would have to disagree. With all the talk of Japan and South Korea going nuclear if the US couldn't protect, Obama will have to respond to NK. If he doesn't, he runs the risk of creating 2 more nuclear states, and he does not want that (even if they are allies) even more than not having to deal with NK. So Obama will have to take action if NK strikes, or crosses a line to which they cannot return.


----------



## oldfart (Mar 29, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> I am sure Joe Biden will clear all this up.



And give up achieving peace in the Middle East?


----------



## Circe (Mar 29, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> "The images show a chart marked "US mainland strike plan" and missile trajectories that the NK News web site estimates terminate in Hawaii, Washington DC, Los Angeles and what is thought to be Austin, Texas."




I have a question. Hawaii, Washington D.C. and Los Angeles are all traditional targets........

But what have the NKs got against Austin? Is that where the latest Red Dawn movie (NKs are the villains that parachute in) was set?


----------



## Circe (Mar 29, 2013)

WethePeopleUS said:


> HAHA that is funny! I think the funniest thing is that analysts all over the world have said repeatedly that NK Long-Range Missiles could not reach the continental US. The closest he could get was the west coast, but we have a hell of a missile defense system there. Not to mention NORAD who watches the skies 24 hours a day. If missiles started being shot at the US jets would be scrambled in minutes, and those missiles wouldn't even see our shores. I would be however worried about our troops closer to him, in SK and Guam, etc..* I honestly think it is coming down to war.*



I too think this is much more serious than most people think. Most people are ignoring it, of course. It reminds me of the sudden reunification of Germany, when the Wall came down.

Looking at the past, the likeliest thing for NK to try on short of all-out war is a provocation involving a small number of American deaths --- that's what they do quite often to the South Koreans, as when they shelled that island last year. They haven't done that to us since1979 when they had that axe murder attack; two of our officers died. The deaths of South Koreans in their provocations are usually several dozen. They may try on one of those to push the heat higher to get us under their thumb better. Sink a small ship, knock a plane out of the sky, that's what they usually do to South Korea. I wonder what our response would be in that case? 

In the past we have reacted badly to ships being sunk, or even the APPEARENCE of ships being sunk by enemies, namely with instant war, except for the U.S.S. Cole, and I think we would have then but we just couldn't find the enemy, since bin Laden was a non-state actor. Japan really did believe that we would react to the sinking of much of our Pacific Fleet in Hawaii by backing off.....that's what South Korea does, back off, but we haven't, generally: we go to war. That seems to be the Asian way! To knock out ships as a serious threat and expect the other side to back off. Could NK possibly make the same mistake Japan did? I'd say no, not since WWII, but it doesn't do to assume people can't possibly be that stupid. Of course they can, and often are.

But here's another point, WeThePeople: why are we all believing the nonsense told to us by government people saying North Korea can't do this, can't do that? One newspaper pointed out that our military is right now hurrying missile defense systems into California....and would they do that if they were so sure NK can't shoot that far?

Hmmmm. At this point in a deteriorating geopolitical situation, the one thing we can be sure of is that no one in power will tell us the truth. At any rate, we know for sure Kim can hit Guam, South Korea, and Okinawa. And presumably if NK wants war, he'll go for the sure targets nearby. But I don't believe NK can't possibly hit the USA just because some Washington mouthpiece says so. I don't believe they don't have nukes yet, either.

Whether Obama would be a good warleader in a new Korean war!! That I don't have a good feeling about. He bows to people, he wants to be friends with everyone, he strikes me as weak. I'm glad he's (too slowly) pulling out of useless, stupid, losing wars that the fool Bush got us into forever ago and couldn't get us out, but I can't see Obama as a new MacArthur or even a Truman.




> Something about this time is different, and all signs point to war. It is sad that it has come to this, but I think we can all agree this is long overdue. There has been constant tension since the end of the Korean War in 1953. If tension keeps building, obviously it is going to break, and *that will not be good.*



Won't it be good? I'm not at all sure. Things could not go on like this FOREVER, what does? Especially a situation so fraught with illogic and tension. Germany unified after some 50 years, and now it's been some 50 years and the Korean penninsula needs to unify. I think Kim wants it to unify under him, but let's don't have it happen that way.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 29, 2013)

WethePeopleUS said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > North Korea plan to attack US mainland revealed in photographs - Telegraph
> ...



I hate to poop on your day -- but scrambling jets don't stop a single missile. On the West Coast or otherwise. In fact, our entire missile defense system is doubtful. Since of course the lefties nixxed any munitions in space.. Which made Star Wars and and the Ballastic Missile Defense system almost toothless. How many NK nuke missiles come thru? See below and thank the Democrats.

Almost all of them..


----------



## Pete7469 (Mar 29, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



They don't have any nuke missles, and almost all of their missle tests have failed.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 29, 2013)

Circe said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Having Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense might be worse than Rodman.   That speech Hagel gave was no doubt most encouraging to Kim Jong Un.   Hesitant, dithering, filled with space using um, uh, if that's our dear leaders choice of who to run our defense, it's an invitation to attack.
> ...



Everyone including little kimmie knows that sending those planes was an empty gesture.  Again very encouraging to north korea.  They can make the dog bark.    I hope Kim Jong Un just kicks obama's ass all over the pacific.  Drop kicks it then kicks it some more.  And it will be a huge joke on the idiocy that America has become that we could wipe them up except for a pussy commander in Fife.  Barney that is.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 29, 2013)

South Korea is a trading partner.  We send them goods and they send pregnant women here.


----------



## Circe (Mar 29, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> I hope Kim Jong Un just kicks obama's ass all over the pacific.  Drop kicks it then kicks it some more.  And it will be a huge joke on the idiocy that America has become that we could wipe them up except for a pussy commander in Fife.  Barney that is.



You want North Korea to win against the USA? 

And kill a lot of our troops?


----------



## Gracie (Mar 29, 2013)

Circe said:


> The news today 3/28 is leading on most sites with the USA sending Stealth bombers to South Korea against the threats North Korea is constantly making.
> 
> *I am interested to see that there is NO THREAD here on this entire forum about North Korea*, but not surprised because this is a "Boy Crying Wolf" situation. The crazy NK style of "diplomacy," if you can call it that, is repeated threats and aggression and generally crazy talk, while nuking up as fast as possible. Iran, obviously, has also adopted this style, so I guess on some level, it works.
> 
> ...



Yeah. I know. I tried to start one but nobody seems too concerned, so......


----------



## percysunshine (Mar 29, 2013)

North Korea says to enter state of war against South Korea: KCNA | Reuters


Artillery disposition; about 8,000 pieces in range of Seoul (only 40k from the DMZ) plus 2,000 tanks. They don't really need nukes.

IISS The Conventional Military Balance on the Kore


----------



## depotoo (Mar 29, 2013)

let's see how far he is willing to push this...


----------



## yidnar (Mar 29, 2013)

Kim Jong Un reminds me of a spoiled rich kid that wants to play with his toy soldier set even though the grown ups around him are telling him no ie...the US,Russia ect ....what scares the hell out of me is that this particular brats army is real with nukes to boot !! i would not be shocked if he throws a tantrum and crosses the DMZ !!


----------



## percysunshine (Mar 29, 2013)

depotoo said:


> let's see how far he is willing to push this...



About 40 km is all he needs. Would the US bomb an occupied Seoul?


----------



## percysunshine (Mar 29, 2013)

From the above link;

"Throughout the 1990s, US military planners assumed that a North Korean surprise attack on South Korean and US forces might succeed, at least in terms of achieving its intermediate objective of seizing Seoul. In order to accomplish this goal, North Korea would employ its two main advantages: mass artillery &#8211; already deployed within range of Seoul &#8211; and heavy armoured forces, deployed immediately north of the DMZ. In theory, a massive artillery barrage would stun defences and open corridors for armoured forces to punch through and capture Seoul before allied forces could react. In the event that coalition forces lost Seoul, US military planners estimate that approximately six US ground combat divisions including marine and army units, ten air force wings, and four to five carrier battle groups, would be required to liberate the South Korean capital."


----------



## depotoo (Mar 29, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > let's see how far he is willing to push this...
> ...



I have good friends over there in the Pacific with our military.  Even though it is more than likely bluster, him being new, it's hard to gauge his state of mind.


----------



## depotoo (Mar 29, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> From the above link;
> 
> "Throughout the 1990s, US military planners assumed that a North Korean surprise attack on South Korean and US forces might succeed, at least in terms of achieving its intermediate objective of seizing Seoul. In order to accomplish this goal, North Korea would employ its two main advantages: mass artillery  already deployed within range of Seoul  and heavy armoured forces, deployed immediately north of the DMZ. In theory, a massive artillery barrage would stun defences and open corridors for armoured forces to punch through and capture Seoul before allied forces could react. In the event that coalition forces lost Seoul, US military planners estimate that approximately six US ground combat divisions including marine and army units, ten air force wings, and four to five carrier battle groups, would be required to liberate the South Korean capital."



at least this would not be a surprise attack.


----------



## depotoo (Mar 29, 2013)

Moscow, March 30 (IANS/RIA Novosti) Russia has cautioned against aggressive posturing in response to increasingly bellicose North Korean rhetoric, saying it could spiral into violence.

"We are alarmed that along with the adequate reaction from the UN Security Council and the collective reaction of the international community, unilateral action is being taken around North Korea that involves increased military activity," Russian Foreign Minsiter Sergei Lavrov told reporters. 

He was speaking after holding talks with his Ukrainian counterpart Leonid Kozhara.

Without pointing out any specific country, Lavrov urged all sides involved in the Korean standoff to refrain from muscle-flexing.

This appeared to be a reference to the recent flare-up in tensions between Pyongyang and Washington in the wake of joint US-South Korean military exercises close to the border.

Moscow warns against muscle flexing around North Korea


----------



## Flopper (Mar 30, 2013)

Circe said:


> The news today 3/28 is leading on most sites with the USA sending Stealth bombers to South Korea against the threats North Korea is constantly making.
> 
> I am interested to see that there is NO THREAD here on this entire forum about North Korea, but not surprised because this is a "Boy Crying Wolf" situation. The crazy NK style of "diplomacy," if you can call it that, is repeated threats and aggression and generally crazy talk, while nuking up as fast as possible. Iran, obviously, has also adopted this style, so I guess on some level, it works.
> 
> ...


People mean what they say??? Get serious.  Russia and China have threaten to attack us as have half the countries in the Near East.  NK has a long history of empty threats against the US and South Korea. 

NK is making threats in order to bolster support at home and to secure assurance from the US and South Korea that they will not be attacked.  This would be a huge victory for Pyongyang because NK has never been recognized by either the US or South Korea.  There was only a truce signed in Korean War.  As far as NK is concerned the war has never ended.   

It's unlikely NK would mount an attack against anyone, and it's extremely unlikely that they would directly attack the US.

The North is incapable of a nuclear strike on the US mainland, say experts. They do not believe it can mount a nuclear warhead on to a long-range missile and are skeptical that such a missile could even reach the mainland anyway.

NK could attack US assets or allies closer to home.  Even that is very unlikely because North Korea  knows attacking US assets or allies would be a suicidal move.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 30, 2013)

Kim jong un can declare all the war he wants, but does he have the balls to go further then words? The bastards haven't had that in 50 years.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 30, 2013)

yidnar said:


> Kim Jong Un reminds me of a spoiled rich kid that wants to play with his toy soldier set even though the grown ups around him are telling him no ie...the US,Russia ect ....what scares the hell out of me is that this particular brats army is real with nukes to boot !! i would not be shocked if he throws a tantrum and crosses the DMZ !!



When? This fucker is just doing this for more food aid.


----------



## Politico (Mar 30, 2013)

Circe said:


> I am interested to see that there is NO THREAD here on this entire forum about North Korea, but not surprised because this is a "Boy Crying Wolf" situation.



That's because the Lefttoons must stay in lockstep. They bash Bush for 'manufacturing' a war. But they have no problem with Obamy doing it.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 30, 2013)

Circe said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > I hope Kim Jong Un just kicks obama's ass all over the pacific.  Drop kicks it then kicks it some more.  And it will be a huge joke on the idiocy that America has become that we could wipe them up except for a pussy commander in Fife.  Barney that is.
> ...



We have a voluntary mililtary.  If they don't want to fight for obama, they have a choice.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 31, 2013)

Pete7469 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > WethePeopleUS said:
> ...



This is the type of underestimation that got us 9.11...  They have met the test of orbiting a satellite and by that very deed -- it right now could be detonated at high altitude to create an EMP that would take out USMB and anything else with a capacitor in it.. 

Yeah -- a lot of failures... But when someone says that they are targeting you and they MIGHT have a weapon --- best to take it seriously..


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 31, 2013)

Still waiting Kim jong idiot. Where is your war? Was that just your way to whine to the world?


----------



## Flopper (Mar 31, 2013)

Politico said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > I am interested to see that there is NO THREAD here on this entire forum about North Korea, but not surprised because this is a "Boy Crying Wolf" situation.
> ...


How is Obama manufacturing a war with North Korea?  We have had long standing mutual defense treaties with South Korea.  Currently there are almost 30,000 US troops in South Korea, many within a short distance of the DMZ.  If North Korean troops cross the boarder we will be in a war regardless of who's president.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes (Mar 31, 2013)

Circe said:


> *EDITED FOR BREVITY**/CLARITY*
> 
> There really are only two ways to get [US govt] attention.
> The best way is to hit our homeland...
> ...



Nothing is going to get the US into another land war in Asia any time soon. The Bush League proved military leadership isn't up to a win against shitty little nations in Asia. It is a little bit amusing to believe these generals are ready to face human waves of well armed highly disciplined night fighters. Every military force on earth now knows for sure what the limits of US military forces are. That is the real kick in the face Bush League policy gave the United States - and Obama continued down that drain unabated. 

Should NK attack, what would happen is some kind of rear guard action until 24/7 air power blew away as many of NK forces and SK civilians in the surrounds as it takes to get control of some kind of perimeter followed by either defensive reinforcements on the ground or more likely a holding action supported by air protection and tactical attacks in NK. 

One can't be sure Obama has the brains or the cojones to vaporize the NK capital, so one doubts there would be more than tactical strikes within a larger strategy to destabilize NK into collapse. Think, Yuogslavia, only with China in the wings instead of civilized people like Russians.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 31, 2013)

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > *EDITED FOR BREVITY**/CLARITY*
> ...


There are 700,000 North Korean troops near the boarder, about 400,000 South Korean  and 30,000 US troops.  Both of these countries have been preparing for this war for 50 years so both sides are going to be ready.  If North Korean troops come across the boarder in numbers, there will be heavy casualties on both sides and the US will be in the middle of it.  Unless we go nuclear, I seriously doubt US bombing would weaken the resolve of the North Koreans.  However, any long campaign by the North would fail because they would have to rely heavily on China and Russia and both these countries have been less and less supportive of North Korean military action.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes (Mar 31, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> > Circe said:
> ...



With the exception of your apparent belief US forces are "ready" your points align with mine. Getting ready for a wave attack is like getting ready to be shot: there is no amount of preparation that reduces the shock. First US military consideration is going to be saving as many US troops as possible with little to no regard for collateral damage, second consideration is going to be a Yugoslavia style air war to drive NK back. 

The US public isn't going to stand for another land war and the military is rice crispy burnt out on deployments. The crop of generals that blew it in Iraq and Afghanistan are among the worst in history, about on par with Westmoreland or Abrams. Bag licking careerists lacking the memory of small unit combat and lacking both the vision and ability to manage politicians seen in great division/Army/theater commanders. 

No shit for brains dictator that ever wanted to kick the US down a notch or two had a better time to do it than this guy. My guess is US regular leg infantry would never leave some perimater area in SK except as occupation troops in captured areas; that the only US forces to cross the border for combat would be airborne (173d for sure) some Ranger and Seal units, and maybe some GBs/Ranger pathfinders to run intel in forward areas. 

Both China and Russia will aid NK but not like 1950. More like Canada trading with China/Vietnam and daring the US to take diplomatic action.

It isn't like all that isn't speculation, and to be clear I agree with almost all of your assessment. Just felt like adding more of my own.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 31, 2013)

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Dugdale_Jukes said:
> ...


I think China's aid would amount to practically nothing.  

Do you Realize that North Korea represents less than 1% of China's world trade while it's 62% of North Korea's trade?  North Korea doesn't even make the top 10 in China's list of top trading partners.  China does more business with South Korea than it does with North Korea.

China has far more to lose backing North Korea than it has to gain.  Any war North Korea waged without Chinese support would not last long.


----------



## Bill Angel (Mar 31, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


 I agree. I think it's time for the Chinese to stop playing footsies with that fellow, and pull the plug on supporting that regime. The Chinese have the clout to go in and tell that regime that they are fired and are being replaced with more sensible and moderate leadership, who will commence peace talks with South Korea with the aim of achieving reunification of the Korean Peninsula.


----------



## Circe (Mar 31, 2013)

So now our military is sending in F-22 Stealth fighter planes..... for the "military exercise."

Ha, they're for defense in case we need them. The Pope and the Russians have now started speaking out about this situation: I'm beginning to think it could be serious, too.

Suggestion for your viewing pleasure: This is THE time to watch the new 2012 Red Dawn if you meant to catch it. I just did (Amazon has it streaming video and it comes out April 2 on Netflix) and it's uncanny how close the movie is to right here and now. The same pols, the exact same European crisis, the same Kim Jong Un, it's all exactly like it's happening right now.

Hopefully the North Koreans won't actually parachute into Austin, Texas, however, and we have to depend on the high school football team the Wolverines to take back the country.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 31, 2013)

Bill Angel said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Dugdale_Jukes said:
> ...


I think Beijing has a problem in dealing with North Korea. China and North Korea have been allies since the 1950's.  Both countries embraced communism and stood as allies against the west. However, the two countries have taken divergent paths.  China has embraced capitalism while still clinging to communism while North Korea is as communist today as it ever was.  There is still support for North Korea in the Chinese government but that support is dwindling year by year as China becomes closer allied with the west.


----------



## Circe (Mar 31, 2013)

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> With the exception of your apparent belief US forces are "ready" your points align with mine. Getting ready for a wave attack is like getting ready to be shot: there is no amount of preparation that reduces the shock. First US military consideration is going to be saving as many US troops as possible with little to no regard for collateral damage, second consideration is going to be a Yugoslavia style air war to drive NK back.
> 
> *The US public isn't going to stand for another land war*.....




No? Not another social-work war like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, maybe -- but we have some tolerance for quick and dirty wins. Desert Storm, Yugoslavia, like that. I think it would have to be all air: I don't see us being able to do a land war, and besides ---

I know the treaty says we have to, but after all these decades, is war for South Korea REALLY in American interests?

Frankly, I can't see why it would be. Our trip-wire troops, there to guarantee that the USA will go to war, is a relic of the Cold War, and it's very WWII old-think. There are a number of commitments that are not at all obviously in our national interest anymore: Israel is one and the Korean penninsula is another, I'd say. I could be wrong, but I can't see either as crucial in 2013. If 20,000 troops get wiped out immediately, won't the American people mainly be mad at our government???





> No shit for brains dictator that ever wanted to kick the US down a notch or two had a better time to do it than this guy.



Good point........if Kim means ever to do it, this is the time. The next president he gets might be a Reagan. Or have a Rumsfeld, a pit-bull defense secretary. Obama is weak and no war president, I don't think, and we are war-weary with a broken Army and a bad deficit. I don't think he can make a good case for another Korean War, and that's a problem too.


----------



## Circe (Apr 1, 2013)

Fox News breaking about 4 PM today 4/1:




> URGENT: US Navy moves USS Fitzgerald, a ballistic missile defense destroyer, closer to the Korean peninsula in what appears to be attempt to head off military conflict in the region, as White House says threats from North Korea follow 'pattern' but must be taken seriously.
> 
> China Mobilizing Troops, Jets Near North Korean Border, US Officials Say




Our government appears to be concerned that NK might indeed mean what they keep saying over and over. The Korean situation is grossly unstable and has been for years: it cannot keep on like this forever, after all, so impoverished and pouring all national resources into weapons development in the hopes of being taken seriously -- time passes and things change. Perhaps this is the time when things change.

I suppose what Kim wants, besides respect and freedom of action, is simply what Hitler wanted: he wants all the territory with Korean-speaking people on it, as Hitler wanted the Greater Deutschland, the German diaspora of the time. Kim wants South Korea. 

CAN he take it? March south his million-man army, shelling and bombing all opposition, and simply take the country and unite it under him? It is not actually perfectly clear to me how we could stop him. Certainly not with the few troops we have there, whose function is to die and make the rest of us mad. Anybody have an idea what a battle plan might be?


----------



## PaulS1950 (Apr 1, 2013)

What will stop him is another shock and awe campaign where the entire infrastucture for war is wiped out in a matter of a day or two.


----------



## WUN (Apr 1, 2013)

Circe said:


> The news today 3/28 is leading on most sites with the USA sending Stealth bombers to South Korea against the threats North Korea is constantly making.
> 
> I am interested to see that there is NO THREAD here on this entire forum about North Korea, but not surprised because this is a "Boy Crying Wolf" situation. The crazy NK style of "diplomacy," if you can call it that, is repeated threats and aggression and generally crazy talk, while nuking up as fast as possible. Iran, obviously, has also adopted this style, so I guess on some level, it works.
> 
> ...



To me this is like the Cold War on a miniature scale. I think the ramped up threats by the young 3rd generation dictator has a lot to do with trying to consolidate power.  This isn't the first time they said the Armistice is invalid or null & void.  They've declared that several times in the past. I think Dictator Jr. is trying to show the Korean Communist party that he is just as tough as his daddy and grandpa. True they are trying to develop nuclear weapons, but neither China or the U.S. wants the Koreas to go back to war, especially since N.K. would most likely be the aggressor and it would be hard for China to back them. I think at some point they will be unified like East and West Germany, but it will take a bunch more of the old guard military in North Korea dying off before that can happen. Just keep this in mind: North Korea may be able to intially create a lot of damage in South Korea, especially in Seoul, but they don't have the resources or capability to engage in a war that lasts more than a couple weeks.  They can't even keep their people fed, so I don't know how they can keep an army of that size going for very long.


----------



## Circe (Apr 1, 2013)

WUN said:


> Just keep this in mind: North Korea may be able to intially create a lot of damage in South Korea, especially in Seoul, but they don't have the resources or capability to engage in a war that lasts more than a couple weeks.  They can't even keep their people fed, so I don't know how they can keep an army of that size going for very long.



There is talk in the news that NK doesn't have fuel enough for more than 3 weeks, and after that the soldiers have to walk. Of course, if they've conquered SK in the meantime, I guess they could fill up their tanks there.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 1, 2013)

WUN said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > The news today 3/28 is leading on most sites with the USA sending Stealth bombers to South Korea against the threats North Korea is constantly making.
> ...


I think you hit the nail on the head. Kim Jong-un like all leaders in North Korea have to prove their mettle to consolidate power and what better way than to threaten the greatest power on earth.  We see that as a ridiculous threat, but that's not the case in North Korea.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 1, 2013)

Circe said:


> Fox News breaking about 4 PM today 4/1:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Although North Korea boasts a million troops, South Korea isn't exactly unarmed.  

The army consists of the Army Headquarters, the Aviation Command, and the Special Warfare Command, with 7 corps, 39 divisions, some 520,000 troops and estimated as many as 5,850 tanks and armored vehicles, 11,337 artillery systems, 7,032 missile defense systems and 13,000 infantry support systems. 

There are some 170 commissioned ships (total displacement of approx. 153,000 tons)[9] in the ROK Navy, including approximately 10 submarines, 80 patrol craft and 20 auxiliaries as of October 2007. The naval aviation forces consist of about 10 fixed-wing and 50 rotary-wing aircraft.

The ROK Air Force (ROKAF) is a modern air force, which fields some 600+ combat aircraft of American design. In contrast, the North Korean Army has roughly 1,600&#8211;1,700 aircraft, but mostly obsolete types of Soviet and Chinese origin.


Unlike 1950, NK would find very stiff resistance from South Koreans if they crossed that 2.5 mile DMZ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Korea_Armed_Forces#Army


----------



## Franticfrank (Apr 2, 2013)

I agree that the young Kim is merely performing for a domestic audience. He's just 30 and has done little to earn his current post. The only way to get the respect of the masses in North Korea is threatening the country's greatest enemy. He was educated in Switzerland and isn't stupid enough to go to war with the US. If that does happen, he'll be deposed and the time of the Kims will be over.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 2, 2013)

Why hasn't mr.porker ordered his army to attack? Does war now mean something different?


----------



## Circe (Apr 2, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Why hasn't mr.porker ordered his army to attack? Does war now mean something different?



Apparently being in a state of war no longer means anyone actually shooting or fighting. At least on the NK side. I would think Kim would be embarrassed to make so many threats he never carries out. I don't see how this makes him look like a big leader to his people.


----------



## konradv (Apr 2, 2013)

Circe said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Why hasn't mr.porker ordered his army to attack? Does war now mean something different?
> ...



Technically there's been State of War since 1950.  A cease fire was called, but a peace treaty was never signed.  He's just reiterating the obvious to look like he's doing something.  I doubt it's anymore than that, because he knows SK could probably take care of him all by themselves and the Chinese wouldn't permit him to screw up their economic growth by starting a war that could draw them in.


----------



## Circe (Apr 2, 2013)

CNN today 4/2:



> Kerry: We won't accept nuclear North Korea
> 
> Secretary of State John Kerry's comments follow reports that North Korea plans to restart a nuclear reactor that it shut down more than five years ago.




I don't know quite what to make of this. Apparently we are pretending that North Korea does not yet have a nuclear bomb? I thought they already did and the question was simply whether they could build one small enough to put on an ICBM to hit Los Angeles? 

The other implication is that it LOOKS like Kerry is saying we'll stop them becoming a nuclear state. Does that mean he is hinting we'll bomb that nuclear reactor they want to start up to make plutonium? Kerry's statement was connected to that NK announcement.

China has for days been said to be moving troops and jets to their border with NK. Is that for military aid, or to keep North Koreans from streaming into China if war breaks out?

It is true that Obama also said the U.S. would not allow NK or Iran to become a nuclear state. (I simply didn't believe that.) Now Kerry is saying the same, quite flatly, no wiggle room. That implies that we would do something to stop them, because we sure haven't been able to stop either power nuking up with negotiations and "sanctions."


----------



## Flopper (Apr 2, 2013)

Circe said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Why hasn't mr.porker ordered his army to attack? Does war now mean something different?
> ...


The North and South have been at war since 1950.  They've just had a 60 truce truce and now NK is ready for some actions.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 2, 2013)

Circe said:


> CNN today 4/2:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are reading into the statement something that's not there.  He's saying we, being the US will not accept a nuclear armed North Korea.  We have been negotiating, threatening, and arm twisting the NK to stop them for building nuclear weapons.  That statement seems complete in order with what we have doing.


----------



## Circe (Apr 3, 2013)

Flopper said:


> You are reading into the statement something that's not there.  He's saying we, being the US will not accept a nuclear armed North Korea.  We have been negotiating, threatening, and arm twisting the NK to stop them for building nuclear weapons.  That statement seems complete in order with what we have doing.




Can't agree, with respect --- this same statement has been made in those words referring to two states: Iran and North Korea, by the president and the secretary of state.  

What does "won't accept" MEAN if Iran and North Korea just pay no attention and go on nuking up despite all the negotiating, sanctions, etc.? Because that is what they are doing. 

Either it's an empty verbalization, or it's a threat of war we'll carry out, one or the other. If you are saying it's an empty verbalization, well, that's possible and was what I thought when Obama said it about Iran, but now I'm beginning to wonder. If we make empty threats like North Korea, no one will believe us, either.


----------



## Circe (Apr 3, 2013)

So the news this morning, 4/3, is that North Korea has closed their joint industry area to South Koreans. There are 800 still in there, managing labor by 50,000 North Koreans averaging an income of $130 per month, which apparently the North Korean government is highly dependent on for hard currency, so the news says. They are all still working, and NK says the South Koreans already there can go home if they want, they just can't go back in.

Okay, this is an escalation. How many more steps of escalation ARE there? One more would be actually expelling the South Koreans, and maybe shutting those factories. I'm trying to think what other escalations are possible short of war. Shelling islands, ships, planes, etc., except South Korea knows that's next on the menu so they have warned NK that will be taken as an act of war this time. So that's dicey. 

Our own government keeps pointing out, repeatedly, that North Korea has not yet mobilized troops. I don't view that as an "escalation," since my studies of World War I lead me to think mobilizing troops (Russia and Germany) is simply getting ready to strike as soon as possible.

Same when George W mustered a large force in Kuwait in 2003: apparently Saddam really thought that he could negotiate out of an invasion, but I knew that once troops are mustered, pretty much anywhere, they WILL be used. So I'm watching for whether North Korea musters troops at the border. If they do, I would expect war to start after that. I could be wrong.


----------



## depotoo (Apr 3, 2013)

interesting they have closed access to the complex
North Korea pressures South by halting entry to industrial zone | Reuters


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 7, 2013)

This is my solution.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 7, 2013)

If you are looking for a date it will likely be April 15.  Kim has told other countries to remove personnell by the tenth.  The fifteenth is the anniversary of Grandpa Sung's creation of the North Korean  state.


----------



## Circe (Apr 7, 2013)

I'm betting the tenth for a "test" missile launch. That's Wednesday.


----------



## WethePeopleUS (Apr 7, 2013)

Circe said:


> I'm betting the tenth for a "test" missile launch. That's Wednesday.



I find it funny that among all the threats NK has made, they think they are going to be able to "test" a missile. I wouldn't be surprised if that missile "test" is what sets off an international confrontation. And the funny thing is, China seems to be more on our side than NK.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 7, 2013)

WethePeopleUS said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > I'm betting the tenth for a "test" missile launch. That's Wednesday.
> ...



Now that is some wishful thinking!   China has been silent.  They haven't said anything to us.  The idiot in charge, John Kerry is going to China so they can not tell him anything in person.  To Americans who want to believe, such silence means they are on our side.   China is on China's side.  Not our side.  They will let obama bluster around doing nothing pertinent until North Korea has been agitated into making some sort of attack.


----------



## WethePeopleUS (Apr 7, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> > Circe said:
> ...



This was the article I read that led me to make the statement I did, especially this line in the article: "Pyongyang has taken similar actions in the past, prompting Washington to step up military readiness in the region to soothe allies South Korea and Japan. But in an unusual rebuke this week, Beijing called North Koreas moves 'regrettable'  amounting to a slap from Pyongyangs strongest economic and diplomatic supporter."

Here is a link to the article I read:
North Korea crisis could bring U.S. China closer - The Morning Sun

Another thing to point out is that China has amassed a lot more troops than usual along the NK/China border. U.S. officials believe that this is not to support the NK regime militarily, but to stop the millions of refugees they expect to flood their borders if a war starts again.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 7, 2013)

Circe said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > You are reading into the statement something that's not there.  He's saying we, being the US will not accept a nuclear armed North Korea.  We have been negotiating, threatening, and arm twisting the NK to stop them for building nuclear weapons.  That statement seems complete in order with what we have doing.
> ...



The term "won't accept" is ambiguous and is meant to be so. It leaves open the door for negotiations but can also be taken as a threat of tighter sanctions or attack.  Veiled threats and messages within messages are the language of international negotiations.  Choice of words, the person who delivers the message, or the way it is delivered can signal a hardening, softening, or no change of position.    

Such remarks are often empty threats as are the North Koreans.  We and our adversaries issue such threats as warnings for various political purposes.  We have done so with Iraq, the USSR, China, and North Korea many times.  The US has threatened to attack  the USSR, stop aid to to Pakistan, to abandon the Saudis, to stop military aid to Egypt, etc,......all empty threats.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 7, 2013)

WethePeopleUS said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > WethePeopleUS said:
> ...


Besides Korea, China and the US have the most to loose by military action.  South Korea is a major trading partner with China, far more important than North Korea. For China to abandon North Korea is too break long standing agreements.  Yet, supporting North Korea in military actions would create huge problems in the region for China and could bring them into a direct confrontation with the US.  I think China's most likely position is to continue to advise North Korea to avoid war and if war comes, only give tacit support. China has a lot to lose in such a war and little to gain.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 7, 2013)

"I recognize that this would be tantamount to political hara-kiri considering the crisis, but we may want to start thinking about letting North Korea into the nuclear club. Just some sort of nominal membership: a couple bombs and regular invitations to club functions.

"Theyre about to have a functioning bomb anyhow, so why not make the most of it? 

"The down side to this of course is that Iran would want in the club, and then Saudi Arabia, and  I dont  Venezuela. 

"Its something that would have to be worked out with the North Koreans.

"I know this isnt a pretty position to be in. But its better than a full-on war with a delusional and paranoid young man with a chip on his shoulder.

Robert B. Baer, a former Middle East CIA field officer, is TIME.coms intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower."

Viewpoint: North Korea?s Gaddafi Nightmare | TIME.com


----------



## PaulS1950 (Apr 7, 2013)

North Korea has already detonated several successful nukes - they have demonstrated that they have the materials and technology. They have demonstrated thatthey have the means to deliver a bomb to anyplace in the world by launching and orbiting a satellite. All they need to do is to put the bomb on the rocket and launch it. With the "boy who would be king" controlled by the military it is anyone's guess what will happen. He has to go along with the military in order to stay in the palace so if the military wants to do more than rant and rave about its enemy, the USA, then he will go along with it no matter what the cost to his people. I am sure that he and the military leaders have a good bomb shelter to retire to in the event of war.


----------



## Bradfrogger (Apr 7, 2013)

I think North Korea's leader is just crazy enough to initiate hostilities, so preparation is best.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Apr 7, 2013)

I have been prepared for most any emergency for the last 40 years.
Water, food, medicines, med-kit, first-aid kit, clothes and the rest. I am glad that I have never had to use it but I am prepared.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 7, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> North Korea has already detonated several successful nukes - they have demonstrated that they have the materials and technology. They have demonstrated thatthey have the means to deliver a bomb to anyplace in the world by launching and orbiting a satellite. All they need to do is to put the bomb on the rocket and launch it. With the "boy who would be king" controlled by the military it is anyone's guess what will happen. He has to go along with the military in order to stay in the palace so if the military wants to do more than rant and rave about its enemy, the USA, then he will go along with it no matter what the cost to his people. I am sure that he and the military leaders have a good bomb shelter to retire to in the event of war.


The number 3,000,000 has the same significance for North Koreans as the number 6,000,000 has for Jews. During the Korean War the US killed some 3,000,000 North Koreans or about one of every three people living north of the 38 parallel. Our bombers turned cities and villages into rubble; they then returned to turn the rubble into pebbles, then came back again and again to turn pebbles into dust. Every generation of North Koreans has been indoctrinated with this account of the conflict, and it's possible they are so badly brainwashed they actually believe their military could win against the US today.
Some accounts I've read lately written by scholars and others who've studied Korea for the last half-century believe tensions haven't been this high on the peninsula since 1953.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 7, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> "I recognize that this would be tantamount to political hara-kiri considering the crisis, but we may want to start thinking about letting North Korea into the &#8216;nuclear club. Just some sort of nominal membership: a couple bombs and regular invitations to club functions.
> 
> "They&#8217;re about to have a functioning bomb anyhow, so why not make the most of it?
> 
> ...


We can't do much to stop North Korea or any third world country from developing  nuclear weapons without military action.  The knowledge is there.  It's no real secret anymore.  You just have to have enough weapons grade nuclear material and trained scientists.

What the US and other nations can do is isolate any nation that tries to go nuclear, making it expensive by denial of trade treaties, favored nation status, and sanctions if needed.  However nations like North Korea are already isolated so trade sanctions and other such measures may make it more difficult for them but it won't stop them from developing the weapons.

One of the unwritten pieces of US foreign policy is bringing less developed countries into the world trade community.  Once they are dependent on world trade, it becomes very costly to thumb their nose at the rest of the world. This is when economic pressure really does work.


----------



## WethePeopleUS (Apr 7, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> "I recognize that this would be tantamount to political hara-kiri considering the crisis, but we may want to start thinking about letting North Korea into the nuclear club. Just some sort of nominal membership: a couple bombs and regular invitations to club functions.
> 
> "Theyre about to have a functioning bomb anyhow, so why not make the most of it?
> 
> ...



Perhaps if they haven't been making the threats that they have recently, we could negotiate something with them. However, when a state such as NK threatens U.S. and our allies and bases overseas, we cannot allow them to acquire such weapons. We need not ponder whether he will use these detrimental weapons, as he has clearly stated he will. Why in the world would we allow him to get to that point?


----------



## WethePeopleUS (Apr 7, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> North Korea has already detonated several successful nukes - they have demonstrated that they have the materials and technology. They have demonstrated thatthey have the means to deliver a bomb to anyplace in the world by launching and orbiting a satellite. All they need to do is to put the bomb on the rocket and launch it. With the "boy who would be king" controlled by the military it is anyone's guess what will happen. He has to go along with the military in order to stay in the palace so if the military wants to do more than rant and rave about its enemy, the USA, then he will go along with it no matter what the cost to his people. I am sure that he and the military leaders have a good bomb shelter to retire to in the event of war.



I am sorry but pretty much everything you said is false. While true they have successfully tested nuclear bombs, they still do not posses the technology to shrink the bomb down so it can fit on top of a missile. Also, these missile tests have always gone wrong, and they failed to put satellites in to orbit. He does not have missiles that could reach the U.S. mainland. He can hit our bases in the Pacific region. And I do not think that they have this all-powerful military that everyone claims they have. A lot of their military photos are doctored, and the planes are out of date, as well as a lot of their military equipment. There would not be much competition between NK and the U.S., especially if South Korea gets involved (which they will). South Korea as a strong military themselves, and could probably defeat NK on their own.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 7, 2013)

WethePeopleUS said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "I recognize that this would be tantamount to political hara-kiri considering the crisis, but we may want to start thinking about letting North Korea into the &#8216;nuclear club. Just some sort of nominal membership: a couple bombs and regular invitations to club functions.
> ...


North Korea has been working on a nuclear weapon for 10 years and perfected one 4 years ago so it's not a matter of allowing them to build them.  They have them.  There is always room for negotiations which is what this is all about.  Kim Jong-un needs to prove himself a leader as did his father and his grandfather with threats of military action.  If he can bring the US to the bargaining table and get us to drop sanctions with vague promises, he will claim a victory and secure himself as supreme leader.

The US needs to defuse the situation and play for time.  Every day that passes China becomes less supportive of North Korea and sanctions are making things more difficult for Pyongyang.  Without strong support from China, any military campaign would be short lived.  

Just today, China's leaders issued thinly veiled rebukes to North Korea for raising regional tensions.  We just need keep ourselves out of a war that could cost us tens of thousands of US lives and hundreds billion of dollars.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 7, 2013)

Every day China says nothing and the stupid democrats are able to configure that into China supports North Korea less and less every day.   What dunces we are, certainly, we deserve exactly what's going to happen.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 8, 2013)

Why would china get into a major world war right now, while they could wait another 20 years in beat our asses?


----------



## Circe (Apr 8, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Every generation of North Koreans has been indoctrinated with this account of the conflict, and it's possible they are so badly brainwashed they actually believe their military could win against the US today.
> Some accounts I've read lately written by scholars and others who've studied Korea for the last half-century believe tensions haven't been this high on the peninsula since 1953.



I read that elderly South Koreans are being asked, and they say this is the worst war fever since the war ended in '53.

I didn't need to ask them; many of us here are old enough to remember pretty far back, and there's never been anything like this. This is different.

If North Koreans keep fresh the memory of our B-52 bombers pulverizing their country, you'd think they wouldn't want to get that again; we are even better at it now. But who knows what they think --- people are so easily propagandized to the opposite of reality. 

Reminds me of the great Austrian Empire threatening to smash Serbia under its heel when Serbian terrorists killed the Archduke. All Austrians thought it would be easy, not realizing how much in decline Austria already was. Little Serbia beat them twice: TWICE. In the end Germany had to defeat Serbia; Austria couldn't do anything. "We are shackled to a corpse," German officers muttered about Austria. So people are told all kinds of nonsense and marched off to war not having any real idea what will actually happen.


----------



## Circe (Apr 8, 2013)

North Korea keeps up the escalations; they are starting to reach a little now, however, since they fear doing provocations like they usually do, shooting a ship out of the water or a plane out of the sky. South Korea SAYS it's ready to fight if they start that up again. 

So now they are sending NKs home from the industrial project.......some of them. I notice they haven't actually closed it: that would be a further escalation. They might get two more escalations out of that place, first expelling all the SK managers, and then next sending all the NKs home and chaining the gate. 

What I really think is that they are turning their missile tests into something to be relieved about instead of everyone doing sanctions and military exercises when they do. North Korea says it will test another missile Wednesday the 10th, and if that's all they do, the world will be pleased!! This is how they are normalizing their weapons manufacture and testing, IMO. We'll all be so grateful they aren't actually firing them at Okinawa or Guam, we'll shut up about their missiles and stop doing sanctions, is I think the strategy. Then they can sell, sell, sell nuke technology and advanced missiles to one and all, whoever has oil money enough to buy them.

Hey, it's a business plan......


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 8, 2013)

Circe said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Every generation of North Koreans has been indoctrinated with this account of the conflict, and it's possible they are so badly brainwashed they actually believe their military could win against the US today.
> ...


Sadly, Americans today are no strangers to nonsense and ignorance, especially with most things Korean:

"In August 1945 defeated Japanese forces formally turned over authority in Korea to the broad-based Committee for the Preparation of Korean Independence, led by Lyuh Woon-hyung, which in September proclaimed the Korean People&#8217;s Republic (KPR). When U.S. forces under Gen. Reed Hodge arrived in Inchon to accept the Japanese surrender, they

a. ordered all Japanese officials to remain in their posts, refused to recognize Lyuh as national leader, and soon banned all public reference to the KPR

b. recognized Lyuh as the legitimate head of state

c. negotiated with Lyuh to facilitate swift attainment of independence of a united Korea"

A Pop Quiz on Korea » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Can you guess the correct answer?


----------



## WethePeopleUS (Apr 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Every day China says nothing and the stupid democrats are able to configure that into China supports North Korea less and less every day.   What dunces we are, certainly, we deserve exactly what's going to happen.



Try reading the developing news on NK, and you will see that China IS actually speaking out against NK. They do not want Pyongyang to start an international conflict on their doorstep. And that is exactly what is happening. Beijing even helped the U.S. draft the latest round of international sanctions against NK after their latest nuclear test in Feb. So please, read what's going on before you make ignorant statements. Thanks


----------



## WethePeopleUS (Apr 8, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Why would china get into a major world war right now, while they could wait another 20 years in beat our asses?



First off, China not getting involved in international conflicts is hi-larious, especially when the conflict is literally on their front door-step. It would be the worst mistake China could make right now, NOT to get involved. And your comment about them being able to "beat our asses in 20 years" is hugely insulting. People like you should be dragged out in the street and flogged before the entire country. For you idiots who thinks ANY country could match our military OBVIOUSLY has NO clue of our military capacity, and should really shut the hell up. Our military could stop funding for 10 years, and add nothing to our arsenal, and we would STILL be the number 1 military in the world. Our military technology is so far ahead of all other countries, to say that China could beat us (even in 20 years) is just an asinine statement. Why don't you find the closest highway and go play in traffic


----------



## Circe (Apr 8, 2013)

WethePeopleUS said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Why would china get into a major world war right now, while they could wait another 20 years in beat our asses?
> ...





The so-called "Clean Debate Zone" has gone down the tubes, hasn't it? What a shame; I really liked the concept. 

I guess the moderators got tired of dealing with it.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 8, 2013)

Sometimes I lose track of which "zone" I'm in.
Maybe we should all slow down and THINK before FLAMING?


----------



## Flopper (Apr 8, 2013)

WethePeopleUS said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Every day China says nothing and the stupid democrats are able to configure that into China supports North Korea less and less every day.   What dunces we are, certainly, we deserve exactly what's going to happen.
> ...


China is a wonderful example of what happens when an isolated nation joins into world trade and free markets.  War, natural disasters, and economic upheaval in neighboring countries or anywhere on earth cause problems at home because of economic ties.  In short, they have a vested interest in peace and stability throughout the world.  

In 1950, the Korean war was a means of spreading communism and bringing new nations into the communist trade pack.  Today a Korean war means the lost of a major Chinese trading partner, South Korea as well as economic disruptions throughout Southeast Asia and possibly beyond.  

Who would have guessed that a visit to China by the US Table Tennis team in 1971 would be the beginning of a long chain of events that would eventually lead to Chinese economic reforms.


----------



## WethePeopleUS (Apr 8, 2013)

Flopper said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



I concur. I would have never guessed China would rise as a global economic leader, especially as quickly as  they did. China now has such a vested interest economically with the U.S., and frankly the entire world, to just sit back and "allow" a stable region to become a war zone. I actually think we can seek to benefit from this, and play China like a deck of cards. Well, if we actually had any intelligent people left in our government maybe we could pull it off.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 8, 2013)

WethePeopleUS said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > WethePeopleUS said:
> ...


IMHO, the nations that have the most to lose, South Korea, China, and Japan should take the lead in solving the problem. However, if war breaks out, the US should supply the South Koreans, and use it's air power, intelligence and technology to support them.  The South Korean military can win the war in a  matter of weeks with US support providing China stays out of it. The South Korean military is better equipped, better trained and has twice the military budget of North Korea.


----------



## WethePeopleUS (Apr 8, 2013)

Flopper said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



That would be such an ideal situation, however, all of the countries you happened to mention are all looking to the US to take the reins. I guess that is of our own doing, being the last remaining superpower in the world. Perhaps the US government could boost talks between neighboring Asian countries, and get them to take a more active role.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 8, 2013)

WethePeopleUS said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > WethePeopleUS said:
> ...


Yep, that's the problem with being number 1.  The whole world looks to you for solutions.  I do think the US get's into a lot of dispute resolution in order to protect our interest, real or imagined.


----------



## tjvh (Apr 8, 2013)

C'mon Barry Soetoro.... Let's finish Bush's forth term right. You warmongering Democrat prick. When one considers wars since and including WW2, *Democrats are the ones who caused far more casualties than Bush ever did.*


----------



## Circe (Apr 9, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Yep, that's the problem with being number 1.  The whole world looks to you for solutions.  I do think the US get's into a lot of dispute resolution in order to protect our interest, real or imagined.




It's the Pax Americana issue rather than being No. 1, I think. 

We got sick of being dragged into World Wars other people started and after WWII set up a lot of forward-power-projection bases and a Pax Americana based on the old Pax Romana. That means we get to start wars, but other people don't. 

It has worked surprisingly well in 68 years. That's a long time for there not to be a world war, at least not in important places to developed countries' issues. It was our (continuing)presence in Germany that allowed the European Union. Our stabilizing presence in Asia allowed the economic rise of Japan and South Korea.

It cannot last forever, of course! I wonder how long Pax Americana will continue, with us being responsible for the peace in faraway places like the Korean Penninsula.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 9, 2013)

WethePeopleUS said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Every day China says nothing and the stupid democrats are able to configure that into China supports North Korea less and less every day.   What dunces we are, certainly, we deserve exactly what's going to happen.
> ...



Oh please.  What did China say?   The US has read into some vague statement that China publicly made.

China rebukes North Korea, says no state should sow chaos | Reuters

China's leaders issued thinly veiled rebukes to North Korea for raising regional tensions, with the president saying no country should throw the world into chaos and the foreign minister warning that Beijing would not allow mischief on its doorstep.

That's what China said, and we preferred to believe China was speaking about North Korea instead of the United States.   The meaning of "no country" eludes our stupid leaders, and "not allow mischief on our doorstep" confuses the state department.


----------



## Circe (Apr 9, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> The meaning of "no country" eludes our stupid leaders, and "not allow mischief on our doorstep" confuses the state department.




Probably not so, Katzndogz: we have been announcing daily that we have cancelled[ (well, put off) a test of some missile in Virginia or wherever that we have planned for a long time, we say -- obviously this is a _quid pro quo_ meant to appease China that WE are being good boys and it isn't any of it our fault, so they should get after North Korea.

This magic missile thing is obviously part of the diplomatic game going on now. Not a bad effort, really. We lost some face there.

I wish I knew what South Korea will do if NK does its usual murderous provocation. I assume we'll talk them out of any reply.  Again.


----------



## WethePeopleUS (Apr 9, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



If you know anything about China, you would know that they only act in their best interest. Most countries do this, but China is a little extreme. Also, China pretty much likes to use their veto power whenever the US tries to impose sanctions on another country, for they value sovereignty extremely high. So, for China to work in cahoots with the US in drafting a sanctions resolution against NK is a huge outcry from China, even if they do not come right out and say it. Furthermore, who in the hell do you think China was talking about when they were saying that one country cannot be allowed to destabilize a region? The US? Yea because WE were the ones who started threatening NK with nuclear strikes. WE were the ones who forced NK to abandon the 60+ year armistice between the 2 Koreas. WE were the ones who have caused this current dilemma, so China must be talking to us (dripping with sarcasm). C'mon dude, use your head. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out China is really unhappy with N right now, especially since Bejing is offended that little Kimmy hasn't gone and visited them since he took power after his father died.


----------



## zonly1 (Apr 13, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> North Korea's angry rhetoric for decades with nothing happening occurred under Kim Jong Ill.  There is a different leader today.  Kim Jong Un is mostly and unknown quantity.
> 
> We have a different leader.   obama is the most incompetent president this nation has ever had.  Not only is he incompetent, but he does not permit competent people around him.  He has been systematically firing competent military leaders who don't pander to his good will.  America has no coherent foreign policy.
> 
> Peace depends, not on obama, but on Kim Jong Un.  It isn't obama's expertise and skill that's keeping whatever peace there is, but the North Korean leader's.  And that leader, unfortunately, smells blood in the water.



solution:  send Barry and family on more vacation(s) and place a stipend... it comes out of there pocket. With a union mindset Barry may take the bait since NK is telling him he is the biggest pussy to grace a 50 state republic.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 13, 2013)

Turns out I was right about Kim jong un(pussy). A lot like his father. I'm sure glad that no one is going to be harmed and we don't have to see war...

I just wish this idiot would stop threatening.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 13, 2013)

"3. After the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5, Japan acquired control over Korea, annexing it formally in 1910. In 1905 Japanese Prime Minister Katsura Tar? met secretly with U.S. Secretary of War William Howard Taft, producing the Taft-Katsura Agreement in which the U.S. recognized Japans interests in Korea. What did the U.S. receive in return?

a. Japanese agreement to limit emigration to the U.S.

*b. Japanese recognition of U.S. colonial rule over the Philippines.*

c. Japans renunciation to all claims to the Hawaiian Islands.

4. At the Yalta Conference in February 1945, U.S. President Roosevelt and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin discussed the postwar future of Korea. Stalin advocated independence as soon as possible. Roosevelt

a. agreed to immediate independence

*b. advocated a trusteeship of 20-30 years, citing the positive example of U.S. rule in the Philippines*

c. suggested Korea remain a part of the Japanese Empire, to be occupied by Allied forces"

A Pop Quiz on Korea » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


----------



## katsung47 (Apr 13, 2013)

765. How to justify a nuclear attack? (4/1/2013)

There is a lively stage show in Korea Peninsula in recent days. North Korea had its third nuclear test in February. US and South Korea had a military drill in March. US sent B-52 in the drill then showed off with B-2 bombers there. N. Korea upgrades the threat almost everyday. US media is full of the topics such like: &#8220;North Korea said it would attack U.S. military bases on Japan and the Pacific island of Guam if provoked.&#8221;, &#8220;North Korea threatens to 'settle accounts with the US'&#8221;, &#8220;North Korea says enters "state of war" against South&#8221;&#8230;&#8230; But that war only exists in the mouth not in reality. It is actually a sale&#8217;s advertisement. The commodity is the nuclear weapon. 



> Renewed nuke sale fear after recent NKorea test
> By FOSTER KLUG | Associated Press &#8211; 3/19/2013
> 
> SEOUL, South Korea (AP) &#8212; North Korea's nuclear test last month wasn't just a show of defiance and national pride; it also serves as advertising. The target audience, analysts say, is anyone in the world looking to buy nuclear material.
> ...





> North Korea&#8217;s Lesson: Nukes for Sale
> 
> By GRAHAM T. ALLISON Jr.     Published: February 12
> 
> ...



Bush started Iraq War with a un- existed &#8220;WMD&#8221;. US won&#8217;t make similar mistake again in Iran war. So they directed a puppet show. In this show, N. Korea bangs the drum: &#8220;I have nuclear bomb. I&#8217;m enemy of the US. My nuke bomb is on sale if you are hostile to US. Come to pick up a bargain.&#8221;

So don&#8217;t be surprise that US and its Western allies would be attacked by &#8220;nuclear terror bombing&#8221; next time. Even none &#8220;potential customers&#8221; attend this &#8220;nuke sale booth&#8221;, the seller will create one. At that time, the &#8220;suicide bomber&#8221; could never tell truth. Just like those 911 hijackers, London 7/7/2005 bombers, Madrid bombing perpetrators and Adam Lanza and his mother in Sandy Hook shooting, they were all arranged to be dead. Of course, the Feds could gave you evidence from &#8220;damaged hard disc&#8221; (in Sandy Hook shooting) and &#8220;self claimed Mastermind&#8221; confession from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (911 case).

You can view the two news information I referred as a psychological opinion direction from the Feds- a justification for the coming terror attack. 

766. China is a member of fraud gang (4/6/2013)

In this soap opera, N. Korea and US are the main actors playing war game show to the world audience. Another important actor is China. China is the major supporter of North Korea, without its aid, N. Korea couldn&#8217;t survive. So when China approved the resolution of U.N. to sanction on N. Korea, it causes big surprise. China used to veto any resolution in U.N. if it is anti the &#8220;friendship of China and N. Korea&#8221;. 



> China voted for new North Korea sanctions. Will it enforce them?
> 
> By Peter Ford, Staff Writer / March 8, 2013
> 
> ...



Don&#8217;t be blinded by this action of China. It&#8217;s only a stage performance &#8211; a gimmick to lure Iran to the hook. To show that N. Korea is really helpless. Even its long time ally has abandoned him. So North Korea is eagerly to sell his treasure &#8211; the atomic bomb, at a bargain price. 

One purpose of sanction is to inspect the cargo shipment by force. If Iran falls into the trap, it will be easy for US to intercept the &#8220;evidence&#8221;. The inspector could be China if necessary. He joins U.N. sanction. Bush&#8217;s &#8220;WMD&#8221; lie scandal won&#8217;t repeat in Obama's regime. 

China is a secret collaborator of US. The regime is famous for its corruption. It will do anything &#8211; if the bribe is big enough. The Feds is to create big events to distract a framed case. One big event is &#8220;terrorist nuke attack&#8221;, you have seen my revelation. The other one is a &#8220;natural disaster&#8221; &#8211; a pandemic of bird flu.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes (Apr 13, 2013)

tjvh said:


> C'mon Barry Soetoro.... Let's finish Bush's forth term right. You warmongering Democrat prick. When one considers wars since and including WW2, *Democrats are the ones who caused far more casualties than Bush ever did.*



What is the record between, say, Jan 20, 1980 and Jan 20, 2008? 

Which party 
A. tripled the national debt in eight years
B. balanced the budget
C. doubled the national debt in eight years
D. killed and maimed the most Americans​Not the worst thing to get basic facts acknowledged.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 14, 2013)

Casualties tripled after obama instituted his stupid rules of engagement that were designed to cause more American casualties.


----------



## WethePeopleUS (Apr 14, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Casualties tripled after obama instituted his stupid rules of engagement that were designed to cause more American casualties.



Provide a link supporting your argument please.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 14, 2013)

WethePeopleUS said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Casualties tripled after obama instituted his stupid rules of engagement that were designed to cause more American casualties.
> ...



U.S. Deaths in Afghanistan: Obama vs Bush | Just Foreign Policy

Media Ignores Increased Deaths, Casualties in Afghanistan Under Obama

Grim Milestone: Over Twice as Many U.S. Soldiers Have Died in Afghanistan Under Obama In 3 1/2 Years Than Did Under Bush in 8 Years ? Media Silent | The Gateway Pundit

Over 2,000 Soldiers Dead: Bush 630 ? Obama 1,496 | RedState

U.S. Deaths in Afghanistan: Obama vs Bush (Obama wins by a great big pile!)

Robert Naiman: The Death Toll Does Not Lie -- Afghanistan Is Obama's War

69 Percent Of Afghan War Casualties Occurred Under Obama | Emptysuit

72% of US Casualties in Afghanistan Happened Under Obama | FrontPage Magazine

There are too many.  I could do this all day.  Even liberals, giving obama every benefit of the doubt admit that the casualty rate doubled.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 14, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Casualties tripled after obama instituted his stupid rules of engagement that were designed to cause more American casualties.


How many of those casualties were suicides?


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 14, 2013)

These casualties were mostly the result of obama's changing the rules of engagement.

Medal of Honor recipient highlights Marine?s valor as well as risks US troops faced under controversial rules of engagement

The team was ambushed and came under sustained Taliban fire and rocket attack. However, U.S. commanders repeatedly denied the request to unleash artillery rounds and provide air cover, under rules of engagement then recently put in place to reduce civilian casualties.
"U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines&#8212;despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village," Landay reported. "We waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away."
By the time helicopters arrived, four U.S. Marines had been killed, as well as eight Afghan troops and the U.S. Marine commander's Afghan interpreter. Meyer risked his life to retrieve their bodies.

The POS in the white house is indefensible scum.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 14, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Casualties tripled after obama instituted his stupid rules of engagement that were designed to cause more American casualties.
> ...



If you get down to it ALL of them.  Being in obama's military is suicide.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 14, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> These casualties were mostly the result of obama's changing the rules of engagement.
> 
> Medal of Honor recipient highlights Marine?s valor as well as risks US troops faced under controversial rules of engagement
> 
> ...


Do you have any numbers that reveal the disparity in Afghan civilian casualties between Bush and Obama?


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 14, 2013)

Don't really care, do you?


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 14, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > These casualties were mostly the result of obama's changing the rules of engagement.
> ...



Since I don't give a rat's ass about Afghan civilian casualties I never looked into it.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 14, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


Do you have any emperical evidence supporting the theory than one Afghan life is worth less than one American life?


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 14, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



You misunderstand me.   It doesn't matter whose life is worth more as long as the enemy is dead.  How many and under what circumstances is a matter of no concern.   If the enemy wants to hide behind civilians, then the civilians are dead.  Get it.  This is war, not a soiree.

Of course someone who finds some sort of equality of enemy lives and the lives of one's own countrymen, that's a different circumstance.  You are just on the wrong side, that's all.  It's not like the Afghan enemies are concerned with American casualties.  They want as many as possible.  That I understand.  That's why one side prevails and the other side loses.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 14, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


What did the Afghan people do to the US to deserve the designation of "enemy" and the subsequent invasion/occupation? I suppose someone who finds mass murder an acceptable business expense might be confused about who's on the wrong side.


----------



## depotoo (Apr 14, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



so you support the Taliban and how they ruled?  You supported their treatment of women?
And I guess you supported their take over of Afghanistan, correct?


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 14, 2013)

Where is the Afghan that says "I better not kill the American, they are nice people".

Afghanistan was a terrorist haven.  The country protected them.   That's what war is, we just don't know how to fight one anymore.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 14, 2013)

depotoo said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


I didn't support the Taliban or the way women are currently treated in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, for that matter, where the 911 hijackers came from:

"Bruce Riedel, a former U.S. intelligence official and a current adviser on foreign policy to President Obama, isn&#8217;t holding out much hope for the future of the Saudi  monarchy, and he believes its downfall could profoundly affect U.S. interests in the Middle East, according to report from Joseph Farah&#8217;s G2 Bulletin.

"Riedel, who is with the Washington think-tank Brookings Institution, had penned a memorandum to the president that warns the Saudi regime is vulnerable to overthrow. He argues the monarchy maintains 'complete authority' and the Saudi royal family 'has shown no interest in sharing power or in an elected legislature.'"

Analyst expects collapse of Saudi monarchy

Do you support killing the women and children of Afghanistan for purely humanitarian reasons?


----------



## depotoo (Apr 14, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Did the Taliban take over Afghanistan?  Did you have a problem with that?


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 14, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Where is the Afghan that says "I better not kill the American, they are nice people".
> 
> Afghanistan was a terrorist haven.  The country protected them.   That's what war is, we just don't know how to fight one anymore.


Where's the Afghan killing US civilians in your hometown for money or market share?

911 was a crime not an act of war, of course, we wouldn't really expect Bush or Cheney to know the difference, would we? Especially when there was all that money to make.

"WASHINGTON, July 25 (HalliburtonWatch.org) -- Halliburton announced on Friday that its KBR division, responsible for carrying out Pentagon contracts, *experienced a 284 percent increase in operating profits* during the second quarter of this year. 

"The increase in profits was primarily due to the Pentagon's payment of 'award fees' for what military officials call 'good' or 'very good' work done by KBR in the Middle East for America's taxpayers and the troops."

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/earnings072205.htm


----------



## Flopper (Apr 14, 2013)

katsung47 said:


> 765. How to justify a nuclear attack? (4/1/2013)
> 
> There is a lively stage show in Korea Peninsula in recent days. North Korea had its third nuclear test in February. US and South Korea had a military drill in March. US sent B-52 in the drill then showed off with B-2 bombers there. N. Korea upgrades the threat almost everyday. US media is full of the topics such like: &#8220;North Korea said it would attack U.S. military bases on Japan and the Pacific island of Guam if provoked.&#8221;, &#8220;North Korea threatens to 'settle accounts with the US'&#8221;, &#8220;North Korea says enters "state of war" against South&#8221;&#8230;&#8230; But that war only exists in the mouth not in reality. It is actually a sale&#8217;s advertisement. The commodity is the nuclear weapon.
> 
> ...


When discussing China, keep in mind that there are really two China's.  The capitalist China that operates with little government control and is responsible for most of the new wealth in China and the government which oversees all other aspects of Chinese life.  There's an unwritten agreement between government and business.  Government stays out of business and business stays out of government. If you ask a Chinese businessman about government, you are likely to hear that he has no opinion or that he's not political.

The government is still controlled by the communist party, but the Chinese communist party bears little resemblance to the party in Mao's time.  50 years ago, membership or at least allegiance to the party was universal.  Today, only 1 in every 20 Chinese is a members of the party.  Where once active participation and dedication was expected; today, only membership dues of $16 and an occasional attendance at meetings is required.  Just as dedication to the ideals of communism in the party has weaken so has the dedication in the government.  

That's not to say that the politburo, the most senior decision making body in government doesn't have a  number of hardliners.  However, there are also members that take a more pragmatic view of China.  Keep in mind that the great wealth that free markets have brought to China have lined the pockets of government officials and top communists in the country.

North Korean relations are a remnant of China's past that don't fit into the new China. China wants the North Korean buffer between itself and South Korea, yet they also want to maintain good relations with South Korea and the west.  The conflicting goals within the Chinese government are going to be reflected in their policies.  The US can't count on China for a lot of support, but it's not likely that they would back North Korea's military in a war.


----------



## depotoo (Apr 14, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Where is the Afghan that says "I better not kill the American, they are nice people".
> ...



so are you stating that in war there should not be any company that profits?
You have lost your ever loving mind.  And I notice no mention of the contract with Heinz and how much they profit?
 And you still have not provided the link in the other NK thread where I asked for your stats on the US kill rate.


----------



## depotoo (Apr 14, 2013)

and have you ever questioned why CLinton also gave Halliburton no-bid contracts?


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 14, 2013)

depotoo said:


> and have you ever questioned why CLinton also gave Halliburton no-bid contracts?


If it was up to me, Clinton, Bush, Cheney, and Obama would spend the rest of their lives in Fallujah (along with all members of their immediate families.)

You?


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 14, 2013)

depotoo said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


I would think all war profits from kevlar to ketchup should be taxed in inverse proportion to the number of civilians killed in the war they generate profits in. FWIW, I would also subject all business executive to trials for war crimes, along with the politicians they buy and sell like condoms.


----------



## depotoo (Apr 14, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



you must be of the mistaken belief that there are no evils within this world and that all citizens of the world wish for nothing but to live in peace and harmony.  I hope you are able to handle the realization you should have one day that that is not the case.  The true study of history alone should be enough to tell you that.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 14, 2013)

Meanwhile, the South Koreans are merely bored with North Korea. The panicked ones here might want to take a lesson.

North Korea's Warnings More Boring Than Alarming To Those In South : The Two-Way : NPR


----------



## Flopper (Apr 14, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Meanwhile, the South Koreans are merely bored with North Korea. The panicked ones here might want to take a lesson.
> 
> North Korea's Warnings More Boring Than Alarming To Those In South : The Two-Way : NPR


Yep.  NK has been doing this for 60 years. Rattle the sabers to remind the rest of the world that they exist, make threats and get some concession, and declare a great victory.  Tomorrow they celebrate the  ruling Kim dynasty.  They will surely once again declare a great victory.  It will be interesting to see if they tone down the rhetoric.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 14, 2013)

Peace in our lifetime


----------



## WethePeopleUS (Apr 14, 2013)

Flopper said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile, the South Koreans are merely bored with North Korea. The panicked ones here might want to take a lesson.
> ...



Or there is no telling whether they will test-fire a missile, or another nuke. There is just no way to tell what is going on with NK anymore. They recently had the world convinced they were going to attack us and our allies. Yet that was obviously a ploy. I say, pull out of the Korean peninsula, and let the North and South duke it out. Whoever it is that wins, can unify Korea under their regime. The situation in Korea involves too much of our time and money, and we can be doing better things with both of them.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 14, 2013)

Who will pay to rebuild Seoul?
The same taxpayers who rebuilt Berlin and Tokyo?


----------



## PaulS1950 (Apr 14, 2013)

I don't think so............
It will be South Kprea or China. China will probably prevail.


----------



## depotoo (Apr 14, 2013)

WethePeopleUS said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Sure, seeing as NK now has at least one nuke and the south has none...


----------



## WethePeopleUS (Apr 14, 2013)

depotoo said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Hahaa yea, and the ONE nuke they have is not deliverable. They still do not posses the technology to shrink the nuke, so that it can be attached at the top of a missile. So they might as well not have one at all. Don't fall into the hysteria, as the South would be able to destroy the North in a couple of weeks, if that.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 14, 2013)

WethePeopleUS said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


I don't think pulling out is the answer.  If we did the North would overrun the South.  Yes, then there would be a united Korea, a communist state that would grow stronger and be bigger threat to the US and and our allies.


----------



## depotoo (Apr 15, 2013)

Flopper said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



the sad thing is alot of people don't understand that.  They have this notion that NK attempt at acquisition would stop there.  And that China wouldn't be in on it.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 15, 2013)

"In view of the fact that the U.S. military has quite unexpectedly announced North Korea has the capability of launching a nuclear weapon atop a missile, and in view of the fact that the young, untested, unstable, paranoid, and maybe even trigger-happy, North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un is as labile as he is, wouldn&#8217;t it be advisable for the craven American media to at least try to mention that the U.S. is, in fact, taunting North Korea by engaging in its ridiculously inflammatory military exercises?

"There is almost no mention of the military exercises we are engaged in right across the border from North Korea using thousands of troops massing near its border while deploying huge artillery ensembles, stealth bombers, and dozens of naval support vessels.

"How is the paranoid regime in the North to know we are simply engaged in harmless 'exercises' instead of using that term as a ruse to initiate an aggressive first strike?"

The Korean Crisis: Just Who is the Mental Case? » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Naturally the US would be indifferent to thousands of Korean troops massing in Mexico, particularly if the  Koreans had slaughtered millions of American civilians between 1950-53?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 15, 2013)

Retired Analyst: US deploys sea Radar
---
The official would not offer more details but confirmed the SBX, a floating X-band radar that resembles a giant golf ball, had reached a location at sea where it could track missiles fired by the Pyongyang regime.

 ...

Two US Arleigh-class destroyers have been sent to the western Pacific with anti-missile weaponry while ground-based THAAD interceptor batteries had been deployed to Guam, a US territory about 3,380 kilometers (2,100 miles) southeast of North Korea
---


----------



## Flopper (Apr 15, 2013)

An interesting undercover film of North Korea made by the BBC

BBC News - BBC Panorama team report undercover from North Korea


----------



## WethePeopleUS (Apr 16, 2013)

Flopper said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I don't believe that for a second. The South has a far superior army than the North. The South would take over the North in less than 2 weeks.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 16, 2013)

WethePeopleUS said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > WethePeopleUS said:
> ...


What makes you think the North would not resort to nuclear weapons if they thought they would lose.


----------



## WethePeopleUS (Apr 16, 2013)

Flopper said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



The fact that they only have one nuclear bomb, and if they did decide to send it the South's way, then they would be wiped off the face of the earth. I do not think that NK can take out the entire South with one nuke.


----------



## Dajjal (Apr 16, 2013)

I have just joined the North Korean forum,

North Korea News & Community Forums

They say that if one shell lands on NK territory they will wage a war of reunification with the south.
They say Americans are brainwashed capitalists.

I expect the forum is heavily censored as there are no critical comments. You have to join the forum to be able to read it.


----------



## Circe (Apr 16, 2013)

WethePeopleUS said:


> The fact that they only have one nuclear bomb, and if they did decide to send it the South's way, then they would be wiped off the face of the earth. I do not think that NK can take out the entire South with one nuke.




We can't know they only have one bomb! 

We have intelligence sources in the Pentagon right now saying that they have a bunch of nukes, and at least some miniturized on top of ballistic missiles!

So I don't think we know what they can do.

If they attack, best to annihilate them directly, of course. Otherwise who knows how much damage they will do. Get our damage in first as soon as they attack, so they can't do more.

I assume that is our battle plan; I hope so.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 16, 2013)

"8. In August 1948 the U.S.-occupied zone of Korea became the Republic of Korea. The next month, the KPR operating in the north became the Democratic People&#8217;s Republic of Korea (North Korea). Around this time there were many revolts against the U.S.-backed authorities in the south led by supporters of the original KPR. Where was the biggest one?

*a. on Cheju Island, off the south coast of South Korea, where there was minimal Soviet or North Korean influence*
b. along the North Korean border, organized by communist operatives

c. in Seoul, led by communist agitators"

A Pop Quiz on Korea » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Our battle plan has always been to keep north and south Korea divided in spite of the wishes of a majority of Koreans.


----------



## Dajjal (Apr 16, 2013)

Just copied this treaty with China, from the North Korean forum. The North Koreans think that ideas in the western press that China would not back them in the event of war is western propaganda.

 Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance 
Between the People's Republic of China 
and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.


July 11, 1961

THE Chairman of the People's Republic of China and the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, determined, in accordance with Marxism-Leninism and the principle of proletarian internationalism and on the basis of mutual respect for state sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and mutual assistance and support, to make every effort to further strengthen and develop the fraternal relations of friendship, co-operation and mutual assistance between the People's Republic of China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, to jointly guard the security of the two peoples, and to safeguard and consolidate the peace of Asia and the world, and deeply convinced that the development and strengthening of the relations of friendship, co-operation and mutual assistance between the two countries accord not only with the fundamental interests of the two peoples but also with the interests of the peoples all over the world, have decided for this purpose to conclude the present Treaty and appointed as their respective plenipotentiaries:

The Chairman of the People's Republic of China: Chou En-lai, Premier of the State Council of the People's Republic of China.

The Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea: Kim Il Sung, Premier of the Cabinet of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,

Who, having examined each other's full powers and found them in good and due form, have agreed upon the the following:

Article I

The Contracting Parties will continue to make every effort to safeguard the peace of Asia and the world and the security of all peoples.

Article II

The Contracting Parties undertake jointly to adopt all measures to prevent aggression against either of the Contracting Parties by any state. In the event of one of the Contracting Parties being subjected to the armed attack by any state or several states jointly and thus being involved in a state of war, the other Contracting Party shall immediately render military and other assistance by all means at its disposal.

Article III

Neither Contracting Party shall conclude any alliance directed against the other Contracting Party or take part in any bloc or in any action or measure directed against the other Contracting Party .

Article IV

The Contracting Parties will continue to consult with each other on all important international questions of common interest to the two countries.

Article V

The Contracting Parties, on the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit and in the spirit of friendly co-operation, will continue to render each other every possible economic and technical aid in the cause of socialist construction of the two countries and will continue to consolidate and develop economic, cultural, and scientific and technical co-operation between the two countries.

Article VI

The Contracting Parties hold that the unification of Korea must be realized along peaceful and democratic lines and that such a solution accords exactly with the national interests of the Korean people and the aim of preserving peace in the Far East.

Article VII

The present Treaty is subject to ratification and shall come into force on the day of exchange of instruments of ratification, which will take place in Pyongyang. The present Treaty will remain in force until the Contracting Parties agree on its amendment or termination. Done in duplicate in Peking on the eleventh day of July, nineteen sixty-one, in the Chinese and Korean languages, both texts being equally authentic.



(Signed)
CHOU EN-LAI

Plenipotentiary of the
People's Republic of China


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 16, 2013)

What was Chinese GDP in 1961?
Millions of former communists have become filthy rich since that time.
Does it seem likely they would jeopardize their new-found wealth for the DPRK?


----------



## Circe (Apr 16, 2013)

Nobody is paying any attention to NK now. The Boston Marathon terrorism upstaged it.

Besides, North Korea apparently means to talk us to death, and I'm not too worried about that.

All hat and no cattle, as they say in Texas.

If NK makes war on us or SK, time enough to think about them again then.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 16, 2013)

Circe said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that they only have one nuclear bomb, and if they did decide to send it the South's way, then they would be wiped off the face of the earth. I do not think that NK can take out the entire South with one nuke.
> ...


I find it hard to believe that they would go down to defeat sitting on their most power weapons.


----------



## Circe (Apr 16, 2013)

One of our helicopters "landed hard" (VERY hard, from the photo.....) near the North Korean border. No one killed, but 6 hospitalized, allegedly. I assume NK shot it down and we are not willing to call that. 

The Army says they are "investigating."


----------



## WethePeopleUS (Apr 17, 2013)

Circe said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that they only have one nuclear bomb, and if they did decide to send it the South's way, then they would be wiped off the face of the earth. I do not think that NK can take out the entire South with one nuke.
> ...



I just don't see NK being suicidal, which is what launching nuclear missiles at anyone in the region will yield for the regime. If NK ever does such a provocative act, they would be annihilated. That would defeat any purpose they were seeking to begin with.


----------



## Circe (Apr 17, 2013)

WethePeopleUS said:


> I just don't see NK being suicidal, which is what launching nuclear missiles at anyone in the region will yield for the regime. If NK ever does such a provocative act, they would be annihilated. That would defeat any purpose they were seeking to begin with.




True. Assuming they know that.

But they're Koreans; they're smart people, they probably know that.

I suppose it's all a headfake. I'm getting bored with North Korea.


----------



## WethePeopleUS (Apr 17, 2013)

Circe said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't see NK being suicidal, which is what launching nuclear missiles at anyone in the region will yield for the regime. If NK ever does such a provocative act, they would be annihilated. That would defeat any purpose they were seeking to begin with.
> ...



Yes, I as well am loosing interest with NK. It just seems like the temper tantrums will never stop over there, and also will never amount to anything. So I say we go back to ignoring them, and if they decide to jump stupid, we will put them back in their place.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 17, 2013)

WethePeopleUS said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > WethePeopleUS said:
> ...


From an interview with a recent North Korean exile:

"It's not even possible for North Korea to have a war," said the woman, who spent years arranging black market deals for bronze smuggled to China. She asked that her name and other identifying details not be used, to protect relatives still living in the North.

"They don't have fuel. They don't have electricity," she said. "Even if they yell to the world that they'll go to war, it's all just talk."

For 60 years, North Korea has been rattling the sabers to get world attention and nothing has ever come of it.


North Korean Exiles Scoff at Talk of War - ABC News


----------



## Circe (Apr 17, 2013)

Flopper said:


> "It's not even possible for North Korea to have a war," said the woman, who spent years arranging black market deals for bronze smuggled to China. She asked that her name and other identifying details not be used, to protect relatives still living in the North.
> 
> "They don't have fuel. They don't have electricity," she said. "Even if they yell to the world that they'll go to war, it's all just talk."





Reassuring. I hope she is right! They'll still do provocations. We'll see.

I frankly think NK has gone over the line this time and will be put down, though it may take a few months. We'll see. It's an unstable situation; it needs to go.

Like the unstable Soviet Union went. Or the unstable division of Germany went. This cannot last forever. Now would be a good time to deal with it.

BEFORE they get well armed up with lots of nukes on ACBMs. After is not so good.


----------



## WethePeopleUS (Apr 18, 2013)

Flopper said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> > Circe said:
> ...



Thank you for this post, because it shows the reality of the situation, even though many North Koreans would have you believe otherwise. I joined the most popular public forum in NK and a majority of them think that they can defeat the US in a war, mainly because they have the backing of China, or so they think. I highly doubt China would help NK 100% if it were actually NK who started a war in their backyard. Makes for an interesting conversation, and that's about it. 

I would tell the young leader, Mr. Un, "Hey, if you want the US to sit down and talk of a peace treaty, and economic aid/cooperation, then just tell us, and we would be more than happy to work with you. However the bellicose rhetoric's will not advance your cause, only heed its progression. So lets all act like men, sit down, and work it out. There is far more to gain being allies than enemies." Send me to NK and I'll get them on board with us.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 18, 2013)

WethePeopleUS said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > WethePeopleUS said:
> ...



I doubt the opinions on a North Korean forum would be much different than their fearless leader because of the tight control of the media and education.  Radio or television sets, which can be bought in North Korea, are preset to receive only the government frequencies and sealed with a label to prevent tampering with the equipment.  Internet access is only permitted with special authorization and primarily used for government purposes.  North Koreans are taught to hate and fear the rest of the world before they  learn to read.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 18, 2013)

North Korea lost the window.   They could have launched an attack while the king was occupied with Boston.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 18, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> North Korea lost the window.   They could have launched an attack while the king was occupied with Boston.


What would they have gained?
(See: Taliban 2001)


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 18, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > North Korea lost the window.   They could have launched an attack while the king was occupied with Boston.
> ...



obama can't walk and chew gum at the same time.  He would never have been able to deal with home and them at the same time.   Which means no orders, no retaliation.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 18, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


'Think Bush was smarter?


----------



## katsung47 (Apr 29, 2013)

767.  Push Iran to bite the hook (4/15/2013)

To push Iran to bite the hook, they created an earthquake at the purpose to destroy Irans nuclear facility. If Iran cant produce the nuke material by itself, they have to buy from North Korea. The mission failed, though. 



> Quake hits near Iran's nuclear city Bushehr, 37 dead
> 
> By Yeganeh Torbati and Marcus George   DUBAI |  Tue Apr 9, 2013
> 
> ...



Pentagon voluntarily advertises for the nuke products of North Korea, tries to convince the potential buyer the merchandise is just what they wanted.



> Pentagon: NKorea could launch nuclear missile
> By ROBERT BURNS and JULIE PACE | Associated Press  4/11/2013
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP)  A U.S. intelligence report concludes that North Korea has advanced its nuclear knowhow to the point that it could arm a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead, a jarring revelation in the midst of bellicose threats from the unpredictable communist regime.
> ...


----------



## WethePeopleUS (Apr 30, 2013)

katsung47 said:


> 767.  Push Iran to bite the hook (4/15/2013)
> 
> To push Iran to bite the hook, they created an earthquake at the purpose to destroy Irans nuclear facility. If Iran cant produce the nuke material by itself, they have to buy from North Korea. The mission failed, though.
> 
> ...



Wait a second.. are you saying that the earthquake was man-made, and intentional????!!!


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 30, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


Which means he would be impeached if he lived long enough.


----------



## katsung47 (Jun 3, 2013)

WethePeopleUS said:


> katsung47 said:
> 
> 
> > 767.  Push Iran to bite the hook (4/15/2013)
> ...



Found a miracle due to your ignorance? Read the following;

New NASA research points to possible HAARP connection in Japan earthquake, tsunami
Ethan A. Huff,
Natural News
June 10, 2011

Recent data released by Dimitar Ouzounov and colleagues from the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland highlights some strange atmospheric anomalies over Japan just days before the massive earthquake and tsunami struck on March 11. Seemingly inexplicable and rapid heating of the ionosphere directly above the epicenter reached a maximum only three days prior to the quake, according to satellite observations, suggesting that directed energy emitted from transmitters used in the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) may have been responsible for inducing the quake.

Published in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) publication Technology Review, the findings are presented alongside a different theory called Lithosphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere Coupling, which hypothesizes that the heating in the ionosphere may have been caused by the impending earthquake as the fault line released radioactive radon. This theory, of course, is not actually proven, but is instead presented as a possible explanation for the presence of the high-density electrons and emitted infrared radiation that was observed.

Another explanation for this strange heating  and one that, upon analysis, seems much more likely  is that it was an indication that concentrated energy was used to induce the earthquake, and not the other way around. Numerous credible reports and scientific observations reveal that HAARP technology is fully capable of being used as a scalar weapon, meaning it can emit strong electromagnetic pulse bombs that can alter weather or trigger seismic fault lines.

Evidence that HAARP is not only capable of inducing earthquakes, but that it appears to have been used on Japan

Prison Planet.com » New NASA research points to possible HAARP connection in Japan earthquake, tsunami


----------



## Totino (Jun 4, 2013)

Circe said:


> The news today 3/28 is leading on most sites with the USA sending Stealth bombers to South Korea against the threats North Korea is constantly making.
> 
> I am interested to see that there is NO THREAD here on this entire forum about North Korea, but not surprised because this is a "Boy Crying Wolf" situation. The crazy NK style of "diplomacy," if you can call it that, is repeated threats and aggression and generally crazy talk, while nuking up as fast as possible. Iran, obviously, has also adopted this style, so I guess on some level, it works.
> 
> ...


Having been stationed in South Korea for about 2.5 years between 2008-2011, the media is making a story out of nothing. NK's aggression is nothing new. I was actually there when they shelled Yeongyeong island. Ultimately, I think a good amount of the more recent aggravation and threats have simply been Kim Jong Un flexing his muscles and asserting his power. Of course, if you're aware of NK's capabilities, you're aware that they don't really have any sort of power. They're EXTREMELY weak. Their government knows it, and knows they wouldn't stand a chance if something actually happened. Even China has been backing away from them. The biggest issue with them is the fact that Seoul is so close to the border, which could most certainly be a problem if something did actually happen.
Can I say with 100% certainty that nothing will ever happen? Of course not. No one can. But is beating the war drum and vying for support for war with a country that has no power a brilliant idea? I don't think so. Especially because I'm privy to the precautions we take if we even have an inkling that they're flexing their muscles again.


----------



## katsung47 (Jun 19, 2013)

N. Korea's hysteria war threaten is just a repeted stage show which had acted in 2009. Here is what I wrote three years ago. 

614. Secret deal with N.Korea (11/22/09)

Feds used to pay other party to do illegal and ugly missions. How do they justify the payment if the receiver is a hostile country? They create an incident. 

The typical sample is the bombing of Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia in 1999. (see "193. Bombing Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia (1/1)" and "194. D.o.D. worked for D.o.J. (1/6)")

Another big one is the "EP-3" spy plane incident in April 2001. In exchange to frame a drug case, China was granted to be a member of WTO and to be host of 2008 Olympic. We all see the result: China since then becomes an economic power, now one of the G-2. (see "555. Olympic deal (6/29/08) and "610. The road of persecution (9/23/09)")

Here is the time table of how N.Korea pushed for a nuclear horror from April to July for the Iran war and how an incident created to justify the payment of a secret deal. 

3-17  Current TV of San Francisco sent two reporters - Laura Ling and Euna Lee to China to gather the news of North Korea refugees. They were mysteriously arrested by N.Korea board guards. The two admitted that they were "very, very briefly" cross the board - "maybe 30 seconds". If it was truth, then N.Korea board guards must be most efficient one in the world, and the two journalist must be the dumbest reporter in the world. They were sentenced to 12 years prison term. 

4 - 5. N.Korea launched a ballistic missile to the Alaska area. 

5 -25. N.Korea had a nuclear test. 

6 - 7. Hillary Clinton said US may be seeking a way to interdict, possibly with China's help, North Korean sea and air shipments suspected of carrying weapons or nuclear technology. Later that month, US war ship John McCain followed a N.Korean commercial ship and made it a news. That ship, I think, carried with nuclear material to prove Iran's ambition on nuclear weapon. That ship, finally didn't go anywhere but returned to N.Korea. 

7 - 4. N.Korea planned to launch another ballistic missile to Hawaii area but failed to carry out the plan. I think the Feds had changed its plan to the end of  this year because that time is more suitable to push for a financial tsunami for a gold rush. 

8 - 4. The two US journalists are pardoned and released by N. Korea during a visit by former President Bill Clinton. 

You can see how a hostage show starts in March and ends in August while North Korea fulfils its 
task in April, May, June and July. It resembles the 2001 EP-3 spy plane incident. In both cases the Feds sent hostage to hostile country to justify a secret deal and payment.


----------



## katsung47 (Jul 3, 2013)

In 2009, N.Korea created a war crisis to the US order. 

2009, 4 - 5. N.Korea launched a ballistic missile to the Alaska area. 

2009, 5 -25. N.Korea had a nuclear test. 

Then it got the payment from the US. Watch the year of news issued. 



> OBAMA KEEPS N. KOREA OFF TERROR SPONSOR LIST
> 
> FEB. 3, 2010
> 
> ...


----------



> US flood aid shipment arrives in North Korea
> 
> http://www.ap.org/AP &#8211; Sun, Sep 4, 2011
> 
> ...


------------------


> US food aid for NKorea would bring nuclear talks a step closer
> By Associated Press, Published: December 18
> 
> The United States was poised to announce a significant donation of food aid to North Korea this week before the nation announced the death of supreme leader Kim Jong Il. The donation, which could now be delayed, would be the first concrete accomplishment after months of behind-the-scenes diplomatic contacts between the two wartime enemies. An agreement by North Korea to suspend its controversial uranium enrichment program would have likely followed within days.
> ...


----------



## katsung47 (Jul 17, 2013)

In May 2009, N. Korea had a nuke test. US send two hostages to N. Korea as guarantee for the secret deal. 



> 3/17/2009 Current TV of San Francisco sent two reporters - Laura Ling and Euna Lee to China to gather the news of North Korea refugees. They were mysteriously arrested by N.Korea board guards. The two admitted that they were "very, very briefly" cross the board - "maybe 30 seconds".. They were sentenced to 12 years prison term.
> 
> 8/4/2009. The two US journalists are pardoned and released by N. Korea during a visit by former President Bill Clinton.



In early 2013, N. Korea had a third nuclear test. similar thing acted again. A hostage was sent to N. Korea as a guarantee. 



> NKorea says verdict soon for American citizen
> Associated Press &#8211; 4/26/2013
> 
> NKorea says verdict soon for American citizen





> N. Korea sentences American to 15 years' hard labor
> 
> Calum MacLeod, USA TODAY    9:19 a.m. EDT May 5, 2013
> 
> N. Korea sentences American to 15 years' hard labor


----------



## katsung47 (Jul 30, 2013)

1.	Tue Feb 12, 2013 

(Reuters) - North Korea conducted its third nuclear test on Tuesday

------------------

2.	Two weeks later, S. Korea reveal secret meetings between N. Korea and US. 

02/25/2013 
KOREA - UNITED STATES
US officials made two secret visits to Pyongyang in 2012

The two US delegations visited North Korea in April and August but were unsuccessful to stop the military provocations of young dictator Kim Jong-un. Today, he handed out decorations to staff that worked on the 12 February nuclear test.


Seoul (AsiaNews/Agencies) - White House officials secretly visited North Korea last year in an attempt to de-escalate the conflict over Pyongyang's nuclear programme, which included three nuclear tests in recent months. The brief visits that took place in April and August were unsuccessful and the North Korean regime appears to have returned to wartime rhetoric.   

Former US officials confirmed the visit but the US government has neither denied nor confirmed it. The April trip was meant to prevent the launch of a long-distance rocket. North Korea went ahead anyway but the test failed. A similar successful test was carried out in December, showing North Korea had the capability of hitting Japan.

The April trip was led by Joseph DeTrani, an expert on North Korea who then headed the National Counter Proliferation Centre in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which co-ordinates US intelligence agencies.

KOREA - UNITED STATES US officials made two secret visits to Pyongyang in 2012 - Asia News

----------------------

3.	Jobs done. N. Korea asks for the payment. 



> Dennis Rodman: NKorea leader wants Obama to call
> 
> By MICHELE SALCEDO (Associated Press) | The Associated Press  3/3/2013
> 
> Y! SPORTS


----------



## katsung47 (Aug 12, 2013)

In 2006, N. Korea had its first nuclear test to the US order. Watch the time the following news issued to see the payment it got. 



> North Koreans Say They Tested Nuclear Device
> By DAVID E. SANGER            October 9, 2006
> 
> WASHINGTON, Monday, Oct. 9 &#8212; North Korea said Sunday night that it had set off its first nuclear test, becoming the eighth country in history, and arguably the most unstable and most dangerous, to proclaim that it has joined the club of nuclear weapons states.
> ...





Different from iraq and iran, north korea always gets reward from its master for what it did - food aid, economic aid for its nuclear weapon production, missile test, war threat....

------------------
QUOTE:


> U.S. TO SHIP OIL TO NORTH KOREA
> bush cites progress on denuclearization
> 
> BY PETER BAKER
> ...



------------
QUOTE:


> RESUMPTION OF U.S. FOOD ASSISTANCE TO THE NORTH KOREAN PEOPLE
> 
> MAY 16, 2008
> PRESS OFFICE: 202-712-4320
> ...


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Aug 12, 2013)

Our next war will be with China over Taiwan because Obama failed to get out in front.  When he gets us into a war with China, Russia will attack America with nuclear war.   The North Koreans are down in Mexico right now training with the Cubans, the Nicaraguans & the Chinese.  The Chinese currently have 12 bases in Mexico used to store helicopters, military tanks, trucks, jeeps, you name it.  The locals have seen it and the fisherman have watched them doing military drills on the beach. 

The tipping point is when China takes Taiwan and USA responds.  Then Russia hits us, activates their sleeper cells, Islamists activate their sleepr cells and that is checkmate, folks.   It could be that the North Koreans are doing Russia and China a favor by claiming up front they are going to strike us.  Perhaps if enough people believe this lie they will assume it was NK that hit us rather than Russia.  

NK will join the Chinese, Cubans, Nicaraguans & Russians for ground invasions but they are not the ones that will do a nuclear strike.  That will be Russia.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 12, 2013)

"In recent months North Korea has conducted its third nuclear test, threatened attacks on regional targets, offered and then scrapped high-level talks with Seoul and, most recently, suggested talks with the US. 

"Dr John Swenson-Wright of Chatham House looks at what is driving Pyongyang's actions."

Possibly the North and South would resolve their differences if the US was to end its occupation of Korea?

BBC News - Viewpoint: What does Pyongyang want?


----------

