US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea.

Billy86

BillyBobBS wrote: »

So he's not threatening the world with WMD. Glad to hear it.

I take it you're in favour of all the refugees across Europe then, because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not too big of a coward to actually back up your points.

4068ac1elhodqr

Billy86 wrote: »

No fly zones don't require troops on the ground within Syria, and creating leverage absolutely doesn't and can mean absolutely anything. So it appears you can't back that she "said she was very keen to send boots into Syria".

Interesting to see how you would enforce such a no-fly zone, particularly from a force invited in by Assad himself? Would you suggest this could be done through a strongly worded letter? Would strong words close down all the runways?

'Leverage against Rus in Syria' means exactly that, actively disrupting their presence there. It appears you can't support your claim that Clinton wouldn't have wanted to get seriously involved in that already messed up country.

Billy86 wrote: »

What preparations could evacuate 25mn people in the time it takes for a nuke to travel the very, very short distance from North Korea to Seoul (about 10-20km from the North Korean border) or stop a nuclear bomb landing on a city from having much of any short or long term effect?

Well if they can't take off, they can't fly. No evacuation needed. Also to do so would damage his own county, it being in such close proximity. Thus he'd prefer to attack Jap and Guam with anything that hot. Artillery sure, but that wouldn't mean millions.

keeponhurling

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

Good news: Dennis Rodman Offers to 'Straighten Things Out' With Kim Jong Un.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2017/09/07/is-dennis-rodman-key-to-reining-in-kim-jong-un-n2378235

/Close thread.
Looks like the issue is close to being fully resolved. No preemptive strikes needed.

Creative83

While the situation with North Korea is alarming, I am even more concerned about what is happening in The South China Sea and the territorial disputes there. China being the main instigator in the region.

If a widespread conflict is going to erupt, it will be over this and not North Korea.

josip

mini_Sapphire wrote: »

While the situation with North Korea is alarming, I am even more concerned about what is happening in The South China Sea and the territorial disputes there. China being the main instigator in the region.

If a widespread conflict is going to erupt, it will be over this and not North Korea.

Unlikely, the Chinese have recently bought off the Philippines with a large trade deal and are in the process of doing the same with Malaysia.

Trump pulling out of the Trans Pacific Partnership has allowed China to propose an alternative and become the dominant influence in the region.

Billy86

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

Interesting to see how you would enforce such a no-fly zone, particularly from a force invited in by Assad himself? Would you suggest this could be done through a strongly worded letter? Would strong words close down all the runways?

You're aware that planes can enter the air in one country and cross to another without hitting the ground I hope? I mean, it's not like Syria is close to a very large seas accessible from the Atlantic or shares borders with very close US allies, now it is?

And no opinion on the extra troops the US has been sending into the middle east over the last few months either, I take it? I mean you did say interventionism is exactly what Trump prevented despite military action in the region ramping up under him then tried to switch to 'boots on the ground', so how is it that it is happening too - hundreds to Syria and thousands to Afghanistan, just for a start? And that's before all the increases in drone strikes As I said, once again, Trump had all of his supporters conned into thinking he would never intervene in the middle east and they can't bring themselves to see (or at least admit).

'Leverage against Rus in Syria' means exactly that, actively disrupting their presence there. It appears you can't support your claim that Clinton wouldn't have wanted to get seriously involved in that already messed up country.

Actually it means buying a bag of Tayto, since we're deciding that not saying something means saying it. The US has been exerting leverage against Russia for years, yet somehow it didn't involve war.

Now go and quote where I said Clinton wouldn't have wanted to get involved in Syria.

Well if they can't take off, they can't fly. No evacuation needed. Also to do so would damage his own county, it being in such close proximity. Thus he'd prefer to attack Jap and Guam with anything that hot. Artillery sure, but that wouldn't mean millions.

Good thing Kim is a rational individual who always thinks consequences through. Oh wait no he's not, just like Trump who would happily take a war with nuclear possibilities if it meant a little bump in polls to make him feel better about himself. I'm very curious how you reckon they can guarantee to stop all nukes immediately, should be interesting.

It's cut and dry, Trump made fools of his base yet again by openly lying to them and watching as they lapped it up - and they're playing their own part too, continuing to tell themselves that what is happening... isn't happening. Even when only yesterday the US 3,500 more troops to Afghanistan.

4068ac1elhodqr

Billy86 wrote: »

It's cut and dry, Trump made fools of his base yet again by openly lying to them and watching as they lapped it up - and they're playing their own part too, continuing to tell themselves that what is happening... isn't happening. Even when only yesterday the US 3,500 more troops to Afghanistan.

3.5k is very, very different to over 100,000 during Obama, as is allowing NK to reach this very point over all these years, as is sending a plane load of freshly printed dollars to Iran for an agreement far from perfect.

Billy86

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

3.5 is very, very different to over 100,000 during Obama, as is allowing NK to reach this very point over all these years, as is sending a plane load of freshly printed dollars to Iran for an agreement far from perfect.

At least you've finally admitted that were completely wrong in saying that never intervening in the ME is "exactly what Trump has done" and that you made up your claim that I said Clinton would not have wanted to get involved in Syria.

Gas man though, had the Iran deal not worked out they'd be further along the nuclear trail too and you'd blame Obama for that as you are with North Korea. Had Obama gone and tried to take on Iran militarily, you'd blame him for that as you are with Syria. It's all too predictable at this stage. Oh and funny enough, Clinton war monger that she is was one of the very central figures in getting that nuclear deal through which helped reduce chances of serious (e.g. nuclear) conflict in the region.

You've still not explained how the US could guarantee to disable all nukes in North Korea in the span of 20 minutes to prevent catastrophe in Seoul with it's 25mn population and the chain effect that would have on the world population.

Also feel free to show where Obama had 100,000 troops in Syria - I'll (again) give you the benefit of the doubt here but it's a higher number than I've seen previously. Please don't let me down this time too.

dr.fuzzenstein

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Do you see Saddam threatening the world with WMD's?

I'm sorry, but that is specious reasoning of the worst kind. Pure Tiger Rock. But of course you know that it is, it is clear to a six year old imbecile (unless you have reasoning capabilities below that level) that Saddam had no WMD's. The war perpetrated upon Iraq cost millions of lives and brought us ISIS and can only be described as illegal at best and more realistically as a warcrime. I would like Bush and Blair to stand trial over this atrocity.
You are simply making this statement to get a reaction and to wind people up. There's a name for it, slips my mind now, kinda rhymes with polling...

edit:
If I missed some irony, apologies.

edit 2:
nope, not a trace of irony there...
If there are any big words you need help with, just let me know.

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Well for a start i refuse to reply to anyone who uses the term fapping.

And yet you did.

4068ac1elhodqr

Billy86 wrote: »

At least you've finally admitted that were completely wrong in saying that never intervening in the ME is "exactly what Trump has done" and that you made up your claim that I said Clinton would not have wanted to get involved in Syria.

This was in reference to Syria, which he hasn't intervened in, and Clinton would have liked to impose severe measures.

Billy86 wrote: »

..that nuclear deal through which helped reduce chances of serious (e.g. nuclear) conflict in the region.

Has it? Give it a few years and ask how Israel feel about it and what their plans might be.

Billy86 wrote: »

You've still not explained how the US could guarantee to disable all nukes in North Korea in the span of 20 minutes to prevent catastrophe in Seoul with it's 25mn population and the chain effect that would have on the world population.

I'm saying it's better now than later when they actually do have dozen more smaller more capable weapons, by which time they really would be unstoppable. World population? Chain effect, eh, say whaaa?

Billy86 wrote: »

Also feel free to show where Obama had 100,000 troops in Syria - I'll (again) give you the benefit of the doubt here but it's a higher number than I've seen previously. Please don't let me down this time too.

Now your just altering words, this was in reference to Afg, not Syr??? What they're sending in now (to Afg) is a drop in the ocean compared to previous.

If you reckon H'Clinton is such a great dove of peace, how come she lost the election? Surely she should have won in every state, no?

ohnonotgmail

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

This was in reference to Syria, which he hasn't intervened in, and Clinton would have liked to impose severe measures.



Has it? Give it a few years and ask how Israel feel about it and what their plans might be.



I'm saying it's better now than later when they actually do have dozen more smaller more capable weapons, by which time they really would be unstoppable. World population? Chain effect, eh, say whaaa?



Now your just altering words, this was in reference to Afg, not Syr??? What they're sending in now (to Afg) is a drop in the ocean compared to previous.

If you reckon H'Clinton is such a great dove of peace, how come she lost the election? Surely she should have won in every state, no?

how does that follow?

Billy86

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

This was in reference to Syria, which he hasn't intervened in, and Clinton would have liked to impose severe measures.

No, no it wasn't. You said that "Not intervening in the middle east" is "exactly what Trump has done".

Has it? Give it a few years and ask how Israel feel about it and what their plans might be.

Yes, it has. "Something might happen in the future" doesn't change the fact that something looked far, far more likely to happen before the nuclear deal.

I'm saying it's better now than later when they actually do have dozen more smaller more capable weapons, by which time they really would be unstoppable. World population? Chain effect, eh, say whaaa?

Chain effect on the world economy is what I meant to say, as I had pointed out earlier. Which is what would happen on top of 25mn+ dead, maimed, displaced etc - and I'm sure those that tend to be fond of Trump would just lllooovvveee the idea of millions more refugees coming over.

Now your just altering words, this was in reference to Afg, not Syr??? What they're sending in now (to Afg) is a drop in the ocean compared to previous.

I'll hold my hand up there and say I got them mixed up - troops were about 30,000 in Afghanistan under Bush - did they rise above 130,000 under Obama? Numbers were also far lower by the end of his term than the start.

So what happened to "no boots on the ground" for Trump again? Is it the standard Trump apologist approach of pretending what they previously said was never said at all?

If you reckon H'Clinton is such a great dove of peace, how come she lost the election? Surely she should have won in every state, no?

Quote me saying Clinton is some 'dove of peace' - otherwise you are lying through your teeth. How many times have you made a claim now and failed to back it up? I'm losing track - this is the second one just on you trying to lie about my opinion of Clinton alone. Try addressing the points actually made instead of just making stuff up with every other post because you can't actually rebut what is being said.

As I said, Trump apologists are shockingly predictable at this point.

4068ac1elhodqr

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how does that follow?

She lost many a vote on the basis that she would've intervened in Syria whether via imposing non-fly zones, leverage or worse. The fact that she lost to a non-politician, tv-celeb really speaks volumes.

It's funny but the one hope does actually lie with DT's good pal Rodman. Who would Clinton have been able to get over to spend a good few hours with Kim and maybe talk some sense into him?

ohnonotgmail

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

She lost many a vote on the basis that she would've intervened in Syria whether via imposing non-fly zones, leverage or worse. The fact that she lost to a non-politician, tv-celeb really speaks volumes.

It's funny but the one hope does actually lie with DT's good pal Rodman. Who would Clinton have been able to get over to spend a good few hours with Kim and maybe talk some sense into him?

she lost because of a dumb electoral system.

Billy86

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

she lost because of a dumb electoral system.

Partly, but also because she was a poor, uninspiring candidate (not to mention her email scandal dominating the news despite the 'meeja bias' claims). That's without bringing up the dodgy Cambridge Analytica stuff tied to Russia collusion that that played a huge role in one of the greatest cons in modern history (or Comey's role in letting the public know about the reemergence of emails that turned out to be innocuous while going out of his way to try and keep the Trump/Russian collusion hidden).

The gas thing though is how quick Trump fans have been to do a 180 on exactly what they were claiming was one of the biggest reasons they were against her winning the election. Played like fiddles.

ohnonotgmail

Billy86 wrote: »

Partly, but also because she was a poor, uninspiring candidate (not to mention her email scandal dominating the news despite the 'meeja bias' claims). That's without bringing up the dodgy Cambridge Analytica stuff tied to Russia collusion that that played a huge role in one of the greatest cons in modern history (or Comey's role in letting the public know about the reemergence of emails that turned out to be innocuous while going out of his way to try and keep the Trump/Russian collusion hidden).

The gas thing though is how quick Trump fans have been to do a 180 on exactly what they were claiming was one of the biggest reasons they were against her winning the election. Played like fiddles.

well yeah it wasnt quite as simple as i said but the american public have been played for fools.

Dohnjoe

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Do you see Saddam threatening the world with WMD's?

He's not threatening the world. He has zero interest in invasion or attack. Only preserving himself, his family and elites in power.

The fear isn't war - it's the fact that he will use the "threat" for more and more leverage

The solution to that isn't all out war that will costs tens of thousands (or more) lives

Cheerful Spring

The Launch of an ICBM is expected at the Weekend. Holiday 9th of Sep in North Korea. So the 8th,9th 10th likely see a lunch. If his crazy he do it on 9/11 and really mess with the Americans.

If he does not order a launch this could be a signal his looking to deescalate the situation?

bobmalooka

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

She lost many a vote on the basis that she would've intervened in Syria whether via imposing non-fly zones, leverage or worse. The fact that she lost to a non-politician, tv-celeb really speaks volumes.

It's funny but the one hope does actually lie with DT's good pal Rodman. Who would Clinton have been able to get over to spend a good few hours with Kim and maybe talk some sense into him?

Fluck me, I've heard it all now

Dohnjoe

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

It's funny but the one hope does actually lie with DT's good pal Rodman. Who would Clinton have been able to get over to spend a good few hours with Kim and maybe talk some sense into him?

Funny? a washed up basketball player who uses the ego-trip to keep himself dropping off the celebrity list and promote a crypto-currency to hobnob with a tinpot dictator is not funny, it's beyond ridiculous

Oh am sure he can have a pal-chat with Kim and "talk some sense into him"

4068ac1elhodqr

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Funny? a washed up basketball player who uses the ego-trip to keep himself dropping off the celebrity list and promote a crypto-currency to hobnob with a tinpot dictator is not funny, it's beyond ridiculous

Oh am sure he can have a pal-chat with Kim and "talk some sense into him"

Certainly agree he's not top of the deck material, but when you have only so many cards left to play - send in the card at the bottom, the Joker!

There may be some fuzzy logic with this, one joker will listen to another.

By the way, crypto-currency is actually developing rather well these days.
Tada: Le Bitcoin price:



Apparently the two of them get on like a house on fire, sure most of the best ideas are made on the golf course, or in this case the basketball arena.

Dohnjoe

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

one joker will listen to another.

Kim is a very smart man and is currently running circles around the major world powers

nacho libre

Dohnjoe wrote: »

He's not threatening the world. He has zero interest in invasion or attack. Only preserving himself, his family and elites in power.

The fear isn't war - it's the fact that he will use the "threat" for more and more leverage

It's also the message it sends to other states. Kim is dangerous for your American friends, not because war is imminent, despite all the hysterical propaganda to the contrary, rather for the fact that it shows America to be impotent in all of this despite Donald's fulminations. So the obvious lesson to others states, who are not on good terms with America , is acquire a nuclear bomb and you are unlikely to have war wage against you.

Dohnjoe

nacho libre wrote: »

It's also the message it sends to other states. Kim is dangerous for your American friends, not because war is imminent, despite all the hysterical propaganda to the contrary, rather for the fact that it shows America to be impotent in all of this despite Donald's fulminations. So the obvious lesson to others states, who are not on good terms with America , is acquire a nuclear bomb and you are unlikely to have war wage against you.

Pretty much. The major powers know that once Kim gets nukes on ballistic and intercontinental missiles, and in numbers (beyond what current systems can shoot down) - he will call all the shots

Same for any rogue/pariah state, which is why several of them attempted to develop their own programs

4068ac1elhodqr

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Pretty much. The major powers know that once Kim gets nukes on ballistic and intercontinental missiles, and in numbers (beyond what current systems can shoot down) - he will call all the shots

Same for any rogue/pariah state, which is why several of them attempted to develop their own programs

Exactly, so shouldn't he/they be stopped now before it's too late?

Also who's likely next to get armed up after this example?
Can foresee: Japan, SK & Australia (all thanks to NK). Later: Iran, Spain, Italy, Brazil, South Africa, Canada etc...

BillyBobBS

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Pretty much. The major powers know that once Kim gets nukes on ballistic and intercontinental missiles, and in numbers (beyond what current systems can shoot down) - he will call all the shots

Same for any rogue/pariah state, which is why several of them attempted to develop their own programs

Which is why he is finished. He's crossed a line and a lot of people need to wake up and realize what is going to happen.

SafeSurfer

China is pulling the strings. The US is so focused on the NK threat that they have taken their eye off the much larger Chinese threat. For every bit of Chinese cooperation in reigning in NK, the US and her allies will pay dearly in concessions to the Chinese on the South China Sea, Japanese Islands, Indian disputed territory and ultimately Taiwan.
It's the long game which the Chinese invented that the Americans don't understand.

4068ac1elhodqr

SafeSurfer wrote: »

China is pulling the strings. The US is so focused on the NK threat that they have taken their eye off the much larger Chinese threat. For every bit of Chinese cooperation in reigning in NK, the US and her allies will pay dearly in concessions to the Chinese on the South China Sea, Japanese Islands, Indian disputed territory and ultimately Taiwan.
It's the long game which the Chinese invented that the Americans don't understand.

What about all those freshly installed THAAD's sitting now pointing in their direction, how do they like that?

China may have invented the game 'go' but that's a rubbish game, chess is much better.

BillyBobBS

China have been badly exposed by this crisis. Anyone saying anything else knows nothing about the situation. They have a manic waving nuclear weapons on their southern border making absolute asshats out of them. They look very weak.

Gringo180

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Do you see Saddam threatening the world with WMD's?

Remind me where these WMD where held at the time of the 2nd invasion of Iraq?