US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea.

stevedublin

I think I read somewhere that the US is technically still at war with N.Korea, the 1953 agreement was a ceasefire agreement, there was no peace treaty so effectively the war never ended.

RustyNut

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Huh????

Argentina invaded the Falklands!
What else could she do??

Give the Argintinians their islands back?

Gatling

RustyNut wrote: »

Give the Argintinians their islands back?

But they don't belong to Argentina

stevedublin

Gatling wrote: »

But they don't belong to Argentina

Hence why they should be given back

fxotoole

Gatling wrote: »

But they don't belong to Argentina

Do the Falklands have some huge cultural, hostorical, or economic link to good old Britainia? Seems to me they'd have closer ties to Argentina than they would the UK

flaneur

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it's highly unlikely Trump would every go to war in order to gain some popularity because he knows that he'll be ridiculed one way or another, if he goes to war it will be only Trump's fault, if NK launch some form of attack on U.S soil Trump will be ridiculed for not stopping it and if he goes to war after an attack it will be the ( poor NK people being killed ) Everything he says and does he will be ridiculed the hatred of him is so powerful and the Media scum just won't let up.

He's a populist who flies by the seat of his pants and flips on issues if the wind changes.

If he think going to war would give him legitimacy or improve his rep, I think there's a high probability that he'll head that direction.

I think you have to realise he isn't s politican, he isn't really a republic or s democrat, he's just himself and to him this is exactly like reality TV. It's all about the plot twists, the keeping you on the edge of your seat and ultimately : the ratings.

It's a very different presidency to anything we've ever seen before and hopefully they we will ever see again.

If he has a conscience and a sense of what's involved in going to war, maybe he will take a more sane decision but I really don't have any confidence in him at all.

Gatling

fxotoole wrote: »

Do the Falklands have some huge cultural, hostorical, or economic link to good old Britainia?

Yes the population of the Islands are British ,

RustyNut

Gatling wrote: »

Yes the population of the Islands are British ,

Colonization complete.

Irish Praetorian

RustyNut wrote: »

Colonization complete.

The Patagonian people of Southern Argentina (like many other Native American groups) tell a similar story - will we be shuttling the Argentines back to Europe any time soon?

MadYaker

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it's highly unlikely Trump would every go to war in order to gain some popularity because he knows that he'll be ridiculed one way or another, if he goes to war it will be only Trump's fault, if NK launch some form of attack on U.S soil Trump will be ridiculed for not stopping it and if he goes to war after an attack it will be the ( poor NK people being killed ) Everything he says and does he will be ridiculed the hatred of him is so powerful and the Media scum just won't let up.

I don't think this is accurate. Regardless of what your opinions of Trump are, people ridicule him because he is a terrible president, and a nasty individual who cares more about himself than anyone else or the people he is supposed to be governing, and I'm not talking about the media's portrayal of Trump here because it's largely irrelevant. I agree to a certain extent that he doesn't get fair treatment from the media. But I (and the majority of the world) don't need a biased media to give us a negative impression of Trump. All I have to do is read his twitter feed or his speeches or watch his interviews to see what a horrible, self inflated idiot he is. So this idea that's it's always the media painting Trump in a negative light and that Trump is somehow the victim is nonsense. Trump does a perfectly good job of ruining his own image himself, no media necessary, it's just who he is and he can't hide it. Except from those who don't want to see it.

I think if NK attacks the US or an ally of theirs Trump would be justified in hitting back, because that wouldn't be him starting a war. It would be NK starting the war and Trump defending his country. Which is fair enough. I think congress would approve retaliation and the general public would also support it, to a certain extent.

ZeroThreat

RustyNut wrote: »

Colonization complete.

I thought the islands were entirely uninhabited when they were discovered, no?

Nettle Soup

RustyNut wrote: »

Give the Argintinians their islands back?

That's not the point. The poster said that Thatcher entered the Falklands War to improve her popularity. That's nonsense. She did increase her popularity but she had no choice but to resist a force of invasion. What British PM would have let the Argentina take the Falklands by force?

Now the sinking of the Belgrano was another story...

SeanW

bilston wrote: »

If the US sits down and thinks about it for a moment they will realise they do not need to solve this militarily. North Korea will never strike first, they know if they do they will cease to exist in minutes. Sure no one wants North Korea to have a nuclear capability, but better that and there being no conflict than there being a conflict in which at least hundreds of thousands will be killed, possibly millions, and not to mention a significantly damaged global economy.

Yeah, sure. Because allowing a murderous, evil psychopath an increased ability to annihilate the civilised world while assuming "they'll never do it" has worked out so well in the past. Like in 1938 when Neville Chamberlain stepped off a plane with a piece of paper and pronounced "Peace in our time!" ... after all, the Nazis would never invade Poland ... it would be suicide!

It's important at this point to remember that North Korea does not need nuclear weapons for its own defense. NK borders both Red China and the Russian Federation. Neither country wants the U.S. military or another Washington Consensus country on this border, so the US is necessarily hesitant to attack it. There would be major geopolitical implications. A regime that is only acquiring such weapons "as a last resort" does not bomb civilian airliners, invade other nations and kidnap their people, assassinate other nations politicians, or any of the other acts of aggression committed by NK. It also sends a very bad message that every psycho a-hole on the planet will be allowed to build a nuclear arsenal to terrorise civilians in the civilised world.

This is bad news all around.

kravmaga

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Now the sinking of the Belgrano was another story...

Maggie gave the green light on that one, a UK sub did the job

Cheerful Spring

Nettle Soup wrote: »

You just want to keep your thread going! :D:D

Sure i make the North Korean news? I just listen to Trump and he don't seem interested in solving this crisis by peaceful means.

Curly Judge

I wonder what thought process is going on among the NK government at the moment?:
Should we chance another missile test across northern Japan or South Korea?
What if they shoot it down over international waters?
How should we react?
Jump up and down screaming about foreign aggression, or escalate to the next level?

cnocbui

Nettle Soup wrote: »

That's not the point. The poster said that Thatcher entered the Falklands War to improve her popularity. That's nonsense. She did increase her popularity but she had no choice but to resist a force of invasion. What British PM would have let the Argentina take the Falklands by force?

Now the sinking of the Belgrano was another story...

No I didn't. Read it again.

Nettle Soup

cnocbui wrote: »

Maggie Thatcher was accused by some of entering into the Falklands war as a means of improving her popularity.

I think Trump may well see a war with North Korea as being something that might boost his. As you pointed out, nothing else he tries is likely to do that.

Name one person who accused Thatcher of entering into the Falklands war as a means of improving her popularity.

I only see you.

BoatMad

SeanW wrote: »

Yeah, sure. Because allowing a murderous, evil psychopath an increased ability to annihilate the civilised world while assuming "they'll never do it" has worked out so well in the past. Like in 1938 when Neville Chamberlain stepped off a plane with a piece of paper and pronounced "Peace in our time!" ... after all, the Nazis would never invade Poland ... it would be suicide!

It's important at this point to remember that North Korea does not need nuclear weapons for its own defense. NK borders both Red China and the Russian Federation. Neither country wants the U.S. military or another Washington Consensus country on this border, so the US is necessarily hesitant to attack it. There would be major geopolitical implications. A regime that is only acquiring such weapons "as a last resort" does not bomb civilian airliners, invade other nations and kidnap their people, assassinate other nations politicians, or any of the other acts of aggression committed by NK. It also sends a very bad message that every psycho a-hole on the planet will be allowed to build a nuclear arsenal to terrorise civilians in the civilised world.

This is bad news all around.

irrespective, just like in WW2, for the US to act, NK must act first, and NK will not so act

end of the road

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Huh????

Argentina invaded the Falklands!
What else could she do??

kept the forces at home where they belong.
the falklands were not worth the bother. they contribute nothing to the british economy. those who died in that conflict died for nothing. poor sods.
she could have not cut the defences in the first place but there we are.
i would suggest the idea of the conflict being engineered to happen to boost her popularity is not so far fetched.

Gatling wrote: »

But they don't belong to Argentina

they do.

Gatling wrote: »

Yes the population of the Islands are British ,

no they aren't. they have british ancestry alright but aren't british themselves but argentine.

harry Bailey esq

end of the road wrote: »

kept the forces at home where they belong.
the falklands were not worth the bother. they contribute nothing to the british economy. those who died in that conflict died for nothing. poor sods.
she could have not cut the defences in the first place but there we are.
i would suggest the idea of the conflict being engineered to happen to boost her popularity is not so far fetched.


they do.



no they aren't. they have british ancestry alright but aren't british themselves but argentine.

The only one that truly benefited from that farce was Jimmy Mansfield.

Manic Moran

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Now the sinking of the Belgrano was another story...

Newsflash. Warship of a country in a state of armed conflict sunk by warship of country the armed conflict is with.
I'm not sure I see the problem (for the record, neither did Cpt Hector Bonzo)

Oddly, the Falklands arguably is something you can blame the Americans for. The Argentinians were in control, the British had abandoned their colony on West Falkland in a deal with the Argentinians. The problem was that 'control' is a relative term, the locals were really more acting the pirate and being a nuisance to everyone, including US persons and ships. So the US Navy basically kicked everyone off, declared the islands "free of all government", and then the British came back and filled in the gap. They've been there ever since.

Gatling

end of the road wrote: »

they have british ancestry alright but aren't british .

Run along

Gatling

So no missle test from NK ,

But we got another Bombing excerise in the south

cnocbui

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Name one person who accused Thatcher of entering into the Falklands war as a means of improving her popularity.

I only see you.

Argentina had a rabid military dictator with a failing regime. He needed popularity. Wars are popular, so he started one. Thought the UK were too weak an far away to do anything.

Margaret Thatcher, the first woman Prime Minister of the UK, was a rabid dictator with a failing regime. She needed popularity. Wars are popular, so she happily joined in.

Ther's one. Definitely echoed in the press at the time. Not quite so common on todays filtered internet.

BillyBobBS

Gatling wrote: »

So no missle test from NK ,

But we got another Bombing excerise in the south

Good to see Kim is learning his place. The tough talk from president Trump has him worried. He should be the little fat loser.

stevedublin

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Good to see Kim is learning his place. The tough talk from president Trump has him worried. He should be the little fat loser.

He is not worried in the least. He will test his missiles (which he has every right to) whenever he wishes.

BillyBobBS

stevedublin wrote: »

He is not worried in the least. He will test his missiles (which he has every right to) whenever he wishes.

We'll see.

end of the road

Manic Moran wrote: »

Newsflash. Warship of a country in a state of armed conflict sunk by warship of country the armed conflict is with.
I'm not sure I see the problem (for the record, neither did Cpt Hector Bonzo)

Oddly, the Falklands arguably is something you can blame the Americans for. The Argentinians were in control, the British had abandoned their colony on West Falkland in a deal with the Argentinians. The problem was that 'control' is a relative term, the locals were really more acting the pirate and being a nuisance to everyone, including US persons and ships. So the US Navy basically kicked everyone off, declared the islands "free of all government", and then the British came back and filled in the gap. They've been there ever since.

the ship wasn't in a state of conflict at the time. it was only sunk out of revenge. i wouldn't be surprised if other non-conflict related "reasons" were involved in the decisian to sink it as well given who we are talking about.

BillyBobBS

end of the road wrote: »

the ship wasn't in a state of conflict at the time. it was only sunk out of revenge. i wouldn't be surprised if other non-conflict related "reasons" were involved in the decisian to sink it as well given who we are talking about.

The thread is about the situation on the Korean peninsula not the Falklands.