US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea.

Gringo180

mini_Sapphire wrote: »

Iraq was a completely different objective... getting oil out of the hands of a tin-pot dictator... that was the war aim.

So its okay to totally destroy a countries infastructure and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians so America can loot there natural resources?

By that logic its okay for North Korea to bomb the American mainland and take out there regime and fruitcake leader. Sounds legit.

cnocbui

Gringo180 wrote: »

NK has nuclear weapons as a deterrent. They will never be used as a first strike unless they are invaded. Thats straight from the horses mouth.

Not very well informed, are you?

“If the U.S. comes up with a dangerous military option, then the first card is in our hands. We’ll deal with it with our pre-emptive strike. This means war,” Han said.

Tracy sought to clarify Han’s remark; “So you are saying if you feel North Korea is going to be attacked, you will use nuclear weapons?” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-trumps-aggressive-tweets-making-trouble/

“Of course,” Han replied.

By the way America spends over 600 billion on military all the while 15% of there population live in poverty. The U.S are under no financial or trade sanctions that effect there economy while North Korea is.

Poverty is a very complex topic. The US expenditure on it's military isn't one of the causative factors and the redirection of those funds couldn't eradicate it either as a huge proportion of western aid is already diverted to and by corrupt locals. You would just be fattening the pigs even more.

I remember the same criticisms for the expenditure on the Apollo program.

Gringo180 wrote: »

They already have nuclear weapons and theres nothing the Americans or anyone can do about it unless they want to bring us into a nuclear winter. There country wont be destroyed by the bully boy yanks again.

Two or three nukes do not a nuclear winter make, being probably all it would take to snuff out NKs nuclear aspirations. it would take thousands of nukes to create a nuclear winter.

Oh spare me the pitiful propaganda.

Creative83

Gringo180 wrote: »

So its okay to totally destroy a countries infastructure and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians so America can loot there natural resources?

By that logic its okay for North Korea to bomb the American mainland and take out there regime and fruitcake leader. Sounds legit.

Never said it was ok...

Gatling

You will have the Kim boi's crying with that notion ,

It could easily happen but certain people believe NK is a utopia that should be kept as is ,

Gatling

cnocbui wrote: »

Not very well informed, are you

Oh spare me the pitiful propaganda.

Two perfect points there

flaneur

The way the US has behaved, certainly since WWII, has been very much as an arrogant interventionist.

I think what you tend to get is a weird coalescence of several reasons for intervention. You get the strategic experts, diplomatic experts and a cohort of political science types who will make arguments about the need to intervene for human rights and ensuring people have freedom from an oppressive regime type reasons. For the most part, these arguments and people are well meaning.
However, they're often viewing the world from some ivory tower and they tend to game play in a way that ignores all sorts of complications and you end up with unintended consequences as a result.

However, then you get a gung ho, over simplistic politics that sees the world in terms of "good" and "evil" in superhero comic kind of way. You've the 'goodies' and the 'baddies'. It's a very American way of seeing the world, by completely removing the nuances and the humanity and just painting it all in cartoon like rhetoric.
That's being controlled by pandering to an electorate that is one of the least aware of global affairs in the world and that often just sees these conflicts as totally hypothetical and off in some far away place that they've never heard of and will never go.

Then you've got the business interests who just see a war as an opportunity to 'access' resources, 'liberate markets' and sell weapons making vast amounts of money. These groups inform the political debate through intense lobbying.

I think the problem with the US is also down to the inherent weakness of the UN and other intentional bodies. When a regime is doing horrible things, there needs to be a proper international way of bringing them into line, particularly around human rights. That simply isn't the case as you've powerful vested interests in the UN who have horrific human rights records themselves and will not allow any real action to be taken. The result of that is the US tends to jump in as "Team America World Police".

I don't think you could call the US 'imperialist'. It's more like the neighbour who decides to organise a vigilante movement and start patrolling the neighbourhood with machine guns for no particular reason.
In fact, the US' outward behaviour is not really totally unlike how it behaves internally - heavily armed and thinks that everything can be sorted out by pointing a gun at it.

The other thing that's worrying me about this is that it's blatantly obvious that if you're nuclear armed, you are a lot less likely to be attacked by the US or Russia for that matter either. Take a look at North Korea vs Iraq or the Ukraine. It really doesn't say a lot for the idea of non proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Whatever about the history of the Korean War, nothing really excuses the North Korean regime's behaviour towards its own people and the way it's making threats to neighbours. The history is awful but the regime is awful too. It's a joke to call itself either a Democratic or People's Republic. For all intents and purposes, it's an absolute monarchy.

I would rather see the regime being taken down by the people though and then a movement towards reuniting Korea. The vested interest be they China or the US need to get out of the way.

cnocbui

Gringo180 wrote: »

Lol

Yes, god forbid the populace of NK should live the sort of life their SK neighbours have to tolerate.

Who needs lights at night anyway, they are just for corrupt western style democracies. The honest and hard-working people of North Korea do not need such decadent fripperies.

Zebra3

Gatling wrote: »

You will have the Kim boi's crying with that notion ,

It could easily happen but certain people believe NK is a utopia that should be kept as is ,

Nobody in here has said that but I suppose not much stops you lying.

Gatling

Zebra3 wrote: »

Nobody in here has said that but

Is that your best effort,


America did that , America did this , america , america america america.


Yaaaawn .

Zebra3

Gatling wrote: »

Is that your best effort,


America did that , America did this , america , america america america.


Yaaaawn .

Diverting attention away from your lies and belittling America's long list of crimes against humanity.

You're a class act. :rolleyes:

Have you ever been to Vietnam and seen the damage there to human beings as a result of the chemical weapons the US dropped on civilians?

Cheerful Spring

cnocbui wrote: »

Yes, god forbid the populace of NK should live the sort of life their SK neighbours have to tolerate.

Who needs lights at night anyway, they are just for corrupt western style democracies. The honest and hard-working people of North Korea do not need such decadent fripperies.

Seoul is like Las Vegas. It has billboards everywhere that continue to be on all day long (24 hours nonstop) it's a neon city. If you go by your picture above you can see there is plenty of areas in China with no light too.

cnocbui

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Seoul is like Las Vegas. It has billboards everywhere that continue to be on all day long (24 hours nonstop) it's a neon city. If you go by your picture above you can see there is plenty of areas in China with no light too.

You mean those dark bits of China that are actually the sea or the gobi desert or Tibet?

Cheerful Spring

Gringo180 wrote: »

NK has nuclear weapons as a deterrent. They will never be used as a first strike unless they are invaded. Thats straight from the horses mouth.

By the way America spends over 600 billion on military all the while 15% of there population live in poverty. The U.S are under no financial or trade sanctions that effect there economy while North Korea is.

Since the 13.5% figure is official number, you best belief it probably a higher percentage. At 13 per cent this 43 million citizens who can't feed themselves. Then you got others just above the poverty line, who still struggle everyday, but considered too well off to be considered for this statistic.

Cheerful Spring

cnocbui wrote: »

You mean those dark bits of China that are actually the sea or the gobi desert or Tibet?

North Korea is a mountainous country. Plenty of areas are not habitable and will be dark at night. North Korea probably don't charge people to keep the lights on, so there is a cost factor for them, i would think.

People live in Tibet. Gobi Desert i fairly certain there people living there too. The Sea nope this outside the the border of China.

4068ac1elhodqr

end of the road wrote: »

no country should have such weapons but if some countries can, then all countries can. it's as simple as that.

Not that simple, and a very silly argument.

In that case you'd be looking at a decimated central Africa, those involved in the Rwanda genocide would have no qualms setting a few off. Congo too. Perhaps former Yougoslavia would've settled scores with them. The entire Middle East would surely be a void, hot, empty desert by now.

You can almost guarantee some medieval clan of scarf wearers would have been able to steal a few from somewhere, such the abundance would be.

Gatling

Zebra3 wrote: »

Diverting attention

Have you ever been to Vietnam and seen the damage there to human beings as a result of the chemical weapons the US dropped on civilians?

Yes ,

Love their war museums myself .


Have you a point in this thread or do we all have to listen to Murica did this and Murica did that,

No point ,No

You never do just I hate America yaaaawn

Gringo180

Gatling wrote: »

Yes ,

Love their war museums myself .


Have you a point in this thread or do we all have to listen to Murica did this and Murica did that,

No point ,No

You never do just I hate America yaaaawn

Hating American foreign policy is a bad thing is it?

SeanW

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

Not that simple, and a very silly argument.

In that case you'd be looking at a decimated central Africa, those involved in the Rwanda genocide would have no qualms setting a few off. Congo too. Perhaps former Yougoslavia would've settled scores with them. The entire Middle East would surely be a void, hot, empty desert by now.

You can almost guarantee some medieval clan of scarf wearers would have been able to steal a few from somewhere, such the abundance would be.

I would have thought that a basic grasp of sanity would have made this point clear. :eek: It's hard believe that this actually has to be pointed out!

Gringo180

cnocbui wrote: »

Not very well informed, are you?





Poverty is a very complex topic. The US expenditure on it's military isn't one of the causative factors and the redirection of those funds couldn't eradicate it either as a huge proportion of western aid is already diverted to and by corrupt locals. You would just be fattening the pigs even more.

I remember the same criticisms for the expenditure on the Apollo program.



Two or three nukes do not a nuclear winter make, being probably all it would take to snuff out NKs nuclear aspirations. it would take thousands of nukes to create a nuclear winter.

Oh spare me the pitiful propaganda.

If North Korea where going to strike first they would of done so already after that fool Donald Trumps comments. He basically said he would destroy there country (again).

2 or 3 nukes? Once the North is hit with Nuclear weapons they will unleash there own on the South and Japan and eho knows they couod even hit the west coast of the US mainland. Millions will be incinerated but I suppose war war is better than jaw jaw to some of the warmongers on here that think they will be safe from the comfort of behind there keyboards.

4068ac1elhodqr

SeanW wrote: »

I would have thought that a basic grasp of sanity would have made this point clear. :eek: It's hard believe that this actually has to be pointed out!

Indeed, was an elementary educational level question.

Sometimes you can hear a faint Chinese Workers Party accent when reading through some of the silly posts on here :pac:

Curly Judge

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

Not that simple, and a very silly argument.

In that case you'd be looking at a decimated central Africa, those involved in the Rwanda genocide would have no qualms setting a few off. Congo too. Perhaps former Yougoslavia would've settled scores with them. The entire Middle East would surely be a void, hot, empty desert by now.

You can almost guarantee some medieval clan of scarf wearers would have been able to steal a few from somewhere, such the abundance would be.

Yes.... yes ....but parity of esteem is more important than common sense.
Nuclear weapons are a human right, just like water and housing.:rolleyes:

Zebra3

Gatling wrote: »

Yes ,

Love their war museums myself .


Have you a point in this thread or do we all have to listen to Murica did this and Murica did that,

No point ,No

You never do just I hate America yaaaawn

And there you go again, belittling America's war crimes.

"Poor America with all its long list of war crimes being called out, boo hoo, this isn't fair, they should be allowed slaughter whoever they want". :rolleyes:

MadYaker

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Maybe read about the war in Yemen. Guardian is a right wing newspaper so you can't make the excuse i picked a news piece that sides with me!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/16/third-of-saudi-airstrikes-on-yemen-have-hit-civilian-sites-data-shows

More than one-third of all Saudi-led air raids on Yemen have hit civilian sites, such as school buildings, hospitals, markets, mosques and economic infrastructure, according to the most comprehensive survey of the conflict.

The findings, revealed by the Guardian on Friday, contrast with claims by the Saudi government, backed by its US and British allies, that Riyadh is seeking to minimise civilian casualties.

The survey, conducted by the Yemen Data Project, a group of academics, human rights organisers and activists, will add to mounting pressure in the UK and the US on the Saudi-led coalition, which is facing accusations of breaching international humanitarian law.

I agree that what's happening in yemen is awful. But the USA isn't at war with yemen.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

General Kelly confirmed the red line with North Korea is when they can demonstrate the ability to hit the continental United States with a ICBM. At the moment. They don't believe North Korea can do this. Soon as the North Koreans prove they can war starts. Trump may start a war before this stage, but this seems to be thinking right now, wait and see posture. In someways this can be foolish waiting for your enemy to be stronger than you believe they are now!

They've already tested missiles that can reach the west coast of the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-14

Gatling

Zebra3 wrote: »

And there you go again,

So you have zero point to make ,

Nothing to discuss about north Korea .

No .


Sooooo basically your ranting and raving -yes

Curly Judge

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Maybe read about the war in Yemen. Guardian is a right wing newspaper so you can't make the excuse i picked a news piece that sides with me!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/16/third-of-saudi-airstrikes-on-yemen-have-hit-civilian-sites-data-shows

More than one-third of all Saudi-led air raids on Yemen have hit civilian sites, such as school buildings, hospitals, markets, mosques and economic infrastructure, according to the most comprehensive survey of the conflict.

The findings, revealed by the Guardian on Friday, contrast with claims by the Saudi government, backed by its US and British allies, that Riyadh is seeking to minimise civilian casualties.

The survey, conducted by the Yemen Data Project, a group of academics, human rights organisers and activists, will add to mounting pressure in the UK and the US on the Saudi-led coalition, which is facing accusations of breaching international humanitarian law.

The Guardian is a right-wing newspaper?
Compared to what.....Militant or the Socialist Party Worker?

Irish Praetorian

Gringo180 wrote: »

Hating American foreign policy is a bad thing is it?

Vapid hatred for its own sake, or more commonly as a means to appear trendy or to give the impression that one is in possession of some kind of sophisticated understanding of geopolitics (which tends not to be the case), is indeed a very bad thing.

In politics, as in society generally, the options are not 'good' or 'bad' the options are 'least worst' and 'worst' - the kind of open ended contempt I frequently see for the USA tends to be from people who cannot accept that fundamental truth. Moreover they tend to be angry at the inability of the US and the wider world to overnight become a model of a perfect society that can do no wrong. Idealism might lead one to despise US policy but realism should take one back to at-least examining it cynically.

ilkhanid

RustyNut wrote: »

Colonization complete.

There were no indigenous inhabitants of the islands at the time of their discovery, so it would be inaccurate to describe them as colonised, in the sense that other parts of South America were.

end of the road wrote: »

doesn't matter, they are not british and never will be. argentina took back what was theirs to take. if they want to be british so badly, up and move there, give them safe passage.

They are as British as they are Argentinian. Argentina took back what was theirs to take and then Britain did the same. Why should they leave their home? Every country with a restive minority could say the same: why don't ye go back to the Republic of Ireland, Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Bangladesh, Spain, Algeria, Turkey,Armenia, Russia, India, Sweden etc etc etc
Off subject but needs to be said.

Kermit.de.frog

Defector says North Korean economy won't last another 12 months and that many people are going to die (of starvation presumably). Worth reading.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/17/north-koreas-economy-may-not-survive-another-year-defector-says.html

Ipso

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Defector says North Korean economy won't last another 12 months and that many people are going to die (of starvation presumably). Worth reading.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/17/north-koreas-economy-may-not-survive-another-year-defector-says.html

This famine will obviously be Trumps fault, he didn't let fat boy implement enough socialism.

Ipso

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Vapid hatred for its own sake, or more commonly as a means to appear trendy or to give the impression that one is in possession of some kind of sophisticated understanding of geopolitics (which tends not to be the case), is indeed a very bad thing.

In politics, as in society generally, the options are not 'good' or 'bad' the options are 'least worst' and 'worst' - the kind of open ended contempt I frequently see for the USA tends to be from people who cannot accept that fundamental truth. Moreover they tend to be angry at the inability of the US and the wider world to overnight become a model of a perfect society that can do no wrong. Idealism might lead one to despise US policy but realism should take one back to at-least examining it cynically.

Another manifestation of this is the soft defence of complete and utter middens heaps of regimes such as Cuba, Iran and NK in this thread.