US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea.

Cheerful Spring

Gatling wrote: »

It would be better if Korea was reunified not occupied by china or another autocratic tyrant put in on their behalf

It be better if America bases closed down and thousands of American troops returned home too! We know this unlikely to happen since America still has bases in Germany and Japan 60 years after WW2.

China is not going to allow America establish another war base next door to their border.

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It be better if America bases closed down and thousands of American troops returned home too! We know this unlikely to happen since America still has bases in Germany and Japan 60 years after WW2.

China is not going to allow

Since they are there under invitation by Sovereign states but China and others don't like that ,

China is not going to allow , nuclear weapons in the Korean peninsula but they are supplying North Korea with the means to launch nuclear weapons.hmmmmm

China doesn't want a unified Korea hmmmm

China claims to own nearly all the south China seas ,

China doesn't want south Korea to have air defence missles

China doesn't want this and doesn't want that .

Seems to be China seems to be one of the major issues here

Divelment

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You calling for nuclear war and the killing of millions of people. NK so far is only testing dud missiles, relax. You swear we are all in imminent danger of nuclear attack.

Britain and France went to war Hitler invaded Poland, big difference.

I'm all in for shooting down the dud missile when it leaves NK airspace, a warning shot to tell Kim to back down. This is the best option before having a war.

I don't agree we should launch a pre-emptive war over a missile test.

The world hasn't worked out a credible way yet to deal with dictators. The UN is a failure that has yet to once deal effectively with a dictator. You only need to look at what happened in Srebrenica, 8,000 people massacred in a supposed "UN safe zone", to see how the supposed leaders of modern democratic values and the defenders of human rights, completely bottled it when they couldn't enforce their own policies and put a valid military campaign around what they had set out as policy.

Fast forward 22 years and things have changed, only in the sense that there is less chance of the UN being able to impose its own policies on rouge states and dictators. Sorry lads, this world needs a Trump, it needs someone who will take off the gloves and where decision made equals decision executed, no more fannying around with "condemnations" and such crap that achieves absolutely nothing.

That guy needs to be told, next missile you launch will be your last, end of story.

Nabber

Gringo180 wrote: »

Assad was elected. Saddam Hussein was put in power by the U.S, he was also given weapons by the west to attack Iran and kill thousands of innocent kurds with chemical weapons which were also given to him by the west. The Shah another dictator installed by the west who actually overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran. Bin Laden was supported by the CIA in Afghanistan as were the Taliban. Most of these problems are created by the west. When will these idiot politicians ever learn?

Unfortunately they have learned. To think they want peace or stability is where you're going wrong.

In the cases above, these people served one regime in the west but didn't suit the next government. So they get eliminated.

War is business, and business is good.

Ipso

Divelment wrote: »

The world hasn't worked out a credible way yet to deal with dictators. The UN is a failure that has yet to once deal effectively with a dictator. You only need to look at what happened in Srebrenica, 8,000 people massacred in a supposed "UN safe zone", to see how the supposed leaders of modern democratic values and the defenders of human rights, completely bottled it when they couldn't enforce their own policies and put a valid military campaign around what they had set out as policy.

Fast forward 22 years and things have changed, only in the sense that there is less chance of the UN being able to impose its own policies on rouge states and dictators. Sorry lads, this world needs a Trump, it needs someone who will take off the gloves and where decision made equals decision executed, no more fannying around with "condemnations" and such crap that achieves absolutely nothing.

That guy needs to be told, next missile you launch will be your last, end of story.

Wasn't he told that already?

Divelment

Ipso wrote: »

Wasn't he told that already?

No, he was told a load of generalities, like "if you keep threatening the US then there will be fire & fury"... He wasn't told, "launch one more missile and your ass will be vapourised".

ilkhanid

Gatling wrote: »

But do you honestly think china will just go in with america and south Korea and then leave when the job is done ,

And NK artillery will be replaced with Chinese guns under the idea of preventing america invading china ,

Even a South Korea with a semi-permanent Chinese presence would be preferable to the situation that exists. Korea isn't an area that China wants to absorb; it's traditional strategic goal there is simply to prevent another power having control over the peninsula.(For example, once the Japanese were repulsed in 1598 the Chinese left the country). Once a pliant, biddable regime was in control of the North, I don't think we'd see a large Chinese presence.
I doubt that the Chinese would ever imagine that the US would try to invade it. There's no power in the world that doesn't realise that invading China would be a catastrophe at worst, a colossal quagmire at best.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It be better if America bases closed down and thousands of American troops returned home too! We know this unlikely to happen since America still has bases in Germany and Japan 60 years after WW2.

China is not going to allow America establish another war base next door to their border.

Eh? Do you think that the Japanese, Germans and Koreans don't have any say in the matter?

flaneur

I don’t think the US has any intention of invading China, nor is China a threat to the US. It’s a load of Cold War nostalgic nonsense.

China and South Korea really need to cooperate on dealing with the growing threat that is North Korea.

Having North Korea firing missiles and making crazy threats to the US is only increasing American involvement in the region.

Also whatever about the history, North Korea has quite regularly threatened to nuke the US. It’s really not a situation the US can just ignore, particularly when they’ve demonstrated technology and intent.

I mean China has nuclear weapons but I don’t think anyone assumes that they would use them in a first strike. North Korea has stated over an over that they are very willing to do just that.

I’m not convinced that China has as much influence in North Korea as we are lead to believe.

Cheerful Spring

Divelment wrote: »

The world hasn't worked out a credible way yet to deal with dictators. The UN is a failure that has yet to once deal effectively with a dictator. You only need to look at what happened in Srebrenica, 8,000 people massacred in a supposed "UN safe zone", to see how the supposed leaders of modern democratic values and the defenders of human rights, completely bottled it when they couldn't enforce their own policies and put a valid military campaign around what they had set out as policy.

Fast forward 22 years and things have changed, only in the sense that there is less chance of the UN being able to impose its own policies on rouge states and dictators. Sorry lads, this world needs a Trump, it needs someone who will take off the gloves and where decision made equals decision executed, no more fannying around with "condemnations" and such crap that achieves absolutely nothing.

That guy needs to be told, next missile you launch will be your last, end of story.

Have you forgotten the West took out Saddam and Qaddafi. Agreed with the removal of Yanukovych and Assad.

We don't know how to overthrow a country with nuclear weapons yet!

Cheerful Spring

ilkhanid wrote: »

Even a South Korea with a semi-permanent Chinese presence would be preferable to the situation that exists. Korea isn't an area that China wants to absorb; it's traditional strategic goal there is simply to prevent another power having control over the peninsula.(For example, once the Japanese were repulsed in 1598 the Chinese left the country). Once a pliant, biddable regime was in control of the North, I don't think we'd see a large Chinese presence.
I doubt that the Chinese would ever imagine that the US would try to invade it. There's no power in the world that doesn't realise that invading China would be a catastrophe at worst, a colossal quagmire at best.



Eh? Do you think that the Japanese, Germans and Koreans don't have any say in the matter?

I agree with the China part of this post.

What i am trying to say is will the US remove all it bases from Asia if we somehow can remove Kim from power and start unification between the North and South?

I still struggle to understand why Germany has American military bases. The Soviet Union is gone.

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I still struggle to understand why Germany has American military bases. The Soviet Union is gone.

Russia isn't thought it's invasion and occupation of Eastern Ukraine , Crimea and it's attack on Georgia is perfect example why European states want american forces

Cheerful Spring

Gatling wrote: »

Russia isn't thought it's invasion and occupation of Eastern Ukraine , Crimea and it's attack on Georgia is perfect example why European states want american forces

Crimea was part of Russia for centuries. And majority of people who live there are
Russian not Ukraine and they had a vote to side with Russia.

Putin invaded a small section of Georgia to protect Russian people there from genocide.

Eastern Ukraine is not occupied by Russian forces.

And Germany has nothing to fear. Russia after all handed back Eastern Germany to the Germans. The Russians gave up rule and it's bases after the cold war ended. Nato and Americans have been prolonging the cold war with Russia. They promised not to build Nato bases in Eastern Europe and they have done the opposite.

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Crimea was part of Russia for centuries. And majority of people who live there are
Russian not Ukraine and they had a vote to side with Russia.

Putin invaded a small section of Georgia to protect Russian people there from genocide.

Eastern Ukraine is not occupied by Russian forces.

Bs,bs and more bs .

48% of the population of Crimea is Ukrainian russians have barely 52% of the population of Crimea yet 120% of population voted for russia says it all really ,
But as the UN have publicly stated Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is under occupation by russian forces .
Russia is a threat to many European states

jackboy

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Crimea was part of Russia for centuries. And majority of people who live there are
Russian not Ukraine and they had a vote to side with Russia.

Putin invaded a small section of Georgia to protect Russian people there from genocide.

Eastern Ukraine is not occupied by Russian forces.

And Germany has nothing to fear. Russia after all handed back Eastern Germany to the Germans. The Russians gave up rule and it's bases after the cold war ended. Nato and Americans have been prolonging the cold war with Russia. They promised not to build Nato bases in Eastern Europe and they have done the opposite.

Maybe the Americans are paying Germany for that base. I'm sure there are benefits to the local economy in supplying the base. Also, American bases offer massive security benefits for the country resulting in the host country saving massive money developing their own army.

Cheerful Spring

Gatling wrote: »

Bs,bs and more bs .

48% of the population of Crimea is Ukrainian russians have barely 52% of the population of Crimea yet 120% of population voted for russia says it all really ,
But as the UN have publicly stated Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is under occupation by russian forces .
Russia is a threat to many European states

According to the 2001 census, 77% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea 70 per cent are Russians.

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

According to the 2001 census, 77% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea 70 per cent are Russians.

speaking russian as a first language does not make you russian. English is my native language and i'm pretty sure i'm not english.

Cheerful Spring

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

speaking russian as a first language does not make you russian. English is my native language and i'm pretty sure i'm not english.

The Majority wins not the minority. 70 per cent of the population are Russian people. They decided by vote to side with Russia.

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

According to wiki

Controlled and governed as part of the Russian Federation , though internationally recognised as part of Ukraine

Funny thing though 10 years ago russia tried a mass passportisatisation of Crimea offering hundreds of thousands of russian passports to anyone who wanted one , exactly what they did in south ossetia
But it was rejected by the population of Crimea who favoured Ukrainian passports ,

Odd.

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

According to the 2001 census, 77% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea 70 per cent are Russians.

During the days of the USSR, the Russians made great efforts to "Russify" as much of the western territories of the USSR as possible.
Countries like Latvia, Lithuania & Estonia for example, experienced a huge influx of Russian citizens such that in some areas the local language is in the minority, This is simply caused by the language shift that occurs when an invading population overwhelm the locals and using the language of the invaders has more benefits than the local language.

Remember what happened closer to home.

As far as Crimea is concerned, it was only Ukrainian because Khrushchev decided that it was easier to administer it from the SSR state capital in Kiev that from Moscow.
Russia had taken it from the Ottoman empire in the middle of the 19th century.

Edit: what does all this have to do with NK?????

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The Majority wins not the minority. 70 per cent of the population are Russian people. They decided by vote to side with Russia.

and as you were already told speaking russian does not make you russian. It also doesnt mean you are happy for russian tanks to roll in and take over.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

During the days of the USSR, the Russians made great efforts to "Russify" as much of the western territories of the USSR as possible.
Countries like Latvia, Lithuania & Estonia for example, experienced a huge influx of Russian citizens such that in some areas the local language is in the minority, This is simply caused by the language shift that occurs when an invading population overwhelm the locals and using the language of the invaders has more benefits than the local language.

Remember what happened closer to home.

As far as Crimea is concerned, it was only Ukrainian because Khrushchev decided that it was easier to administer it from the SSR state capital in Kiev that from Moscow.
Russia had taken it from the Ottoman empire in the middle of the 19th century.

Edit: what does all this have to do with NK?????

just as additional data points i work with two people with russian as their first language. one doesnt even speak her native language. Neither consider themselves russian.

Cheerful Spring

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

just as additional data points i work with two people with russian as their first language. one doesnt even speak her native language. Neither consider themselves russian.

Since we talking about Crimea. I meant the majority speak Russian.

Cheerful Spring

Deleted User wrote: »

During the days of the USSR, the Russians made great efforts to "Russify" as much of the western territories of the USSR as possible.
Countries like Latvia, Lithuania & Estonia for example, experienced a huge influx of Russian citizens such that in some areas the local language is in the minority, This is simply caused by the language shift that occurs when an invading population overwhelm the locals and using the language of the invaders has more benefits than the local language.

Remember what happened closer to home.

As far as Crimea is concerned, it was only Ukrainian because Khrushchev decided that it was easier to administer it from the SSR state capital in Kiev that from Moscow.
Russia had taken it from the Ottoman empire in the middle of the 19th century.

Edit: what does all this have to do with NK?????

Sure, but currently the majority of the population are Russian. There was only 15% who identify as Ukrainian in Crimea.

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Since we talking about Crimea. I meant the majority speak Russian.

and that means sweet FA. You seem to think that makes them happy to be invaded by russia.

Cheerful Spring

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and that means sweet FA. You seem to think that makes them happy to be invaded by russia.

Actually it was the people in Crimea who protested and did not want to be part of the new Ukraine. Russia only send in troops when Ukraine threatened to establish order and wipe out the protesters.

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Actually it was the people in Crimea who protested and did not want to be part of the new Ukraine. Russia only send in troops when Ukraine threatened to establish order and wipe out the protesters.

you really need to start reading better books and newspapers

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Actually it was the people in Crimea who protested and did not want to be part of the new Ukraine. Russia only send in troops when Ukraine threatened to establish order and wipe out the protesters.

No your wrong

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The media are so dumb they tried to convince everyone Kim missiles could not reach Japan. Here you go guys, another false news story exposed.

You've just posted a thread on AH asking if a UFO video is legit!

Sorry...I'm afraid my take on your analysis of media reports from now on is laughter...:)

Cheerful Spring

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you really need to start reading better books and newspapers

Azov Battalion are now part of the Ukraine army. The Azov Battalion are Fascist thugs. Putin was right to step in before things turned ugly.

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Azov Battalion are now part of the Ukraine army. The Azov Battalion are

Ukrainians Defending Ukraine from russian occupation forces ,