(August 15, 2017 at 9:58 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: What the hell can china do to defend North Korea aginast a sudden air strike by stealth aircraft, unless they pre-positioned a lot of assets in North Korea first?

They won't be able to stop a surprise attack in all likelihood.  But unlike North Korea, we really don't want to move toward war with China.  Even the trade being seriously affected between the two of us would send the entire planet into a recession, probably much worse than the  Great Recession.  I could easily see us losing some of our Naval ships in the South China Sea.  Actually we would be lucky if we only lost a few destroyers.  That would just be a way of them telling us they weren't very pleased with our actions.  That would be a minor reaction.

---

Actually, now that I think of it. China would probably hit all of our bases in South Korea. Hit them hard.

(August 15, 2017 at 2:19 pm)A Theist Wrote: Just as I thought they would.  Kim backs down.

Quote:North Korea is backing off a threat to fire missiles at the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam, according to a new report.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said he had decided not to launch an attack but warned he could change his mind.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/346566...eat-report

We will see! Cult leaders like Kim Jung Un and Donald Trump have a habit of sacrificing themselves and their sheep to their egos.

Ditch the Kims, set up North Korea like Hong Kong, and sit back and make some fucking money you stooopid fucking mother fuckers.

(August 15, 2017 at 11:20 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Ditch the Kims, set up North Korea like Hong Kong, and sit back and make some fucking money you stooopid fucking mother fuckers.

I seriously doubt that the malnourished have the energy to do so, and those that aren't, are looking to keep things that way.

(August 15, 2017 at 2:19 pm)A Theist Wrote: Just as I thought they would.  Kim backs down.

Quote:North Korea is backing off a threat to fire missiles at the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam, according to a new report.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said he had decided not to launch an attack but warned he could change his mind.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/346566...eat-report

It may not be a good idea to be on a boat or ship around Hawaii or you might have a hot visitor.

---

(August 15, 2017 at 10:08 pm)Rahul Wrote:

(August 15, 2017 at 9:58 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: What the hell can china do to defend North Korea aginast a sudden air strike by stealth aircraft, unless they pre-positioned a lot of assets in North Korea first?

They won't be able to stop a surprise attack in all likelihood.  But unlike North Korea, we really don't want to move toward war with China.  Even the trade being seriously affected between the two of us would send the entire planet into a recession, probably much worse than the  Great Recession.  I could easily see us losing some of our Naval ships in the South China Sea.  Actually we would be lucky if we only lost a few destroyers.  That would just be a way of them telling us they weren't very pleased with our actions.  That would be a minor reaction.

---

Actually, now that I think of it.  China would probably hit all of our bases in South Korea.  Hit them hard.

We're being played.  If we hit North Korea the Chinese and Russians will nuke us.  Game over.

(August 15, 2017 at 5:48 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 15, 2017 at 5:45 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote: Thinking about it, the last time when the US was in a war where you could classify them as "the good guys" without severely distorting that term was Korea I. And even then they were willing to engage in very questionable practices.

So you don't think we are the good guys against ISIS in Syria?

Ye armed them in the first place, mainly because the real opposition to Assad knew turning to violent rebellion was a mistake. You can't claim good guy by shitting on people from on high and then coming in and wiping the edges with a j-cloth.

(August 15, 2017 at 2:35 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(August 15, 2017 at 2:19 pm)A Theist Wrote: Just as I thought they would.  Kim backs down.



http://thehill.com/policy/defense/346566...eat-report

No kidding, and that is what that family has always done, which is why nobody today can give me any good alternative that 45 could claim he could do that the presidents of the past 50 years of BOTH parties have not tried.

But please do not post this as 45 deserving any credit. I'd place that more on his baby sitters pulling him aside and bitch slapping him behind closed doors.

when have they backed down??? We tell them not to create nuke, they do, we tell them not to develop icbm's they do, we tell them not to test nukes they do, we tell them not to launch the ICbms they do we tell them not to put the war heads on the icbms they do...

So when the FF's has this family backed down ever? to obama, bush clinton or even regan?

Here's the thing.. They never backed down because China has always had their back. It wasn't till trump came along and upset china's apple cart/got china to believe that we do not care if they have the N.Korean's back or not, we will not be spat on by this little dictator. While most of you were looking at the exchange between Kim and Trump, Trump was using those exchanges to make China act.

China made Kim back off, because Trump scared the Chinese government. Something never done before.

---

(August 15, 2017 at 2:46 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(August 15, 2017 at 2:25 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: He's such a troll

^^^

He's been making idle, toothless threats since he gained power.

Doesn't surprise me.

^^^^media propaganda.

Un has delivered on every threat he has made up untill this last one, where Trump backed Him down via China.

---

(August 15, 2017 at 3:20 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(August 15, 2017 at 3:09 pm)A Theist Wrote: The fuckhead Kim backed down. Barack opened his big ass mouth and threatened Assad with a " Red Line" if he used chemical weapons. Assad saw Barack for the coward he was and used chemical weapons anyway. There's a beautiful never used Red Line you can buy for very cheap, because it never worked.

You know how in 1864, Ulysses Grant kept losing skirmishes but kept advancing,  while Robert Lee kept winning skirmishes but had to keep retreating towards Richmond?  It was not Grant who had to surrender at Appomattox.

Guam is an insignificant skirmish where we won, but while losing the skirmish Kim advanced his nuclear capability, while we retreated.   Kim will soon be able to hit our Richmond, the continental US, with nuclear weapons.

The difference between trump in North Korea and Obama in Syria, is obama's back was not against Richmond.

Are you retarded???

Guam was made and held as an american Territory before and since WWII because it has tremoundous strategic value. that is why out B-2 Spirit stealth bomber fleet is stationed there as well as a naval port and marines. it is the hub to the whole south pacific and Asia. Even out missile defense systems are located there (you know what would shoot down a nuke ttack launched from asia at our west coast.) That us why Un wanted to destroy gaum. It is one of several hub type base that leaves the US main land open for attack.

---

(August 15, 2017 at 3:30 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(August 15, 2017 at 3:09 pm)A Theist Wrote: The fuckhead Kim backed down. Barack opened his big ass mouth and threatened Assad with a " Red Line" if he used chemical weapons. Assad saw Barack for the coward he was and used chemical weapons anyway. There's a beautiful never used Red Line you can buy for very cheap, because it never worked.

Um no asshole, Obama couldn't do shit because the GOP obstructed him on everything, not just Syria.

:Bwahahah:
And no one is obstructing trump, that must be why He gets it done...

---

(August 15, 2017 at 4:22 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(August 15, 2017 at 4:08 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote: Not really. They never intended a first strike in the first place, just to show an increasingly belligerent US* that they now had nukes and could deliver them a serious distance, to Guam, say. Once that was done, there really was no point stoking the flames further.

Precisely.

It takes a considerable amount of willful stupidity to think this was ever anything else. So of course Trump's slack-jawed supporters will clap and bark on cue, as the Great Leader pats himself on the back for forcing Kim to do what he was always going to do anyway. 

Again.. provide one instance where we/obama or bush told Un to back down and He did.

Dude never backed down because he thought china always would have his back.

"Trump's rhetoric" has unnerved the Chinese enough to tell either side if the start something China will not back them. Trump bluff/rhetoric says he does not care, which has china doubble down on sanctions to north korea and start moving from them. It is this pressure that has UN backing down, not because he was going to anyway.

Think about it.. why would UN uset the only country willing to deal with Him if he was always planning to back down?

(August 16, 2017 at 1:32 pm)Drich Wrote:

---

(August 15, 2017 at 4:22 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: Precisely.

It takes a considerable amount of willful stupidity to think this was ever anything else. So of course Trump's slack-jawed supporters will clap and bark on cue, as the Great Leader pats himself on the back for forcing Kim to do what he was always going to do anyway. 

Again.. provide one instance where we/obama or bush told Un to back down and He did.

Dude never backed down because he thought china always would have his back.

"Trump's rhetoric" has unnerved the Chinese enough to tell either side if the start something China will not back them. Trump bluff/rhetoric says he does not care, which has china doubble down on sanctions to north korea and start moving from them. It is this pressure that has UN backing down, not because he was going to anyway.

Think about it.. why would UN uset the only country willing to deal with Him if he was always planning to back down?

When it came to his development of ICBMs and nuclear weapons, you're right -- he never backed down. But that's not the context of my remark.

With respect to Kim's bluster about attacking Guam, do you really think he meant to do that (knowing the consequences) and only backed down because of Trump's public bellicosity? Seriously?!?

Provide one instance when the U.S. has removed the nuclear option from the table in the event of a nuclear attack or a conventional-weapons attack via ICBMs from North Korea or anyone else.

Kim got what he thinks he needs to prevent attack/invasion from his enemies and secure his regime: an overwhelming deterrent. That is what has motivated N. Korea's nuclear program from the start. Whether Trump or another occupied the White House, do you really think Kim was going to go to the trouble of developing this capability, only to use it with the knowledge that he would destroy his regime in the process?

(August 16, 2017 at 1:43 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(August 15, 2017 at 5:48 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So you don't think we are the good guys against ISIS in Syria?

Ye armed them in the first place, mainly because the real opposition to Assad knew turning to violent rebellion was a mistake. You can't claim good guy by shitting on people from on high and then coming in and wiping the edges with a j-cloth.

What on earth?  There is no choice but to "turn violent" against a despot who gasses his own people...Tazzy.  

You don't think that such an asshole can be talked down, do you?  Talking requires that you inhale...which is...conveniently, how you deliver airborn toxins. Hilariously, you reponded to a question about ISIS with some nonesense about Assad. They're enemies, not the same thing. Mull it over. Two or more groups of deplorables actively exploding and/or gassing anyone who doesn't agree with them....and the answer -isn't- fighting for you life by any means?

I guess they should just forfeit their lives in peaceful, noble, non-conformity.......

(August 16, 2017 at 2:15 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(August 16, 2017 at 1:43 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: Ye armed them in the first place, mainly because the real opposition to Assad knew turning to violent rebellion was a mistake. You can't claim good guy by shitting on people from on high and then coming in and wiping the edges with a j-cloth.

What on earth?  There is no choice but to "turn violent" against a despot who gasses his own people...Tazzy.  

You don't think that such an asshole can be talked down, do you?  Talking requires that you inhale...which is...conveniently, how you deliver airborn toxins.  Hilariously, you reponded to a question about ISIS with some nonesense about Assad.  They're enemies, not the same thing.  Mull it over.  Two or more groups of deplorables actively exploding and/or gassing anyone who doesn't agree with them....and the answer -isn't- fighting for you life by any means?

I guess they should just forfeit their lives in peaceful, noble, non-conformity.......

And what was the result of a couple if idiots taking Amercai's and Britain's small arms and turning the rsistance violent? Oh right, they got royally fucked.

There's three ways a violent rebellion works 1) you've enough power relative to the opressor that you can find them to a standstill, 2) you catch the opressor at a point where they can be easily persuaded they should get out or 3) have an outside ally with the muscle and will to oust your opressor. The Syrian opposition had none of these so the best option was to stay non violent and hope the world turned.

Oh and they had the added problem that once arms came in things got tribal. One group got arms so a lot of other groups who were previously sympathetic either went back to the Assad went to ISIS or some other group which had no interest in justice or democracy.

If you're analysis of these kind of situations is typical (and frankly for an American that kind of fantasising is genius) no wonder your country's foreign policy is so fucked up and anti humanitarian.