North Korea What to do?

[ballsofsteel]

This got to be Obama's fault. All this bad blood between us and North Korea started back then when Obama referred
to NK as part of the "AXIS OF EVIL". Remember that?

[Dill]

(06-29-2017, 05:51 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Which would S Korea and Japan prefer? A reckless and aggressive nuclear powered N Korea, and China militarizing the south sea... or a stronger China and a free south sea?

Pretty easy choice there. 

The difference between a N Korea and Iraq occupation is China already controls N Korea's ability to get anything, including *food*. The US could never shut down Iraq's border. China could. Plus there wouldn't be a religion angle bringing foreign fighters and foreign government support. China throws 1m troops in N Korea, kills off the government and high ranking military, and takes over. Not an occupation, a destruction and absorbtion.

A "free south sea" will not be in any bargain that enhances Chinese power in the region.  (See post #18 above.)

I am pretty sure neither South Korea nor Japan would like to see "a stronger China" on South Korea's border. South Koreans, who still have relatives in the North, would not all be thankful to have millions of refugees flooding their land, nor to see the massive death toll of people they still consider their countrymen.  Unless the plan is to kill all North Koreans, China will be in for a costly occupation of a hostile territory--massive instability and human rights violations in the massive prison system required to house dissidents.

If China really thinks the problem is large enough to warrant a costly (and certainly politically unpopular) invasion, then it is surely large enough to motivate policies and diplomacy which undermine the NK regime--e.g., by starving it--before moving to the far more costly and destabilizing measure of war.

[Dill]

(06-29-2017, 05:51 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I saw this and your sig girl picture right underneath it and was like "I'll take 72!"

See, that is the recruiting power of ISIS! 

[Dill]

(06-29-2017, 05:13 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: His people love the guy. They cry tears of joy when he gives speeches. They call him "Dear Leader"! When is the last time all of the people in the U.S. called the President "Dear Leader" (besides Trump, of course)?

Clearly the liberal media is doing a hack job on this guy, just like Trump!!!

The ladies like him too!

Here is what the hate-mongering liberal media doesn't want us to see.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-29-2017, 06:20 PM)Dill Wrote: A "free south sea" will not be in any bargain that enhances Chinese power in the region.  (See post #18 above.)

I am pretty sure neither South Korea nor Japan would like to see "a stronger China" on South Korea's border. South Koreans, who still have relatives in the North, would not all be thankful to have millions of refugees flooding their land, nor to see the massive death toll of people they still consider their countrymen.  Unless the plan is to kill all North Koreans, China will be in for a costly occupation of a hostile territory--massive instability and human rights violations in the massive prison system required to house dissidents.

If China really thinks the problem is large enough to warrant a costly (and certainly politically unpopular) invasion, then it is surely large enough to motivate policies and diplomacy which undermine the NK regime--e.g., by starving it--before moving to the far more costly and destabilizing measure of war.

How hostile will the territory be once they get to eat good food, watch tv, get Internet and video games, enjoy music. Sure they love N Korea when their life depends on it.

Starve and freeze for a couple winters, have your entire neighbor's family vanish after speaking badly about leadership, and I doubt you would be too upset about a change in leadership. Just if your life would become better, which it would be.

Plus even if they are hostile, it is not the same as other countries. I don't think there is ANY private gun ownership in N Korea. They can't go Red Dawn on them or anything.

[ballsofsteel]

(06-29-2017, 06:40 PM)Dill Wrote: The ladies like him too!

Here is what the hate-mongering liberal media doesn't want us to see.

WonHungLow can grab those woman on their vagina's and they don't even care.

[Dill]

(06-29-2017, 06:43 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: How hostile will the territory be once they get to eat good food, watch tv, get Internet and video games, enjoy music. Sure they love N Korea when their life depends on it.

Starve and freeze for a couple winters, have your entire neighbor's family vanish after speaking badly about leadership, and I doubt you would be too upset about a change in leadership. Just if your life would become better, which it would be.

Plus even if they are hostile, it is not the same as other countries. I don't think there is ANY private gun ownership in N Korea. They can't go Red Dawn on them or anything.

A couple quick points:

Now one knows for sure what happens if one million Chinese invade a mountainous country of 25 million, most of whom appear fanatically devoted to independence and their leader and have at least 9 nukes.

Have your entire family disappear when a Chinese artillery shell hits your house, and i doubt you would be ready to embrace the artillery crew, even if they offer you internet service and video games.  (Iraqis had video games and they still wanted to fight.)

N Korea is not only awash with guns, but also virtually the entire population has military training. Assuming one million Chinese could defeat organized resistance from millions of armed North Koreans on their own mountainous, deeply bunkered ground, there will still be millions of AKs, rpgs, artillery shells for IEDs and the like floating around.  Following the precedent of previous peninsular conflicts, expect hidden caches of weapons and unoffical military units prepared for coordinated action after any "surrender." Red Dawn on steroids.

Plus these ladies have swords!



PS there is private gun ownership, just not to the extent of the US. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/north-korea. During a conflict, however, we can assume there would be plenty of guns available, issued by the military, on dead soldiers, etc.

[Matt_Crimson]

(06-29-2017, 05:59 PM)Dill Wrote: Then the solution is simple--combine defensive capability with diplomacy.

We get the N Koreans to sign a treaty agreeing to only shoot one missile at a time and give us the exact coordinates of each ahead of time.

Lol.  And they can only fire them at Alaska.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-29-2017, 06:40 PM)Dill Wrote: The ladies like him too!

Here is what the hate-mongering liberal media doesn't want us to see.

And he is a dog lover. Always feeding starving dogs some of the freshest meat.

[Benton]

(06-29-2017, 05:32 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I think you have to keep in mind that our military deployments have much more to do with than our own economy. Although WW3 isn't currently going on, the US is playing a game of chess just like everyone else with their military. The fear of war is still very real and our capabilities to strike our enemies plays a big role in our military placements around the world.

Fair point. On the other hand, part of what makes us a super power is our ability to put a significant militarized force anywhere on the globe in a short amount of time. Bases help with that, but only to a degree. And many of our cases would not be used logistically.

[Matt_Crimson]

(06-29-2017, 07:34 PM)Dill Wrote: A couple quick points:

Now one knows for sure what happens if one million Chinese invade a mountainous country of 25 million, most of whom appear fanatically devoted to independence and their leader and have at least 9 nukes.

Have your entire family disappear when a Chinese artillery shell hits your house, and i doubt you would be ready to embrace the artillery crew, even if they offer you internet service and video games.  (Iraqis had video games and they still wanted to fight.)

N Korea is not only awash with guns, but also virtually the entire population has military training. Assuming one million Chinese could defeat organized resistance from millions of armed North Koreans on their own mountainous, deeply bunkered ground, there will still be millions of AKs, rpgs, artillery shells for IEDs and the like floating around.  Following the precedent of previous peninsular conflicts, expect hidden caches of weapons and unoffical military units prepared for coordinated action after any "surrender." Red Dawn on steroids.

Maybe the Chinese are cautious of invading North Korea because they remember what little Japan did to them.

[Bengalzona]

(06-29-2017, 06:40 PM)Dill Wrote: The ladies like him too!

Here is what the hate-mongering liberal media doesn't want us to see.

He's buddies with Dennis Rodman. How cool is that!!!



But does the lying liberal fake news media want you to know about that? No way! 

Here's another image that the Obama-loving media didn't want you to see:

[SunsetBengal]

(06-29-2017, 09:28 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: He's buddies with Dennis Rodman. How cool is that!!!



But does the lying liberal fake news media want you to know about that? No way! 

Here's another image that the Obama-loving media didn't want you to see:

So, when we all were told that Rodman's visits were purely diplomatic, Kim Jong In has really been tossing the enigma's salad??

[Matt_Crimson]

(06-29-2017, 09:14 PM)Benton Wrote: Fair point. On the other hand, part of what makes us a super power is our ability to put a significant militarized force anywhere on the globe in a short amount of time. Bases help with that, but only to a degree. And many of our cases would not be used logistically.

Agreed, and I think that's actually part of the dilemma. The longer we keep our troops abroad, the more money we end up spending as a result. But the more we pull back our military the more of a vacuum we start to create that could lead to more regional conflict because of countries (or groups like ISIS) suddenly wanting to flex their muscles now that the world police aren't around. Personally I've been under the impression that Wprld War III hasn't happened because of how invested we are militarily around the world.

I imagine some foreign military wanting to attack someone and they're like "Hey why don't we attack..... nah the Americans are there. Well how about.....? Nope, they're there too...... Hmm.... Well what about..... no. GOD DAMNIT THEY'RE EVERYWHERE. Someone call Assad and have that dude shoot some chemical weapons or something, I wanna see if the US actually does anything"

[Vlad]

(06-29-2017, 04:56 PM)Dill Wrote: I see your point Zona.

The liberal media has misled us with their constant attacks on the guy.  

Yes, but that guy has been Trump.  

If you two could put aside your silliness and be serious for a moment, you would have to agree that the tone the mainstream media demonstrates when reporting on Kim is neutral, they neither "attack" him or defend him. Just reporting the facts coming out of N. Korea, just the facts ma'am.lol
What a great concept.

Anyone old enough to remember Detective Joe Friday?

[GMDino]

Maybe a tweet calling NK names?

[Bengalzona]

(06-29-2017, 09:36 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, when we all were told that Rodman's visits were purely diplomatic, Kim Jong In has really been tossing the enigma's salad??

I just tossed something when I read that. 

[Dill]

(06-29-2017, 10:15 PM)Vlad Wrote: Yes, but that guy has been Trump.  

If you two could put aside your silliness and be serious for a moment, you would have to agree that the tone the mainstream media demonstrates when reporting on Kim is neutral, they neither "attack" him or defend him. Just reporting the facts coming out of N. Korea, just the facts ma'am.lol
What a great concept.

Anyone old enough to remember Detective Joe Friday?

LOL would we? Kim Jong Un would certainly NOT agree that the American press reports him neutrally. To authoritarian personalities, there is no "neutral." You are for the Dear Leader or against him. Truth and falsehood are redefined as what he likes and what he doesn't. And that's why Authoritarian leaders are surrounded by yes men and a yes press.

I am trying to imagine how a reporter would "neutrally" describe the Mika tweet Trump sent out this morning which humiliated the nation (again).  "Just the facts" make Trump seem childishly vindictive and lacking the judgment to understand that. Especially so if he is upset because Mika and Joe have questioned his mental stability. If a reporter compensates for that, as Sarah Huckabee did, by spinning to blame the victim, and suggesting Trump was only fighting fire with fire, then we are a long way from the facts.

 He has called these criticisms upon himself by his own behavior. His demand for fair media is really a demand for the media to report what he wants as he wants it. So I don't want to judge the current MSM criticism of Trump according to what Trump likes and what he does not.

Bush and Obama took the heat while preserving the dignity of the office. Both agreed our free press is essential to Democracy EVEN WHEN CRITICAL OF THEIR POLICIES. Trump cannot take the heat, and his thin skin has become a matter of national security. What sort of leader can be so easily and frequently thrown out whack by reporter comments? There are some, but they do not lead Western powers.

PS Did Pat Novack ever edge a bit beyond "just the facts" in his descriptions"?

[ballsofsteel]

(06-29-2017, 10:15 PM)Vlad Wrote: Yes, but that guy has been Trump.  

If you two could put aside your silliness and be serious for a moment, you would have to agree that the tone the mainstream media demonstrates when reporting on Kim is neutral, they neither "attack" him or defend him. Just reporting the facts coming out of N. Korea, just the facts ma'am.lol
What a great concept.

Anyone old enough to remember Detective Joe Friday?
[url=http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiT6c3ls-TUAhXMTSYKHRHuDl4QjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthepomoblog.com%2Findex.php%2Fjust-the-facts%2F&psig=AFQjCNEuXvjJ0xHlTFtxIwInOy2cYIsEcQ&ust=1498872066003842][/url]

 
" that the tone the mainstream media demonstrates when reporting on Kim is neutral,"

Good morning Vlad.  We got all this turmoil going on in this country. Some talk show host questions Trumps mental state. The commander in Tweets fires back one of his stupid, no sence and insulting tweet towards these two. The MSM reports (ie: repeats ) WHAT TRUMP DID. The rightwingnuts don't say how stupid, disgusting and childish what Trump said. No, they blame the media for their "NEGATIVE TONE" , negativity and always attacking him. Now you have Sarah Suckabee, who looks like she was hit in the face with a baseball bat, (Thats my trump description), spinning away.  When the Con man does something worthwhile the MSM will report it. His actions could be spun differently by Unscrupulous media outlets, (Fox news comes to mind), but his Tweets are there in black and white for the world to see. There is no spinning them. 
Btw, Morning Joe and his sidekick were questioning Trumps mental state because of him and his FAKE MAGAZINE COVER. But this is normal behavior for a grown man right?
Trump is a Kim Jong want a be.
Spin away.

[ballsofsteel]

Trump is meeting his idol Putin Friday who he respects bigly. Do you think he is going to get in Putin's face for screwing with our election? Probably not. What is he going to do about North Korea? Trump better quit watching people on tv criticizing him and get his shit together.