shopify analytics
+ Visit Notts. County FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 46

Thread: O/T North Korea

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    5,757
    If North Korea attack the south then the USA would have no option but to retaliate in kind. We do know that millions of North Koreans have died of starvation (or is that just propaganda). While Kim nut job spends billions on weapons which would be suicidal to his own country if he used them.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by i961pie View Post
    If North Korea attack the south then the USA would have no option but to retaliate in kind. We do know that millions of North Koreans have died of starvation (or is that just propaganda). While Kim nut job spends billions on weapons which would be suicidal to his own country if he used them.
    Western countries don't have the moral high ground, because we've pursued our fair share of aggressive, self-serving foreign policies, but at least we've done it with some idea of the outcome we're looking for. I'm not sure Kim Jong-un actually has a plan, which makes him incredibly dangerous. We know that if individual human beings become too isolated from society they can become irrational and unhinged, so who is to say North Korea has not done the same after so many years talking mostly to itself?

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by jackal2 View Post
    There's no doubt that if the US attacks North Korea it will be a bloodbath, not least in South Korea, but it could be that this is the only endgame in town. It depends whether you believe that Kim Jong-un will only go so much further and will settle down once he finally secures his nuclear weapon and feels his country is safe, or whether he is intent on ever increasing aggression come what may. At the moment it looks like the latter, and if that's the case, you can't rely on diplomacy or appeasement for ever, even though the alternative seems unthinkable. There might not be an optimum solution.
    I'm quite surprised that any of these missiles are reaching their target height. Maybe the merkins are not ready show their hand or they're not as clever as we might hope they are.

    If their missiles "exploded" on launch things might change. Where's that laser weapon satellite when you need it?

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by dam617 View Post
    The lunatic asylum that is North Korea is cock waving again and you're still 'stuggling' with Trump's semantics (and victory)? Bless. Any excuse to have a pop eh?
    It's not his semantics, it's his intelligence (and lack thereof) and his appalling methods of communication. There is no nuance to this man and diplomats need nuance.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by jackal2 View Post
    Western countries don't have the moral high ground, because we've pursued our fair share of aggressive, self-serving foreign policies, but at least we've done it with some idea of the outcome we're looking for. I'm not sure Kim Jong-un actually has a plan, which makes him incredibly dangerous. We know that if individual human beings become too isolated from society they can become irrational and unhinged, so who is to say North Korea has not done the same after so many years talking mostly to itself?
    Kim Jong Un's plan is to develop a delivery system for NK's nuclear deterrent capable of striking major US. I'd say it's clear that since the end of WWII the US has been by far the most aggressive nation on the planet, having invaded over 30 sovereign countries and killed over 20 million people. Iraq and Afghanistan are but the most recent examples. If I was a foreign leader that neither wanted to be a vassal of the US or face it's military, then I too would probably want to be in possession of a viable nuclear deterrent.

    Donald Trump's goal is to distract from his drastic domestic ratings.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by andy6025 View Post
    Kim Jong Un's plan is to develop a delivery system for NK's nuclear deterrent capable of striking major US. I'd say it's clear that since the end of WWII the US has been by far the most aggressive nation on the planet, having invaded over 30 sovereign countries and killed over 20 million people. Iraq and Afghanistan are but the most recent examples. If I was a foreign leader that neither wanted to be a vassal of the US or face it's military, then I too would probably want to be in possession of a viable nuclear deterrent.

    Donald Trump's goal is to distract from his drastic domestic ratings.
    I say God bless America, our friend when needed - and was well proven in WW11 (for a starter)

    Where did your ridiculous figure of 20 million people killed by the US come from eh?
    Last edited by seriouspie; 08-07-2017 at 08:00 PM.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by seriouspie View Post
    I say God bless America, our friend when needed - and was well proven in WW11 (for a starter)

    Where did your ridiculous figure of 20 million people killed by the US come from eh?
    They didn't do bad killing our lads during 'shock and awe', most of our casuaties were down to American recklessness and incompetence.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    5,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Vladpie View Post
    They didn't do bad killing our lads during 'shock and awe', most of our casuaties were down to American recklessness and incompetence.
    But who would we rely on if god forbid we were attacked?---France?? Germany?? I don't think many of our European ''friends'' would be coming to our aid.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by seriouspie View Post
    Where did your [...] figure of 20 million people killed by the US come from eh?
    Good question. The number comes from a piece that's been doing the rounds since at least 2007:

    http://www.countercurrents.org/lucas240407.htm

    But this year it reached a site called Global Research, who have a better rep - the same rating as The Daily Mail. Make of that what you will.

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/global-research/

    It's definitely a conspiracy rant, imo, but it's not uninformative. The splash headline number of 20 -30 million killed by the US since WWII includes those killed by:

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.countercurrents.org/lucas240407.htm
    U.S. military action, proxy military forces, the provision of U.S. military supplies or advisors, or other ways, such as economic pressures
    The figure Andy gave can reasonably be said to be 'ridiculous', or at least meaningless given the impossibility of accurately measuring the sum of the above actions. Also, you could challenge the author's ethical grounds for including, say, people killed by guns the US sold, or people whose deaths occurred indirectly due to US foreign policy, sanctions for example.

    That said, it's hard to deny that Americans have killed far far more people than anyone else on the planet - ever - but exactly how many millions since WWII is hard to say.

    North Korea's fear isn't surprising, but their strategy of public aggression towards such a country is.
    Last edited by SolSigns; 09-07-2017 at 04:52 AM.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by SolSigns View Post
    Good question. The number comes from a piece that's been doing the rounds since at least 2007:

    http://www.countercurrents.org/lucas240407.htm

    But this year it reached a site called Global Research, who have a better rep - the same rating as The Daily Mail. Make of that what you will.

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/global-research/

    It's definitely a conspiracy rant, imo, but it's not uninformative. The splash headline number of 20 -30 million killed by the US since WWII includes those killed by:



    The figure Andy gave can reasonably be said to be 'ridiculous', or at least meaningless given the impossibility of accurately measuring the sum of the above actions. Also, you could challenge the author's ethical grounds for including, say, people killed by guns the US sold, or people whose deaths occurred indirectly due to US foreign policy, sanctions for example.

    That said, it's hard to deny that Americans have killed far far more people than anyone else on the planet - ever - but exactly how many millions since WWII is hard to say.

    North Korea's fear isn't surprising, but their strategy of public aggression towards such a country is.
    Thanks Sol ....... I didn't know.

    I would add 'foolishness' to your last line. I remember an old saying "If you pull the tail of a tiger too many times it'll turn round and kill you" - and believe me the Yanks will if NK carry on testing. China and Russia will do nothing in retaliation as to try would be suicidal.

  11. #31
    Probably true Vlad........but I could also counter with " How many of our own and other nationalities were working in Dresden and Berlin as innocent civilians when Bomber Harris's lads dropped in? They surely weren't all Krauts.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by SolSigns View Post

    North Korea's fear isn't surprising, but their strategy of public aggression towards such a country is.
    I completely agree with what you are saying here Sol and this is the key for me. A sovereign country (not a state as media portray these days) has a right to protect and have defense measures in place to protect itself and it's citizens in my opinion. I can understand smaller countries like N.Korea could be nervous due to what has happened in the middle east in countries like Lybia and Iraq for example and do not want their country to be met with a similar fate.

    However I don't think N.Korea are going about developing their defences in the right way. This is where it is concerning, because as they continue to test and develop their weapons they keep threatening and provoking the US in doing so. It may all be hot air and propaganda on their part to demonstrate to their citizens their perceived power in the world, but like someone has said if you keep poking a lion with a stick then don't be surprised when it roars.

    I guess one question is if a country or a group of countries develop the most powerful weapons in the world does it or they have the right to dictate who can and have not have such similar weapons? I think it comes down to power. For example if you have nuclear deterrent then that is power on the world stage. There is an order of power in the world and if other countries such as N. Korea develop such weapons then they affect the balance of power. They also need to understand the responsibility to humanity that comes with having such power.

    I'm not sure how this will play out as it seems like a game of chess. If the USA were to take military action as a result of the threats then this could be catastrophic for South Korea in particularly Seoul. If the USA do nothing in a military sense and this continues and N.Korea do develop weapons that could reach the whole of the US then would they ever be prepared to use them? If North Korea achieved this capability would they stop their threats or continue to bate the US?

    Would N.Korea launch an attack on the US first, if so what would their reasons be? If this were to be the case the reaction of citizens of the US would be asking why were they not stopped before and why were their threats not taken seriously?

    I don't think military action by either country would be beneficial to anyone and should be avoided at all costs.

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by seriouspie View Post
    Probably true Vlad........but I could also counter with " How many of our own and other nationalities were working in Dresden and Berlin as innocent civilians when Bomber Harris's lads dropped in? They surely weren't all Krauts.
    what are you saying?
    A consensus has to be conducted before a decision is reached?
    It was war FFS. A target decided on, and in my opinion ****ing justified. The Germans had shown no quarter to many cities or races. It was a pity only a 1000 bombers could be raised.

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Trickytreesreds View Post
    what are you saying?
    A consensus has to be conducted before a decision is reached?
    It was war FFS. A target decided on, and in my opinion ****ing justified. The Germans had shown no quarter to many cities or races. It was a pity only a 1000 bombers could be raised.
    Ode 'ard TTR, I'm NOT saying it wasn't justified.... just answering Vlad's point in post 27 with a comparison.

    I'm all for the Yanks. I used to made welcome when I used to go over on business and don't forget many of those bombers were made during the war with American dollars.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by seriouspie View Post
    Ode 'ard TTR, I'm NOT saying it wasn't justified.... just answering Vlad's point in post 27 with a comparison.

    I'm all for the Yanks. I used to made welcome when I used to go over on business and don't forget many of those bombers were made during the war with American dollars.
    It wasn't an act of generosity, remember the 'lend / lease' scheme that we only just finished paying off in the last ten years?

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    5,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Vladpie View Post
    It wasn't an act of generosity, remember the 'lend / lease' scheme that we only just finished paying off in the last ten years?
    Maybe so but there was no other country at the time that could help us.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Vladpie View Post
    It wasn't an act of generosity, remember the 'lend / lease' scheme that we only just finished paying off in the last ten years?
    But it would have saved all this EU bollox.

    Something BFP embraces

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,493
    Quote Originally Posted by i961pie View Post
    But who would we rely on if god forbid we were attacked?---France?? Germany?? I don't think many of our European ''friends'' would be coming to our aid.
    Well unless we fall out with Iceland or Canada or North Korea develop a missile that can travel further than imaginable its a safe bet we wont be able to rely on them as they will already have been blown into the stratosphere!

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by queenslandpie View Post
    Well unless we fall out with Iceland or Canada or North Korea develop a missile that can travel further than imaginable its a safe bet we wont be able to rely on them as they will already have been blown into the stratosphere!
    Nuke em now.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,493
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePass View Post
    Nuke em now.
    Yeah that would work great idea why didn't I think of that.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •