-
Do you have credits to spend? Why not pick up some VOD rentals? Find out how!
North Korea threatens nuclear tests over U.N. move
- Thread starter gunslingingbird
- Start date
Donkey Boy
Giggidy giggidy goo!
They're "threatening" a test?
Does anyone really think you can deal with dictators like that any other way besides with a well placed round to the third eye?
Does anyone really think you can deal with dictators like that any other way besides with a well placed round to the third eye?
Philbert
Banned
Did you forget where you're posting?
Yes, there are lots of people here who think Kim "I'll just say so long" Jong Il will stop being so mean if we send him a nice note from Barak or Michelle; or maybe lots of money and free stuff so he'll like us and be our friend.
I opt for the Third Eye location to drop a round...seems like a good solution.:thumbsup:
Yes, there are lots of people here who think Kim "I'll just say so long" Jong Il will stop being so mean if we send him a nice note from Barak or Michelle; or maybe lots of money and free stuff so he'll like us and be our friend.
I opt for the Third Eye location to drop a round...seems like a good solution.:thumbsup:
Kingfisher
Here Zombie, Zombie, Zombie...
:dunno: What are you going to do when an insane-dickless-midget-dictator is in charge of a horrible oppressed country that has actually been brainwashed to think that the U.S. is the single greatest evil in the world.
bustybbwlover
I'm so great I'm jelous of myself.
he loves to provoke, it's as if it's a game for him...
Donkey Boy
Giggidy giggidy goo!
So what you're saying is diplomacy has a limit and then you move on to something else right?
Kinda like a dictator that violates multiple UN Resolutions, a deadline comes and goes, and then the nutless UN simply wants to use more "diplomacy" and pass more resolutions...that, my friends, is cowardice, resignation, and appeasement.
Making some wonder, what was the purpose of the original resolutions to begin with?
I've seen that story play out somewhere.
Yes, there was tough talk during the Bush administration & he tested a nuclear device & six missiles without any serious action from the President. No need to talk tough if you aren't willing to/capable of going through with any threats.
According to neo cons/conservatives & their internet clones the US should :
1)basically stop talking & figure out a military solution?
2)military solution to Iran?
3)Stay in Iraq
4)Bomb the coast of Somali
....And on & on & on with actions that we are not capable of doing. Where would we get all the MONEY & people to successfully challenge N. Korea while we can barely keep a lid on IRAQ/Afghanistan.
hedonis
I can set my own custom title!
North Korea...
This country has some very, very serious problems, not the least of which is that they have a rather kooky dude running the show. This nuclear stuff, and the fact that like lots of dictators, he controls all media and information, is creating a huge problem for him, and for the country.
See, his iron grip on his people, and more importantly, his outdated, ill-equipped military, is in serious jeopardy if he thinks he can conquer the world. Eventually, even his ardent supporters like China and Russia are going to just step out of the way and say "Dude? You're on your own."
And if he decides he's going to have to keep testing nukes, and long-range delivery systems for them, then even the UN (Yes, the UN) is going to have to deal with him, and a speech read from a teleprompter isn't going to cut it.
It will not take an invasion.
Kim Jong Il, like Sadam Hussein in 1990, does NOT understand the might, the technology, or the advanced nature of today's air power, and if it comes to actual combat, he'll get a lesson in it first hand. My guess is that after US, UK, and other air forces pound the shit out of all his command and control, completely destroy his air force, cut off supply lines, obliterate his country's ability to see (Radar), and hammer his troops, you're going to see defections by his troops that will make the Iraqi surrenders look rather small.
They already have trouble feeding these men, so how much in a mood do you think they'll be to fight after several days of B-1, B-2, and B-52s raining iron on them?
I really just hope that this nutty dictator passes away, and his successor goes to the UN and says "Boy! Are we glad THAT guy is dead! Can we talk?"
That would be best for all parties involved.
H
This country has some very, very serious problems, not the least of which is that they have a rather kooky dude running the show. This nuclear stuff, and the fact that like lots of dictators, he controls all media and information, is creating a huge problem for him, and for the country.
See, his iron grip on his people, and more importantly, his outdated, ill-equipped military, is in serious jeopardy if he thinks he can conquer the world. Eventually, even his ardent supporters like China and Russia are going to just step out of the way and say "Dude? You're on your own."
And if he decides he's going to have to keep testing nukes, and long-range delivery systems for them, then even the UN (Yes, the UN) is going to have to deal with him, and a speech read from a teleprompter isn't going to cut it.
It will not take an invasion.
Kim Jong Il, like Sadam Hussein in 1990, does NOT understand the might, the technology, or the advanced nature of today's air power, and if it comes to actual combat, he'll get a lesson in it first hand. My guess is that after US, UK, and other air forces pound the shit out of all his command and control, completely destroy his air force, cut off supply lines, obliterate his country's ability to see (Radar), and hammer his troops, you're going to see defections by his troops that will make the Iraqi surrenders look rather small.
They already have trouble feeding these men, so how much in a mood do you think they'll be to fight after several days of B-1, B-2, and B-52s raining iron on them?
I really just hope that this nutty dictator passes away, and his successor goes to the UN and says "Boy! Are we glad THAT guy is dead! Can we talk?"
That would be best for all parties involved.
H
gunslingingbird
I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
^ Exactly.
Calm down GI-PornO.
If it were that easy Bush, & his clones ,who also sold the country a bunch of nonsense about how easy Iraq would be(invasion created more problems than it solved like Iranian influence in Iraq) would have done something. Maybe when N. Korea tested a Nuclear device & six(6) missiles in 2006 & Bush sheepishly did nothing ,but talked big & gave N.Korea the silent treatment:dunno:
Everyone knows that the US can deafeat these nations ,but one must be willing to deal with the consequences.
When the F**k has Kim Jung IL done anything to give you the idea (according to your post) that he wants to 'conquer the world'?:1orglaugh
That man is only concerned with self preservation.
Legzman
what the fuck you lookin at?
hedonis
I can set my own custom title!
First of all, your humorous attempt to ascribe a nickname to me falls tremendously short.
Second, where in my post did I assert that he was trying to conquer the world? Can you honestly say that he is not a viable threat to the security of his region? For fucks sake, the guy fired a missile over Japan not long ago, has defiantly kicked UN weapons and atomic energy inspectors out of his country, and has repeatedly said things that make it sound like "don't fuck with me or I'm going to use my nukes!" They threatened to declare WAR on anyone who attempted to shoot down their long range missile test. Yeah, what a teddy bear the guy is.
Building nuclear weapons is NOT, despite your uninformed opinion, a matter of self preservation. Beefing up your nations defenses would be, but offensive nuclear weapons that can reach other continents are not a matter of defense.
Now lean in close to your computer so I can tell you something, and I want to be clear so that you understand me-
I don't give a fuck what Bush did about North Korea, and North Korea isn't Iraq, nor is the situation remotely similar. While the cowboy president from Texas relied on bad intel about Hussein's nuclear capability, Kim Jong Il is boldly, defiantly talking about his great nuclear program, and aggressively lashing out (in words, right now) at countries around him, as well as the US. He has threatened 'grave consequences' for just about everything from sanctions to condemnations from the UN, and has threatened war against the US, South Korea, and Japan. This is a dangerous, aggressive man with a big, bad God complex.
Your left wing talking points about Bush and Iraq mean absolutely nothing when considering an armed conflict, or the avoidance of such with North Korea. Kim Jong Il is actively trying to build a nuclear arsenal, dangerously thinks everyone around him is the enemy, and has sacrificed the good of his nation for what he thinks is the respect from the world of his military might.
As I said in the earlier post- it's a house of cards. If it were to come to armed conflict, it would be a very short period of time before the starving, cold, isolated North Koreans would be surrendering in droves. And it would be a short time after that where you would see massive food and supply drops to North Korean civilians.
And before you think this is some major hate I have for the North Korean people- I don't. Frankly, I know this something at the top. I would love to see a world where North Korea was an open, modernized, productive nation- but as long as you have a monomaniacal, militaristic dictator in charge of the place, it's not going to be.
H
Well I agree with some of that also, but I was taking about the North Koreans and the fact that when they keep saying things and threatening people after a while the threats loose all effectiveness. It's like all the fundamental Islamic group that seem to call for a Jihad every other day. After a while people just shrug and change the channel because the have heard it all before and it has no effect on them. I don't loose sleep at night worrying about what North Korea says it's going to do.
Not only that but to keep giving people what they want just because they keep threatening things when they want to get them is a pretty stupid thing to do.
bustybbwlover
I'm so great I'm jelous of myself.
i enjoy how the france, russia, the uk, and the us all have a bunch of nukes but are against anyone else having any. do i want north korea or iran to have nukes...hell no...do i think it's fairly hypocritical for nuclear states to tell non-nuclear states 'no you can't have nukes!' yes i do
Friday on my mind
Pain heals, chicks dig scars, Freeones lasts forever
Yeah thats my thinking as well.I am all for trying to encourage people not to join the nuclear club.We should use carrots(promises of aid and trade) and sticks (sanctions etc,but definately not military action) on the North Koreans.
But this idea that having nuclear weapons is not a good defense is perplexing to me.If thats true why do we in the US and others have so many (do we intend to use them offensively) or is that if you have them you deter others from using force against you.Think thats what we would say our reason for them is, "deterence".Isn't it clear that nuclear states are less vunerable to attack and invasion? Think thats what makes us think twice about actions against Pakistan and would have made a difference in attacking Iraq if they had actually had nukes.
As long as that is the message sent expect non nuclear states to think they might want them for protection.
We really need to start waliking the walk ourselves and get back to reducing the amount of nuclear weapons we have.No more of just do as I say but some do as I do would make us more credible.
Member2019
1,000 posts to go for my own user title!
It's not about the permanent Security Council members having nukes ...
It's about the US and China. North Korea claims it needs a "nuclear deterrent" against the US. In reality, that argument is laughable. A more realistic argument is that Taiwan needs a "nuclear deterrent" against China. Unlike the US or South Korean, which has never threatened invasion of North Korea, China has threatened to invade Taiwan. Understand there is an agreement between China and the US that if Korea stays nuclear free, so does Taiwan. Unfortunately, that hasn't been a reality since 2007, and North Korea has lost its support from China. Because China now fears the US will give into various requests for defense from Tawain.
I know a lot of you guys around here can't put the strategic realities of the world together, but don't be so dumb to think this is just about North Korea and the US, or even the permanent Security Council members. That's why China has been far more responsive to give into US and UK demands since 2007, as well as the six party talks since 2002 after all the permanent Security Council members agreed that it was a mistake to only have bi-lateral talks (US and North Korea).
It's about the permanent Security Council members guaranteeing they will keep their smaller allies from acquiring nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons that could cause a situation where another ally of another power feels threatened. Otherwise, this might as well be elementary school level history and analysis. But you guys are fully entitled to use such, I'm used to it. Sorry to say it guys, but the world is not as simple as you want to make it.
And, ironically as you're finding out, the Obama administration is dealing with the same, harsh realities as the W. administration did, and even the Clinton administration did in late 1999. Remember, North Korea started its threats in 1999, before 9/11 and the "Axis of Evil" speech. Just like the concessions Israel made for Palestine and the W. administration tried to make for North Korea at South Korea's urging (2002-2006), appeasement only makes the aggressor more aggressive.
That's why both Israel and South Korea have shifted in their policies 2007+. Because the nations they keep trying to court and appease don't want peace, they just want more and more concessions, more funding, more, more and more of whatever they can get. The second "more" ends, they go back to being pissy and confrontational. At some point, you just gotta say "no."
It's not about the permanent Security Council members having nukes.
It's about the US and China. North Korea claims it needs a "nuclear deterrent" against the US. In reality, that argument is laughable. A more realistic argument is that Taiwan needs a "nuclear deterrent" against China. Unlike the US or South Korean, which has never threatened invasion of North Korea, China has threatened to invade Taiwan. Understand there is an agreement between China and the US that if Korea stays nuclear free, so does Taiwan. Unfortunately, that hasn't been a reality since 2007, and North Korea has lost its support from China. Because China now fears the US will give into various requests for defense from Tawain.
I know a lot of you guys around here can't put the strategic realities of the world together, but don't be so dumb to think this is just about North Korea and the US, or even the permanent Security Council members. That's why China has been far more responsive to give into US and UK demands since 2007, as well as the six party talks since 2002 after all the permanent Security Council members agreed that it was a mistake to only have bi-lateral talks (US and North Korea).
It's about the permanent Security Council members guaranteeing they will keep their smaller allies from acquiring nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons that could cause a situation where another ally of another power feels threatened. Otherwise, this might as well be elementary school level history and analysis. But you guys are fully entitled to use such, I'm used to it. Sorry to say it guys, but the world is not as simple as you want to make it.
And, ironically as you're finding out, the Obama administration is dealing with the same, harsh realities as the W. administration did, and even the Clinton administration did in late 1999. Remember, North Korea started its threats in 1999, before 9/11 and the "Axis of Evil" speech. Just like the concessions Israel made for Palestine and the W. administration tried to make for North Korea at South Korea's urging (2002-2006), appeasement only makes the aggressor more aggressive.
That's why both Israel and South Korea have shifted in their policies 2007+. Because the nations they keep trying to court and appease don't want peace, they just want more and more concessions, more funding, more, more and more of whatever they can get. The second "more" ends, they go back to being pissy and confrontational. At some point, you just gotta say "no."
afkallthetiem
Banned
SO ronery
Skyraider22
The One and Only Big Daddy
Well you know some people learn the hard way:dunno:
Similar threads
