wardialer wrote:

And besides, NK is too poor of a nation to have nuclear missiles. And likely they do not have one. Its all made up by the media.

They already have nukes. They also clearly have ever-improving long range missiles. So, no, they're not "too poor".

wardialer wrote:

Kim is just throwing a temper tantrum like a crying baby...

Just like President "Fire & Fury"?

Trump is already walking back his statements on fire and fury in twitter after NK instantly crossed his "red line"

Trump's words as stated previously have no meaning. He is all words with no intelligence or rationality backing it up.
Just watch in the future as more an more regions( ISIS, Iran, Russia, and others ) take this rhetoric to new levels to put the US under more stress.


There are real soldiers, contractors and families that have to deal with this perceived threats whether rhetoric or not, through deployments, transfers of stations and other logistical issues related to meeting these threats. Trump's mouth can't keep writing checks that the country can't afford.

North Korea has already won.

As a nuclear power, North Korea has equal right to demand that Trump disarm the USA immediately or face attack. It's not a reasonable platform.

If there is a Deep State I'm pretty sure they'll arrange for Trump to fall and break his face before he gets to the Football. But he could always tweet the launch codes I guess. My candidate for last tweet of human existence: Generals, release the bigly nukes..Polls, Fake News, and Earth..you're fired!

We've been having this discussion in other areas in the USA regarding use of force and when or why deescalation tactics should be used by those imbued with the power to use force, lethal force.

The idea that someone with the power to use force should directly use and it expect the other party to obey quickly and without conflict versus deescalating the situation and holding back on the use of force and working to bring things down, to reduce rhetoric and language or actions that inflame, to resolve a situation.

In general I think a president should always practice deescalation up to the point of being attacked. Simply because our goal is to not attack others as much as it is our goal to not be attacked. And deescalation has been proven to work and be as effective at preventing an attack.

Tugg

Well you're now in a situation where you can't attack North Korea without risking unacceptably high damage in return.

If the US withdraws its forces from Korea, South Korea then becomes a target for the North's blackmail. Eventually the only solution will be for the South to acquire nuclear weapons to act as a deterrent.

wardialer wrote:

Yeah right....The US will NEVER attack NK because NK does not have any profit like Oil and Opium unlike Iraq and Afghanistan.
It will never happen. Trust me.

Secondly, NK is a very poor country and they do not have any missiles as a threat to the US and nearby US bases. I do not see any money coming in from a poor country like NK. They don't have the cash to do so.

The US is more focused on the Middle East, because of oil and opium, to them, that's more of a gain than attacking NK.

This has been going on for almost 10 to 20 years that NK will attack the US. The world is still spinning and there is nothing to talk about here. An attack from NK will NEVER happen, it is all a show.

So people, lets move on and forget about it.

NK can make threats, but if there is no action, then it is useless.

A lot of very flawed thinking there....

No NK does not have oil, however, nothing causes an uptick in a Presidents popularity like wagging a war following an attack on US citizens

Yes the NK is a poor country, however, they do have the money to develop missile systems and nukes to go on them, the missile part has been demonstrated already.

But now the US has a President in the White House that seems to be egging them on, two blowhards shouting threats at each other.

Yes NK can make threats and jump and down and not a whole lot will come from it, but it only take one mistake and all hell will break lose.

wardialer wrote:

Nothing is going to come out of this ordeal with NK.
I am pretty sure Kim knows that the US has missile defenses spread across mainland North America and the Pacific.
He would be too dumb to start anything.

And besides, NK is too poor of a nation to have nuclear missiles. And likely they do not have one. Its all made up by the media.
If you all think I am wrong, please do so and explain where the cash flow is coming from in order to fund these NK missile programs?

As posted before, let me stress this one more time by saying that NK does not have any commodities like oil and opium unlike Iraq or Afghanistan and this is the reason that the US did not decapitate the NK leader. If we did it to UBL, why not Kim?? Can someone explain that to me as well?
There is NO EXCUSE as to why the US is unable to track down Kim. We have the technology and satellites to do so. So why not track down his compound?

The US has let it be known that there are THAD systems dotted all around the region.

And again, the people are poor, the country compared to a 1st world country is poor, but they have enough to develop nukes and weapons systems to carry them.

Why not take out Kim ? comparing a guy hiding in a compound in Pakistan to the head of a country is one heck of a leap, plus, the ramifications for taking out OBL were no where near the magnitude for taking out a sitting head of a country, even NK's.

NK sell's it's weapons systems to other countries, they have developed one hell of a money laundering scheme and yes, they sell drugs and natural resources, mostly being sold to China...

I have to figure SK politicians are going nuts right now trying to get some calm and order, the last thing they need is a war to break out to the north, it would leave SK in ruin...

And yes, I can believe that behind the scenes the US and China are talking, neither wants to get into a war with the other, the economics of it would cause massive damage to both countries. The question is of course, would China stand by and watch or would they get involved ?

777222LR wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/08/politics/north-korea-considering-guam-strike-trump/index.html

The language he uses, is that of a dictator like North Korea's leader. We've not had a sitting US president threaten "Nuclear War" with North Korea, or any other country since WWII with Japan. ... I know he doesn't directly say, "Nuclear War," but does anyone have any reason to think he means otherwise? To me it's pretty clear.

"When you examine the nature of the American security commitment ... it is pointless for them to try to develop nuclear weapons," Mr. Clinton said today. "Because if they ever use them, it would be the end of their country." -- Bill Clinton, 1993 (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/12/world ... -zone.html)

Last night Stephen Colbert's take on this was priceless, "You are going to get us all killed"

I think that we are in a situation where two ignorant, mentally unstable "leaders" are verbally bashing each other and the risk now is that they are unable to to exercise self control and start something beyond their ability to understand.

If these idiots do push us into a military conflict you can be sure that the thousands of weapons the NK has along the DMZ will be firing directly into Seoul, where 25 million people live. Destruction of that city and it's infrastructure can be handled with non-nuclear weapons. Obviously NK would want to hit ports and factories in the south. That kills SK exports and puts the US at risk of a recession, or a depression. Loss of SK's manufacturing, especially in the areas of electronics, will be a disaster for world trade. I'm not just talking about the impact on Apple's product supply chain, but a wide range of products, from consumer to medical to communications. The ability of SK to return after a devastating attack would take generations.

On the NK side, it would not be that hard to hit their power sources, fuel storage locations, communications infrastructure, radar systems, air fields, etc. The Navy could be very aggressive in killing their naval ships, We would not, however, be able to take out all the weapons on the DMZ aimed at Seoul. Protection of Seoul in now within the ability of the combined SK and US military,

Maybe the key to avoiding a military conflict is Trump owning some expensive properties in SK that would be the first hit if the shooting starts.

Who would be the first to bite and push the button? The tests are obviously going to continue.

You have a lot of companies in Seoul that can goo "poof" if the DPRK attacks. Aside from Samsung and LG, you got Hyundai, Kumho, etc. Boeing will be affected by this too.

And where would China and Russia side? The DPRK or the U.S.?

Hillary would've been the better choice. She wouldn't be tweeting all the damn time on how pissed off she is.

Different than what our Sec. of State has said, about the US not seeking a regime change, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Wednesday said:


"The DPRK should cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people."


I'm gonna go with what the Sec. of Defense says over the Sec. of State.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-north ... SKBN1AP21E

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Different than what our Sec. of State has said, about the US not seeking a regime change, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Wednesday said:

"The DPRK should cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people."

I'm gonna go with what the Sec. of Defense says over the Sec. of State.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-north ... SKBN1AP21E

The Sec. Def is not calling for a regime change in that quote.

Tugg

Francoflier wrote:

There may be angry rhetoric coming out of NK, but all I hear are threats if NK is attacked. The fat kid, for all his boasts, has never said he would attack the US unprovoked.

I belive he just stated intentions to attack Guam... In addition, NK has been declaring their intent to "level the US to ashes" for decades. That seems unprovoked to me...especially when they were the ones that started the Korean war. I am not going to argue wether Kim would actually carry out the attack, frankly, no one except Kim himself knows that.

I feel that The trump administration had done such good work with the United Nations last week. They managed to get a unanimous decree.

Trump allowed himself to fall for the rhetoric of North Korea.

cvgComair wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

There may be angry rhetoric coming out of NK, but all I hear are threats if NK is attacked. The fat kid, for all his boasts, has never said he would attack the US unprovoked.

I belive he just stated intentions to attack Guam... In addition, NK has been declaring their intent to "level the US to ashes" for decades. That seems unprovoked to me...especially when they were the ones that started the Korean war. I am not going to argue wether Kim would actually carry out the attack, frankly, no one except Kim himself knows that.

Apparently, Kim did not. Some low-level army official did and Trump responded.

CNN is now reporting that it plans to strike Guam in a few weeks.

Obviously as it's coming from CNN, Trump is going to call it FAKE NEWS.

Jesus.

maortega15 wrote:

CNN is now reporting that it plans to strike Guam in a few weeks.

Obviously as it's coming from CNN, Trump is going to call it FAKE NEWS.

Jesus.

This is the spiteful side of me talking but I can only hope the attack happens (low scale conventional maybe, no nukes). So that we can say "so is CNN 'fake news' now?"

maortega15 wrote:

Hillary would've been the better choice. She wouldn't be tweeting all the damn time on how pissed off she is.

Seriously? What would she do differently?
Send another cargo plane full of cash, but this time to NK instead of Iran?

It’s laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

Boeing1978 wrote:

maortega15 wrote:

Hillary would've been the better choice. She wouldn't be tweeting all the damn time on how pissed off she is.

Seriously? What would she do differently?
Send another cargo plane full of cash, but this time to NK instead of Iran?

It’s laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

She obviously wouldn't be running her mouth with superlatives and hyperbole at the same time tweeting.

As said above, we have 2 unstable goons jawing at each other.

maortega15 wrote:

Boeing1978 wrote:

maortega15 wrote:

Hillary would've been the better choice. She wouldn't be tweeting all the damn time on how pissed off she is.

Seriously? What would she do differently?
Send another cargo plane full of cash, but this time to NK instead of Iran?

It’s laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

She obviously wouldn't be running her mouth with superlatives and hyperbole at the same time tweeting.

Maybe she still has that re-set button she used for Russia relations.
Maybe President Trump could borrow it?

That might have been the most stupid thing I've ever seen.

Boeing1978 wrote:

maortega15 wrote:

Hillary would've been the better choice. She wouldn't be tweeting all the damn time on how pissed off she is.

Seriously? What would she do differently?
Send another cargo plane full of cash, but this time to NK instead of Iran?

It’s laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

The fact that you cite a repeatedly misunderstood story is laughable. Get outta here.

I think it is interesting how previous administrations kept an eye and talked with China and the UN about the actions of DPRK but this orange menace just keeps poking and poking the bear.

coolian2 wrote:

Boeing1978 wrote:

maortega15 wrote:

Hillary would've been the better choice. She wouldn't be tweeting all the damn time on how pissed off she is.

Seriously? What would she do differently?
Send another cargo plane full of cash, but this time to NK instead of Iran?

It’s laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

The fact that you cite a repeatedly misunderstood story is laughable. Get outta here.

A misunderstood story. Ok.
The good news is Iran stopped chanting Death to America long enough to count the money.

Boeing1978 wrote:

coolian2 wrote:

Boeing1978 wrote:

Seriously? What would she do differently?
Send another cargo plane full of cash, but this time to NK instead of Iran?

It’s laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

The fact that you cite a repeatedly misunderstood story is laughable. Get outta here.

A misunderstood story. Ok..

Yes, because it was their money to begin with. But obviously you are a fan of that lunatic that also believes it is a good idea for the USA to declare bankruptcy, so you probably really do think stealing money is the way to go in international relationships.

best regards
Thomas

You probably also believe that Hilary sold Uranium to the Russians and is now in their very angry hands....

Tugger wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Different than what our Sec. of State has said, about the US not seeking a regime change, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Wednesday said:

"The DPRK should cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people."

I'm gonna go with what the Sec. of Defense says over the Sec. of State.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-north ... SKBN1AP21E

The Sec. Def is not calling for a regime change in that quote.

Tugg

Well that depends on what your definition of the word "change" is.

Most leaders take the action, don't do something hard today, that you can put off (to another Administration) tomorrow.

We're not gong to become "Europe". Thanks to Donald Trump. But if you think it's such a paradise over there, go ahead and live in Paradise. I don't even know where you live, as the A.Net Profiles don't offer/reveal that...

Boeing1978 wrote:

The good news is Iran stopped chanting Death to America long enough to count their money.

Fixed that for you.

seb146 wrote:

I think it is interesting how previous administrations kept an eye and talked with China and the UN about the actions of DPRK but this orange menace just keeps poking and poking the bear.

From where I'm standing, it seems like Trump is determined to provoke NK into doing something stupid just so he can have his "Bush" moment. Bigly.

I believe I saw a post toward the top of page 1 about starting a war.

I did go through the full list, both pages, and I tried to see if anyone had properly responded to that idea about starting a war. I didn't see that anyone had, but if I missed it, I apologize.

You see, ladies and gentlemen, it is not possible to start a war in the context in which the statement was made. The War has never ended. That is why the military command structure is a United Nations Command. I've worked in that Command Building in Yongsan. It is still a United Nations War. We are simply at a pause in the War.

So now that we have that clear, I'd like to ask y'all a question, please.

What do any of y'all think the reason is for there being no peace treaty yet?

I mean, that is hardly President Trump's fault. You reckon it is maybe former-President Obama's fault? Or any of the previous Presidents?

Let's see -- the recently elected ROK President started right off with words meant to pave the road toward peace, but it doesn't seem to have done much good. Y'all want to blame that on President Trump?

I lost a good friend on the other side of that DMZ and have seen countless provocations during my time in this part of the world and that has been under a number of Presidents and I have seen all sorts of nice styles and words sent over that DMZ and what has it gotten those that tried to be nice?

What all the niceness seems to have done has been to just allow the killing to go on and on and on. I don't give a rat's arse if it is 1 life, or 100 lives, or 1,000 lives, or 10,000 lives or more; the United Nations has bent over backwards to try and bring peace and the weapons systems being built by the DPRK have just been getting more and more sophisticated and now they really can strike beyond the ROK and Japan.

You know, one time back a bit about a week after that strange fella shot President Reagan the DPRK sent over these little papers they always made and flew over the DMZ and that little paper stated a citizen of the ROK had shot President Reagan. Neat cartoon style images and all that and we had to turn the papers we found over to the Korean Police or face going to jail, but it gives you an indication of the kind of leadership you are referring to when you discuss dealing with the leadership of the DPRK. Nothing has changed, except the sophistication of the weapons systems they have. Well, we are on leader number three, also.

By the way, do you folks think the Japanese like to have those missiles dropping into the water off their islands? Do you folks remember a bit back when the DPRK flew a missile over Misawa Air Base?

I got a funny feeling that a whole bunch of you folks need to study this whole situation a bit better before you make those statements about somebody starting a war in a location where the War never ended. And it might not be a bad idea to pause and consider the killings by the DPRK since the pause in the War started all those years ago.

And the threat of more killings has been voiced over and over and over for years and years and years, but most folks outside of this area of the world have not really paid much attention. Well, now you have no choice but to pay attention. I don't think I like the idea of a modern day Pearl Harbor. Do you?

By the way, I'm sorry. I ended up asking more than one.

Boeing1978 wrote:

maortega15 wrote:

Hillary would've been the better choice. She wouldn't be tweeting all the damn time on how pissed off she is.

Seriously? What would she do differently?
Send another cargo plane full of cash, but this time to NK instead of Iran?

It’s laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

- Would not have made off-the-cuff threats of annihilation if North Korea even threatens the US (it's one thing to make those threats if NK attacks the US, or even South Korea, but quite another to make them for mere threats)
- Would have the diplomatic infrastructure in place to try and pursue a diplomatic solution along with our allies in the region. Would have an ambassador in South Korea (Trump hasn't even nominated anybody for this post) to ensure good communications with a vital ally who is probably freaking out right now (and I don't blame them).

Those two right there would make a huge difference.

Boeing1978 wrote:

That might have been the most stupid thing I've ever seen.

I guess that Trump's statements on "getting along better with Russia" are not what you want then? Or is "resetting" relations OK only because Trump is doing it?

Mir wrote:

- Would not have made off-the-cuff threats of annihilation if North Korea even threatens the US (it's one thing to make those threats if NK attacks the US, or even South Korea, but quite another to make them for mere threats)
- Would have the diplomatic infrastructure in place to try and pursue a diplomatic solution along with our allies in the region. Would have an ambassador in South Korea (Trump hasn't even nominated anybody for this post) to ensure good communications with a vital ally who is probably freaking out right now (and I don't blame them).

Those two right there would make a huge difference.

All the years I have read with great respect your thoughts and ideas on accidents involving airframes, Mir. That which I just read really caused me quite a shock. I'm serious. Not even close to joking!

Ain't nobody in political leadership positions in the ROK "freaking out". You do not live under that sort of threat from when you are in grade school and freak out every time they mouth off up north! They don't freak out at what the Chinese might say. They don't freak out at what the Russians might say. Nor the Japanese. And certainly not the Americans or the Brits or the Aussies -- the Westerners.

In fact, ain't no citizen of the ROK freaking out.

That would be an insult to the grandparents. Do you know anything about the Korean civilization, sir? Insulting your grandparents is about the worst thing one can do in the family.

The citizens of the ROK are not the freaking out kind. If they were they would not have built themselves up to where they are now in the world. You really don't get it, do you? In fact, most of you don't seem to understand anything about the Korean people. That is so sad!

And then you make some very, very strange assertion that there is in some way a problem with communications between the various governments that are involved in this nasty business. Yes, "very, very strange". Where in the world did you pick that up from? Do you have any idea how many thousands of government civilian types of many nations (many more from the U.S., yes; than other nations) and active duty participants are working side-by-side 24 hours a day every day of the year? And in that number I am not referring to the KATUSA elements. Do you know who the KATUSA elements are?

I'm trying to teach you folks and you don't want to learn, do you? You just want to keep right on walking through a fog of your own making.

You better start by tossing your Western viewpoints out the window. That's the first step.

You folks better stick to flying and building and fixing your airframes. You don't seem to get what's going on over here.

[quote="CH47A"][/quote]

Quality rant, I applaud you....

If you've read through the various Trump threads, you will know my thoughts towards him, is not, simply put, he is a blowhard....The problem we have now is there are two blowhards trying to out do each other, what the ROK feels is secondary in their thoughts.

We don't have to toss our western view points out the window because, well the blowhard in NK has decided to try and bully the blowhard in the west, now normally I would say just let them yell stupid comments at each other and be done with it, however, here is a fact that YOU need to understand....

If the NK launches a missile at Guam, the people of South Korea are going to get hit hard in the cross fire, reports today (from the BBC) is that NK is planning to launch a missile that will land 30km from Guam, now you have to think like a westerner, the US will respond to that, in case you have forgotten, the US invaded and beat, two countries in the last 16 years, one for housing the leaders of an organization that killed 3,000 people and because the country was run by Trump lite....

I will say it again, if the NK launches that missile in the area of Guam, all bets are off.

At some point, the NK has to back down, Trump has painted himself into a corner and the reality is, the NK can back down and lie to their population far easier than Trump can (though he has no issues lying to the US public).

China, China, where are you? The only player able to reign in this silly man and they are not doing enough, you have to wonder why. What advantage do China have to gain from allowing this to happen? NK is sending a clear message to the USA, this is not a sneek attack, we are giving you 10 notice we plan to launch missiles towards Guam, but not at them. Should Trump try and shoot down the missiles, and some get through the embarrasment factor will be great for Trump and fuel Kim's belief in himself. Tough call, but Trump has painted himself into a corner. He has little or no understanding of diplomacy and does not seem to listen hard enough to those who do.

readytotaxi wrote:

China, China, where are you? The only player able to reign in this silly man and they are not doing enough, you have to wonder why. What advantage do China have to gain from allowing this to happen? NK is sending a clear message to the USA, this is not a sneek attack, we are giving you 10 notice we plan to launch missiles towards Guam, but not at them. Should Trump try and shoot down the missiles, and some get through the embarrasment factor will be great for Trump and fuel Kim's belief in himself. Tough call, but Trump has painted himself into a corner. He has little or no understanding of diplomacy and does not seem to listen hard enough to those who do.

It isn't in the interest of China what is happening right now. It isn't in the interest of China that NK is a nuclear power. That said. There is one think higher on the priority list of China and that is not having a pro-American regime at its border. So that's why Pyongyang permits itself this stand against America and they do have leverage over China in this.
As for the recent escalation, yes, Trump plays right into the hand of Kim Jong-un, it is exactly the wrong thing what he does. Best to contain such a regime, Pyongyang hasn't got madmen or a crazy regime, they are very calculated and have nothing to lose. As for Trump's little corner, it will not be the first time he made a u-turn, so why not. Let's just hope he hasn't seen Wag the Dog, otherwise, Albania might be in trouble

We also have to remember that China has itself painted into a corner, does it want a US friendly country on it's border ? Not really.

Does it want a trade war (far more likely than an actual war) with the US over North Korea ? Hell no.

China will get involved at some point.

jetwet1, what are your thoughts about the recent missile tests by the DPRK -- July 4th and July 28th?

As you seem to want to place some sort of weight upon the President's shoulders for something related to the actions of the DPRK, do you think that he was in any way responsible for either of those tests being conducted?

And thank you for your attention to my questions.

Oh yes, I forgot something.

Did you catch President Trump offering anything of a somewhat conciliatory nature toward the leadership of the DPRK before the July 28th test? Or before the July 4th test? Or at any time since he has taken office have you heard the President offer any sort of opening to the leadership in the DPRK to think about not performing the July 28th test of a very long range piece of equipment?

By the way, you got any thoughts, jetwet1, about that bomb the leadership of the DPRK ordered to be used down in Burma on October 9th in 1983? Or maybe you think 1983 is too long ago for any of us to take into consideration?

jetwet1 wrote:

We also have to remember that China has itself painted into a corner, does it want a US friendly country on it's border ? Not really.

Does it want a trade war (far more likely than an actual war) with the US over North Korea ? Hell no.

China will get involved at some point.

You think that America will start a trade war over North Korea with China? That will be unjust, North Korea is not China and vice versa. Furthermore, America can't afford a trade war with China, China is one of the greatest creditors of America..........

Indeed, China is one of the biggest holders of US debt, however they do not want boots on the ground in NK, the thousands of refugees flooding across the northern board would be very destablising in the area. China greatly dislikes sudden change.

CH47A wrote:

I believe I saw a post toward the top of page 1 about starting a war.

I did go through the full list, both pages, and I tried to see if anyone had properly responded to that idea about starting a war. I didn't see that anyone had, but if I missed it, I apologize.

You see, ladies and gentlemen, it is not possible to start a war in the context in which the statement was made. The War has never ended. That is why the military command structure is a United Nations Command. I've worked in that Command Building in Yongsan. It is still a United Nations War. We are simply at a pause in the War.

So now that we have that clear, I'd like to ask y'all a question, please.

What do any of y'all think the reason is for there being no peace treaty yet?

I mean, that is hardly President Trump's fault. You reckon it is maybe former-President Obama's fault? Or any of the previous Presidents?

In other words: Don't blame the guy making provocative statements, blame everyone else. Typical.

You highlight a very important point, readytotaxi, regarding the Chinese leadership not wanting a refuge problem, but also don't forget the very large ethnic Korean population already living in China. They don't want that large population in that part of China stirred up and possibly causing trouble.

And it is not just a concern of military events causing a refuge problem that worries the Chinese leadership. It is also a concern if some sort of collapse of the economic situation causes a panic and refuge trouble. We have right now a serious problem developing in the nature of a food shortage. By "serious" I mean worse than we have seen for a decade or so -- afraid the exact dates are not stored in my brain where I can easily grab them. But I am sure the media has made note of this latest trouble. I think I remember reading, or hearing, that some international organization was asking for the world's attention focused on the trouble this year.

seb146 wrote:

CH47A wrote:

I believe I saw a post toward the top of page 1 about starting a war.

I did go through the full list, both pages, and I tried to see if anyone had properly responded to that idea about starting a war. I didn't see that anyone had, but if I missed it, I apologize.

You see, ladies and gentlemen, it is not possible to start a war in the context in which the statement was made. The War has never ended. That is why the military command structure is a United Nations Command. I've worked in that Command Building in Yongsan. It is still a United Nations War. We are simply at a pause in the War.

So now that we have that clear, I'd like to ask y'all a question, please.

What do any of y'all think the reason is for there being no peace treaty yet?

I mean, that is hardly President Trump's fault. You reckon it is maybe former-President Obama's fault? Or any of the previous Presidents?

In other words: Don't blame the guy making provocative statements, blame everyone else. Typical.

I'm a tad bit confused, seb146. Do you mean that President Trump is responsible for the Korean War? AND he is to blame for there being no peace treaty? I have to use the punctuation indicating a second question, seb146, because that was the key question in that quote box you put in your post.

CH47A wrote:

You highlight a very important point, readytotaxi, regarding the Chinese leadership not wanting a refuge problem, but also don't forget the very large ethnic Korean population already living in China. They don't want that large population in that part of China stirred up and possibly causing trouble.

And it is not just a concern of military events causing a refuge problem that worries the Chinese leadership. It is also a concern if some sort of collapse of the economic situation causes a panic and refuge trouble. We have right now a serious problem developing in the nature of a food shortage. By "serious" I mean worse than we have seen for a decade or so -- afraid the exact dates are not stored in my brain where I can easily grab them. But I am sure the media has made note of this latest trouble. I think I remember reading, or hearing, that some international organization was asking for the world's attention focused on the trouble this year.

Indeed, China is seeking to buy/lease agricultural land in developing nations but it is not working.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-feeding-china/

they have a serious problem now, with feeding the current population, the future is uncertain.

Dutchy wrote:

jetwet1 wrote:

We also have to remember that China has itself painted into a corner, does it want a US friendly country on it's border ? Not really.

Does it want a trade war (far more likely than an actual war) with the US over North Korea ? Hell no.

China will get involved at some point.

You think that America will start a trade war over North Korea with China? That will be unjust, North Korea is not China and vice versa. Furthermore, America can't afford a trade war with China, China is one of the greatest creditors of America..........

I think that should NK fire off these 4 missiles like they are saying they will and if the US responds with military action AND China responds in a way deemed hostile to the US then certainly there will be a trade war and frankly Chinese goods being blocked from the US would cause far more harm to the Chinese economy than NK getting the crap kicked out of it by the US.

You also have to figure that if things go sideways, China isn't going to like the idea of having 2 or 3 carrier battle groups sitting off it's coast.

The more I think about it, the more I see China having major issues as well, this isn't the mid '60's where the Chinese population was still predominantly rural, there is now a huge middle class that wouldn't respond well to the economic implications of a China/US trade war.

Of course I would much refer a peaceful solution, but it's down to the 2 blowhards to shut up and let the diplomats figure a way out of this.


Edit: just to put this into perspective, last year China sold $648.2 billion of good to the US, about $1.06 trillion of US debt is owed to China, so roughly 2 years worth of imports.
Also, you should factor in the size of China's economy, last year it exported $2.7 trillion worth of good world wide, or to put it another way, 1/4 of all exports from China went to the US, a sudden withdrawal of 25% of your market will result in an economic meltdown.

jetwet1 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

jetwet1 wrote:

Of course I would much refer a peaceful solution, but it's down to the 2 blowhards to shut up and let the diplomats figure a way out of this.

Exactly. We have 2 dickheads with huge egos trying to show off who who has the bigger ego. I rather have them duel it out old school style and leave the innocent out of this.

That's why I said Hillary would've been the better choice. We saw the difference of temperaments at the debates alone. Hillary wouldn't make these remarks abut "fire and fury the world has never seen". With Trump, he's throwing his own under the bus. Mitch McConnell is the latest victim.

jetwet1 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

jetwet1 wrote:

We also have to remember that China has itself painted into a corner, does it want a US friendly country on it's border ? Not really.

Does it want a trade war (far more likely than an actual war) with the US over North Korea ? Hell no.

China will get involved at some point.

You think that America will start a trade war over North Korea with China? That will be unjust, North Korea is not China and vice versa. Furthermore, America can't afford a trade war with China, China is one of the greatest creditors of America..........

I think that should NK fire off these 4 missiles like they are saying they will and if the US responds with military action AND China responds in a way deemed hostile to the US then certainly there will be a trade war and frankly Chinese goods being blocked from the US would cause far more harm to the Chinese economy than NK getting the crap kicked out of it by the US.

You also have to figure that if things go sideways, China isn't going to like the idea of having 2 or 3 carrier battle groups sitting off it's coast.

The more I think about it, the more I see China having major issues as well, this isn't the mid '60's where the Chinese population was still predominantly rural, there is now a huge middle class that wouldn't respond well to the economic implications of a China/US trade war.

Of course I would much refer a peaceful solution, but it's down to the 2 blowhards to shut up and let the diplomats figure a way out of this.

Those four missiles are aimed at 30-40km off the coast of Guam. That is enough for America to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths? So you reckon that China will do nothing under those circumstances? China and NK have a pact like the one in NATO, perhaps they will honor it, perhaps they won't, do you want Trump to gamble that?

maortega15 wrote:

Mitch McConnell is the latest victim.

Senator McConnell is not a victim. He is getting his just rewards. Only not in the form he had hoped for.

I doubt that China will honour that pact, more to loose than to gain

Here are several strategies that I can think of that Trump can do.

1. We need to find out and do more intel on how NK is getting funded by their missile nuclear programs and cut those assets off. Maybe its China, Iran, or Pakistan that is funding NK. Just like we have done to ISIS, is by cutting their drug and oil cash flow from them. We need to do the same to NK.

2. Again, the US has the technology and intel to pinpoint or to collect on where these mobile or missile silos are and do a bombing campaign on them. And also, lets strike all of their comms and radar equipment as well while we are at it.

Now let me stress this again and I know I sound like a broken record here, I mean NK is throwing these hissy fits or threats for YEARS and YEARS and nothing has happened. The world is still spinning. So what makes us think that Kim will launch a strike?? I mean come on people, Really?

And also, it just drives me up the walls when I see these news alerts about threats from Kim and after a day or so, no news at all, the media is keeping quiet on NK.

Nothing will come out of this. But if Trump wants gain intel or a strike, then I think the best option for him as listed above.

CH47A wrote:

Did you catch President Trump offering anything of a somewhat conciliatory nature toward the leadership of the DPRK before the July 28th test? Or before the July 4th test? Or at any time since he has taken office have you heard the President offer any sort of opening to the leadership in the DPRK to think about not performing the July 28th test of a very long range piece of equipment?

I've enjoyed reading your posts and thinking about the views you have put forward.

I'd like to know your opinion about the chances for a negotiated settlement with North Korea that eliminates the threat of them possessing nuclear weapons.

We have watched the efforts of diplomats fail, time after time, to achieve a lasting agreement with North Korea.

Is it reasonable to think that diplomacy will ever work with them if the first or primary condition of any agreement must be that they are forbidden to possess nuclear weapons?

I look forward to your opinion.