I have pretty much ignored them as being blowhards that were looking to be bought off. It seems like I was wrong. On the news this morning I saw a report suggesting they're testing another nuke. It seems pretty clear Kim is a lunatic.
How dangerous do you think the situation is?
We said similar things about Saddam Hussein. But his path to war was a series of rational decisions that he had to make in order to stay in power. He correctly surmised that losing power would be his demise. And he was rational enough to wind up hiding in a little bunker in an attempt to survive after he lost that power.
for all those who don't think we need to constantly upgrade our own military tech...realy?....really?
I say upgrade the fucking hell out of our tech
How are you going to behave? Like a westerner who has a Bill of Rights? Or perhaps a little differently, even if it appears irrational to others?
The behavior of the leaders is irrational.
Take a look at a satellite view of the Korean peninsula at night and think about the fact that this is a nuclear armed nation...
When you look at the Korean Peninsula on this map, there are millions of dots representing players in South Korea. When you look at the entire country of North Korea, there is only one dot. Its located in Pyongyang, and is widely presumed to be Kim Jung. He's the only one permitted to play in his country.
I was like WTF? The surgeon cured them, not the little fat fucker. These people are severely brainwashed and should be considered highly dangerous. Think Manson family type bat shit crazy.
Brainwashed, or aware that if they don't do something like that they may end up strapped to an artillery piece during an exercise ?
Pretty soon? They can hit South Korea with a rock. And they already proved they can hit Japan as well.
AH. It took 3 posts before some jackhole went US Politics on this and gets it deleted.
Over under was 2.
Other than that, they are a joke, led by a guy with a bad haircut who can't seem to get missiles to even work properly.
The reason they haven't been able to get the missiles to work is b/c of US cyber warfare.
I think they are legit crazy. Could fire off an ICBM, then invade South Korea. A lot depends on the Chinese getting them in line.
Cyber Warfare - ( New Window )
They are not to be fucked with and if you aren't concerned, you aren't paying attention.
This is a legit threat that could well evolve into a major problem.
North Korea test fires ballistic missile from submarine - ( New Window )
I don't think most people understand the brutality of the North Korean regime. They are perhaps the most brutal and cruel regime on the planet. And I don't think that's a hyperbolic or politically charged statement. They may not be the menace to the rest of the world that Iran seems to me to be, but I think the North Korean's a far more repressive and brutal to their own people. Very sick stuff goes on over there.
However, the Chinese could crush North Korea at their whim. The problem for the West is that even if the Chinese decided to end the North Korean regime, it would problem still only occur at the great expense of the South Korean people.
And, as other's have pointed out, there's no safety for anyone in a lunatic regime with nuclear weapons.
You can't talk about Trump and North Korea without it becoming political.
So don't.
Because his intent was not as benign as you suggest, and would lead to deletion if responded to.
Quote:
how dangerous can we be with current leadership in regards to N. Korea???
Shut up
LOL...it's a valid question IMO.
Quote:
how dangerous can we be with current leadership in regards to N. Korea???
AH. It took 3 posts before some jackhole went US Politics on this and gets it deleted.
Over under was 2.
How is this thread not political?
Thanks...........
Quote:
In comment 13396262 BillKo said:
Quote:
how dangerous can we be with current leadership in regards to N. Korea???
AH. It took 3 posts before some jackhole went US Politics on this and gets it deleted.
Over under was 2.
How is this thread not political?
I think you can discuss how dangerous a foreign power is without being political. It just takes effort.
And I love how my intent can be read........
Also, I would trust China's intelligence concerning N. Korea more than I would trust U.S. intelligence.
And I love how my intent can be read........
The question was how dangerous are they - nothing to do with us, so there really was no need to bring DC into the conversation. We fart, they are gone. But they are dangerous because Kim Jong-Un is living in a fantasy world where he thinks he's the king and is our equal militarily. He's not. He can put a world of hurt on South Korea.
Meantime try the name James Mattis if you are worried about an inappropriate reaction from DC.
My problem is China acting like it is our fault. POS nation. They sit there stealing islands, stealing intellectual property, other nations EEZs and act like they own the entire South China Sea while ignoring every other nation with claims to the area.
Imagine how horrid he looks naked. Hobbit like with that ridiculous haircut and a stupid grin looking down on you as he thrusts away. Sweat filled fat rolls shadowing his already tiny penis. You force yourself to scream "Fuck me Dear Leader! Your cock is so huge!" lest you be executed once he climaxes and collapses on top of you before his 3pm feeding.
"But they see him as a God, they must welcome the opportunity to fornicate with him."
No. No amount of deification can compensate for that level of hideousness.
Those poor girls.
--
Blame China. It's one of the (very) few things DT has right. North Korea, remember, was fairly prosperous for a long time. Briefly wealthier than its southern counterpart during plentiful Soviet largesse. Now they're desperate and focused on self preservation which nukes duly facilitate.
Fatso's antics have annoyed China for years (most recently resulting into a coal import ban) but it will never be enough to further empower the USA in the region, presently "checked" by the 38th parallel.
Containment is for now the only logical course. With of course a contingency, possible invasion plan starring SEAL team 6 should things devolve (which is undoubtedly already in place).
Yes they're dangerous. Although several places down the list (the most dangerous country in the world is Pakistan - which is why so much of your money goes to paying them off). But given the cowardly Chinese, there are few options so containment will endure.
Other than that, they are a joke, led by a guy with a bad haircut who can't seem to get missiles to even work properly.
You're back?
Anyway, FMiC is right.
Not a threat at all.
They know if they make one wrong move and go after South Korea they are dead meat.
The bigger issue would be, if they do provoke an attack, how does China respond, particularly given TPP is dead.
And as a previous poster motioned, MAD has kept the world relatively peaceful since WWII. The NK situation is no different. If Kim Jung-un were really bat shit crazy, he would have already used the nukes he has on S Korea. The fact that he hasn't is because of MAD. He doesn't want to lose his hermit kingdom dictatorship and all the spoils that go along with it.
Saudi Arabia
Turkey
Iraq
Iran
Venezuela
Dangerous as in they can have an environmental or weapons accident and make a huge mess?
Russia
Dangerous when they run out of water?
Much of the ME
Dangerous when they run out of food?
China
Dangerous as in their health resources, food and hygiene are so bad a deadly virus can be incubated and spread?
Central Africa
Dangerous as in they can attack us and win?
No one
Dangerous as if they dont straighten out we will get badly hurt?
Us
Its kind of crude is especially suited for our long haul truck fleet.
Next Venezuealan oil is very hard to refine. it is often sent to our refineries and then venezuela exports it elsewhere
Lastly, Venezueala buys our lighter crude blends at very high margins to try to form exportable oil from their very difficult to work with oil
That combination leaves us as a swing player in the global markets...with the next lowest production costs to Saudi Arabia
In sum, if Saudi or Russia or Nigeria or Iraq or Iran had a sudden sharp decline in production ( pipeline sabotogue, rebel takeover, tanker crashes in their harbors, pipeline leak, refinery fire) we can still produce at low enough cost that we would be hurt but nowhere near the adverse economic destruction that would befall other nations if a key player went off market.
We would still be able to get food and essentials distributed and our people could get to work
It also allows us to leave it in the ground for when the Russians have pumped all their easy reserves in about 15 years.
So that is why stability in Venzuela is important to you
Your other points are interesting but seriously the cold war ended 25 years ago. Time to move on.
Also, I would trust China's intelligence concerning N. Korea more than I would trust U.S. intelligence.
U.S. Mainland maybe not, but you have to consider we have a large U.S. Military presence there already.
I said "stability" affects our way of life.
Nor do I think it's worth intervening or fighting for or e gaging in regime change.
I said exactly what I said and no more and no less. In response to a question.
Please raise and beat strawman arguments as often as you like but make sure to lavel yourself as the sender and the responder.
Take care
For me that includes guys who never arrived
I will explain where my posts on these topics come from:
1) I don't believe other forms of government represent any threat to us or the world's average people.
2) when I say "us" I don't mean our elites. I mean our average and disadvantaged people. ..The 90 percent of us.
3) I believe that being fear based and listening to people selling fear is a bad way to live. That's paying a heavy tax on things you never earned. Agreeing to trade personal freedom for the security others say they best know how to provide? You don't fall for that in your personal life. Why get flummoxed when analyzing the wider world?
4) I have not been left or right or party based in decades. I don't think kabuki theater represents the system of government we really have and is a waste of energy.
5) I do think that the vast majority of people have three enemies:
A) instability in the world from any form of government. Especially food, water, medicine or energy sources.
B) Allowing fear sellers to influence you from digging into the facts.
C) misunderstanding our system
The biggest threat to us is us. By a huge margin over whatever is in second place.
I hate these threads where people enlarge the threats from other nations. Fear of others concedes they have influence over us without a fight or a thought.
Everyone is free to think what they want. I don't wish to convince anyone...thats a fools errand.
I do wish posters to know where I come from in these exchanges. Thx.
I will explain where my posts on these topics come from:
...
5) I do think that the vast majority of people have three enemies:
A) instability in the world from any form of government. Especially food, water, medicine or energy sources.
B) Allowing fear sellers to influence you from digging into the facts.
C) misunderstanding our system
The biggest threat to us is us. By a huge margin over whatever is in second place.
...
Bill 2, you tirelessly do your best to inform and expand others' thinking. I thank you for it. Threads like this one can take alarming turns and your "Winnie the Poo" point is all too often lost sight of. Why is sort of a mystery.
"threat" (to us). Semantics possibly, not to fight about:
There are obviously any number of levels and ways that word can be taken. Military threat, bombs, as opposed to slow degradation via political stuff and effects of those and trends. Very different things obviously.
"stability" is another word:
Certainly, a world of stable, singular and sovereign Nation States, is a goal that Trump, Putin, the China gang and many others can agree on.
Certainly, as long as those nation states restrain themselves from exporting asymmetrical threats to stability (terrorism, nation state sponsored external 'movements' those that use violence of semi violent actions and so on) we are literally safer. So if that's where Bill2 is going, I agree.
I would only add a nuance that all such, truths, which Bill2 may be alluding to, do not completely or totally offer us an excuse to ignore the:
a. ignorant and lacking in dignity Racketeer/Patronage States (Venezuela currently, Russia possibly) or the
b. outright deeply evil states (north korea).
I mean, whereas those states may not present direct -threats- to us, but how they are operating may well in fact give succor to people among us who lower our quality of life here in the USA, and may give impetus to anti-free trends here. IN addition, if they -could- threaten us, possibly they would do so...so where does that lead one?
So, words like 'threat', proposing acts that involve violence, war, etc, may be excessive for situations like Venezuela, and may be excessive for even Russia (we shall see).
But that does NOT mean that the current status of such states -does not matter to us- either, ours being a small world and one that is getting smaller due to technology, transport, communications and trade.
So, bill is right, as he often is, it is just that I personally would not go so far as to say 'I don't care about say, Venzuela, as long as the oil flows'.
Which is probably not where bill was going anyway, more like 'its not worth going to war over', in which case I would agree.
This is where, short of war, and also not using exportation of violence (as a general rule outside of war), where words are used, and count, and do have effect, see Reagan, Ronald, Cold War, End Of.
-------------
''And finally, that shrewdest of all observers of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, put it eloquently after he had gone on a search for the secret of America's greatness and genius -- and he said, "Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the greatness and the genius of America….America is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."
Well, I'm pleased to be here today with you who are keeping America great by keeping her good. Only through your work and prayers and those of millions of others can we hope to survive this perilous century and keep alive this experiment in liberty -- this last, best hope of man.
I want you to know that this administration is motivated by a political philosophy that sees the greatness of America in you, her people, and in your families, churches, neighborhoods, communities -- the institutions that foster and nourish values like concern for others and respect for the rule of law under God.
Now, I don't have to tell you that this puts us in opposition to, or at least out of step with, a prevailing attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day secularism, discarding the tried and time-tested values upon which our very civilization is based. No matter how well intentioned, their value system is radically different from that of most Americans. And while they proclaim that they're freeing us from superstitions of the past, they've taken upon themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation. Sometimes their voices are louder than ours, but they are not yet a majority.
'' (Reagan)
Well, because these "quiet men" do not "raise their voices"; because they sometimes speak in soothing tones of brotherhood and peace; because, like other dictators before them, they're always making "their final territorial demand," some would have us accept them at their word and accommodate ourselves to their aggressive impulses. But if history teaches anything,
>>>>>>it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or >>>>wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.
''
They famously tried to export their Bolivarian Propaganda Program to the USA starting with the free heating oil program, and probably also - in ways we don't even know about as well, such as sponsoring political candidates and or movements. Obviously targeted mainly at the lowest 10% or our own socio economic spectrum, not the top 1% :
(Wikipedia on Bolivarian Propaganda)
''Bolivarian propaganda describes a political campaign originating in Venezuela used to promote Hugo Chávez's Bolivarian Revolution[1] that uses emotional arguments to gain attention, exploit the fears (either real or imagined) of the population, create external enemies for scapegoat purposes, and produce nationalism within the population, causing feelings of betrayal for support of the opposition.[2][3] The World Politics Review stated that as Chávez began "transforming Venezuela into a socialist state" that propaganda was "an important role in maintaining and mobilizing government supporters".[4] The image of Chávez is seen on sides of buildings, on T-shirts, on ambulances, on official Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) billboards, and as action figures throughout Venezuela.[4][5] A 2011 article by The New York Times says Venezuela has an "expanding state propaganda complex"[6] while The Boston Globe described Chávez as "a media savvy, forward-thinking propagandist" and that he had "the oil wealth to influence public opinion".[7] Chávez's successor, Nicolas Maduro, has continued using obligatory broadcasts on TV ("cadenas"). In some instances, he has compared Chávez to holy figures.[8][9][10][11][12]''