Golgota

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The PRC said nothing as decisive as that. Not officially, anyway. And very doubtful they will risk getting into a full blown war just to save Kim's regime. The "no good solutions" stands for the PRC as well.

 

 

Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Turning it into another mantra will not make it a fact. Not a general rule that people ruled by dictators will fight to the death in order to preserve them. On the other hand, most dictators are pretty good at culling capable mid and upper level leadership, for survival consideration. A scenario such as you describe is perhaps more tied with civilian casualties, rather than direct attacks on Kim's regime and armed forces.

 

But one more time in case of war triggered by tangerine#45, the ones who will suffer the war and its aftermath will be the north korean, the south korean and japan..not the moron in charge of the USA

4 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

  39 minutes ago, Grouse said:

How about this:

I doubt the NK artillery has a range of more than, say, 100 miles

Move 25M people south over say a year

Inform China and Russia what the plan is.

Demolish all nuclear facilities and weaponry in NK using conventional weapons such as cruise missiles.

Reunite NK and SK

USA then moves out of SK and Japan

 

I couldn't quote you grouse, so had to cut and paste.

 

I agree that up to the last line is possible grouse, but SK and Japan are way too strategically important for the US to pull out of their bases in those countries.

 

The US won't have to use more than conventional weapons to wipe out all areas within NK that they see as a threat, so as little 'collateral' damage as possible will result, and it will happen within minutes of the decision being made.  It's my guess that there are missile capable submarines standing off Japan right now, and they'll hit hard and fast.   It's all looking bad for KJU, but for the NK people, there is a much better life ahead.

Tell that to the Iraki and Lybian people, I am sure they disagree

1 minute ago, quadperfect said:

The line has been crossed. I dont think there will be another launch with out a retaliation.

The only way to enforce it is war.

War is a really bad thing, but i just dont see kim backing down. So its going to happen sooner or later i am afraid.

I dont think you get to trumps level with out some seriouse bulldozing to get there.

Kim is just going to be the one to realize it.

Humilating the usa is not going to happen on trumps watch.

Just my thoughts.

usa is humiliated on daily basis by Tangerine#45 since the election, Kim just want to keep is regime alive and knows perfectly his country is no match again USA. However the one who will be known as the warmonger will not be Kim.

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

 

If NK fires again over or near Japan your solution is what?  there will be no war after a limited strike (and China will not fight)  as Kim and his entourage will be dead and the people of NK will rise up.  

Having a population brainwashed for 3 generation by propaganda which can be summarized by : the USA want to destroy us,  guess what will happen when this will be proved right..the people of NK will see Kim was right and they will fight the invaders. 

6 minutes ago, baboon said:

Strike hard and leave? Then who picks up the pieces?

As usual when US goes to war in modern history : not them

49 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I'm trying to understand your logic; I have no problem with anyone using birth control but why is it a public good that should be paid for by taxpayers?

You know taxes sometimes pay things you will never benefit? Road at the other side of the country, cultural events you will never go...

Just now, LannaGuy said:

 

If NK fires again over or near Japan your solution is what?  there will be no war after a limited strike (and China will not fight)  as Kim and his entourage will be dead and the people of NK will rise up.  

Yes cause the past intelligence shown they have no clues to where Kim can be and a limited strike will still enable a full response from NK army.... Your idea of limited stike is coming from movies, not reality

As Kim said :

Nukes don't kill people, people kill people. Why should i have my nukes removed from me? I am a responsible Nuke owner, I have nukes for my protection, I keep my nukes locked in a safe.

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

 

This is NOT Thailand and military will do as they are told. Any more provocation and I think they should do a limited strike. Take out those scum before he gets even stronger.

You think it is easy? Kim will use quite quickly nuclear and chemical weapons on Guam SK and Japan at the first strike. A limited strike will just start a war.. This is not a solution. If USA strike first China said it will protect NK.

I don t see the point for military justice reforms as they gave themselves an amnesty blanket for past,present, and future investigations

Bigotry is in full force one more time. Let's promote discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation and race.. For sure the US is on a dark path.. And one more time Tangerine#45 seems to be more focused on "undoing" everything Obama did...

18 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

That was the country where most people of the 9/11 attack came from, no invasion but give them more weapons?

This is also the country who creates a disastrous situation in Yemen. This is the country which behead people in public, this is the country which shares wahabism with al qaeda, Daesh and others... In fact it is everything Trump complains about when it comes to Iran... Usa and europe should really be ashamed for dealing with them. I wonder how pro trump think about this, as they are deeply linked to 9.11 and yet no ban for them

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Are we talking about North Korea?  LOL

I am not sure north korea is really recovering...Iran on the other hand is..plenty of foreign investors already come back there..

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

It's exactly how Trump negotiates. Create chaos, keep the other side guessing and off guard. I don't think he's itching for war. But he's an unknown. Exactly how he likes it.

Except he is not dealing real estate and does not really have the upper hand here.. Bankruptcy is not an option if he fails..

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

They've violated deals in the past.

This deal has been violated by Iran? In the past Iran was ruled by hard liners, and coming from the USA the "violated the spirit of the deal" seems more like a 4 yrs old tantrum..

4 minutes ago, twix38 said:

Iran, a sponsor of terrorists with hardliners appeased for now by a deal that allows them to build the bomb in a decade and you think for their own security and world view anything is going to stop these people! They would never have accepted a deal that did more than delay them and they did not need to. In a decade they have a green light to resume and in very short order and sanctions then will be too little, too late. Cloud cuckoo land!

 

I think we should leave it in place now it's done and other more pressing concerns N. Korea, but when this deal was struck it is exactly as DT calls it. Sanctions took ages to ramp up and work and we just settle for a delay and call it bailed if their economy is good in a decade. Lol

 

Btw they launched a rocket that was I thought prohibited under agreement .

 

Irrespective of that and their economy in a decade they will want to join the nuclear club unless this Leopard changes its spots . Perhaps by then they will have a democratic left wing populist government lol

You seem to be in the minority by thinking like this.

Why on hell a country with a recovering economy, would want to ruin it for a fight they will lose?

So far the european leaders think it is a good deal, Iran thinks it is a good deal, companies tbink it is a good deal, iranian people think it is a good deal, democrats think it is a good deal and even a part of the republicans.. The only ones thinking it is not is the Tangerine guy and a couple of warmongers. Also the main point is : the deal is respected. Usa will isolate itself, look untrustable when it comes to deals and one more time the moron in the oval office lools like a clueless fool..

 

. If Iran achieved prosperity in ten years, it might not want to or need to resort once again to nuclear weapon development at the cost of once again trashing its economy.

Nailed it

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Even if the assumption that Trump is looking for a wag-the-dog war (and I don't think he does or can), still jumping the gun on this one.

 

Trump sending this down Congress way does not imply a war. Even Congress scraping the agreement doesn't imply war.

 

Seems like some are really itching for war just so that they could go "told ya".

 

 

The one itching for war is Trump himself... Every statement he makes recently shows he is a warmonger... And it is not a part of his "art of the deal"

The nost  ironic part is the Tangerine#45 lambasts Iran for its dictatorship and terrorism support and yet forgets the Saudi are close friends...

27 minutes ago, twix38 said:

Trashing the Iran deal now is probably not a good idea, but equally letting them progress slowly to a nuclear bomb as the deal guarantees is ridiculous. It should never have been agreed as it is, in the first place. A crazy deal that all negotiating partners should be ashamed of letting Iran have. On top of which most benefits including shed loads of money   were given up front. Donald is however correct in that this must be one of the world's worst ever agreements. Negotiated to appear as if we had a very weak hand in negotiations when infact after years of crippling sanctions we had the best hand we could have hoped for.

 

Iran is NOT building atomic weapons. They respect the deal. Trump says they do not respect "the spirit" of the deal...which is stupid and i am quite sure Tangerine#45 just wants to get rid of anything "Obama"  

China alrewdy warned tangerine#45 that they will support north korea if any pre emptive strike is made by this moron. 

A war with china(and russia) even by proxy would be a huge failure.

2 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

You can deflect all you want...the approval was made by the Obama Administration.

You should re read what really happened...

this also send strong signals to kim : do not make any deal with the usa : they are not to be trusted... Tangerine#45 is such an idiot

This is the perfect exemple of america's problem:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lasvegas-shooting-guns/after-las-vegas-massacre-bump-stock-is-hot-item-at-u-s-gun-shops-idUSKBN1C92XR

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Back what up with some kind of evidence? Evidence that won't fit the anti gun narrative .Any link I put up,you put up a link to dispute it.I say black and white you say white and black.

 

For  200 +years 2A has been the law.For 200+ years law maker's have tweaked gun law's . It's still the law.American's have the right to bear arm's

 

 

And yet you still don t see the correlation between the right to bear semi auto, bump stock, and the 1500 mass shootings since sandy hook massacre