Must Read If threatened, U.S. will 'totally destroy' North Korea, Trump vows

[nabbie]

12 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

As Putin said, they'd rather eat grass than give up their nukes.  No easy answers due to a maniacal dictator.  Who's lives the good life while his people suffer.

What Putlin did not realise is that they already eat grass even before decide they give up their nukes.... 

[tonray]

36 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted a withering response: "Trump's ignorant hate speech belongs in medieval times - not the 21st Century UN - unworthy of a reply. Fake empathy for Iranians fools no one."

That's a bit rich coming from a country ruled by despotic religious fanatics straight outta the 12th century. 

 

Texas is not a country.

[FritsSikkink]

5 hours ago, transam said:

Trump has never said nukes will be used..Unless I missed it...

You did.

[Global Guy]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

That's simply not true. Young Kim's rhetoric was there long before Trump became president. That Trump doesn't help the situation is an understatement, but it didn't start with him. Even the PRC isn't too sweet about how Kim expresses himself.

 

 

And Kim's rhetoric is just that...rhetoric. He's building up his capabilities because NK feels the US wants to invade them. They want to defend themselves. They know the US, like any bully, won't attack someone who can defend themselves. If NK has nukes, the US isn't going to invade them, at least that is Kim's belief and he has good reason to believe this. 

 

Kim has said he wants defensive parity with the US. So, look at this objectively...a country wants to be able to defend itself as much as a country they consider as a real threat. In and of itself, on just that topic, that's pretty logical. Regardless of all the other nonsense like his testing etc., but who are the US to tell anyone how they build up and to what level they build up their ability to defend themselves? Really, who is the US to say what any country does within its borders? 

 

NK should just tell Trump "Thank you for your suggestions and we'll take them under advisement. But in the mean time, you have zero authority to say anything in and of our country. So, F off!

 

The US has to get rid of the obsession that they control the world and that the world wants them to control the world. The US is the only country that wants the US to control the world. They anointed themselves this crown, arrogantly so.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Global Guy
typo

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, Global Guy said:

And Kim's rhetoric is just that...rhetoric. He's building up his capabilities because NK feels the US wants to invade them. They want to defend themselves. They know the US, like any bully, won't attack someone who can defend themselves. If NK has nukes, the US isn't going to invade them, at least that is Kim's belief and he has good reason to believe this. 

 

Kim has said he wants defensive parity with the US. So, look at this objectively...a country wants to be able to defend itself as much as a country they consider as a real threat. In and of itself, on just that topic, that's pretty logical. Regardless of all the other nonsense like his testing etc., but who are the US to tell anyone how they build up and to what level they build up their ability to defend themselves? Really, who is the US to say what any country does within its borders? 

 

NK should just tell Trump "Thank you for your suggestions and we'll take them under advisement. But in the mean time, you have zero authority to say anything in and of our country. So, F off!

 

The US has to get rid of the obsession that they control the world and that the world wants them to control the world. The US is the only country that wants the US to control the world. They anointed themselves this crown, arrogantly so.

 

That's your interpretation, and it's painted by your standing stance vs. the US. Guess if someone was to say Trump's rhetoric is just that it wouldn't be accepted, though. And further, this is about Kim, not North Korea. Unless talking inner circle, maybe, North Koreans do not get the luxury of expressing their views freely. Whether or not Kim actually believes this, and whether he will limit the leverage nuclear capability represents is anyone's guess.

 

I would have had less issues with this if it was a national "thing', rather than revolving around the survival of a third generation despot. It is not about freedom, other than the Kim's freedom to keep his people under control.

 

Why is it that Kim's rhetoric is just rhetoric, his nuclear and ballistic test are nonsense to be disregarded? A country carrying out nuclear testing is something to be worried about, effects may easily cross borders. Ballistic testing over other countries airspace is not the norm.

 

Unless some missed it, the sanctions in place are internationally supported, including by Russia and the PRC.

[Justgrazing]

11 hours ago, transam said:

Soviet Union tried that with Hitler, all signed and sealed............Soon after millions of Soviets died...

If it is the German - Russian non aggression pact of 1939 you refer to then indeed Stalin did try and placate Hitler with that pact hopefully for long enough to build up his own forces to then invade Germany as he had envisaged the war in Europe to be a rerun of WW1 in which Germany , France and Britain would fight thereselves to a exhausting standstill again and he could then sweep in from the East having to face only shattered armies .. Unfortunately Blitzkreig through Western Europe by May 1940 wrongfooted J S's plans and a 12 mth later Hitler's Operation Barbarossa further caught the Russians out which is where as you say millions of Russians died .. 

[funandsuninbangkok]

15 hours ago, trogers said:

Wonder what China's reaction would be if those missiles are swung around in her direction.

North Korea is a creation of  China and they have a mutual defense treaty. The US may consider an attack by NK on its allies or territory as an attack by China also. 

 

Two birds, one stone

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

North Korea is a creation of  China and they have a mutual defense treaty. The US may consider an attack by NK on its allies or territory as an attack by China also. 

 

Two birds, one stone

 

The PRC's support of NK isn't what it used to be. The PRC isn't too happy about Kim's nuclear and ballistic experiments, or him causing the US to increase its regional presence, or with Kim being less receptive to PRC wishes. Doubt anyone seriously think that they will unconditionally come for Kim's rescue.

[funandsuninbangkok]

31 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The PRC's support of NK isn't what it used to be. The PRC isn't too happy about Kim's nuclear and ballistic experiments, or him causing the US to increase its regional presence, or with Kim being less receptive to PRC wishes. Doubt anyone seriously think that they will unconditionally come for Kim's rescue.

War between the US and NK will involve China. Again. 

 

Truman stopped MacArthur from finishing the job before. Trump won't. 

Edited September 20, 2017 by funandsuninbangkok

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

War between the US and NK will involve China. Again. 

 

Truman stopped MacArthur from finishing the job before. Trump won't. 

Just like the way he stood up to the Syrians.

[iReason]

22 minutes ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

War between the US and NK will involve China. Again. 

Truman stopped MacArthur from finishing the job before. Trump won't. 

 

Well, in your own words, the "Deep State coup d'etat", "deep cover liberal fed employees",

will stop the occupier of the White House.

Right?

 

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by iReason

[funandsuninbangkok]

22 minutes ago, iReason said:

 

Well, in your own words, the "Deep State coup d'etat", "deep cover liberal fed employees",

will stop the occupier of the White House.

Right?

 

 

Fortunately no, not in war. Founding Fathers got it right. Commandeer in Chief is pretty clear. Congress squawks but Presidents act anyway. 

 

Especially in a nuclear war. No time for debate. Just fire up those bad boys and go. 

 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/commander-chief-president

 

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by funandsuninbangkok

[funandsuninbangkok]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Just like the way he stood up to the Syrians.

 

No need for US really. Bush and the Israelites took care of Syria already. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard

 

shame Obama did not have a pair and deal with NK same way. 

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by funandsuninbangkok

[iReason]

55 minutes ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Fortunately no, not in war. Founding Fathers got it right. Commandeer in Chief is pretty clear.

Congress squawks but Presidents act anyway. 

Especially in a nuclear war. No time for debate. Just fire up those bad boys and go. 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/commander-chief-president

Encyclopedia you say?

Don't be silly.

 

Meanwhile, in the real world:

"The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress."

 

"The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution."

 

"It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization"; or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

 

Unless of course, there is some unconstitutional loose cannon at the helm.

And we have all seen how a United States Marine Corps General and his Chief of Staff has reacted to his lunacy:

(That you subscribe to and promote)

Edited September 20, 2017 by iReason

[Justgrazing]

5 hours ago, hyku1147 said:

Argumentum ad hominen.

Wow some Latin on the forum .. Nice quote dude .. 

[Justgrazing]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Just like the way he stood up to the Syrians.

In fairness to Trump he did lob a volley of Cruise missiles at Syria in early April in response to Assad using poison gas .. Allegedly .. And he followed it up a short while later by dropping the largest non nuclear munition ever detonated on some ISIS positions in Afghanistan .. And he has continued to bomb ISIS back to the dark ages in Syria using a huge amount of munitions .. It does go to show he is willing to use the power at his disposal and the U S is more than capable of " destroying N K " as he put it .. But one hopes sense will prevail .. 

[hawker9000]

20 hours ago, trogers said:

Wonder what China's reaction would be if those missiles are swung around in her direction.

They might be well advised to give some thought to which way the wind might blow...

[habanero]

10 hours ago, mikebike said:

10 hours ago, hyku1147 said:

Imagine if the USA discovered enough myriad deposits of fossil fuels, precious gems, and gold that enabled Her to become independent; She walled of Canada and Mexico; dissolved all alliances; and cut off foreign aid. What would happen?

The USA has so much fossil fuels that they changed the law and are now an exporter. They are one of the top oil producing countries in the world.

Plus they are the world leader in food production. Pretty sure they would be just fine. It's the rest of the world that would suffer. But, the U.S. would not do that.

Edited September 20, 2017 by habanero

[Credo]

32 minutes ago, habanero said:

The USA has so much fossil fuels that they changed the law and are now an exporter. They are one of the top oil producing countries in the world.

Plus they are the world leader in food production. Pretty sure they would be just fine. It's the rest of the world that would suffer. But, the U.S. would not do that.

Of course the US won't have smart phones, shoes or clothes, but, hey, none of that stuff is necessary is it?

 

[simple1]

37 minutes ago, habanero said:

The USA has so much fossil fuels that they changed the law and are now an exporter. They are one of the top oil producing countries in the world.

Plus they are the world leader in food production. Pretty sure they would be just fine. It's the rest of the world that would suffer. But, the U.S. would not do that.

Plenty of misunderstanding re oil import / export for the US, best to check the reality. If the US went full on with isolationist policy it would have an enormous detrimental impact on the economy, employment etc

 

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by simple1

[Ruffian Dick]

48 minutes ago, habanero said:

The USA has so much fossil fuels that they changed the law and are now an exporter. They are one of the top oil producing countries in the world.

Plus they are the world leader in food production. Pretty sure they would be just fine. It's the rest of the world that would suffer. But, the U.S. would not do that.

Hmm, certainly more than before as of 2015 or so but...

http://www.worldstopexports.com/worlds-top-oil-exports-country/

1. Saudi Arabia: US$136.2 billion (20.1% of total crude oil exports)
2. Russia: $73.7 billion (10.9%)
3. Iraq: $46.3 billion (6.8%)
4. Canada: $39.5 billion (5.8%)
5. United Arab Emirates: $38.9 billion (5.7%)
6. Kuwait: $30.7 billion (4.5%)
7. Iran: $29.1 billion (4.3%)
8. Nigeria: $27 billion (4%)
9. Angola: $25.2 billion (3.7%)
10. Norway: $22.6 billion (3.3%)
11. Venezuela: $20.4 billion (3%)
12. Kazakhstan: $19.4 billion (2.9%)
13. Mexico: $15.5 billion (2.3%)
14. Qatar: $14.6 billion (2.2%)
15. United Kingdom: $13.3 billion (2%)

[Ruffian Dick]

3 hours ago, Justgrazing said:

In fairness to Trump he did lob a volley of Cruise missiles at Syria in early April in response to Assad using poison gas .. Allegedly .. And he followed it up a short while later by dropping the largest non nuclear munition ever detonated on some ISIS positions in Afghanistan .. And he has continued to bomb ISIS back to the dark ages in Syria using a huge amount of munitions .. It does go to show he is willing to use the power at his disposal and the U S is more than capable of " destroying N K " as he put it .. But one hopes sense will prevail .. 

Neither act changed the situations very much. (And neither opponent had nukes.)

[craigt3365]

11 hours ago, mikebike said:

Uh, no.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/09/investing/us-energy-independence-oil-opec/index.html

[craigt3365]

10 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

Glad to see you quoting Putin and support his sensible stance. Well done.

Never said his stance was sensible.  Just his one quote.  Which is probably spot on.

 

Russian business with NK is up some 75% this year alone.  Great job, Putin, for helping to deal with this problem.

[craigt3365]

7 hours ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

North Korea is a creation of  China and they have a mutual defense treaty. The US may consider an attack by NK on its allies or territory as an attack by China also. 

 

Two birds, one stone

China no longer has pull over NK.  This report is quite upsetting to the Chinese:

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2109725/north-koreas-nuclear-test-site-risk-imploding-chinese

 

Quote

 

Landslides detected at North Korea’s nuclear test site after Chinese expert warns blast zone at risk of imploding

 

If mountain under which last five bombs were ‘almost certainly’ detonated crumbles, radiation would leak across region, expert warns

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/09/north-korea-china-xi-jinping

 

Quote

 

China’s Xi hates Kim Jong-un. But he hates instability more

North Korea has long been skilled at creating leverage from weakness – Xi and Trump are not the first to be frustrated by the strategy

 

 

[LannaGuy]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Never said his stance was sensible.  Just his one quote.  Which is probably spot on.

 

Russian business with NK is up some 75% this year alone.  Great job, Putin, for helping to deal with this problem.

I think you will find that stat is up only because all other stats are down. China's is 90% of NK's trade but you don't seem to criticize them much.  India, Pakistan, Thailand and the Philippines do business too but you seem, with un-erring regularity, to attack only Russia.

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

I think you will find that stat is up only because all other stats are down. China's is 90% of NK's trade but you don't seem to criticize them much.  India, Pakistan, Thailand and the Philippines do business too but you seem, with un-erring regularity, to attack only Russia.

China's trade is down with NK.  They've stopped a lot of business with NK.  Russia has increased their trade, not stop it.  China is still doing business with NK, in violation of UN sanctions. 

 

India, Pakistan, etc, are not the major business partners with NK.  China is.  They've done a fairly good job, but more could be done.  And as we all discuss, will they really help?  No easy answers.

 

Some countries are doing a great job.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-05/an-australia-says-no-to-north-korean-embassy/4736058

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-russia-exclusive/exclusive-from-russia-with-fuel-north-korean-ships-may-be-undermining-sanctions-idUSKCN1BV1DC?il=0

 

Quote

 

Kuwait orders North Korea's ambassador to leave within a month

 

Kuwait, where around 3,000 North Koreans live, has been hosting North Korea’s sole diplomatic mission in the Gulf region.

 

 

 

Some, not so good...from the article above:

Quote

Exclusive: From Russia with fuel - North Korean ships may be undermining sanctions

 

[habanero]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

Plenty of misunderstanding re oil import / export for the US, best to check the reality. If the US went full on with isolationist policy it would have an enormous detrimental impact on the economy, employment etc

 

 

The 40 year ban on exporting oil was lifted Jan 29, 2016

Still don't know why the discussion on isolationism.  It is a world economy and the U.S. is quite aware of that.  No reason to even think it...

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by habanero

[LannaGuy]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

China's trade is down with NK.  They've stopped a lot of business with NK.  Russia has increased their trade, not stop it.  China is still doing business with NK, in violation of UN sanctions. 

 

India, Pakistan, etc, are not the major business partners with NK.  China is.  They've done a fairly good job, but more could be done.  And as we all discuss, will they really help?  No easy answers.

 

Some countries are doing a great job.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-05/an-australia-says-no-to-north-korean-embassy/4736058

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-russia-exclusive/exclusive-from-russia-with-fuel-north-korean-ships-may-be-undermining-sanctions-idUSKCN1BV1DC?il=0

 

 

 

Some, not so good...from the article above:

 

No mention of Thailand who actively seek to raise their trade?  I mean we are HERE and that is what is happening?  'stronger ties' etc.  as for Putin he has been outspoken about NK and condemns the fat rocket man

[simple1]

1 minute ago, habanero said:

The 40 year ban on exporting oil was lifted Jan 29, 2016

 

And? US still imports petroleum products and will continue to do so in a very complex domestic price stabilisation process i.e. global supply chain. Don't believe USA, for which the global supply chain is essential, can move to an isolation platform without huge damage to the economy / society.