North Korea accuses U.S. of declaring war

[Kieran00001]

52 minutes ago, tomwct said:

Rocket Man will know when USA goes to war against them!. He'll have 3 hours to total destruction!

 

Of Seoul or Tokyo? 

[Dumbastheycome]

19 hours ago, Publicus said:

 

Not an Upper Case one, No.

 

Lower case is definitely up there above my reach too.

 

Methinks I should say thanks anyway but something inside of me tells me to hold off on it.   

 

Indefinitely.

lol. Ok.  maybe  an inadvertant  poeT.

[Dumbastheycome]

13 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Chairman Mao used to joke that he was a poet who dabbled in politics.

 

Commentary on this thread:  it's getting hard to read, because the posts are so long and drawn out.  Please condense.  Thanks.

The  world   seems  to  have  a problem  with  those  who  dabble in  politics . Complicated  by  the  fact that   so  many  apparently  vote  for  them.

[Publicus]

5 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Perhaps China could do it, US special Ops could not though, taking out the leader and his cronies does not ensure regime change, it would take a huge number of boots on the ground and for a long time to do that, the people are not just going to turn around and feel that they have been liberated the next day, they will fight for their country against the invading tyrants they have been taught are their worst enemy.

 

Your post is the first and only one I've seen that presumes anyone is going to "liberate" the North Korean people. So fear not as the NK people will suffer in silence any group that rules over them. It's just that Liberators by any name to include of any nationality are most unwelcome in the Hermit Kingdom North.

 

Don't confuse the meek Koreans of history and the always temperamental and tempestuous Chinese. It's the Chinese who storm the Forbidden City once conditions under yet another corrupt dynasty become intolerable and unbearable. The Koreans are the opposite, i.e., they are the people who down through the ages spread out to eat grass while thanking their benevolent leader for the excellent crop he grew for 'em. While the Chinese have over millennia had a couple of dozen of 1789 the Koreans haven't ever had a one of 'em.

 

It's the South Koreans who are in the streets regularly throwing rocks at the police riot platoons that are trying to hold 'em off. South Koreans have become the storming masses of indignant citizens that the Chinese used to be (until the 21st century). Moreover, North Koreans pass on quietly and peacefully of a young old age -- same as always. Count on the Norks to stay put for whoever rules 'em.

 

Btw the one salient commonality shared by the North Korean forces and the Chinese armed forces is that once their leaders are taken out the troops become chickens with their heads cut off. They're cooked. Fried in fact. The NK military have no NCO in their ranks -- y'know, sergeants and stuff. CCP Boyz in Beijing introduced NCO to the PLA in 1997 for the first time ever in China. CCP concluded they'd have a better shot at winning a war with NCO American style. The Boyz have since found out however NCO are a uniquely American thingy. 

 

I would be remiss if I failed to mention that you should be half as concerned about Kim having H-Bombs and ICBMs as you are mortified the North Korean people may lose their current dynasty of  corrupt dictator-tyrants. Kindly consider instead that Koreans north of the 38th parallel spent the 20th century under either the occupied rule of Japan from 1910-45 or since 1945 they have been ruled by the Stalinist Kim Dynasty. Indeed, not many people of modern times have lost an entire century to unimaginable miseries inflicted in their name by their rulers foreign or domestic. In contrast the more fortunate Koreans south of the parallel had the good fortune of being assisted by the United States. Since 1945.  

[craigt3365]

12 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

How is Germany a more optimistic example?  60 million people died in that war.

 

Germany is an excellent example.  And reunification succeeded beyond everybody's expectations. 

 

I wasn't aware of any war that caused 60 million deaths at the time of reunification.  1990. LOL

 

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

 

[craigt3365]

10 hours ago, midas said:

An interesting alternative perspective (with some interesting statistics)

 

Historic and Factual Basis of North Korea’s Hatred Toward America

 

http://www.newnationalist.net/2017/04/18/the-historical-and-factual-basis-of-north-korean-hatred-against-america/

BS.  North Korea propaganda teaches it's citizens to hate the US.  It teaches it's citizens the US started the war, which is a lie.

 

With zero freedom of speech, they only know what Dear Leader tells them.  As with all dictators, they've got to have an external enemy for the people to hate more than them.  Keeps them in power. 

 

Worth a watch for educational purposes.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/07/04/why-north-korea-hates-the-us-ejk-lon-orig.cnn

 

Quote

 

Why does North Korea hate the US?

The North Korean regime teaches its citizens to hate America. But why? CNN's Will Ripley explains how it all started.

 

 

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Germany is an excellent example.  And reunification succeeded beyond everybody's expectations. 

 

I wasn't aware of any war that caused 60 million deaths at the time of reunification.  1990. LOL

 

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

 

 

Oh, reunification, I thought you meant an example of intervention, but OK, perhaps you can tell us how this reunification fantasy for Korea happens without one side being willing, East Germany being quite a poor example considering the completely different situation, no crazy despot hell bent on taking West Germany.

[Publicus]

On 9/26/2017 at 11:56 PM, Kieran00001 said:

 

Yeah, they did that in the 50's, that war is not actually legally over, and any breach of the cease fire agreement would make a strike on an American aircraft flying over a neighbouring country perfectly legal, Trump really does have to be careful on this one.

 

Congress did not declare war in the 1950s.

 

Last time to date Congress declared war was in 1941, December, twice -- against Japan and then against Germany. Germany had declared war against the United States a week after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor so the United States responded appropriately.

 

The cease-fire aka truce means the Korean Conflict as the U.S. terms it is not over -- that it is still on but not kinetic (as the Pentagon likes to say). Which makes in turn understandable the NK foreign minister's comical statement that Trump declared war against NK. Technically the war is of course still on. So what we understand now is that the FM in Pyongyang is the Chief Jerk at Kim's Ministry of Jerks. This is true even if the guy knew better than to make the whopper of a sensational statement.

 

Kim stopped hollering about launching his missiles to splash into the waters near Guam because the Thaad system is in Guam and so are Patriot antimissile batteries on Guam and because they likely would be used in any such event. Legally used. 

Edited September 29, 2017 by Publicus

[craigt3365]

20 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Oh, reunification, I thought you meant an example of intervention, but OK, perhaps you can tell us how this reunification fantasy for Korea happens without one side being willing, East Germany being quite a poor example considering the completely different situation, no crazy despot hell bent on taking West Germany.

No easy answers due to a crazy dictator who kills all opposed to him.

[TKDfella]

Well, I suggest we all wait for the next thread on this given that China (this morning's news paper) has ordered NK businesses in China to close within the deadline of the new UN resolution. This is a good move by China as it sends, IMO, just the right signal to NK. Whether NK takes any notice, of course, is a different question.

[craigt3365]

12 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

Well, I suggest we all wait for the next thread on this given that China (this morning's news paper) has ordered NK businesses in China to close within the deadline of the new UN resolution. This is a good move by China as it sends, IMO, just the right signal to NK. Whether NK takes any notice, of course, is a different question.

It's going to be interesting to see how this works.  Congrats to China for stepping up.  Maybe Russia will do the same? LOL

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/09/china-close-north-korean-firms-sanctions-170928133806365.html

 

Quote

 

China to close North Korean firms under UN sanctions

Companies and joint ventures with Chinese firms have 120 days to close from the September 11 adoption of UN resolution.

 

 

[craigt3365]

 

[Morch]

On 9/28/2017 at 5:40 PM, Kieran00001 said:

 

It was just an example of how the means to achieve something can massively outweigh the gains from the end result and how we should learn from the example by weighing up the odds before making a drastic move.  All intelligence points to a very large loss of life in attempting regime change in NK, it is not a new idea, they have studied the likely outcomes and they have reached the conclusion that it is not worth the loss, they would have done it long ago otherwise.  It is not a simple case of removing Kim, he would just be replaced by another Kim, it would take a total regime change and that, if done by an outside force such as the US, would mean an all out war, the very best they could hope for would be to start a civil war and leave them to it, at least that would minimise loss of life outside of NK.

 

How is Germany a more optimistic example?  60 million people died in that war.

 

Of course it is NK leaders who have made the decisions that have made the NK people's fate, my point was that there is a reason they made those decisions and they are based in part on other countries treatment of them, largely the US, it is hardly a complicated point and you would have to be very biased as to not see that the sanctions have had a negative effect for the people of NK and also a negative effect for global security.

 

On 9/29/2017 at 8:04 AM, Kieran00001 said:

 

Oh, reunification, I thought you meant an example of intervention, but OK, perhaps you can tell us how this reunification fantasy for Korea happens without one side being willing, East Germany being quite a poor example considering the completely different situation, no crazy despot hell bent on taking West Germany.

 

So, in one instance, using Iraq as a template is plausible, whereas in another, Germany's example is rejected as a "completely different situation". Not overly convincing when switching between opposite positions.

 

That aggression in the Korean peninsula would likely cause massive casualties is an accepted assessment. That it denies any military options, or that the bottom line balance considerations may be different than those you claim as definitive, is not. That such actions were not taken in the past is not necessarily an indication of considerations or of options - neither political nor military conundrums tend to remain static. There are always developments effecting possible outcomes.

 

You have no idea what a regime change would be like - so all them statements as to how things will pan out could do with a whole lot of qualifying.

 

Your point is rather simple - let Kim do as he will, do nothing about, and hope for the best.

 

 

[Morch]

On 9/28/2017 at 8:32 PM, midas said:

be careful what you wish for.............................................

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/09/25/as-north-korea-threatens-emp-attack-questions-over-lapses-in-us-grid-security-rise.html

 

Banging on the same drum, and quoting the most alarmist bit from the article. Most of the comments made were much less certain of the effects - the main tag line being that it's hard to asses the effects.

[Ron19]

A post with a link to a questionable source has been removed.

[Mrjlh]

On 9/26/2017 at 10:56 PM, Kieran00001 said:

 

Yeah, they did that in the 50's, that war is not actually legally over, and any breach of the cease fire agreement would make a strike on an American aircraft flying over a neighbouring country perfectly legal, Trump really does have to be careful on this one.

 Yes he does...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/all-the...of-war/279246/Aug 31, 2013 - The Korean War was not authorized by Congress. President Truman committed American troops in Korea in 1950 under the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, which was ratified by the U.S. Senate, citing resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council in 1950. 

 

http://www.usfk.mil/Portals/105/Documents/SOFA/G_Armistice_Agreement.pdf

[YetAnother]

On 9/26/2017 at 6:20 AM, webfact said:

Ri Yong Ho said a Twitter message by Trump on Saturday, in which the president warned that the minister and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un "won't be around much longer" if they acted on their threats, amounted to a declaration of war.

guy needs serious mental analysis

[midas]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Banging on the same drum, and quoting the most alarmist bit from the article. Most of the comments made were much less certain of the effects - the main tag line being that it's hard to asses the effects.

Exactly! So it's kind of like the height of stupidity to take the risk  at all particularly when USA has such an atrociously crumbling infrastructure

[Morch]

2 hours ago, midas said:

Exactly! So it's kind of like the height of stupidity to take the risk  at all particularly when USA has such an atrociously crumbling infrastructure

 

Exactly how? Your post is an alarmist one, hyping a sensational bit over a more measured account. The article linked recognizes that provided the threat is real, there are indeed issues answering it. Not quite as dire as you make it, and not something which ought to cause the USA to cower.

[Kieran00001]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

 

So, in one instance, using Iraq as a template is plausible, whereas in another, Germany's example is rejected as a "completely different situation". Not overly convincing when switching between opposite positions.

 

That aggression in the Korean peninsula would likely cause massive casualties is an accepted assessment. That it denies any military options, or that the bottom line balance considerations may be different than those you claim as definitive, is not. That such actions were not taken in the past is not necessarily an indication of considerations or of options - neither political nor military conundrums tend to remain static. There are always developments effecting possible outcomes.

 

You have no idea what a regime change would be like - so all them statements as to how things will pan out could do with a whole lot of qualifying.

 

Your point is rather simple - let Kim do as he will, do nothing about, and hope for the best.

 

 

 

My feeling is that Iraq is a reasonable example as it had a despot who was willing to allow his own people to suffer in order to continue his reign, who was known to have committed genocide and who it was feared may be willing to strike with weapons of mass destruction.  What about East Germany do feel had anything in common with North Korea?

 

Of course things can develop, the latest development in the consideration of military intervention is Trumps, have everyone else's considerations remained static so far?

 

I would prefer not to see the qualifier of my fears, that could only be provided with loss of life.

 

The point you thought I made is your imagination, I did not say do nothing, I said do not attack, if you think there are only two options, do nothing or attack then you are wrong.  There are other things going on other than Trumps stand off, there are the South Koreans fuelling defectors through their campaigns of leafleting and broadcasts and there is the BBC long range short wave radio project. I think the best possible chance is to attempt to influence a change to happen from within, to start a revolution by teaching the people the truth about the outside world.

[Morch]

29 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

My feeling is that Iraq is a reasonable example as it had a despot who was willing to allow his own people to suffer in order to continue his reign, who was known to have committed genocide and who it was feared may be willing to strike with weapons of mass destruction.  What about East Germany do feel had anything in common with North Korea?

 

Of course things can develop, the latest development in the consideration of military intervention is Trumps, have everyone else's considerations remained static so far?

 

I would prefer not to see the qualifier of my fears, that could only be provided with loss of life.

 

The point you thought I made is your imagination, I did not say do nothing, I said do not attack, if you think there are only two options, do nothing or attack then you are wrong.  There are other things going on other than Trumps stand off, there are the South Koreans fuelling defectors through their campaigns of leafleting and broadcasts and there is the BBC long range short wave radio project. I think the best possible chance is to attempt to influence a change to happen from within, to start a revolution by teaching the people the truth about the outside world.

 

Focusing on Saddam is all very well - but North Korea does not have Iraq's religious and ethnic divide issues, nor does it possess the same natural resources. As for living under a dictatorship, East Germany wasn't a bed of roses, and it to was under Soviet heel. One can imagine North and South Korea uniting (as happened in Germany), but not so with regard to Iraq and it's neighbors.

 

Trump is hardly the only player in this situation, and not the only one ratcheting up the rhetoric. Is he making things worse? Absolutely. Same as his North Korean counterpart. Yet somehow, it is often argued that Kim's words and actions should be accepted. There are a whole lot of justifications for acting irresponsibly , but they are applied in one sided manner.

 

If you prefer to indulge in nonsense statements, that's your choice. Going on about there not being military options and the like, is all very well. But such statements do not rely on anything concrete, rather reflecting your point of view, and are not a definitive conclusion.

 

I said nothing about there being only two options. My post was in reply to your ongoing position, which seems to be avoiding anything which might aggravate Kim. Considering Kim's wide definition of what constitutes aggravation, it could be questioned if even the ineffective measures prescribed above (which are in place for a long long while) would be permitted. With Kim in possession of an actual nuclear deterrent (meaning, coupled with a reliable delivery system), the scope of such actions may become even more limited.

 

[Kieran00001]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Focusing on Saddam is all very well - but North Korea does not have Iraq's religious and ethnic divide issues, nor does it possess the same natural resources. As for living under a dictatorship, East Germany wasn't a bed of roses, and it to was under Soviet heel. One can imagine North and South Korea uniting (as happened in Germany), but not so with regard to Iraq and it's neighbors.

 

Trump is hardly the only player in this situation, and not the only one ratcheting up the rhetoric. Is he making things worse? Absolutely. Same as his North Korean counterpart. Yet somehow, it is often argued that Kim's words and actions should be accepted. There are a whole lot of justifications for acting irresponsibly , but they are applied in one sided manner.

 

If you prefer to indulge in nonsense statements, that's your choice. Going on about there not being military options and the like, is all very well. But such statements do not rely on anything concrete, rather reflecting your point of view, and are not a definitive conclusion.

 

I said nothing about there being only two options. My post was in reply to your ongoing position, which seems to be avoiding anything which might aggravate Kim. Considering Kim's wide definition of what constitutes aggravation, it could be questioned if even the ineffective measures prescribed above (which are in place for a long long while) would be permitted. With Kim in possession of an actual nuclear deterrent (meaning, coupled with a reliable delivery system), the scope of such actions may become even more limited.

 

 

The BBC long range short range radio has not been in place for a long while, I believe it is actually yet to make a broadcast due to the set back of losing their transmission location in Thailand, and so you cannot say that it is ineffective, who knows what having a constant subversive radio message will do.  As for the leafleting and other methods the South has done, how can you say they are ineffective when hundreds of defectors have stated that they read them before deciding to get out?

[Morch]

Just now, Kieran00001 said:

 

The BBC long range short range radio has not been in place for a long while, I believe it is actually yet to make a broadcast due to the set back of losing their transmission location in Thailand, and so you cannot say that it is ineffective, who knows what having a constant subversive radio message will do.  As for the leafleting and other methods the South has done, how can you say they are ineffective when hundreds of defectors have stated that they read them before deciding to get out?

 

With all due respect to the BBC prowess, the comment was general. There were and there are various avenues of action intended on undermining the North Korean regime through non-lethal means. That's nothing new. To date, it does not seem that Kim's rule is under an imminent threat related to these.

 

Hundreds of defections, from a a population numbering 25 million, and across many years - and without any visible sign of the regime losing its grip - yeah, I'd call it ineffective.

 

And a Kim possessing a credible nuclear military option, would be more assertive in decreeing what aggravates him, and what he considers an act of aggression.

 

 

[Publicus]

 

The central issue in Washington is that Kim III is set on using his nuclear weapons and deterrent to try to separate the U.S. from its allies in the region. This includes South Korea and Japan, Taiwan and the nations at the South China Sea where the CCP Dictator-Tyrants are in violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

 

There are also serious concerns in Washington Kim will sell nuclear weapons to terrorists that are unrelenting in their fanatical mission to try to penetrate into the United States to detonate.

 

The Kim Dynasty has from 1950 been determined to reunite the peninsula under the rule of Pyongyang. Xi Jinping supports this while being nervous too Kim & Co. are building a nuclear arsenal. If countries of the region were to go nuclear Xi and China would have horrendous problems trying to dominate and control the region.

 

The pressing imperative in Washington is how to address these new and real menaces to the United States with efficacy and for the long term. Failure to do so would present serious consequences to the U.S. national security and it would seriously destabilize international order and global security.   

 

While Xi and the Boyz in Beijing feared what a Potus Clinton would do, Xi & Co never expected to have to deal with the China hawks Potus Trump has directing him inside the White House -- former UC Prof. Peter Navarone to name but one bull in the WH China Shop.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Publicus

[craigt3365]

16 hours ago, midas said:

Exactly! So it's kind of like the height of stupidity to take the risk  at all particularly when USA has such an atrociously crumbling infrastructure

Off topic. Again.

[boomerangutang]

Trump should be shown detailed photos of what masses of charred people look like - charred people in heaps upon rubble.  That's what's going to ensue if Trump keeps upping the ante, in response to Kim's stupidissimo tauntings.   After the carnage, Trump can stand and say, "Rocket Man asked for it!" in his typical 5 year old bully delinquent mentality.  But, as everything else Trump says, it's only going to ring true for his 19% base of rednecks and deplorables.  The majority of Americans (and people ww) will be sickened by the sight of piles of charred bodies.

 

That's the primary way N bombs kill:  they burn very hot.

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, boomerangutang said:

Trump should be shown detailed photos of what masses of charred people look like - charred people in heaps upon rubble.  That's what's going to ensue if Trump keeps upping the ante, in response to Kim's stupidissimo tauntings.   After the carnage, Trump can stand and say, "Rocket Man asked for it!" in his typical 5 year old bully delinquent mentality.  But, as everything else Trump says, it's only going to ring true for his 19% base of rednecks and deplorables.  The majority of Americans (and people ww) will be sickened by the sight of piles of charred bodies.

 

That's the primary way N bombs kill:  they burn very hot.

I don't think it'd have an effect on him at all.  He has no soul.  Luckily, those around him seem to know the consequences.  Tillerson is trying.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/30/politics/tillerson-channels-to-pyongyang/index.html

Quote

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Saturday that the US has direct lines of communication to North Korea, and his immediate goal is to "calm things down" in the international standoff over the country's nuclear weapons program.

 

[boomerangutang]

I see today's headline, that Tillerson says the US is talking with N.Korean top brass.   It proves yet again, US foreign policy is chugging along its rickety rusty track despite the ignorance from the Dufus in Chief, instead of getting sage direction from the Oval Office.

 

Increasingly, federal policy is being driven by lower-downs who are bucking directives from brain-addled Trump.  I just read how toxic Super Fund sites are overflowing in Texas because of the storm.   Obama's EPA had warned of large storms causing such problems, but Trump's people DELETED those types of warnings from official EPA memos - THE DAY AFTER THE INAUGURATION.  Yet another proof (among hundreds) of Trump endangering Americans.  

source

[Scott]

Troll post and replies removed.