North Korea ready to teach U.S. 'severe lesson', says U.N. abused its authority

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, PeCeDe said:

Perhaps I'm talking with rose coloured glasses 'coz my little investment profits from oil industry up ticks.  However, as usual we'll see.

One day I am going to see a post where the poster reveals that he or she lost money on an investment. That will probably happen right after Jesus returns.

[ilostmypassword]

In the past, when there was a crisis in the world, the dollar would appreciate in value. But since Trump has come to power, it declines at those times. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/09/business/dollar-trump-stock-market.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[PeCeDe]

22 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

One day I am going to see a post where the poster reveals that he or she lost money on an investment. That will probably happen right after Jesus returns.

I make and lose money like everyone else.

 

25 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

In the past, when there was a crisis in the world, the dollar would appreciate in value. But since Trump has come to power, it declines at those times. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/09/business/dollar-trump-stock-market.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Good article, thanks.

[thaihome]

13 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

100% agreed.  But that requires the US to spend money just to defend itself from an aggressive country.  Why should we have to pay for that?  Or Japan, South Korea, etc, for that matter.  All seem to be talking about ramping up military spending to counter this threat.

 

No easy answers....

You consistently fail to try and look at Kim's actions from his perspective.  

 

Sadam allowed international inspectors to look at his shutdown WMD. weapons development but after several years of verified compliance certain people became convinced he was hiding something.  Result: invasion and regime change.

 

Gaddafi publicly shutdown his WMD facilities and attempted to join the "rational" western world.  Result: EU and US supported rebellion resulting in regime change.

 

Now give me one good reason Kim in his self-interest should give up his WMD's. His actions, first started with his father, are all about continuing his regime and avoiding the mistakes of those who gave into pressure to give up the only trump  (!) card he has that guarantees his rule.

 

Responding to his threats with similar threats is just stupid.  It's like two bullies on a playground daring the other to "hit me!, no you hit me!". It's just plain counterproductive to actually defusing the situation into something that maintains even an uneasy peace as in the status quo (that has existed for going on 70 years) and has produced one of economic miracles of the modern world in S. Korea.

 

I do wish that people would stop thinking this is some Rambo movie were someone can go in with a laser and direct air strikes that can take out some 10,000 artillery pieces and save the million or so people of S. Korea that would die of a result of such actions. To say nothing of the world wide economic depression that would result from S. Korea's economic contributions basicly disappearing. 

 

Kim has got nuclear weapons (and massive chemical/biological ones as well) and a million member plus standing armed forces. We have to continue (as we have for 50 years) to live that. There is no other choice. Every single rational scholarly,  diplomatic,  and military expert says so. 

TH 

[PeCeDe]

3 minutes ago, thaihome said:

You consistently fail to try and look at Kim's actions from his perspective.  

 

Kim has got nuclear weapons (and massive chemical/biological ones as well) and a million member plus standing armed forces. We have to continue (as we have for 50 years) to live that. There is no other choice. Every single rational scholarly,  diplomatic,  and military expert says so. 

TH 

Hope you are right, as you know "Rational" and "Logic," are not words in the vocabularies of Trump or KJU, perhaps the US has checks and balances to compensate for its leaders shortcomings, but KJU has only yes men, everyone else is dead.

[boomerangutang]

                            Trump is no military expert. Far from it.  He thinks he can order some stealth bombers to fly over select targets, do damage, then fly home.... game over.   For starters, many militarily significant places are certainly hidden in N.Korea.  Secondly, it's easy to make targeting mistakes.  Often, it's unclear.  When Clinton sent bombs to kill Al Qaeda in N.Africa (I think it was Sudan?) .....the host country claimed the bombs hit a paint factory and killed a bunch of civilians.  Also, during the Serbian bombing, the Chinese embassy was mistakenly hit, with two Chinese killed.  It enraged Chinese at home.   Those are just two of many mistakes that inevitably happen during war.

 

Thirdly, N.Koreans, even if hit hard, will retaliate with everything they can - in some ways which the Pentagon hasn't foreseen.  Surprises should be expected.   Some possibilities.....

 

>>>  cyber retaliations, on all levels

>>>  dams breached, electric grids sabotaged, towers knocked down (note, cutting one guy cable on a tall tower will cause it to fall).   Are there any N.Korean agents in the US currently?   Only the N.Korean power structure would know, and they ain't telling.

>>>  Planes crashed.  Boats, including cruise ships damaged/sunk.

>>>  possible bio- or chemi-weapons.

[craigt3365]

9 hours ago, thaihome said:

You consistently fail to try and look at Kim's actions from his perspective.  

 

Sadam allowed international inspectors to look at his shutdown WMD. weapons development but after several years of verified compliance certain people became convinced he was hiding something.  Result: invasion and regime change.

 

Gaddafi publicly shutdown his WMD facilities and attempted to join the "rational" western world.  Result: EU and US supported rebellion resulting in regime change.

 

Now give me one good reason Kim in his self-interest should give up his WMD's. His actions, first started with his father, are all about continuing his regime and avoiding the mistakes of those who gave into pressure to give up the only trump  (!) card he has that guarantees his rule.

 

Responding to his threats with similar threats is just stupid.  It's like two bullies on a playground daring the other to "hit me!, no you hit me!". It's just plain counterproductive to actually defusing the situation into something that maintains even an uneasy peace as in the status quo (that has existed for going on 70 years) and has produced one of economic miracles of the modern world in S. Korea.

 

I do wish that people would stop thinking this is some Rambo movie were someone can go in with a laser and direct air strikes that can take out some 10,000 artillery pieces and save the million or so people of S. Korea that would die of a result of such actions. To say nothing of the world wide economic depression that would result from S. Korea's economic contributions basicly disappearing. 

 

Kim has got nuclear weapons (and massive chemical/biological ones as well) and a million member plus standing armed forces. We have to continue (as we have for 50 years) to live that. There is no other choice. Every single rational scholarly,  diplomatic,  and military expert says so. 

TH 

I don't fail to see this from Kim's position.  I fully see it.  But even if he has nuclear weapons, it's not going to protect him if the US really wants to invade.  Worst case: MAD.

 

As far as Iraq, it was hardly an easy process.  You make it look like all they did was give into inspectors demands.  Not exactly....LOL

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/iraq-weapons-inspections-fast-facts/index.html
 

Quote

 

June 23-28, 1991 - Iraqis fire warning shots at inspectors to prevent them from intercepting vehicles suspected of carrying nuclear equipment.

 

September 6, 1991 - Iraq blocks the use of helicopters by UNSCOM teams.

 

September 21-30, 1991 - IAEA inspectors discover documents relating to Iraq's nuclear weapons program. Iraqi officials prevent the inspectors from leaving the site for four days.

 

And the list goes on.  So yes, he was hiding something.  Thus, the numerous UN resolutions regarding the inspections.  Read the above link fully.

 

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/saddams-bomb-how-close-is-iraq-to-having-a-nuclear-weapon/

Quote

As is well known, Iraq was disturbingly close—perhaps only months away—from building a nuclear weapon at the time of Desert Storm. After Israel bombed its Osirak nuclear reactor a decade earlier, Iraq had embarked on a program to develop less visible technologies for enriching uranium from domestic and possibly foreign sources—its “basement bomb” project.

 

Gadaffi was done in by his own people.  Supported by outsiders?  Absolutely.  Just like all wars.  But it was is brutality that caused his down fall.  By his own people.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)

Quote

The first Libyan Civil War, also referred to as the Libyan Revolution^[31] or 17 February Revolution,^[32] was an armed conflict in 2011, in the North African country of Libya, fought between forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and those seeking to oust his government.^[33][34] The war was preceded by protests in Zawiya on 8 August 2009, and finally ignited by protests in Benghazi beginning on Tuesday, 15 February 2011, which led to clashes with security forces that fired on the crowd.^[35] The protests escalated into a rebellion that spread across the country,^[36] with the forces opposing Gaddafi establishing an interim governing body, the National Transitional Council.

 

Foreign forces weren't in Libya until after these events.

 

As for Kim?  Most don't really care about him.  He's a brutal dictator.  But I agree with you.  What Trump is doing is wrong.  Sadly, trying to negotiate with NK has gotten us nowhere after some 30 years of trying.  That approach has proven to have failed.  What now?  A nuclear NK is not an option.

 

 

[craigt3365]

11 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Halliburton is an oilfield services provider. How would it profit from such a conflict?

Halliburton is brought up because it was associated with Iraq, Cheney, etc.  A conflict from a long time ago...that was truly a mess.  Hopefully, the US learned from that mistake.  But not necessarily relevant to the NK issue.

[sweatalot]

54 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

....

 

A nuclear NK is not an option.

 

 

 

You might or might not be right with your comprehensive analysis.

 

But your last sentence is all that counts:

A nuclear NK is not an option.

Edited August 10, 2017 by sweatalot

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

 

As for Kim?  Most don't really care about him.  He's a brutal dictator.  But I agree with you.  What Trump is doing is wrong.  Sadly, trying to negotiate with NK has gotten us nowhere after some 30 years of trying.  That approach has proven to have failed.  What now?  A nuclear NK is not an option.

 

 

You're right. It's a fact.

[boomerangutang]

                          No one, except the N.Korean leadership, wants a nuclear N.Korea.  Yet, a nuclear N.Korea not employing its nukes is better than a war.  Many people don't want Pakistan, India, Britain, China, France, the US, Russia, or Israel having nukes either.  But we tolerate it.  We have no choice.  There's little effort devoted toward abolishing nukes from the face of the earth.   Wise people like Gore endeavored to do that, decades ago.  It gained some momentum, but there was not enough will to continue the initiative, so we have the screwed situation of today: where most people tolerate several countries having nukes, but are spooked about N.Korea or Iran getting them.

 

                               It's kinda like the situation of meat eaters and pets.   Meat eaters see nothing wrong in eating cows, pigs, goats and chickens.  Yet, the same carnivors are aghast at anyone eating dogs, eagles, zoo animals or cats.

 

If you take a few steps back, and look at all this from a wider perspective, you see it's a reflection of our species' weird ways of thinking.  

 

BTW,  N.Korea and Iran may have screwy leaders today (it's subjective opinion), but in 10 or 50 years, they may have the wisest leaders, and the US, China, Russia and Europe may have screwballs.  It was only 75 years ago that China had Mao, Russia had Stalin, and Europe had Hitler.   Today, the US has Trump.  Leadership wisdom quotient goes up and down.  Things change.

[Morch]

57 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

                          No one, except the N.Korean leadership, wants a nuclear N.Korea.  Yet, a nuclear N.Korea not employing its nukes is better than a war.  Many people don't want Pakistan, India, Britain, China, France, the US, Russia, or Israel having nukes either.  But we tolerate it.  We have no choice.  There's little effort devoted toward abolishing nukes from the face of the earth.   Wise people like Gore endeavored to do that, decades ago.  It gained some momentum, but there was not enough will to continue the initiative, so we have the screwed situation of today: where most people tolerate several countries having nukes, but are spooked about N.Korea or Iran getting them.

 

                               It's kinda like the situation of meat eaters and pets.   Meat eaters see nothing wrong in eating cows, pigs, goats and chickens.  Yet, the same carnivors are aghast at anyone eating dogs, eagles, zoo animals or cats.

 

If you take a few steps back, and look at all this from a wider perspective, you see it's a reflection of our species' weird ways of thinking.  

 

BTW,  N.Korea and Iran may have screwy leaders today (it's subjective opinion), but in 10 or 50 years, they may have the wisest leaders, and the US, China, Russia and Europe may have screwballs.  It was only 75 years ago that China had Mao, Russia had Stalin, and Europe had Hitler.   Today, the US has Trump.  Leadership wisdom quotient goes up and down.  Things change.

 

The US and post-Mao PRC have systems which incorporate checks and balances with regard to leadership. NK and Putin's Russia - not so much. Same story with other military nuclear capable countries. As long as their leaderships seem more or less balanced, avoid the sort of rhetoric which makes people panicky - the world puts up with it. Doesn't mean new additions to the club are welcome.

[PeCeDe]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't believe that China, as a state, has ever invaded any country. In fact the issues in that area were exasperated initially given the Japanese colonisation of the Korean peninsula and of course imperialistic moves into China but that is distracting the subject a little. 

The US would never win a land war there, simply outnumbered by boots on the ground although they will puff their chests and threaten perhaps before backing down. Lets face it they had 3 years at it 60 odd years ago and the result is the current stalemate and division. The  Chinese won't let it happen either.

The situation now is very different if only because of WMD's and the seeming willingness on both sides to use them.

 

It's been mentioned before in this thread that China has indeed been an aggressor against other nations since the end of WWII, including  N. Korea's invasion of S. Korea in 1950 with the aid of China and to some extent Russia.  

 

I for one hope you're correct about China not letting it happen, but this time it's far more of a tangled web

[PeCeDe]

2 minutes ago, PeCeDe said:

The situation now is very different if only because of WMD's and the seeming willingness on both sides to use them.

 

It's been mentioned before in this thread that China has indeed been an aggressor against other nations since the end of WWII, including  N. Korea's invasion of S. Korea in 1950 with the aid of China and to some extent Russia.  

 

I for one hope you're correct about China not letting it happen, but this time it's far more of a tangled web

Sorry I meant to reply to Gummy, didn't see your Tibet comment. Duh.

[ExpatOilWorker]

11 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Halliburton is brought up because it was associated with Iraq, Cheney, etc.  A conflict from a long time ago...that was truly a mess.  Hopefully, the US learned from that mistake.  But not necessarily relevant to the NK issue.

Maybe time to catch up on the corporate news. Halliburton and KBR split 10 years ago, in April 2007.

 

Halliburton is a pure energy service company, only KBR did the military support contracts.

[boomerangutang]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

The US and post-Mao PRC have systems which incorporate checks and balances with regard to leadership. NK and Putin's Russia - not so much. Same story with other military nuclear capable countries. As long as their leaderships seem more or less balanced, avoid the sort of rhetoric which makes people panicky - the world puts up with it. Doesn't mean new additions to the club are welcome.

                     China doesn't have anything resembling democracy.  It also doesn't have 'balance of powers.'  The Peoples' Liberation Army is the peoples' in name only.  It actually is 100% owned and controlled by the few vericose-brained old men in the Politburo ensconced at dark heavily-fortified rooms in Beijing.   Its 'freedom of press' quotient is near the worst in the world. Only about 3 countries rate lower than China in press freedom, and at the absolute bottom of the list is (you guessed it); N.Korea.

 

gummy opined:  "

I don't believe that China, as a state, has ever invaded any country." 

 

Tibet and N.Korea in the 1950's.  Additionally, it could be argued that China has invaded and/or commandeered territories belonging to India and Philippines.  As for Taiwan; it hasn't invaded, but not for lack of wanting to.  It has scores of high explosive missiles aimed at the island.

 

 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

                     China doesn't have anything resembling democracy.  It also doesn't have 'balance of powers.'  The Peoples' Liberation Army is the peoples' in name only.  It actually is 100% owned and controlled by the few vericose-brained old men in the Politburo ensconced at dark heavily-fortified rooms in Beijing.   Its 'freedom of press' quotient is near the worst in the world. Only about 3 countries rate lower than China in press freedom, and at the absolute bottom of the list is (you guessed it); N.Korea.

 

 

 

 

Tibet and N.Korea in the 1950's.  Additionally, it could be argued that China has invaded and/or commandeered territories belonging to India and Philippines.  As for Taiwan; it hasn't invaded, but not for lack of wanting to.  It has scores of high explosive missiles aimed at the island.

 

 

 

The PRC is not a democracy and there was no claim it was. Then again, it isn't quite the dictatorship NK is. A leader cannot go to war on a whim without consultation, different (probably) in NK. Similarly, if to a lesser degree, Putin might be able to decide such things on his own. Your usual colorful imagery is, as in most cases, irrelevant, and inaccurate. Doubt the leaders of the PRC's leaders are in worse health or are much older than the US's.

 

I'm not claiming that the exact conditions exist, but that in some countries, leaders can act on their own , whereas in others they can't.

 

[mogandave]

When push comes to shove China would rather cut NK loose than risk trade with the US


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Maybe time to catch up on the corporate news. Halliburton and KBR split 10 years ago, in April 2007.

 

Halliburton is a pure energy service company, only KBR did the military support contracts.

I'm well aware of this.