a rant about North Korea
POSTED BY: NewOldBrownCoat
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 23, 2025 06:30
VIEWED: 7175
PAGE 2 of 5
Quote:*getting up off the floor*
Originally posted by citizen:
Naw, we should let the USA deal with it, the only nation militarilly equipped to handle North Korea (giggle). Yes the USA, with it's land of oppertunity (titter), is the perfect nation to convince poyngyang to denuclearise(chortle). Just look at how effectively America handled Vietnam(snort), and Iraq(Bwah-Haw-Haw...Sorry).
THAT, my friend, was gorram spot on and hi-larious.
BWAHAHAHAHAHChrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Naw, we should let the USA deal with it, the only nation militarilly equipped to handle North Korea (giggle). Yes the USA, with it's land of oppertunity (titter), is the perfect nation to convince poyngyang to denuclearise(chortle). Just look at how effectively America handled Vietnam(snort), and Iraq(Bwah-Haw-Haw...Sorry).
Ah yes. Imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery. Although to get the true Bush flavor, it should be "denucularize".
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Since the Allies are responcible for creating North and South Korea after the removal of Japanese occupation surely it's at least as much the US's problem as anyone elses.
I agree, although 'as much as anyone else' certainly includes Russia, since this is a Soviet legacy, China, since they stuck their noses into Korea and caused no decision on the war that should have settled all this sixty years ago, Japan and South Korea, cause they are in North Korea's crosshairs, the United Nations, because they forgot to end the last Korean war or deal with the next one.
Korea is a big problem and one we all share.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree, my responce was aimed at the poster who said "this isn't our (I assume meaning the US) responcibillity".
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There is no viable military solution. The only avenue is political. The N Koreans only want one thing - to talk one on one with the US (with the US in consultation with its partners). So, why not?
Why not?
1. Because they want a million things and talking one on one with the US is no. 4 on the list.
2. Because excluding the other interested parties from the discussion limits the amount of pressure that can be applied. It also alienates those other parties making them less inclined to cooperate in the future and with no guarrantee that they will accept or enforce any potential agreement.
3. Liberals hate it when the US goes alone...
4. A bilateral agreement between the US and NK brokered by Jimmy Carter in 1994 for the Clinton administration is partly responsible for creating our present circumstances.
5. There is no agreement to be had. North Korea wants long range missiles and a viable nuclear threat. At that point they estimate that the US will not be willing to trade Seattle for Seoul and will not intervene should NK use its superior military resources to finish what they started in 1950. That is their goal and has been for decades. No political solution can resolve this particular aspect of the problem.
As for your observation of no viable military solution, I disagree. If North Korea attacks, which is always possible givent the sentiments of the parties, then the US will orchestrate their military defeat. Nobody will intervene on North Korea's side...except maybe Hugo Chavez and Cindy Sheehan neither of whom add up to 10 million Chinese it took the last time. While casualties, especially among civilians will be heavy...thats war.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sure, the US govt is corrupt and incompetent, and sure, the UN is corrupt and incompetent, and sure, they'll screw it up. But they have chosen the correct course of action. I just think that this negotiation needs a little more stick.
We're currently repositioning our mobile aircraft carriers around Iran. What utter lunacy. We should take any portion of the fleet which is not involved in Iraq, and not involved in defending something that need defending, and move it to Korea, where it presently belongs.
That's why we have ships, because they can move. And a move like this would send the message: "If you invade South Korea, you're going to have to deal with us."
And, yes, by all means, and in so many ways, this *is* our problem. 1) In our current industrial state we are dependent on South Korea, and 2) The US has agreed by treaty to defend South Korea, and we must honor it. Just as violating the Geneva conventions invites others to do the same, violating treaties and international obligations invites other to do the same.
The international community, is, always, at least to some extent, rule by example. At the moment, the examples we're setting suck. I'm glad we're not nuking Korea, that would be a moron and evil thing to do, but I do think we're being a little on the weak side.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
How Michael Savage wants to deal with North Korea:
Take out all North Korean missile launch sites.
While I think this needs to be done, I think it needs to be taken further than that. The moment we initiate a strike, North Korea will initiate an incursion across the DMZ into South Korea and attack the US troops there. So I feel a strike from the USA against not only launch sites, but also the entire North Korean military and political establishment is required. If war was good enough for Iraq, who was suspected of having WMDs, it’s even better for North Korea, that has WMDs and is telling the whole world about it. North Korea will get off some missiles, that will kill millions the moment the USA strikes. So I feel our attack should withhold nothing. Hit them with nukes away from the DMZ and conventional weapons near the DMZ. (Savage wants to use conventional weapons against just the launch sites.) I feel if we are going to attack North Korea, it must be an absolute attack and not partial.
Impose massive tariffs on Chinese imports (38%), because China controls North Korea.
I agree, because this is the only way we’re going to get ourselves off the addiction to Chinese goods. Almost none of us are able to avoid buying Chinese goods, even when we try. Such a tariff would make it easy to identify and turn down goods made in China. China could stop North Korea, but instead uses them as a proxy.
Flush out Chinese sympathizers in the government. Try Albright and Berger for treason.
I don’t know. So many in our government go against the best interests of Americans. Even our current government with the practically open borders. And we the voters keep electing many of them. We need a political shake-up, but that would require that more people wake up to the threat. Otherwise voters would put new nuts in to replace the old ones.
I feel the parties have the voting system locked down in a way that makes it difficult for challenges outside of their control. More open primaries and easier ballot access are needed
Independent conservative comments......
Kaneman, you should take heed of this, if you support this kind of position, you'd do well to temper your language, because Mr. Savage sounds quite reasonable. If you put things more calmly, you might also sound reasonable.
I agree with the post to an extent. Albright is evil, and should probably be tried for treason. Berger is guilty at least of intelligence fraud.
First strike against NK would be idiotic. I assume that Kim Jong Il, if we do nothing involving any show of strength, will invade South Korea. He will do this because he thinks China has his back.
I think that the possibility of intercepting a nuke in the air has not adequately been looked into. Ground-based intercepts that we've been working on are not a very inovative or effective idea. But until we have an effective method of doing this, we should stall as long as we can. I think it's impossible to attack NK and take out thier missile sites without them getting at least one or two off.
I'd say 3/4 of our elected politicians have no concern for the good of America, and about 3/4 of the remainder are well intentioned and reasonable intelligent, but are operating using bad information which has been mailiciously altered by the other 75%.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ruse,
We are only tied down because we are not fully deployed in Iraq. Let us go in with 350,000 troops and bomb the hell out of areas awash in insurgents . We would not be tied down then. If China calls in our debt we should default and take the bad credit
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm
"On August 3, 2006 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testified that 133,000 US personnel were deployed in Iraq."
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20040604.htm
As noted, the active-duty force (all branches) numbers 500,000, of which only about 320,000 are easily deployable at any given moment.
So, you are proposing the US take ALL of its deployable troops out of Korea, Japan, Europe, the Phillipines and everywhere around the globe, send them to Iraq, and still be 30,000 short.
Is that what you propose? Pulling troops out of every other deployment around the globe?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME