North Korea - how serious should we take them?
Discussion
Cobnapint said:
The point I'm trying to make is this. He could just sit there, stfu, and live his little life being in charge of his own parish, killing and locking up who he likes, doing a bit of trade with China, shagging who he likes and having 24/7 access to unlimited stocks of black forest gateau.
But he isn't. He's drawing attention to himself.
Most dictators do don't they?But he isn't. He's drawing attention to himself.
Cobnapint said:
The point I'm trying to make is this. He could just sit there, stfu, and live his little life being in charge of his own parish, killing and locking up who he likes, doing a bit of trade with China, shagging who he likes and having 24/7 access to unlimited stocks of black forest gateau.
But he isn't. He's drawing attention to himself.
If the USA told the UK to get rid of our Nuclear weapons, would you?But he isn't. He's drawing attention to himself.
Yes or no answer.
Efbe said:
Cobnapint said:
The point I'm trying to make is this. He could just sit there, stfu, and live his little life being in charge of his own parish, killing and locking up who he likes, doing a bit of trade with China, shagging who he likes and having 24/7 access to unlimited stocks of black forest gateau.
But he isn't. He's drawing attention to himself.
If the USA told the UK to get rid of our Nuclear weapons, would you?But he isn't. He's drawing attention to himself.
Yes or no answer.
Efbe said:
Cobnapint said:
The point I'm trying to make is this. He could just sit there, stfu, and live his little life being in charge of his own parish, killing and locking up who he likes, doing a bit of trade with China, shagging who he likes and having 24/7 access to unlimited stocks of black forest gateau.
But he isn't. He's drawing attention to himself.
If the USA told the UK to get rid of our Nuclear weapons, would you?But he isn't. He's drawing attention to himself.
Yes or no answer.
A couple of interesting articles from my reading, some history from the 'other side' about the Korean war and the air power used by China and Russia to defend the peninsula against total western domination:
How the other side thought the Korean war went:
https://www.rbth.com/blogs/continental_drift/2017/...
And a reminder of how even back in 2012 how much the US is a military power rather than a trading power: I.e. a gun with an economy attached, and how we should view the US when they declare other countries to be a 'threat'.
Radioactive waste disposal:
Then another interesting article about those US carriers. It's rare we get such a clear view of a potential false flag, some like the chemical 'attacks' in Syria have been headed off by Putin basically calling us on them, others like 9/11 floated around a bit but were a great surprise to most of the public.
This next false flag however is interesting in that someone has spotted a pattern. Remember that all US wars have more than one aim, plus the random excuse for the suckers (us). For instance Iraq was 1) for Israel's Yinon plan, 2) to make the arms manufacturers and reconstruction companies a lot of money, 3) to steal an huge amount of oil, 4) to soften up the middle east for the strategic march on Iran and a few other benefits. Sold to us, the suckers who pay for it all, on the blatant lie about WMDs, for which Blair and Straw were paid well.
So the US floated 3 carriers (and a number of lesser ships) too close to Fukushima, the USS Reagan particularly badly affected (it's now basically floating scrap that's too dangerous to touch, and to lesser extents the Nimitz and Carl Vinson. These are a big problem for the US as scrapping them is expensive and dangerous, and all the bits would be piled up at Hanford, getting in the way because 3 carriers is quite a lot of material.
The US is also looking for a Korean war, and are sniffing around Korea like a young fresher after the local totty at the beginning of his first term.
So the theory is that Korea will be provoked into conveniently sinking this radioactive waste for the US which will gives them an excellent excuse for a nice new war, get rid of 3 major problems and give the manufacturers some excellent new sales opportunities (see graph above), and another reason for China to get angry. It will also be a great distraction and they'll be able to see how we all look forward to a possible nuclear conflict, prodding the nest and watching us little ants run.
http://www.rense.com/general96/USnavysink.html
Let's hope the US regime are not insane enough to do this, but based on previous form I'd say they are: so look out.
How the other side thought the Korean war went:
https://www.rbth.com/blogs/continental_drift/2017/...
And a reminder of how even back in 2012 how much the US is a military power rather than a trading power: I.e. a gun with an economy attached, and how we should view the US when they declare other countries to be a 'threat'.
Radioactive waste disposal:
Then another interesting article about those US carriers. It's rare we get such a clear view of a potential false flag, some like the chemical 'attacks' in Syria have been headed off by Putin basically calling us on them, others like 9/11 floated around a bit but were a great surprise to most of the public.
This next false flag however is interesting in that someone has spotted a pattern. Remember that all US wars have more than one aim, plus the random excuse for the suckers (us). For instance Iraq was 1) for Israel's Yinon plan, 2) to make the arms manufacturers and reconstruction companies a lot of money, 3) to steal an huge amount of oil, 4) to soften up the middle east for the strategic march on Iran and a few other benefits. Sold to us, the suckers who pay for it all, on the blatant lie about WMDs, for which Blair and Straw were paid well.
So the US floated 3 carriers (and a number of lesser ships) too close to Fukushima, the USS Reagan particularly badly affected (it's now basically floating scrap that's too dangerous to touch, and to lesser extents the Nimitz and Carl Vinson. These are a big problem for the US as scrapping them is expensive and dangerous, and all the bits would be piled up at Hanford, getting in the way because 3 carriers is quite a lot of material.
The US is also looking for a Korean war, and are sniffing around Korea like a young fresher after the local totty at the beginning of his first term.
So the theory is that Korea will be provoked into conveniently sinking this radioactive waste for the US which will gives them an excellent excuse for a nice new war, get rid of 3 major problems and give the manufacturers some excellent new sales opportunities (see graph above), and another reason for China to get angry. It will also be a great distraction and they'll be able to see how we all look forward to a possible nuclear conflict, prodding the nest and watching us little ants run.
http://www.rense.com/general96/USnavysink.html
Let's hope the US regime are not insane enough to do this, but based on previous form I'd say they are: so look out.
. Or the nuking of 2 cities. Or, well the list is endlessEvangelion said:
That's a first, a conspiracy theory trotted out before the event has even taken place!
"They" only want you to think that it hasn't happened yet, they are waiting for the optimum moment to announce it. When did you last see the USS Reagan? Think about it! It's massive, you'd think you would be able to see it. I haven't seen it recently, that clearly means its already been scuttled to avoid the cost of washing it.
All part of the grand plan.
The carrier gets blown up near the coast of NK, radioactive waste sinks to the bottom of the ocean and after a few years a giant lizard does Uncle Sam's dirty work. Once fat boy has been Cloverfielded then the USA have a perfectly valid reason for unleashing a load of munitions that'll need replacing. All the while getting blue collar workers jobs and feeding the masses with Kentucky Fried Gigantor.
All makes perfect sense.
The carrier gets blown up near the coast of NK, radioactive waste sinks to the bottom of the ocean and after a few years a giant lizard does Uncle Sam's dirty work. Once fat boy has been Cloverfielded then the USA have a perfectly valid reason for unleashing a load of munitions that'll need replacing. All the while getting blue collar workers jobs and feeding the masses with Kentucky Fried Gigantor.
All makes perfect sense.
Cobnapint said:
Efbe said:
Cobnapint said:
The point I'm trying to make is this. He could just sit there, stfu, and live his little life being in charge of his own parish, killing and locking up who he likes, doing a bit of trade with China, shagging who he likes and having 24/7 access to unlimited stocks of black forest gateau.
But he isn't. He's drawing attention to himself.
If the USA told the UK to get rid of our Nuclear weapons, would you?But he isn't. He's drawing attention to himself.
Yes or no answer.
The US has produced dozens of movies with NK as the evil empire, and has made many many negative comments about the NK leadership. Should NK tell the US to get rid of it's nukes?
You really do need some perspective here, you come across as having the logic as your average american trump fanatic. There is only one country that has used a nuclear missile against an enemy. Yet they seem to be the ones telling others not to have them. It is like a mass-murderer telling everyone else to get rid of their guns.
As much of a nut-job Jong-Un is, and as dangerous as he is to his own country, he is not a danger to anyone else, and this posturing is solely to keep him in power and his country going.
There are plenty of countries which are dangerous and have nukes though, and these are being ignored.
alanwul said:
hidetheelephants said:
a personal visit by navy SEALs or the SAS
Fella, if that were possible it would have happened a long time ago. You massively overestimate the capabilities of these types of military organisations. It's not like the films you know.hidetheelephants said:
alanwul said:
hidetheelephants said:
a personal visit by navy SEALs or the SAS
Fella, if that were possible it would have happened a long time ago. You massively overestimate the capabilities of these types of military organisations. It's not like the films you know.Unfortunately it's going to be nigh on impossible to get details of it, even more impossible to get unbiased details on it, but it doesn't sound implausible.
alanwul said:
hidetheelephants said:
a personal visit by navy SEALs or the SAS
Fella, if that were possible it would have happened a long time ago. You massively overestimate the capabilities of these types of military organisations. It's not like the films you know.Piss.
hidetheelephants said:
alanwul said:
hidetheelephants said:
a personal visit by navy SEALs or the SAS
Fella, if that were possible it would have happened a long time ago. You massively overestimate the capabilities of these types of military organisations. It's not like the films you know.The West couldn't kill the leaders of NK whilst at war with them what makes you think that it's any easier now? Do you think China will be happy with the US killing a head of state of a country on their border? Russia won't be happy either. Let's say kim is assassinated - who's his successor, another family member with similar views but one who's now very angry at the US?
Killing Kim is a rabbit hole.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff