Starfleet Jedi

So it is now clear that despite Obama's overtures the leader of N.K wants a war with S.K, Japan and surrouding nations and so on so what should be done with a rogue state like that turned into a rabid dog as it now looks?

The blockaid option has some promise but China can't be counted on and Russia basic policy is to side with whoever is against us meaning I doubt we could make it effective.

sonofccn wrote:The blockaid option has some promise but China can't be counted on and Russia basic policy is to side with whoever is against us meaning I doubt we could make it effective.

They have as much to lose as we do if N.K is allowed to do as it wants in this case though.

I find it funny how Liberals think that the best solution to everything is to do nothing! As evidenced by their vote on the poll here. Had they been in charge during WWII the Axis powers would have taken over the world and all the Jews would be lampshades by now. Go figure...

PunkMaister wrote:

sonofccn wrote:The blockaid option has some promise but China can't be counted on and Russia basic policy is to side with whoever is against us meaning I doubt we could make it effective.

They have as much to lose as we do if N.K is allowed to do as it wants in this case though.

I find it funny how Liberals think that the best solution to everything is to do nothing! As evidenced by their vote on the poll here. Had they been in charge during WWII the Axis powers would have taken over the world and all the Jews would be lampshades by now. Go figure...

1. I'm not sure. Worst case they,China, lose a puppet ally who will destroy S. Korea for the forseeable future, burden the US, it's rival, with an ungodly sum and commitment and avert all attencian away from anything they might want to do.

2. Because of let's give peace a chance mentality, at least justified coming from the horrors of WWI, we had WWII instead of a short nearly bloodless conflict in say 1936 or 37 when Hitler was mostly talk. Of course Stalin was still around but without WWII as a backdrop I"m not sure he would come sweeping across the plains as it were.

sonofccn wrote:1. I'm not sure. Worst case they,China, lose a puppet ally who will destroy S. Korea for the forseeable future, burden the US, it's rival, with an ungodly sum and commitment and avert all attencian away from anything they might want to do.

2. Because of let's give peace a chance mentality, at least justified coming from the horrors of WWI, we had WWII instead of a short nearly bloodless conflict in say 1936 or 37 when Hitler was mostly talk. Of course Stalin was still around but without WWII as a backdrop I"m not sure he would come sweeping across the plains as it were.

Well at least at that time it was partly justified but look as you said what it lead too and now is even worse back then liberals were just an angry vocal minority and even in the 60's they still not had the political power and clout they now have which is my point had they had the same clout and power they now have the Axis powers would have conquered the world unopposed and all the Jews in this planet would be soap and lampshades.
This is a phone call to Michael Savage from one such typical liberal.

blockade, offering aid to china to deal with potential refugee problems should hostilities erupt.

if kim jung il wants to act like a supervillian, then lets treat him like one.

Flectarn wrote:blockade, offering aid to china to deal with potential refugee problems should hostilities erupt.

if kim jung il wants to act like a supervillian, then lets treat him like one.

First sensible post I've seen here besides those of sonofccn and mine, bravo!

But you know that if hostilities do arise it would become a nuclear war in Asia right? Truth be told that mans holds sway over the largest land army in the face of this planet with lots of treacherous terrain and bitter weather on their side. A conventional attack against them in the case of war is not possible because of this and because this madman would even resort to using chemical weapons which they have had longer than Iraq ever did even on his own troops to kills as many Allied soldiers as possible. The only alternative would be to bomb the shit out of him and it that doesn't get the message send a nuke down his arse as well as horrifying as that sounds.

PunkMaister wrote:Well at least at that time it was partly justified but look as you said what it lead too and now is even worse back then liberals were just an angry vocal minority and even in the 60's they still not had the political power and clout they now have which is my point had they had the same clout and power they now have the Axis powers would have conquered the world unopposed and all the Jews in this planet would be soap and lampshades.
This is a phone call to Michael Savage from one such typical liberal.

As a general rule, I recommend to you that nobody featured on Michael Savage's show is a "typical" liberal.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:As a general rule, I recommend to you that nobody featured on Michael Savage's show is a "typical" liberal.

The guy that made the call is obviously a liberal no doubts about it...

PunkMaister wrote:

Jedi Master Spock wrote:As a general rule, I recommend to you that nobody featured on Michael Savage's show is a "typical" liberal.

The guy that made the call is obviously a liberal no doubts about it...

And David Duke is definitely a conservative. That doesn't mean he's a typical conservative.

To be direct, I wouldn't be so sure that the fellow making the call is actually liberal. All is not always what it seems on television and in show business. I would point you at Eminem (who is almost certainly not as homophobic as his lyrics), Stephen Colbert (who is not as clueless as the character he plays on TV), and Jerry Springer (whose guests occasionally are known to have been actors.)

What is true is that World War II was a rather more complex problem on the ground than how pundits talk about it now. It is for the sake of pundit-like simplicity in dealing with the details of history that the so-called Godwin's Law was invented - and in the beginning, it was not wholly clear what role the United States would play in it. There were a number of realignments and betrayals in the course of human events from 1935-1945. It is difficult to imagine FDR aligning the United States with Germany; but had FDR not been president, another man might have. And I can even think of one.

Henry Ford came within a hair's breadth of launching a serious political career in the Senate in 1918. He was widely respected and a popular figure of his day and age; it is not so difficult to imagine him becoming president had the country not turned to a four-term populist. With a Senate career behind him, he would be the sort of candidate modern conservative pundits like Michael Savage love - a highly successful businessman turned politician. In fact, if I were a gambler, I would eagerly wage hard money that a poll of conservative pundits would think that FDR sticking to two terms and Henry Ford elected for two terms starting in 1936 would have been better for the country. The more the poll concentrated on the New Deal and the Great Depression, the more sharp the division would be.

And then history would come and bite them in the tail for not looking closely at the historical context. Ford and Hitler shared a great deal of mutual respect; the United States would have adopted an official stance of neutrality and exercised neutrality in their dealings - not cutting off Japan's oil supplies (which means no Pearl Harbor attack in December 1941), trading equally with Germany and England if to either of them.

In a situation like that, it's quite unlikely that the United States would have been a significant de facto ally (through its deep pocketbooks and large industry) of the British and French in the 1939-1941 phase, nor is it likely that the United States would've issued a declaration of war near the end of 1941. The Nazis would have had an easier time of it.

The end lesson? History is quite complex, and it's not always a good idea to roll out the Third Reich comparisons right away. Not without careful thought; the situation in North Korea is very different from that of Germany in the 1930s. China would steamroll them if they tried anything quite that ambitious. What we're worried about primarily is them using out of desperation, or selling, a nuclear weapon. Secondarily, we worry a little that if North Korea decides to start marching, it will set off other problems in the region.

If they actually start acting instead of rattling their sabers - as they've been doing on and off for quite some time - Obama will react quite swiftly, as will Taro Aso - and likely Hu Jintao, too. And that's a good realpolitik reason for handling North Korea with kid gloves; not only do they have an army camped on the border of one of our close allies and trading partners, and missiles that can shoot at one of our other close allies and trading partners, but also because a war that isn't thoroughly justified is likely to provoke other conflicts - some of them larger. A conflict that involves China would have consequences felt from Taiwan to Tibet, and could easily expand outward from there. Wars aren't something you carry out lightly.

Kim Yong has threatened to start this war by himself by launching a long range missile at Hawaii, the threat is being taken real seriously as Antimissile defenses on US Naval ships have been vectored to the Islands to protect them against such a thing, ironically the same systems the liberals said we would never need, talk about irony...

Note the last two words of the headline: "If attacked." In terms of rhetoric, this is not especially new. Paranoid raving, perhaps, but that's nothing new either. A military blockade - i.e., surrounding NK with ships and shooting at things that would go through - probably would constitute "attacked" as far as Kim Jong Il is concerned, incidentally.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:Note the last two words of the headline: "If attacked." In terms of rhetoric, this is not especially new. Paranoid raving, perhaps, but that's nothing new either. A military blockade - i.e., surrounding NK with ships and shooting at things that would go through - probably would constitute "attacked" as far as Kim Jong Il is concerned, incidentally.

Would you rather allow him to freely sell Nukes and other weapons to terrorists and whomever else he wants? In this case unlike Iran it cannot be denied that not only he has nukes but he is willing to sell the technology to the highest bidder.

He intends to fire that thing by July 4th regardless...

sonofccn wrote:2. Because of let's give peace a chance mentality, at least justified coming from the horrors of WWI, we had WWII instead of a short nearly bloodless conflict in say 1936 or 37 when Hitler was mostly talk. Of course Stalin was still around but without WWII as a backdrop I"m not sure he would come sweeping across the plains as it were.

Part of the reason why WW2 started was because of Germany's treatment after world war 1. The people also felt they were in such a bad place that when they had an election, no running party got a significant number of votes. The nazis just got the largest of the small slivers. When a party gets only about a third of the votes of the country and still wins, it's not accurate to say that country mostly wanted that party in charge.

But, then Hitler was put in charge and nation unity, hatred and lying came out of the nazi party in waves, creating a sense 'we're gonna get back at them'.

If China farts, North Korea dies. We see that NK is showing it has missiles, a certain range for these missiles. The Ill guy is really a wacko who tries to make his population believe he was born in some mystical waterfall or some crap like that.
But would he be that stupid to believe he can wage a war against neighbour countries and even threaten the US, and thus have all of NATO fall on NK?

The only way NK could become a reliable menace would be mass foreign funding.