advertisement


Has N. Korea pushed their luck too far now?

Stuart Frazer said:
What would North Korea gain from a ICBM or nuclear strike against the US, South Korea or ANother? They would be obliterated by a war against another Super Power and it seems Russia, China and the US have all had enough.
Click to expand...

They've got nothing to gain by doing it, but everything to gain by making the other side(s) think they could. It's the basis of deterrence and the arms race.
 
The most sensible coment I heard was some bloke on the telly yesterday with a very odd accent.
Basically. (after I'd listened several times to understand his accent), he said.

'North Korea will continue with this tactic until it has the capability to launch a nuclear strike on the US. Then it will negotiate.'

This makes sense to me. As said 'upthread', even the NK lot aren't actually suicidal.

If they reach their objective and then 'threaten' the US into lifting sanctions.. they save 'face'.
 
tones said:
The 45 minutes was always nonsense, and the UK Intelligence Services told Tony Blair so. They also told him quite forcefully that the US was fabricating the evidence around a case for war, which Blair chose to ignore, to his everlasting detriment.
Click to expand...
Indeed, he, Bush and the Israelis agreed to destroy Iraq in 2002 in Texas, and they had to try to come up with evidence to support their false narrative.

Rachel Maddow did quite a good special on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5FaMbnINwc
Click to expand...

Will watch it now thanks.

I have a funny feeling she will not mention the country that was the driving force behind the war...
 
Stunsworth said:
Yeah, thank God Clinton's not in charge. Luckily we've got peace loving Trump instead.
Click to expand...
You think the Neocon butcher: crooked Hillary Clinton would be asking fat boy nicely?

Take a look back at what happened to Libya after Gadaffi handed over his WMD, and find out which American Neocon butcher then drove the campaign to destroy his country.
 
tones said:
However, miniaturised warheads are no good without a re-entry vehicle, and the North Koreans don't appear to have one - and they won't know whether they have one until they've tested one. A warhead that doesn't survive re-entry into the atmosphere is somewhat less than useless - the Americans don't even have to try to shoot it down - and nobody in their right mind is going to bank on testing it with the first shot in anger.
Click to expand...
Ballistic reentry is much simpler than orbital reentry and that was solved by Russia in the early 60s.
Getting close to the target is the hard part
 
Stunsworth said:
You told us Trump would be different Max, bigly different. You called it wrong.
Click to expand...
You lie!

You really ought to begin to look at the US establishment as the problem, rather than thinking everything that's wrong with the US happened on November 8th, 2016.

That is the thinking of a very entrenched fool.
 
JensenHealey said:
We must not forget that for Kim, the reason he is 'targeting' and 'hating' the US is actually domestic. In order to cling on to power young kimmy has to tell all his people that there is this great baddy out there, who is out to get them. Consequently everyone rallies to defeat this 'baddy'. Of course they are ill-equipped to know who the real baddy is.

It is simple really - find a common enemy and everyone will stay on side.
Click to expand...

North Korea has been an American target for a long time, although Obama seemed to take his finger off the button.

America is the only country which has used nuclear weapons so far. It is understandable they are freaked out about other nations getting them, but they don't have a moral or legal leg to stand on.

Trump is a biggus dickus and very dangerous.

Jack
 
tones said:
The 45 minutes was always nonsense, and the UK Intelligence Services told Tony Blair so. They also told him quite forcefully that the US was fabricating the evidence around a case for war, which Blair chose to ignore, to his everlasting detriment.

Rachel Maddow did quite a good special on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5FaMbnINwc
Click to expand...

I just finished watching it.

There was not one mention of the country that was the driving force behind the war.

Not one mention of the lobby of said country.

No mentioning of the fact that said lobby convinced Congress to authorise the use of force in Iraq.

No mention of the fact that said lobby had been writing to successive US presidents for years asking for Iraq to be attacked, and that only this lobby, and no other group or organisation in the US sought this attack.

No mentioning of the fact that representatives of said country met with Bush and Blair in Texas, in 2002 at that infamous meeting where war was agreed.

No mentioning of the former Prime Minister of said country's appearance before Congress, and all the blatant lies he told there in order to secure the war for his unnamed country.

Not.....one....mention...

Exactly the same as the Chilcot report.

Not....one....mention....

'If you want to know who rules over you, ask who you cannot criticise'.
 
This is all handbags at dawn. It will die down until NK launch conduct another missile test, ramp up and diminish again.
 
Rodrat said:
This is all handbags at dawn. It will die down until NK launch conduct another missile test, ramp up and diminish again.
Click to expand...

I think you're right.

And I'm also increasingly of the opinion that Max is a Russian spam bot.
 
maxflinn said:
I just finished watching it.

There was not one mention of the country that was the driving force behind the war.

Not one mention of the lobby of said country.

No mentioning of the fact that said lobby convinced Congress to authorise the use of force in Iraq.

No mention of the fact that said lobby had been writing to successive US presidents for years asking for Iraq to be attacked, and that only this lobby, and no other group or organisation in the US sought this attack.

No mentioning of the fact that representatives of said country met with Bush and Blair in Texas, in 2002 at that infamous meeting where war was agreed.

No mentioning of the former Prime Minister of said country's appearance before Congress, and all the blatant lies he told there in order to secure the war for his unnamed country.

Not.....one....mention...

Exactly the same as the Chilcot report.

Not....one....mention....

'If you want to know who rules over you, ask who you cannot criticise'.
Click to expand...

David Duke could have written that.
 
notaclue said:
David Duke could have written that.
Click to expand...
It's all factual information. Do you not wonder why none of it was mentioned, and is never, ever mentioned by governments, media, official reports etc? Do you think these glaring omissions are an accident?

I like the truth. If it were another country or lobby of country that had been involved and said involvement was being covered up I'd still want it highlighted.

Should any country or lobby of country be beyond criticism, and protected from scrutiny?

Do the one million dead Muslims in Iraq not deserve the truth to come out???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top