| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - China & US versus North Korea
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


China & US versus North Korea

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 2017 at 01:52
I think that the President, through stupidity, political strength or pure big boy bullying has the will power to launch an attack on North Korea. But first, imo, he would like an assurance from China and Russia that they would either back him or stay the hell out of it.

If he had that assurance, the gates are open and the Fat Kid should start getting pretty bloody nervous.
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2353
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 2017 at 23:59
Asking China or Russia to either back him or stay out of it, is like asking for a blank check.  You can ask, but you are probably not going to get it.  Whatever missile systems North Korea has, both Russia and China are in range.  If we are so worried about North Korea getting in range and with WMDs, then why would we think that Russia or China would want to provoke North Korea in order solve "our" problems?

It might just be easier to send North Korea every year a shipment of grain, which US farmers overproduce anyways.  Pay them off, if not for our sake but for the sake of South Korea and Japan.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 May 2017 at 01:58
You could be right, but it's bribery, and as history shows, once the price has been paid, often there are more and higher demands.

I agree with what you say about Russia and China, I don't know the answer. It wouldn't be a good idea to attack North Korea, only to create retaliation by one of the others, but somehow, I don't think that would happen.

Both China and Russia, imho, are more than just a little nervous about what the Fat Kid is doing, and if the US put a stop to it, without occupying North Korea, thereby bringing US forces to Chinesse and/or Russian borders, it might just work. I don't know.


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2353
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 May 2017 at 03:22
But, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know, or at least so they say....  It might be cheaper to pay them off, than to throw them out.  That doesn't mean that you give them everything and anything, hopefully enough to provide some stability.  If you could just get North Korea to care about their own people.  Instead of the kleptocracy that is connected at the hip to the military.  We like to look at Kim Jong Un as crazy, but the fact is he has to walk a tightrope at home, having to keep the military happy.

I don't know what is best, but I have some trust in the professionals in the state department.  I do not trust President Trump on North Korea (nor much else, but definitely not North Korea), on the other hand, I don't fool myself into thinking I know what is going on.  He has knowledgable people, I hope he knows when and how to listen to them.  I "hope."
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 May 2017 at 09:04
I've never claimed to be a "dove", if Trump could get the other big boys on the block to go to the beach for the day, and then beat the crap out of the Fat Kid, it would be a win-win. A win for the NoKo population, a win for the South Koreans, the Japanese, the Chinese, the USA and just about everyone else you could think of.

Quite frankly, Franky, Mr Trump is coming across to me as being both a little unstable, as witnessed by his lies and sacking anyone who disagrees with him, and beligerant, as shown by his comments about both China and Russia. He certainly hasn't displayed any diplomacy.

He could well find himself short of friends if he chose to go to war. He's treated some other country's leaders shamefully, Angela Merkel and Malcolm Turnbull among them.

While I've always supported our troops, and always will, I would not support an Australian government decision to follow Trump into any conflict he may wish to engage in, unless it was shown to be in Australia's best interests, and independent of those of the USA.




I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 74
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote AnchoriticSybarite Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 May 2017 at 08:03
Thank you for the Vietnam analogy. It proves my point.

Displaying enormous ineptitude, American leaders tumbled down the path of good intentions one little step at a time. Houdini would have been proud of how we went from a couple of hundred advisors to over half a million men. In the process we proved definitively that you do not hunt fleas with tanks.

If we follow the same course with NK then they WILL win. Whether they use conventional weapons or if they can deploy a nuke either by missile, plane or even in a freighter, even if we win we lose.

America needs to decide one simple question. Can NK be allowed to possess nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Short of allowing US occupation of NK, there is nothing that the N Koreans can do to assure us that they have or will eliminate the program. Given the 25 years of failure by all diplomatic means, we are left with a military option.

If a 10% loss factor is acceptable, then go for 25%. If there is to be a military strike, then it cannot be a measured strike, but a massive one. Suppress the artillery positions within range of Seoul with FAE's and the entire US bomber force. Then quickly seize the sources of NK's nuclear program.
Back to Top
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 74
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote AnchoriticSybarite Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 May 2017 at 08:16
For over 60 years the USSR and China propped up the NK regime because it suited their purposes in pursuing the Cold War. Todays Russia is a slender revenent of the once powerful USSR and China's economy is so highly tied to US consumption today that they might very well take NK so as to prevent any kind of conflict which could threaten their own interests.

As for paying off the NK in the interest of expediency, is there a sliding scale. X for one nuke; 3X for one nuke + missile system; 100X for 5 nukes + delivery systems; 10000X for 10 nukes + delivery systems; ad infinitum; ad nauseum.

Edited by AnchoriticSybarite - 18 May 2017 at 08:17
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 May 2017 at 09:31
Originally posted by AnchoriticSybarite AnchoriticSybarite wrote:

For over 60 years the USSR and China propped up the NK regime because it suited their purposes in pursuing the Cold War. Todays Russia is a slender revenent of the once powerful USSR and China's economy is so highly tied to US consumption today that they might very well take NK so as to prevent any kind of conflict which could threaten their own interests.

As for paying off the NK in the interest of expediency, is there a sliding scale. X for one nuke; 3X for one nuke + missile system; 100X for 5 nukes + delivery systems; 10000X for 10 nukes + delivery systems; ad infinitum; ad nauseum.

I agree, and for the reasons you've mentioned, I don't think any sort of payoff will be contemplated, except maybe a payload, not a payoff!
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2353
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 May 2017 at 01:26
Delivery of wheat or rice feeds the people, it does not feed the government, although it might contribute to stability.  Everybody would know where that grain is coming from originally.  It would not feed any North Korean War machine.  It would probably be embarrassing to the regime, which would be another good reason to do it.  
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 May 2017 at 01:31
I agree, but somehow I think it would still take a lot more than that for the North Korean people/military to revolt. They're far too indoctrinated with the current system. I think they'd be more likely to lash out at South Korea or Japan, or both.


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2353
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 May 2017 at 02:44
North Korean belligerence is partially Kim Jung Un catering to the only group that really counts, the military.  Ironically, the overt attempt to display strength is a sign of weakness.  North Korea is propped up by the external threat of, well, probably the world.  Part of that is the fact that it was the world, or at least the UN against them.  I wonder if they are a UN member today.

Remember that North Korea has the 4th largest military, but nowhere near the 4th largest in population.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 May 2017 at 12:07
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

North Korean belligerence is partially Kim Jung Un catering to the only group that really counts, the military.  Ironically, the overt attempt to display strength is a sign of weakness.  North Korea is propped up by the external threat of, well, probably the world.  Part of that is the fact that it was the world, or at least the UN against them.  I wonder if they are a UN member today.

Remember that North Korea has the 4th largest military, but nowhere near the 4th largest in population.

Were the USA to go to war with North Korea, without assistance of allied nations, it would overpower North Korea with it's Air Force and Naval forces.

The USA Battle Fleets with the super carriers in the lead would dominate the North Korean Navy, and the US Nuclear Powered boomers would prove more than a match for the 70 or so submarines operated by North Korea. Or at least that's the way I see it.

I think the only place land forces would come into play would be at the 38th parallel, to prevent more tunneling and invasion by North Korean forces.

Is the US were to make a pre-0emptive strike against the NoKo Missils Bases, I think it would be, basically, game, set and match.


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2353
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 May 2017 at 03:32
You are right, things are screwed up in North Korea, and we (the US) have the power to do a lot of things, and screw them up more.  So we can kick over the anthill.  But we don't have the power to set something up afterwards that will last and be peaceful.  No, we would have to occupy North Korea and set up a new regime.  Otherwise we cannot be sure that we got all the fissionable material, all the scientists, and all the research, all the VX, all the other WMDs.  At least they are right now all in the same "place."  Introduce chaos, and you won't know what will happen.  Although North Korean artillery, dug into the hills, is in range of Seoul. It would be very easy to send some shells full of Sarin into South Korea's capital city, especially if the North Korean regime is going down.
It is not just a matter of blowing up things, we have to go to sites, some of which we don't know where they are, but we have to confirm their destruction, recover material and paperwork, chase down scientists and military men that may have WMDs.  It is not just a matter of construction, it is a matter of clean up afterwards.  And there is always the possibility that something is buried, figuratively or literally, which will surface as a hazard 20 years from now.
Or we could just kick over the ant hill and hope for the best.
Back to Top
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 74
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote AnchoriticSybarite Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 May 2017 at 10:36
If food shipments were stopped completely tomorrow, the NK regime could make up the shortfall overnight by simply executing the political prisoners they already hold.

I know of no examples where sanctions have compelled a totalitarian regime to cease its policies. God forbid I should ever say a good word about Obama, BUT when he moved to normalize relations with Cuba all he was doing was to public admit that well over a half century of American policy punishing Cuba with sanctions had produced absolutely no concessions on their part. What was even worse was that sanctions devastated the Cuban people while not inconveniencing their leaders in the slightest.
Back to Top
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 74
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote AnchoriticSybarite Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 May 2017 at 10:46
You are right if we follow the usual path limited military action which leads to more and more and finally after weeks or months full involvement.

The US military has the capacity if they strike first in a massive wave of air and artillery to cripple NK's capacity to respond. With current surveillance techniques (satelites, drones even human resources) I absolutely believe that the NK artillery aimed at Seoul can and would be suppressed until they can be overrun. AND THAT IS ALL THAT THE US MILITARY NEEDS TO DO.

If I could bend Trump's ear, I would tell him to talk to the Chinese AND the Russians and tell them to stay out. At the same time tell SK that the door is open to reunite their country. Without outside intervention, in a NK vs SK conflict I think the south could prevail in weeks, a month a most.

The sweetener for the Chinese would be our guarantee that within 90 days of reunification, the US would withdraw completely ALL US military personnel in the country. And would further guarantee the Korean peninsula to be a nuclear free zone.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 May 2017 at 14:34
Originally posted by AnchoriticSybarite AnchoriticSybarite wrote:

You are right if we follow the usual path limited military action which leads to more and more and finally after weeks or months full involvement.

The US military has the capacity if they strike first in a massive wave of air and artillery to cripple NK's capacity to respond. With current surveillance techniques (satelites, drones even human resources) I absolutely believe that the NK artillery aimed at Seoul can and would be suppressed until they can be overrun. AND THAT IS ALL THAT THE US MILITARY NEEDS TO DO.

If I could bend Trump's ear, I would tell him to talk to the Chinese AND the Russians and tell them to stay out. At the same time tell SK that the door is open to reunite their country. Without outside intervention, in a NK vs SK conflict I think the south could prevail in weeks, a month a most.

The sweetener for the Chinese would be our guarantee that within 90 days of reunification, the US would withdraw completely ALL US military personnel in the country. And would further guarantee the Korean peninsula to be a nuclear free zone.

I agree, but if that were to happen, would China take the opportunity to offer its assistance to their friends the Koreans? There would need to be something in place to prevent that don't you think?


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Windemere View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Location: U.S.A.
Status: Offline
Points: 239
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Windemere Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 May 2017 at 20:24
It might not be as easy as that for the U.S. military to cripple North Korea in a massive wave of air and artillery attacks early on (as was done in the 1991 & 2003 invasions of Iraq). It could likely be done, but would possibly  involve a massive loss of life among American ground troops (much larger than happened in Iraq, and something that the American public and political leadership likely wouldn't be willing to accept). Not to mention the economic cost. The 2003 invasion  and occupation of Iraq led to the economic  Recession in America, which is still going on.

In the aftermath, it could go either way. Possibly South Korea would overwhelm the North, reunite the country, establish a unitary government, and all would be well (as happened when North Vietnam quickly conquered South Vietnam in 1974).  But if North Korea retained sufficient military capacity to fight a defensive war against South Korea, it could develop into a long drawn-out  endless war, or possibly a guerrilla war.

Wars are always unpredictable, in spite of carefully planned out preparations. We never know what will happen, or how they'll turn out.

How China and Russia  would react to an American or South Korean attack on North Korea is also unpredictable.


Dis Aliter Visum
"Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 May 2017 at 02:34
Windemere
Good to hear from you. I agree with what you say. I've put up a few proposals in the hope of comment from other members and I understand that the answer, whatever it is, won't be easy, but I wonder just how long Kim Jon Un will be permitted to play fast and loose in the region with constant threats not only to close neighbours, but to those as far away as the US and Australia.

I don't think that embargoes are the answer, nor do I think that bribery is the answer either. It seems to me that armed intervention, or close threats of intervention are the only answer.

How do you see the problem being resolved?
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 74
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote AnchoriticSybarite Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 May 2017 at 08:27
TOYOMOTOR (I tried to quote your next to last entry but couldn't get it to work)

Let me be more plain spoken. If the US decides to move militarily, it should only be done after a frank conversation with the Chinese leadership. Tell them that a--he's your puppet, deal with him and by that not only get rid of the current regime but offer absolute concrete incontrovertible proof that NK's nuclear and missile capabilities have been eradicated.

If they are unwilling or unable to do that then the US WILL act militarily to produce the same result and they will face a reunited Korea. If the Chinese try to intervene on behalf of the current regime then we would tell them bluntly that we can kill their soldiers faster than they can cross the Yalu and as a last resort, I am sure there is a dusty old copy of McArthur's plan to stop Chinese intervention somewhere in the Pentagon.

The reason why this approach would be workable is that the Cold War is over. China is no longer the Communist nation of Mao; it is really capitalist in all but name. She has more to gain from her relationship with the US than anything NK can offer and more to lose from rupturing that same relationship with the US.

And get real: what would China most prefer--a NK with a nutjob running the country liable to bring down nuclear fire literally in the back yard of their next door neighbor, OR a united nuclear free Korea with absolutely no US military presence on the peninsula. Isn't that what they've been working for since 1950.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 May 2017 at 02:02
AnchoriticSybarite

Somehow Idon't think that blunt language like that would work on the Chinese, but I agree that hey have to step up and do something or stand aside while someone else does. They may not like the idea of a reunited Korea, with the probability, at least for a while, of US forces in what is now North Korea, but with careful diplomacy, perhaps that could be worked out.

The Fat Kid needs to be nutted now, before his delusions of grandeur grow even larger.


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2353
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 May 2017 at 19:46
According to Henry Kissinger's book 'On China,' China, as the Middle Kingdom, has had client states for hundreds if not thousands of years.  So this relationship with North Korea, is not one that started in 1948, but goes back 100s of years basically.  So getting China to "flip" so to speak, is not likely, and might be unimaginable for China.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2353
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 May 2017 at 19:58
According to Henry Kissinger's book 'On China,' China, as the Middle Kingdom, has had client states for hundreds if not thousands of years.  So this relationship with North Korea, is not one that started in 1948, but goes back 100s of years basically.  So getting China to "flip" so to speak, is not likely, and might be unimaginable for China.

I suggest you use Kim Jon Un's name.  Someday someone might want to look back and read this, and calling him Fat Kid will not help them understand the context.  It is name calling, it isn't analysis or even criticism.  One can be quite critical, even brutal if that is what one wants in analyzing things, I am not objecting to that.  It is a question of whether one beats him with a hammer or dissects him with a scalpel, dissection provides more insight, but leaves him just as dead.  Just a modest suggestion, think not only of your current audience reading this, but also (hopefully) someone who will read this in the future, who may not be aware of our current issues, or the current cast of characters.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 May 2017 at 02:45
It may not be analysis or criticism, it's descriptive. He's a young man, and he's obese.
He also shows sings of meglomania, bordering on insanity.

It's no different than referring to Mad Vlad.

The forum is for putting forward our ideas and opinions. Not to lecture each other on polite manners, I wouldn't think, although I do take your point, Franky. Wink
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2353
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 May 2017 at 23:06
I just want your criticisms and critique to be effective, to me name calling is "cute."  But, if you think Kim Jon Un's weight is revealing of his character, well then maybe you have something in common with Trump when he calls an ex-Ms World, "Ms Piggy."  Personally, I think that the personal brothel of teenage girls Kim keeps around to rape, reveals more about his character.  Or even the fact that he wears his hair poofed up in the front to add 3 inches to his height.  Or the fact that he had his half brother assassinated in Malaysia with VX neurotoxin.  But if you think that his weight and his age are that important, well you are entitled to think that.  There are a lot of young and a lot of fat people in the world, who aren't sociopaths.  I kind of think it is like hunting elephant with a bb gun.  Or to put it another way, it is like shooting an M1 Abrams Tank, and scratching the paint.  The tank doesn't care.  I want your punches against Kim Jon Un or whomever, to be as effective as possible.  "Name calling" is to me more like what happens on the school playground.  Verbally ripping someone to shreds, well that is another thing.  I would like to see more of that.
Barack Obama didn't listen to common rants against himself, because to him, they were not talking about the real him.  There was a lot of sound and fury against Obama, but during his presidency it amounted to next to nothing, in his view.  What I wonder is what does it take to cut through that arrogance and get to him, or even worse, get to someone like Kim Jon Un.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 May 2017 at 04:04
Franciscosan
OK then, if I've affronted your sensibilities, I apologise. Nickname and shortening names is part of the Australian way, but I'm not using that as an excuse. I'll try to be on better behaviour in future.

Name calling in a vicious manner is one thing, name calling in a humerous manner is another, Franky mate.Wink
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 74
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AnchoriticSybarite Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 May 2017 at 00:28
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

AnchoriticSybarite

Somehow Idon't think that blunt language like that would work on the Chinese, but I agree that hey have to step up and do something or stand aside while someone else does. They may not like the idea of a reunited Korea, with the probability, at least for a while, of US forces in what is now North Korea, but with careful diplomacy, perhaps that could be worked out.

The Fat Kid needs to be nutted now, before his delusions of grandeur grow even larger.




You are right nothing could be more non-diplomatic, anti-diploamatic, undiplomatic than the approach I'm suggesting. The time for diplomacy is past. We have tried diplomacy for decades. We have tried bribery. We have used threats and we have begged. In every instance the result has been the same. NK has unswervingly kept the its aim of acquiring nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them against the US.

The question the US has to ask itself is whether we will tolerate the possibility that they can achieve that goal. If the answer is no then the only option left is military.

The elephant in the room that no one even suggests is that at this very minute NK has the capacity to deliver a nuke to Seattle, SF, LA, SD, Houston, New Orleans, Miami, Charleston, Baltimore, NY and/or Boston. All they would have to do is lease a dozen tramp steamers and in a roundabout route send them to one, some or all of those cities and detonate them.

And you ignore the very first option I suggested--tell the Chinese to solve the problem themselves. Go in and take him out yourselves and install your own puppet. All the US asks...no demands is absolute proof that the nuclear program is deader than the dodo and the missile program is even deader.

To respond to Franciscan as well. Fine if China wants a puppet state in NK by all means have it. Just as any responsible pet owner knows. Spay or neuter your pet. And in this particular case defang and declaw it.

China historically has great reason to want to surround itself with client states. When my and I presume your ancestors were painting themselves blue hoping for a lucky lightning strike so they can have fire, the Chinese were centers of learning and civilization. They built great cities of fine architecture while our ancestors huddled in tents or mud shacks. Only to see their great accomplishments destroyed by barbarians in wave after wave demolishing all they had accomplished.

What the Chinese should be reminded is that today the world is a much smaller place. A buffer state serves no real purpose in protecting them. From 10,000 miles away the US has the capacity to utterly destroy life in China in the blink of an eye.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1157
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 May 2017 at 00:57
Originally posted by AnchoriticSybarite AnchoriticSybarite wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

AnchoriticSybarite

Somehow Idon't think that blunt language like that would work on the Chinese, but I agree that hey have to step up and do something or stand aside while someone else does. They may not like the idea of a reunited Korea, with the probability, at least for a while, of US forces in what is now North Korea, but with careful diplomacy, perhaps that could be worked out.

The Fat Kid needs to be nutted now, before his delusions of grandeur grow even larger.




You are right nothing could be more non-diplomatic, anti-diploamatic, undiplomatic than the approach I'm suggesting. The time for diplomacy is past. We have tried diplomacy for decades. We have tried bribery. We have used threats and we have begged. In every instance the result has been the same. NK has unswervingly kept the its aim of acquiring nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them against the US.

The question the US has to ask itself is whether we will tolerate the possibility that they can achieve that goal. If the answer is no then the only option left is military.

The elephant in the room that no one even suggests is that at this very minute NK has the capacity to deliver a nuke to Seattle, SF, LA, SD, Houston, New Orleans, Miami, Charleston, Baltimore, NY and/or Boston. All they would have to do is lease a dozen tramp steamers and in a roundabout route send them to one, some or all of those cities and detonate them.

And you ignore the very first option I suggested--tell the Chinese to solve the problem themselves. Go in and take him out yourselves and install your own puppet. All the US asks...no demands is absolute proof that the nuclear program is deader than the dodo and the missile program is even deader.

To respond to Franciscan as well. Fine if China wants a puppet state in NK by all means have it. Just as any responsible pet owner knows. Spay or neuter your pet. And in this particular case defang and declaw it.

China historically has great reason to want to surround itself with client states. When my and I presume your ancestors were painting themselves blue hoping for a lucky lightning strike so they can have fire, the Chinese were centers of learning and civilization. They built great cities of fine architecture while our ancestors huddled in tents or mud shacks. Only to see their great accomplishments destroyed by barbarians in wave after wave demolishing all they had accomplished.

What the Chinese should be reminded is that today the world is a much smaller place. A buffer state serves no real purpose in protecting them. From 10,000 miles away the US has the capacity to utterly destroy life in China in the blink of an eye.

Right-o AnchoriticSybarite. The Chinese have plans, big plans for the (say it with me Frankie) the FUTURE. It is a massive concern but the immediate one is nutting the Fat Kid. fransicosan, didn't your hero John McCain call him that? KJU has a Chinese glove on him no doubt, as long as he is useful he lives but it won't be forever. 
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 May 2017 at 02:29
Vanuatu
Quote And you ignore the very first option I suggested--tell the Chinese to solve the problem themselves. Go in and take him out yourselves and install your own puppet. All the US asks...no demands is absolute proof that the nuclear program is deader than the dodo and the missile program is even deader.

I raised this very point in a previous post. If China won't control their dog, then step aside and allow the US to do it, time for the pissing contest to end.


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1157
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2017 at 02:53
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Vanuatu
Quote And you ignore the very first option I suggested--tell the Chinese to solve the problem themselves. Go in and take him out yourselves and install your own puppet. All the US asks...no demands is absolute proof that the nuclear program is deader than the dodo and the missile program is even deader.

I raised this very point in a previous post. If China won't control their dog, then step aside and allow the US to do it, time for the pissing contest to end.


This is actually AnchoriticSybarite's quote. But it's pithy, I'll take it. Thumbs Up
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1157
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2017 at 03:01
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

According to Henry Kissinger's book 'On China,' China, as the Middle Kingdom, has had client states for hundreds if not thousands of years.  So this relationship with North Korea, is not one that started in 1948, but goes back 100s of years basically.  So getting China to "flip" so to speak, is not likely, and might be unimaginable for China.

If the ultimate end game is regional domination then China needs allies from other parts of the world like Pakistan which it has bought and paid for. Don't you expect China to take over the entire region eventually? Won't that make the leader of NK and SK totally replaceable?
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.