View Poll Results: Is US military action against North Korea imminent?

Voters
106. You may not vote on this poll
  • No. Kim Jong Un will calm down or Obama will ignore him.

    54 50.94%
  • North Korea will be hit with US air, drone and missle strikes.

    14 13.21%
  • A full land invasion of North Korea by US forces is coming soon.

    18 16.98%
  • Other

    20 18.87%
Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 412131415 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 142

Thread: War/military action against North Korea predictions

  1. #131
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,993

    Re: War/military action against North Korea predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    Yesterday I said that Obama canceled the Navy's new 155MM gun, I was wrong, he canceled the Navy's rail gun.
    The man knows very little about the military. Do you think he is in a dark room taking stabs at the military or is it more likely that he has council? If we are to assume logically that he is making decisions based on council then we have to assume that this council is military. Instead of looking at what is being chopped, look at what we have that replaces it.


    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    " During Operation DESERT STORM battleships USS WISCONSIN and USS MISSOURI fired more than 1.000 rounds of 16" ammunition in support of ground operations.
    Yes...22 years ago the battleships were used. They were not needed, but they were used.



    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    Naval Gunfire Support: what if we must land troops?
    If we have to land troops they will be supported overwhelmingly by air, not sea. And their air support will be there because all North Korean airstrips and North Korean air power will be destroyed long before any F/A-22 is needed to pave the way for bombers.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  2. #132
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: War/military action against North Korea predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    The man knows very little about the military. Do you think he is in a dark room taking stabs at the military or is it more likely that he has council? If we are to assume logically that he is making decisions based on council then we have to assume that this council is military. Instead of looking at what is being chopped, look at what we have that replaces it.




    Yes...22 years ago the battleships were used. They were not needed, but they were used.





    If we have to land troops they will be supported overwhelmingly by air, not sea. And their air support will be there because all North Korean airstrips and North Korean air power will be destroyed long before any F/A-22 is needed to pave the way for bombers.
    Bah, forget f-22s. Just nuke'm 'till they glow in the night, then use their asses for runway lights.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  3. #133
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,993

    Re: War/military action against North Korea predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Bah, forget f-22s. Just nuke'm 'till they glow in the night, then use their asses for runway lights.
    Normally I would state that this isn't practical, nor an option. North Korea, however, makes this a possible option.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  4. #134
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: War/military action against North Korea predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Normally I would state that this isn't practical, nor an option. North Korea, however, makes this a possible option.
    Yep, with the way the jet stream runs over in that area, fallout shouldn't reach Hokkaido. A few Islands between Japan and Russia (not for sure who actually has claim on them atm) might get a little, but no major population areas. If it is running a bit north atm, maybe a small, fairly isolated part of Russia might get some also, but not a great hazard to a large population, other than N. Korea and it would actually be hard to find even a 5 year old there that has not been brainwashed beyond redemption there.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  5. #135
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,993

    Re: War/military action against North Korea predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Yep, with the way the jet stream runs over in that area, fallout shouldn't reach Hokkaido. A few Islands between Japan and Russia (not for sure who actually has claim on them atm) might get a little, but no major population areas. If it is running a bit north atm, maybe a small, fairly isolated part of Russia might get some also, but not a great hazard to a large population, other than N. Korea and it would actually be hard to find even a 5 year old there that has not been brainwashed beyond redemption there.
    Well I doubt we would launch first. Nuclear retaliation is even questionable since we have the technology to wreck any North Korean launch without it. It would certainly offer legitimacy in the world's eyes to murder legally though.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  6. #136
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: War/military action against North Korea predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Well I doubt we would launch first. Nuclear retaliation is even questionable since we have the technology to wreck any North Korean launch without it. It would certainly offer legitimacy in the world's eyes to murder legally though.
    If it's legal, it ain't murder. Hell, if it's a "red", I wouldn't consider it murder if I was on a jury, unless it was of course one red killing another, then you just get two for the price of one.

    We won't do anything first, only respond. Hell, with a red in the white house, I have to wonder if we would even respond. But a retaliatory strike, even if we take all theirs out, would definitely beef up our image world wide and clearly let idiots like Iran know that we can and will do it. In the case of N. Korea, I would really prefer a good nuke strike over sending you guys in. No 5-10 year old "pepsi" girls or shoe-shine boys with hidden grenades to worry about, or whether the local "boom-boom" girls are going to cut your throat when you get them alone.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  7. #137
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: War/military action against North Korea predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    The man knows very little about the military. Do you think he is in a dark room taking stabs at the military or is it more likely that he has council? If we are to assume logically that he is making decisions based on council then we have to assume that this council is military. Instead of looking at what is being chopped, look at what we have that replaces it.




    .
    I think Obama proved to us who have served or know something about fighting wars on the night of the Presidential debates that Obama has no knowledge about the military, what it's purpose is and how to use it when he made that stupid comment about bayonets and "ships that go underwater."

    The question that should be asked, who in hell is Obama listening too ? That little council of "yes men" who are not warriors. If we look at who Obama has surrounded himself with, who his Cabinet members are, all second rate. We must assume that the council advising Obama on national defense issues are also second rate.

    Have you been paying attention over the past four years how many flag officers and other commanders who have relieved of their commands by Obama ? He has been firing warriors for not being politically correct enough and replacing them with PC brown nosers who don't know how to fight and win battles.

    Just a few months away when the first of Obama's Moron Officers Corps will be entering our military and leading someones son or daughter in to combat.

  8. #138
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,993

    Re: War/military action against North Korea predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    If it's legal, it ain't murder.
    This is the biggest joke of civilization. From making it legal we pretend it is moral.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  9. #139
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,993

    Re: War/military action against North Korea predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    I think Obama proved to us who have served or know something about fighting wars on the night of the Presidential debates that Obama has no knowledge about the military, what it's purpose is and how to use it when he made that stupid comment about bayonets and "ships that go underwater."
    It actually wasn't a stupid comment. It made the point that technology has moved on, which means tactics have changed.

    The question that should be asked, who in hell is Obama listening too ? That little council of "yes men" who are not warriors. If we look at who Obama has surrounded himself with, who his Cabinet members are, all second rate. We must assume that the council advising Obama on national defense issues are also second rate.

    From what I have seen he is listening to good military councel. Libya was handled correctly. Syria is being handled correctly for now. It seems like North Korea is being handled correctly. Ralph Peters called for the end of the F/A-22 program under Bush. Peters was not alone. Obama merely listened to proper council and ignored those who spoke more for the lobbyist and les for the troop. If Obama's goal was to trim the fat out of the Defense Industry, he is selecting the correct things. Consider Clinton who did it by killing funding to the military while celebrating Defense Industry gadgetry.

    Where he has shown trouble is in MENA council. His handling of the Arab Spring was pathetic and his indecisive posture missed an opportunity to get on the right side of history after decades of being on the wrong side.


    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    Have you been paying attention over the past four years how many flag officers and other commanders who have relieved of their commands by Obama ? He has been firing warriors for not being politically correct enough and replacing them with PC brown nosers who don't know how to fight and win battles.

    Just a few months away when the first of Obama's Moron Officers Corps will be entering our military and leading someones son or daughter in to combat.
    Unproffesional high ranking officers should know better than to shoot their mouths off about their Commaner-in-Chief. Bush did the same thing leading up to the Iraq War when Rumsfeld insisted that he knew more about warfare than the warriors. General Anthony Zinni wrote a book about how the Bush Administration killed the CENTCOM plan and kept whistle blowers out of position. This is nothing new. At least Obama only fired disrespectful unprofessionals.
    Last edited by MSgt; 04-10-13 at 06:47 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  10. #140
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: War/military action against North Korea predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    It actually wasn't a stupid comment. It made the point that technology has moved on, which means tactics have changed.

    .
    No it was a stupid comment.

    Soon after Obama made that comment British forces in Afghanistan fixed bayonet and made a bayonet charge.
    The last major bayonet charge was in the Falken's War. Fixing bayonets in urban combat, clearing buildings is SOP in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    There are probably tens of thousands of soldiers and Marines who had to fix bayonets during the Vietnam War. Just ask anyone who was with the 7th Calv. who were in the La Drang Valley.

    The bayonet gives a soldier or a Marine a psychological edge.

    As the bayonet evolved, they realised when it was plain, dumb and stupid it worked. Have you seen the Marine Corps bayonet today ? Some figured out, why not use the USMC K-Bar as a bayonet. I thought about that back in 1969, but know one would listen.

    Personal Offense Zone (POZ): Bayonets Obsolete; Another Myth?

    "Ships that go underwater." Come on, Obama is suppose to be Cn'C with four years experience under his belt. Boats go underwater not ships !


    The question in the debate was that our navy was at it's smallest size since 1916, which it is. Obama claimed that our navy is already to large and that today's ships can do more. Problem is, the worlds oceans are still the same size. (some libs are saying the oceans are getting bigger) uuA warship is useless unless it's where it's needed.

    The U.S. Navy has five AOR's that it's responsible for. That means it has to have a CSG (Carrier Strike Group, formerly known as a CBG/ Carrier Battle Group) on station in each of those AOR's.

    From President Truman to G.W. Bush everyone of those Cn'C made sure that the U.S. Navy was on station 24/7 carrying out and accomplishing their mission in every AOR. Except President Obama.

    Remeber Benghazi ? That's AOR#6. Where was the Navy ? I guest moderator of the debate should have asked Obama that but we know why Obama wasn't asked that question.

    I can tell you what ships were suppose to be in AOR#5, one CSF ( 1, Nimitz class carrier with around 80 aircraft on board, 1 cruiser, 5 destroyers and an attack sub) One ARG with one Marine MEU (SOC) (1-LHD, 1-LPD and 1-LSD) And at least a few frigates and oilers and replenishment ships.

    What did Obama have on station in that AOR when four Americans were calling for support in Benghazi ? One destroyer.

    As of two weeks ago, of the Navy's five AOR's, only two had a CSG on station. Where were all the carriers ? Well I know four were tied up to the docks in Northfolk unable to put to sea and fight. And I know another four were on the west coast unable to deploy.

    Remember when the news said that F-22's were sent to Korea ? It ends up it was only two F-22's. Must be one bad ass air superiority fighter.

    The moderator of the debate should have asked Obama, why are hospital ships, coastal patrol boats and garbage scows now classified as being part of the combat fleet ? You know the reason the Obama administration has done that is to make our Navy look larger than it really is.

    I'm glad someone in Congress caught that, but the Democrats in Congress could care less.

Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 412131415 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •