• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

North Korea says U.S. 'declared war' warns it could shoot down U.S. bombers

North Korean officials have sought meetings with Republican analysts in Washington in an effort to better understand President Trump.

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that North Korean government officials have been reaching out to Asia experts with GOP ties since before the recent bout of threats between Trump and Pyongyang broke out.

“Their no. 1 concern is Trump," one person familiar with North Korea's outreach told the Post. "They can’t figure him out."
Click to expand...

North Korean officials seek meetings with GOP analysts to figure out Trump: report | TheHill

Ahahahaha. This is funny, right?

No, seriously, somebody needs to tell me if it's okay to find this funny.
 
GDViking said:
Yes trumps fault. Wbe. Was tbe last time NK claimed our president was ignoring the ceasefire.

Hint just the other day...
Click to expand...

North Korea ignored the ceasefire dozens of times over the years. They have no room to whine.
 
Fledermaus said:
Ignorant use of the word "empire".
Click to expand...

Remember when "Fenton Lum" tried to claim the deaths of marines in an aircraft crash in Mississippi was "part of the cost of empire"?

The fact that people still take him seriously is amusing.
 
I've noticed a lot of uninformed disbelief of the obvious solution; step-wise escalation to (presumably) war. Otherwise the US need to cease making empty threats and accept another country on the MAD doctrine targeting list...then hope Kim does not start making demands of the west or SK to pay them some booty or give up some territory under threats of a nuking - to say nothing of giving Kim the false assurance that he can now safely launch a conventional invasion of SK.

In anticipation of one of the common objections, you should note that the threat of a horrific NK retaliation against Seoul is much exaggerated. The 2011 study by the Nautilus Institute found NK to be closer to a paper tiger than an actual feline. Only 700 of their heavier guns and rocket launchers, and 300MM MRLs, are in range to reach Seoul. Of those, only 1/3rd would be fired in a volley, with rates of fire slowed by needing to draw fired guns back into hardened sites (in anticipation of counter battery fire).

Besides Seoul has room for 20,000,000 in its bomb shelters, which would shelter most people. And counter-battery fire combined with air and cruise missile attacks would reduce firing - at 1 percent per hour, it won't take long to quickly attrit the fire. One should also mention that their supplies of shells seem to be minimal, and (in 2010) 25 percent of them were found to be duds.

Chinese military papers on North Korea seem to echo this reality, stating that NK's only choice will be to accept the battering.
 
Fenton Lum said:
Review your global military occupational footprint, count up your endless wars and your current shooting wars, tally up your "defense" budget.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean the countries across the world which are friends with the US and want our help training their militaries or protecting them from aggressive other states? Gee bud, you've never actually been able to say why it's so bad for the US to have allies.
 
Fenton Lum said:
The US did, bombing rubble into smaller rubble and taking out 20% of the population.
Click to expand...

Perhaps North Korea shouldn't have invaded South Korea if they didn't want to be bombed.
 
Trump is going to start a war. Not surprising.
 
Mr Person said:
Starve China how, exactly?


Bear in mind we also do a huge amount of trade with them, so there would be a tremendous economic shock from turning enemy on them.

Also, we have been starving NK. Well, it's peasant class that is, which now hates us even more.




I don't think that makes much sense as a third option. There is another unpalatable option: cut a deal with China where we topple NK's current regime while China looks the other way (and/or with their help), but we let China set up NK's next government, a denuclearized one.

But what could we give China that would allow it to justify turning on its ally or at the very least, save face?
Click to expand...

It would hurt China more than us if we stopped trading with them. Sure, it's going to be a bit bumpy for us, but China will be devastated.
 
maxparrish said:
If they'd let me be theater commander of SE Asia, I'd love it.
Click to expand...

they will allow you to try to work your way up by first reporting to basic training
share with us the terms of your enlistment so that you can personally fight the war that is found to be so desirable by you
 
justabubba said:
they will allow you to try to work your way up by first reporting to basic training
share with us the terms of your enlistment so that you can personally fight the war that is found to be so desirable by you
Click to expand...

Look, I'd have no problem joining the military to participate is crushing North Korea's efforts to create an ICBM, nuke tipped, missile force. But I'm not the one preventing that. A) I'm way past the maximum age of enlistment and B) if they won't pursue victory, why should anyone bother with supporting whiney inaction?

On the other hand, it you are on the side of North Korea, perhaps you'd care to enlist in their military? If not, maybe they'd give you a spot on Pyongyang radio? The on-air propoganda personea of "Pyongyang Justabubba" has a catchy ring, don't you think?
 
maxparrish said:
Look, I'd have no problem joining the military to participate is crushing North Korea's efforts to create an ICBM, nuke tipped, missile force. But I'm not the one preventing that. A) I'm way past the maximum age of enlistment
Click to expand...
but not too old to cheer on younger people having to risk their lives for a needless war you advocate
got it

... and B) if they won't pursue victory, why should anyone bother with supporting whiney inaction?
Click to expand...
"whiney inaction" appears to be your synonym for "diplomatic solution"
doesn't matter that you are not too old to serve in the state department because you have made it obvious you are without the credentials to serve there, either

On the other hand, it you are on the side of North Korea,
Click to expand...
have not seen anyone in this thread who is on NK's side, which absence causes me to question why you would even propose that is such a possibility

... perhaps you'd care to enlist in their military?
Click to expand...
you are the one of us who is itching for the death and destruction that accompanies war and yet you seek an excuse not to engage in it personally. next, you suggest the one of us who opposes such baseless warfare would have reason to serve in the ranks of the opposition. it is clear that logic and reason have no place within your posts

If not, maybe they'd give you a spot on Pyongyang radio? The on-air propoganda personea of "Pyongyang Justabubba" has a catchy ring, don't you think?
Click to expand...
and again, that lack of reason and logic have caused you to speculate that someone who is against a needless nuclear war would then be interested in becoming a propaganda agent espousing death and destruction
my suggestion to you would be to first think about what you post, and only thereafter hit "send". posting without a modicum of thought is not working for you
 
justabubba said:
but not too old to cheer on younger people having to risk their lives for a needless war you advocate
got it

"whiney inaction" appears to be your synonym for "diplomatic solution"
doesn't matter that you are not too old to serve in the state department because you have made it obvious you are without the credentials to serve there, either

you are the one of us who is itching for the death and destruction that accompanies war and yet you seek an excuse not to engage in it personally. next, you suggest the one of us who opposes such baseless warfare would have reason to serve in the ranks of the opposition. it is clear that logic and reason have no place within your posts

have not seen anyone in this thread who is on NK's side, which absence causes me to question why you would even propose that is such a possibility...
that lack of reason and logic have caused you to speculate that someone who is against a needless nuclear war would then be interested in becoming a propaganda agent espousing death and destruction

my suggestion to you would be to first think about what you post, and only thereafter hit "send". posting without a modicum of thought is not working for you
Click to expand...

Horse poo. The only absence of evidence and reasoning prompted in the exchange was launched on your side of the divide. In response to my recommended series of actions by the administration, and my explanation of its efficacy, you dodged the argument and spun off into a total non-sequitur ad hom, sneering something about joining the service.

Then, you having speculated on my assumed lack of willingness to join military service as a red herring question of character, you started whining that " reason and logic have caused you to speculate that (Justabubba)...might be interested in becoming a propaganda agent espousing death and destruction"... So you got hoisted by your own ad hom "speculative" petard, eh?

It is irrelevant whether or not I can, or would join the military service. It is irrelevant if, in your advocacy protecting NK from being held accountable, you would enjoy a stint on Pyongyang radio. What is relevant is any evidence or reasoning that would show my recommendations to be less effective or useful than I believe they are.

Hence, my counter-recommendation is that you attack the argument, not the character of the person making the argument. Should you do so, I won't be compelled to reply in kind.

Got it?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom