WWIII has begin?

Steinhauer said:
I have to agree. I think all United States personnel should leave S. Korea and never go back. Especially, when they are being over run. We don't want to be "rude".

Besides, think of all the money Americans would save if we didn't help S. Korea. I might finally be able to afford a new car.

but I am sure there wouldn't be any more Hyundais or KIA's on the market .... bummer.
Click to expand...

:dunno:

fine with me. It was the UN who helped SK anyway. the Americans are there because of Taiwan.

beside - think of all the money Americans would save if we didn't help Afghanistan and Iraq. I might finally be able to pay much cheaper gas and tax.

but I am sure there wouldn't be any more cheap oil in the market... drat.
 
Steinhauer said:
Suppose the dude came over to your truck and lit it on fire and later claimed he never did that.

Before you even got to the range?


Would you practice what you are preaching then and use "restraint"?

BREAKING NEWS: South Korean ship with 100 on board sinking after torpedo attack 'by North Korea' | Mail Online


And a S. Korean military drill that they do every year warrants an attack on civilians?
Click to expand...

can you, errmm, try again and state the point? You're jumping all over and tying all irrelevant points together. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

in case you didn't know - that "South Korean ship" was a South Korean Navy anti-submarine patrol ship.
 
Jiro said:
:dunno:

fine with me. It was the UN who helped SK anyway. the Americans are there because of Taiwan.

beside - think of all the money Americans would save if we didn't help Afghanistan and Iraq. I might finally be able to pay much cheaper gas and tax.

but I am sure there wouldn't be any more cheap oil in the market... drat.
Click to expand...

I was just ribbing you man.

I know you are worried about your dad. I can also understand, although, not fully, how it must feel to be in your situation. Please don't take this the wrong way.

Nobody likes asking for help.
 
Steinhauer said:
I was just ribbing you man.

I know you are worried about your dad. I can also understand, although, not fully, how it must feel to be in your situation. Please don't take this the wrong way.

Nobody likes asking for help.
Click to expand...

worried? :laugh2: I wasn't worried at all. In fact - the majority of Koreans aren't worried either. I asked for my mom's opinion. She didn't even care or called her mom or sisters.

I always laugh at ya'all because of your reaction to this. You think "BOMB BOMB BOMB" to pretty much any armed conflict. We think "eh back to business".
 
Reba said:
You have an odd definition of guest.

I've never heard of guests paying their own way and risking their lives for their hosts.

Also, they can't leave any time they want because they have contractual obligations with their host (more proof that they are not guests).

No, they certainly aren't being treated like guests.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but how does 28,000+ American soldiers can serve as a deterrent against 1,700,000 North Korean soldiers? Let's face it... if the NK invaded us, you don't stand a chance. Your only option is to bomb bomb bomb at SK's cost.

again - they are free to leave at any time they want. And the Americans have the odd way of dictating itself on how we do it especially when they're in foreign country. We'll have UN to help the Koreans like in the past. Don't forget - MacArthur served in Korean War under UN, not US.

Currently - the US presence is being gradually reduced in Japan and Korea.

Reba said:
How are they showing "aggressive assertiveness" (whatever that means)?
Click to expand...
lol - I meant "aggressively asserting itself"

example - Potsdam Conference. The division of Korea. Did the Americans consult with the Koreans on that subject?

Reba said:
Would you prefer that N. Korea develop nuclear weapons?
Click to expand...
the question is - who is hell-bent on that specific subject? The Americans? or the Koreans? and for who? Americans? or Koreans? :hmm:
 
Jiro said:
can you, errmm, try again and state the point? You're jumping all over and tying all irrelevant points together. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

in case you didn't know - that "South Korean ship" was a South Korean Navy anti-submarine patrol ship.
Click to expand...

Ok. Let me explain how I see it by using an analogy. If it is wrong, use an analogy so I can see your perspective. I understand things much more clearly that way, especially when it is written text and not signed communication.

Suppose there are two brothers that live side by side. Suppose one of the brothers is a rock and roller, watches MTV all day while ordering pizza (just painted an image of the west). Suppose the other brother rations his food in his household and his children are starving.

Suppose the brother that is doing this, wants to take over the household of the other. Suppose the rock and roller just wants to let bygones be bygones and let his neices and nephews get their damn MTV.

But they don't get along. The commie brother has another neighbor, that is much better off and backs him up anytime their is a skirmish.

Suppose the rock and roller has a neighbor that backs him up anytime there is a skirmish.

So, the two brothers, so close to each other, yet bitter enemies. They conduct their household chores in the manner they each see fit. Often, there is bickering and arguing at the property line fence.

"hey, get your damn leaves off my damn yard you hippy rock n' roller you!"

"Stuff you ... you ... power freak!"

Then, the commie brother's friend stops by and shows off his brand new .50 caliber and points it at the rock n' rollers yard.

So ... the rock n' roller, asks his neighbor friend what to do. The neigbor friend gives him a bigger . 50 caliber .... etc.

So each brother sets up target practice in their back yards.

"You better watch out bro ... I am gonna go Nuke U Ler!"

"Dude, that is so against the HOA regulations!"

A week later, the rock n' roller finds his dog dead on his doorstep. The commie brother is snickering and when challenged says "Uh ... I have no idea who did that"

(yeah, right).

Then, several months later, AS USUAL, the rock n' roller is target practicing in his back yard, right next to the property line fence.

This irks the commie brother, so he whips out his brand spanking new .50 caliber and kills several of the rock n' rollers kids while screaming "You punk ass lazy couch potatoes better be glad I ain't using my NUKE U LER bombs!!"


well, that is sort of how I see it.
 
Steinhauer said:
Ok. Let me explain how I see it by using an analogy. If it is wrong, use an analogy so I can see your perspective. I understand things much more clearly that way, especially when it is written text and not signed communication.

Suppose there are two brothers that live side by side. Suppose one of the brothers is a rock and roller, watches MTV all day while ordering pizza (just painted an image of the west). Suppose the other brother rations his food in his household and his children are starving.

Suppose the brother that is doing this, wants to take over the household of the other. Suppose the rock and roller just wants to let bygones be bygones and let his neices and nephews get their damn MTV.

But they don't get along. The commie brother has another neighbor, that is much better off and backs him up anytime their is a skirmish.

Suppose the rock and roller has a neighbor that backs him up anytime there is a skirmish.

So, the two brothers, so close to each other, yet bitter enemies. They conduct their household chores in the manner they each see fit. Often, there is bickering and arguing at the property line fence.

"hey, get your damn leaves off my damn yard you hippy rock n' roller you!"

"Stuff you ... you ... power freak!"

Then, the commie brother's friend stops by and shows off his brand new .50 caliber and points it at the rock n' rollers yard.

So ... the rock n' roller, asks his neighbor friend what to do. The neigbor friend gives him a bigger . 50 caliber .... etc.

So each brother sets up target practice in their back yards.

"You better watch out bro ... I am gonna go Nuke U Ler!"

"Dude, that is so against the HOA regulations!"

A week later, the rock n' roller finds his dog dead on his doorstep. The commie brother is snickering and when challenged says "Uh ... I have no idea who did that"

(yeah, right).

Then, several months later, AS USUAL, the rock n' roller is target practicing in his back yard, right next to the property line fence.

This irks the commie brother, so he whips out his brand spanking new .50 caliber and kills several of the rock n' rollers kids while screaming "You punk ass lazy couch potatoes better be glad I ain't using my NUKE U LER bombs!!"


well, that is sort of how I see it.
Click to expand...

:io:

Dr. Phil - he's free.
 
North Korea nuclear threat is alarming, says South | Reuters

that is so against international treaty regulations ..... (HOA)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/world/asia/23korea.html

seems North Koreans answer is to BOMB BOMB BOMB

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31473986/ns/world_news-asia-pacific/



updated 6/21/2009 10:24:49 PM ET 2009-06-22T02:24:49
WASHINGTON — North Korea boasted that it has become a "proud nuclear power" and threatened Monday to harm the U.S. if attacked, as tensions mounted over a possible crackdown on exports of suspected missile parts from the North.
Click to expand...
 
Steinhauer said:
I think I also understand that this is a "family feud" and people not in the family should "Butt Out!"

But, when a family feud involves violence, people are not going to butt out.


South Korea warns of 'firm' response to future attacks - CNN.com

US and S. Korea stage massive naval drill - Hindustan Times
Click to expand...

oh well. don't forget that we do have multiple political parties in Korea like America. What you're reading is what the "Bomb Bomb Bomb" Party wants. They are detrimental to Korea's progress to reunification.

but no you don't really understand it. nobody does. hence.... this is dubbed as "The Forgotten War"
 
Jiro said:
oh well. don't forget that we do have multiple political parties in Korea like America. What you're reading is what the "Bomb Bomb Bomb" Party wants. They are detrimental to Korea's progress to reunification.

but no you don't really understand it. nobody does. hence.... this is dubbed as "The Forgotten War"
Click to expand...

Try to explain it to me. I want to understand. Use an analogy that you know I can understand ... please.

I really worked hard on that creative analogy ;)
 
Why North Korea attack is not a crisis
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
-North Korea's artillery barrage was serious, but this is not a crisis, say co-authors
-They say the action fits pattern of North Korea's behavior and doesn't preclude progress
-New uranium enrichment plant doesn't signal escalation in weapons capability, they say
-U.S. needs to try economic and diplomatic measures to move ahead, they say
Click to expand...

(CNN) -- Headlines and pundits once again declare that we have a crisis on our hands in the wake of discovering that North Korea is building a new nuclear reactor and a uranium enrichment plant.

More ominously, Tuesday brought news of direct artillery barrages between North and South Korea, heightening tensions and costing lives. But as provocative and serious as this is, neither is a crisis. Both fit a clear pattern of North Korean behavior -- a pattern that ultimately holds out the opportunity for progress.

Unfortunately, so far the U.S. response also fits a pattern of rhetorical condemnation but little in the way of creative or effective engagement. Some key lessons need to be re-learned in light of these developments.

First, the fundamental security situation with respect to North Korea has not changed. Pyongyang's estimated stockpile of plutonium bombs remains the same (four to eight bombs' worth). It does not have the capability to deliver these devices by aircraft or missile and its plutonium program remains frozen or perhaps even further eroded, as described in a report by Dr. Sig Hecker, who visited the North's nuclear facilities two weeks ago.

Tuesday, in a briefing in Washington, Hecker, the former head of the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory, said that his report had been "hyped" in the media. He detailed how the new facilities, while potentially capable of producing material for bombs, are hardly the quickest route for North Korea to do so.

Here's why. Uranium weapons are bigger than plutonium weapons, thus more difficult to shrink to the size needed for a missile warhead.

The facility Hecker visited could only produce one or two bombs' worth of material a year, it is not clear when it will be fully operational and it has been built to replace the plutonium production facilities, not add to them. The new, small light-water reactor under construction is actually not very good for producing weapons-grade plutonium.

If North Korea wanted to expand its nuclear arsenal, it makes much more sense for it to restart the plutonium reactor it has, not replace it with this new one.

Finally, the North Koreans said they would scrap their plutonium capabilities completely in exchange for improved relations with the United States. In short, it is conceivable that the facilities are what the North claims, its attempt at home-grown nuclear energy, a goal the North has had for decades. As Hecker said, the trip raised "as many questions as it answered."

Second, as difficult as engagement is, it is preferable to the alternative, isolation and instability. Remember that North Korea succeeded in acquiring or building these new facilities during a time when sanctions were extreme and U.S. engagement was absent.

In fact, we only know about the facilities because of an unofficial visit by Americans whom the North wanted to use to reveal them. Before that, the Bush administration's years-long policy of complete isolation allowed North Korea to produce plutonium, fashion it into bombs and test two of them. Only in the last two years of the Bush era did a change in U.S. approach bear some fruit in freezing North Korea's programs.

"Strategic patience" has been the nickname for the U.S. approach to North Korea since the early weeks of the Obama administration, when Pyongyang rejected early overtures of dialogue. What the administration failed to grasp is that diplomacy with the North is pretty much the most difficult exercise one can do in international relations. But that does not mean you shouldn't continue to try, even when -- or maybe especially when -- the response is a poke in the eye.

So where does this leave us? What can or should the United States do to respond to these latest developments? Here again, everything old is new again: Creative, thoughtful approaches to engaging North Korea have to be designed and tested -- persistently.

Yes, U.S. overtures will annoy allies in the region, but not if done in concert with or through consultation with them. Yes, the administration will suffer reactionary criticism from the right for "dealing with evil" or similar screeds. But the stakes are too high to allow the long-term threats that North Korea poses to be hamstrung by near-term political scorekeeping.

President Obama has to be bold. A number of ideas about how to proceed are offered in a recent piece by Lee Sigal of the Social Sciences Research Council. These suggestions, including economic incentives and diplomatic measures such as a trip by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to North Korea and the conclusion of a peace declaration involving both Koreas and China, are a good starting point.

Sun-tzu, an ancient Chinese expert on the region, advised, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Good advice and as relevant as ever for the United States regarding North Korea.
Click to expand...
 
Survey: Americans question role in Korean peninsula
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
-Poll examined attitudes toward U.S. military presence around the world
-Support for bases in North and South Korea remains steady
-But most people oppose U.S. involvement in any hostilities
-Poll was conducted before Tuesday's attacks
Click to expand...
(CNN) -- Americans are growing weary of the country's many security commitments overseas and increasingly feel that U.S. allies need to do a better job of taking care of themselves. And while more support a long-term military presence in South Korea than in Afghanistan or Iraq, most Americans feel U.S. forces should not get involved in conflict between South and North Korea.
Click to expand...
Asked how the United States should respond to the torpedo attack earlier this year by North Korea on a South Korean warship, in which 46 South Korean sailors were killed, only 27 percent said the United States should have joined in "punishing" the North. Sixty-six percent said that criticizing the North was adequate.
Click to expand...
Over the past few years, however, many U.S. military facilities in South Korea have been closed or consolidated, with much of the financial burden for the relocation borne by South Korea. That process will continue over the next five years, part of a gradual transition under which the Korean military will assume the lead in the defense of the country by late 2015.

Supporters of a substantial U.S. military presence point out that South Korea is still technically at war with North Korea, a nuclear-armed and unpredictable adversary, and that withdrawing the troops there might encourage "adventurism" by Pyongyang.
Click to expand...
 
Seoul endures life under the gun
It is easy for the younger generation to overlook these scars, and the prominent U.S. military garrison -- headquarters of the 27,500 U.S. troops still stationed here as insurance against another invasion -- at Yongsan in the very heart of Seoul, is now an established part of the cityscape.

And whether the Cheonan and Yeonpyongdo incidents will permanently change attitudes is uncertain.

"Normally when the North Koreans misbehave, people don't care, but yesterday, people got nervous," said Robert Koehler, a 13-year expatriate and author of a Seoul guidebook. "People tend to get very angry, but then they settle down -- it is easy to get jaded."

But with the memories of one of the century's most devastating wars seared into their memories, the old generation cannot forget.

"For me this is nothing new," said Kim Song-hwan, a retired artist who lived through -- and painted -- the North Korean occupation of Seoul in 1950. "But it is kind of problematic that young people today are unconcerned about the danger of war."

The 20th century Korean War lasted three years and killed -- estimates vary -- between two and four million. A 21st century Korean War is likely to be shorter but, with Pyongyang possessing nuclear weapons, even deadlier.

And while Seoul in 1950 was a city that few people in the wider world had heard of, modern Seoul has tremendous international relevance as the capital of the world's 13th largest economy. Were it to come under artillery or nuclear attack, the tsunami that would sweep through global financial markets could be devastating.
Click to expand...

Korea crisis: How will China respond?
China is North Korea's ally and its biggest trading partner. They share a long border prompting speculation about how the communist country could react to tension next door.

China has the power to cut off North Korea's most important link with the outside world by stopping their shipments of food, fuel and weapons, but has indicated no intention to do so.

However, analysts say China's leverage over its next door neighbor may be over-rated.

"China does have more influence than other players but we have to remember China does not have absolute influence," said Wenran Jiang, political science professor at University of Alberta.

China is also reluctant to lean heavily on allies like North Korea because it follows the principle of non-interference in other countries' internal affairs, analysts say.
Click to expand...

So what does North Korea want? "What they really wanted for years is diplomatic recognition of North Korea by the U.S.," said Wenran Jiang.

"They are frustrated because they feel they have done the six-party talks, they have launched missiles, have done nuclear weapons tests, they have made all kinds of threats but they still don't get the U.S. to move towards normalization," he said.

Analysts say, despite the apparent ineffectiveness of the six-party talks, Beijing still stands a better chance of bringing Pyongyang back to the fold through diplomacy.

"It's important for us to remember that during the six-party talks these conflicts were less likely to happen, while without such mechanism we see such bloodshed." Jiang said.

Observers say it all comes down to building trust -- a difficult task -- and here China can play a unique role as a rising global power and a potential peace-maker.
Click to expand...

bottom line - nobody's interested in war. it's unprofitable. it's gonna hurt many countries economically. NK makes a fuss like this once in a while just to get an attention to cut some deals. NK knows very well that they will lose the Korean War and they will be wiped off. They know this.
 
Back
Top