North Korea War Fever

[WethePeopleUS]

Every day China says nothing and the stupid democrats are able to configure that into China supports North Korea less and less every day. What dunces we are, certainly, we deserve exactly what's going to happen.

Try reading the developing news on NK, and you will see that China IS actually speaking out against NK. They do not want Pyongyang to start an international conflict on their doorstep. And that is exactly what is happening. Beijing even helped the U.S. draft the latest round of international sanctions against NK after their latest nuclear test in Feb. So please, read what's going on before you make ignorant statements. Thanks

Oh please. What did China say? The US has read into some vague statement that China publicly made.

China rebukes North Korea, says no state should sow chaos | Reuters

China's leaders issued thinly veiled rebukes to North Korea for raising regional tensions, with the president saying no country should throw the world into chaos and the foreign minister warning that Beijing would not allow mischief on its doorstep.

That's what China said, and we preferred to believe China was speaking about North Korea instead of the United States. The meaning of "no country" eludes our stupid leaders, and "not allow mischief on our doorstep" confuses the state department.

If you know anything about China, you would know that they only act in their best interest. Most countries do this, but China is a little extreme. Also, China pretty much likes to use their veto power whenever the US tries to impose sanctions on another country, for they value sovereignty extremely high. So, for China to work in cahoots with the US in drafting a sanctions resolution against NK is a huge outcry from China, even if they do not come right out and say it. Furthermore, who in the hell do you think China was talking about when they were saying that one country cannot be allowed to destabilize a region? The US? Yea because WE were the ones who started threatening NK with nuclear strikes. WE were the ones who forced NK to abandon the 60+ year armistice between the 2 Koreas. WE were the ones who have caused this current dilemma, so China must be talking to us (dripping with sarcasm). C'mon dude, use your head. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out China is really unhappy with N right now, especially since Bejing is offended that little Kimmy hasn't gone and visited them since he took power after his father died.

 

[zonly1]

North Korea's angry rhetoric for decades with nothing happening occurred under Kim Jong Ill. There is a different leader today. Kim Jong Un is mostly and unknown quantity.

We have a different leader. obama is the most incompetent president this nation has ever had. Not only is he incompetent, but he does not permit competent people around him. He has been systematically firing competent military leaders who don't pander to his good will. America has no coherent foreign policy.

Peace depends, not on obama, but on Kim Jong Un. It isn't obama's expertise and skill that's keeping whatever peace there is, but the North Korean leader's. And that leader, unfortunately, smells blood in the water.

solution: send Barry and family on more vacation(s) and place a stipend... it comes out of there pocket. With a union mindset Barry may take the bait since NK is telling him he is the biggest pussy to grace a 50 state republic.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Turns out I was right about Kim jong un(pussy). A lot like his father. I'm sure glad that no one is going to be harmed and we don't have to see war...

I just wish this idiot would stop threatening.

 

[georgephillip]

"3. After the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5, Japan acquired control over Korea, annexing it formally in 1910. In 1905 Japanese Prime Minister Katsura Tar? met secretly with U.S. Secretary of War William Howard Taft, producing the Taft-Katsura Agreement in which the U.S. recognized Japan’s interests in Korea. What did the U.S. receive in return?

a. Japanese agreement to limit emigration to the U.S.

b. Japanese recognition of U.S. colonial rule over the Philippines.

c. Japan’s renunciation to all claims to the Hawai’ian Islands.

4. At the Yalta Conference in February 1945, U.S. President Roosevelt and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin discussed the postwar future of Korea. Stalin advocated independence as soon as possible. Roosevelt

a. agreed to immediate independence

b. advocated a trusteeship of 20-30 years, citing the positive example of U.S. rule in the Philippines

c. suggested Korea remain a part of the Japanese Empire, to be occupied by Allied forces"

A Pop Quiz on Korea » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[katsung47]

765. How to justify a nuclear attack? (4/1/2013)

There is a lively stage show in Korea Peninsula in recent days. North Korea had its third nuclear test in February. US and South Korea had a military drill in March. US sent B-52 in the drill then showed off with B-2 bombers there. N. Korea upgrades the threat almost everyday. US media is full of the topics such like: “North Korea said it would attack U.S. military bases on Japan and the Pacific island of Guam if provoked.”, “North Korea threatens to 'settle accounts with the US'”, “North Korea says enters "state of war" against South”…… But that war only exists in the mouth not in reality. It is actually a sale’s advertisement. The commodity is the nuclear weapon.

Renewed nuke sale fear after recent NKorea test
By FOSTER KLUG | Associated Press – 3/19/2013

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korea's nuclear test last month wasn't just a show of defiance and national pride; it also serves as advertising. The target audience, analysts say, is anyone in the world looking to buy nuclear material.

Renewed nuke sale fear after recent NKorea test

North Korea’s Lesson: Nukes for Sale

By GRAHAM T. ALLISON Jr. Published: February 12

Who could be interested in buying a weapon for several hundred millions of dollars? Iran is currently investing billions of dollars annually in its nuclear quest. While Al Qaeda’s core is greatly diminished and its resources depleted, the man who succeeded Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has been seeking nuclear weapons for more than a decade. And then there are Israel’s enemies, including wealthy individuals in some Arab countries, who might buy a bomb for the militant groups Hezbollah or Hamas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/opinion/north-koreas-lesson-nukes-for-sale.html?_r=1&

Bush started Iraq War with a un- existed “WMD”. US won’t make similar mistake again in Iran war. So they directed a puppet show. In this show, N. Korea bangs the drum: “I have nuclear bomb. I’m enemy of the US. My nuke bomb is on sale if you are hostile to US. Come to pick up a bargain.”

So don’t be surprise that US and its Western allies would be attacked by “nuclear terror bombing” next time. Even none “potential customers” attend this “nuke sale booth”, the seller will create one. At that time, the “suicide bomber” could never tell truth. Just like those 911 hijackers, London 7/7/2005 bombers, Madrid bombing perpetrators and Adam Lanza and his mother in Sandy Hook shooting, they were all arranged to be dead. Of course, the Feds could gave you evidence from “damaged hard disc” (in Sandy Hook shooting) and “self claimed Mastermind” confession from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (911 case).

You can view the two news information I referred as a psychological opinion direction from the Feds- a justification for the coming terror attack.

766. China is a member of fraud gang (4/6/2013)

In this soap opera, N. Korea and US are the main actors playing war game show to the world audience. Another important actor is China. China is the major supporter of North Korea, without its aid, N. Korea couldn’t survive. So when China approved the resolution of U.N. to sanction on N. Korea, it causes big surprise. China used to veto any resolution in U.N. if it is anti the “friendship of China and N. Korea”.

China voted for new North Korea sanctions. Will it enforce them?

By Peter Ford, Staff Writer / March 8, 2013

Beijing-When the UN Security Council imposed new and harsher sanctions on North Korea yesterday to punish it for its most recent nuclear test, one big part of the story was the fact that China had gone along with the resolution.

China voted for new North Korea sanctions. Will it enforce them? (+video) - CSMonitor.com

Don’t be blinded by this action of China. It’s only a stage performance – a gimmick to lure Iran to the hook. To show that N. Korea is really helpless. Even its long time ally has abandoned him. So North Korea is eagerly to sell his treasure – the atomic bomb, at a bargain price.

One purpose of sanction is to inspect the cargo shipment by force. If Iran falls into the trap, it will be easy for US to intercept the “evidence”. The inspector could be China if necessary. He joins U.N. sanction. Bush’s “WMD” lie scandal won’t repeat in Obama's regime.

China is a secret collaborator of US. The regime is famous for its corruption. It will do anything – if the bribe is big enough. The Feds is to create big events to distract a framed case. One big event is “terrorist nuke attack”, you have seen my revelation. The other one is a “natural disaster” – a pandemic of bird flu.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

C'mon Barry Soetoro.... Let's finish Bush's forth term right. You warmongering Democrat prick. When one considers wars since and including WW2, Democrats are the ones who caused far more casualties than Bush ever did.

What is the record between, say, Jan 20, 1980 and Jan 20, 2008?

Which party

A. tripled the national debt in eight years
B. balanced the budget
C. doubled the national debt in eight years
D. killed and maimed the most Americans
​

Not the worst thing to get basic facts acknowledged.

 

[Katzndogz]

Casualties tripled after obama instituted his stupid rules of engagement that were designed to cause more American casualties.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Casualties tripled after obama instituted his stupid rules of engagement that were designed to cause more American casualties.

Provide a link supporting your argument please.

 

[Katzndogz]

Casualties tripled after obama instituted his stupid rules of engagement that were designed to cause more American casualties.

Provide a link supporting your argument please.

U.S. Deaths in Afghanistan: Obama vs Bush | Just Foreign Policy

Media Ignores Increased Deaths, Casualties in Afghanistan Under Obama

Grim Milestone: Over Twice as Many U.S. Soldiers Have Died in Afghanistan Under Obama In 3 1/2 Years Than Did Under Bush in 8 Years ? Media Silent | The Gateway Pundit

Over 2,000 Soldiers Dead: Bush 630 ? Obama 1,496 | RedState

U.S. Deaths in Afghanistan: Obama vs Bush (Obama wins by a great big pile!)

Robert Naiman: The Death Toll Does Not Lie -- Afghanistan Is Obama's War

69 Percent Of Afghan War Casualties Occurred Under Obama | Emptysuit

72% of US Casualties in Afghanistan Happened Under Obama | FrontPage Magazine

There are too many. I could do this all day. Even liberals, giving obama every benefit of the doubt admit that the casualty rate doubled.

 

[georgephillip]

Casualties tripled after obama instituted his stupid rules of engagement that were designed to cause more American casualties.

How many of those casualties were suicides?

 

[Katzndogz]

These casualties were mostly the result of obama's changing the rules of engagement.

Medal of Honor recipient highlights Marine?s valor as well as risks US troops faced under controversial rules of engagement

The team was ambushed and came under sustained Taliban fire and rocket attack. However, U.S. commanders repeatedly denied the request to unleash artillery rounds and provide air cover, under rules of engagement then recently put in place to reduce civilian casualties.
"U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines—despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village," Landay reported. "We waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away."
By the time helicopters arrived, four U.S. Marines had been killed, as well as eight Afghan troops and the U.S. Marine commander's Afghan interpreter. Meyer risked his life to retrieve their bodies.

The POS in the white house is indefensible scum.

 

[Katzndogz]

Casualties tripled after obama instituted his stupid rules of engagement that were designed to cause more American casualties.

How many of those casualties were suicides?

If you get down to it ALL of them. Being in obama's military is suicide.

 

[georgephillip]

These casualties were mostly the result of obama's changing the rules of engagement.

Medal of Honor recipient highlights Marine?s valor as well as risks US troops faced under controversial rules of engagement

The team was ambushed and came under sustained Taliban fire and rocket attack. However, U.S. commanders repeatedly denied the request to unleash artillery rounds and provide air cover, under rules of engagement then recently put in place to reduce civilian casualties.
"U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines—despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village," Landay reported. "We waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away."
By the time helicopters arrived, four U.S. Marines had been killed, as well as eight Afghan troops and the U.S. Marine commander's Afghan interpreter. Meyer risked his life to retrieve their bodies.

The POS in the white house is indefensible scum.

Do you have any numbers that reveal the disparity in Afghan civilian casualties between Bush and Obama?

 

[georgephillip]

Don't really care, do you?

 

[Katzndogz]

These casualties were mostly the result of obama's changing the rules of engagement.

Medal of Honor recipient highlights Marine?s valor as well as risks US troops faced under controversial rules of engagement

The team was ambushed and came under sustained Taliban fire and rocket attack. However, U.S. commanders repeatedly denied the request to unleash artillery rounds and provide air cover, under rules of engagement then recently put in place to reduce civilian casualties.
"U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines—despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village," Landay reported. "We waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away."
By the time helicopters arrived, four U.S. Marines had been killed, as well as eight Afghan troops and the U.S. Marine commander's Afghan interpreter. Meyer risked his life to retrieve their bodies.

The POS in the white house is indefensible scum.

Do you have any numbers that reveal the disparity in Afghan civilian casualties between Bush and Obama?

Since I don't give a rat's ass about Afghan civilian casualties I never looked into it.

 

[georgephillip]

These casualties were mostly the result of obama's changing the rules of engagement.

Medal of Honor recipient highlights Marine?s valor as well as risks US troops faced under controversial rules of engagement

The team was ambushed and came under sustained Taliban fire and rocket attack. However, U.S. commanders repeatedly denied the request to unleash artillery rounds and provide air cover, under rules of engagement then recently put in place to reduce civilian casualties.
"U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines—despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village," Landay reported. "We waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away."
By the time helicopters arrived, four U.S. Marines had been killed, as well as eight Afghan troops and the U.S. Marine commander's Afghan interpreter. Meyer risked his life to retrieve their bodies.

The POS in the white house is indefensible scum.

Do you have any numbers that reveal the disparity in Afghan civilian casualties between Bush and Obama?

Since I don't give a rat's ass about Afghan civilian casualties I never looked into it.

Do you have any emperical evidence supporting the theory than one Afghan life is worth less than one American life?

 

[Katzndogz]

Do you have any numbers that reveal the disparity in Afghan civilian casualties between Bush and Obama?

Since I don't give a rat's ass about Afghan civilian casualties I never looked into it.

Do you have any emperical evidence supporting the theory than one Afghan life is worth less than one American life?

You misunderstand me. It doesn't matter whose life is worth more as long as the enemy is dead. How many and under what circumstances is a matter of no concern. If the enemy wants to hide behind civilians, then the civilians are dead. Get it. This is war, not a soiree.

Of course someone who finds some sort of equality of enemy lives and the lives of one's own countrymen, that's a different circumstance. You are just on the wrong side, that's all. It's not like the Afghan enemies are concerned with American casualties. They want as many as possible. That I understand. That's why one side prevails and the other side loses.

 

[georgephillip]

Since I don't give a rat's ass about Afghan civilian casualties I never looked into it.

Do you have any emperical evidence supporting the theory than one Afghan life is worth less than one American life?

You misunderstand me. It doesn't matter whose life is worth more as long as the enemy is dead. How many and under what circumstances is a matter of no concern. If the enemy wants to hide behind civilians, then the civilians are dead. Get it. This is war, not a soiree.

Of course someone who finds some sort of equality of enemy lives and the lives of one's own countrymen, that's a different circumstance. You are just on the wrong side, that's all. It's not like the Afghan enemies are concerned with American casualties. They want as many as possible. That I understand. That's why one side prevails and the other side loses.

What did the Afghan people do to the US to deserve the designation of "enemy" and the subsequent invasion/occupation? I suppose someone who finds mass murder an acceptable business expense might be confused about who's on the wrong side.

 

[depotoo]

Do you have any emperical evidence supporting the theory than one Afghan life is worth less than one American life?

You misunderstand me. It doesn't matter whose life is worth more as long as the enemy is dead. How many and under what circumstances is a matter of no concern. If the enemy wants to hide behind civilians, then the civilians are dead. Get it. This is war, not a soiree.

Of course someone who finds some sort of equality of enemy lives and the lives of one's own countrymen, that's a different circumstance. You are just on the wrong side, that's all. It's not like the Afghan enemies are concerned with American casualties. They want as many as possible. That I understand. That's why one side prevails and the other side loses.

What did the Afghan people do to the US to deserve the designation of "enemy" and the subsequent invasion/occupation? I suppose someone who finds mass murder an acceptable business expense might be confused about who's on the wrong side.

so you support the Taliban and how they ruled? You supported their treatment of women?
And I guess you supported their take over of Afghanistan, correct?

 

[Katzndogz]

Where is the Afghan that says "I better not kill the American, they are nice people".

Afghanistan was a terrorist haven. The country protected them. That's what war is, we just don't know how to fight one anymore.