The US will lose in a war against North Korea, a former Pentagon commander warns

[evenflow1969]

Doing the same thang over and over? No wins after WWII.
So I understand why DOPers feel they are wins. I see few Dems
wanting to invade other places as a party platform.

Korea definitely a win for the US--we kept NK from overrunning SK
PG1 big win
Nam was unwinnable

Korea was not a win it is not even over yet. I guess I get to keep my shit is a small victory, certainly not a big win.

an even better example:
are you familiar with the Six Day War?--the Israelis defeated the Arabs in Six Days!!
GREATLY out numbered in ALL categories--SURROUNDED by it's enemies--tiny Israel more than doubled it's territory, beat the crap out of the Arabs/etc--and it ended with a -----ceasefire---by your terms that's not a win????!!!!????
same with the Yom Kippur War
the Israelis have been fighting since 1948 with many wars that had ceasefires
but those were each wars that had been won

That is a win they walk with land and treasure!

but you said if the war isn't over, it's not a win
so which is it?

it is over, hence the name six day war.

 

[DrLove]

lock this unpatriotic person up!

The U.S. could lose in a war against North Korea, a former Pentagon commander warns

Yep, and this assumes our troops in South Korea survive up to 10,000 or so artillery pieces on the border pointed directly at Seoul.

Some will be tipped with chemical weapons and there may even be a nuke or two.

Time to tell Mango Mussolini to quit playing with fire.

 

[rightwinger]

lock this unpatriotic person up!

The U.S. could lose in a war against North Korea, a former Pentagon commander warns

Yep, and this assumes our troops in South Korea survive up to 10,000 or so artillery pieces on the border pointed directly at Seoul.

Some will be tipped with chemical weapons and there may even be a nuke or two.

Time to tell Mango Mussolini to quit playing with fire.

I doubt N Korea would go WMD

If they did, their nation would be wiped off the map

 

[harmonica]

Korea definitely a win for the US--we kept NK from overrunning SK
PG1 big win
Nam was unwinnable

Korea was not a win it is not even over yet. I guess I get to keep my shit is a small victory, certainly not a big win.

an even better example:
are you familiar with the Six Day War?--the Israelis defeated the Arabs in Six Days!!
GREATLY out numbered in ALL categories--SURROUNDED by it's enemies--tiny Israel more than doubled it's territory, beat the crap out of the Arabs/etc--and it ended with a -----ceasefire---by your terms that's not a win????!!!!????
same with the Yom Kippur War
the Israelis have been fighting since 1948 with many wars that had ceasefires
but those were each wars that had been won

That is a win they walk with land and treasure!

but you said if the war isn't over, it's not a win
so which is it?

it is over, hence the name six day war.

from your post #185

Korea was not a win it is not even over yet.

many wars end in ceasefires/etc...in many wars land is not taken
you obviously do not know much on the subject of wars--many end in ceasefires/an armistice
rarely do you have unconditional surrender
the Korean War of 1950-1953 is over...the next one would be named something different---just as the Arab-Israeli wars were......

 

[evenflow1969]

Korea was not a win it is not even over yet. I guess I get to keep my shit is a small victory, certainly not a big win.

an even better example:
are you familiar with the Six Day War?--the Israelis defeated the Arabs in Six Days!!
GREATLY out numbered in ALL categories--SURROUNDED by it's enemies--tiny Israel more than doubled it's territory, beat the crap out of the Arabs/etc--and it ended with a -----ceasefire---by your terms that's not a win????!!!!????
same with the Yom Kippur War
the Israelis have been fighting since 1948 with many wars that had ceasefires
but those were each wars that had been won

That is a win they walk with land and treasure!

but you said if the war isn't over, it's not a win
so which is it?

it is over, hence the name six day war.

from your post #185

Korea was not a win it is not even over yet.

many wars end in ceasefires/etc...in many wars land is not taken
you obviously do not know much on the subject of wars--many end in ceasefires/an armistice
rarely do you have unconditional surrender
the Korean War of 1950-1953 is over...the next one would be named something different---just as the Arab-Israeli wars were......

What I know personally about war is this. After a battle if I was sill alive, I was glad that I would get another good meal and another beer. I was not getting any of the spoils. Would have rather not went!!! I sure as hell found no glory in it. Just shitty weather, no sleep, and death of people I did not even know and worst death and maiming of people I did know.

 

[rightwinger]

Korea was not a win it is not even over yet. I guess I get to keep my shit is a small victory, certainly not a big win.

an even better example:
are you familiar with the Six Day War?--the Israelis defeated the Arabs in Six Days!!
GREATLY out numbered in ALL categories--SURROUNDED by it's enemies--tiny Israel more than doubled it's territory, beat the crap out of the Arabs/etc--and it ended with a -----ceasefire---by your terms that's not a win????!!!!????
same with the Yom Kippur War
the Israelis have been fighting since 1948 with many wars that had ceasefires
but those were each wars that had been won

That is a win they walk with land and treasure!

but you said if the war isn't over, it's not a win
so which is it?

it is over, hence the name six day war.

from your post #185

Korea was not a win it is not even over yet.

many wars end in ceasefires/etc...in many wars land is not taken
you obviously do not know much on the subject of wars--many end in ceasefires/an armistice
rarely do you have unconditional surrender
the Korean War of 1950-1953 is over...the next one would be named something different---just as the Arab-Israeli wars were......

Most wars end when combatants lose interest and decide to end it

 

[Correll]

That's what MacArthur said last time around. He was wrong and tens of thousands of US soldiers paid with their lives.

MacArthur invaded up to the border of China and then the Chinese entered

China stayed out when N Korea first invaded

Why would China jeopardize their valuable markets for N Korea?

Because they are arrogant pricks who think that we are fools who will go back to trading with them as soon as the war is over?

The capitalist China is far different from the newly formed Communists of 1951

The industrialists are calling the shots

China is losing tolerance with N Korea. They will not support them unless Trump provokes a war

I've seen nothing to indicate that political power is not still in the hands of the communists, nor that the Industrialists are not arrogant pricks also.

Follow the money

It does not lead to North Korea

Yet, the reds in charge continue to support North Korean despite the stress it places on their relation with their largest trading partner, and despite the danger of allowing nuclear weapons in a hair trigger situation.


Doesn't seem like following the money is the answer here.

 

[rightwinger]

MacArthur invaded up to the border of China and then the Chinese entered

China stayed out when N Korea first invaded

Why would China jeopardize their valuable markets for N Korea?

Because they are arrogant pricks who think that we are fools who will go back to trading with them as soon as the war is over?

The capitalist China is far different from the newly formed Communists of 1951

The industrialists are calling the shots

China is losing tolerance with N Korea. They will not support them unless Trump provokes a war

I've seen nothing to indicate that political power is not still in the hands of the communists, nor that the Industrialists are not arrogant pricks also.

Follow the money

It does not lead to North Korea

Yet, the reds in charge continue to support North Korean despite the stress it places on their relation with their largest trading partner, and despite the danger of allowing nuclear weapons in a hair trigger situation.


Doesn't seem like following the money is the answer here.

It is a decades old relationship

China has changed tremendously in the last 20 years
N Korea is stuck in the 50s

 

[Correll]

Because they are arrogant pricks who think that we are fools who will go back to trading with them as soon as the war is over?

The capitalist China is far different from the newly formed Communists of 1951

The industrialists are calling the shots

China is losing tolerance with N Korea. They will not support them unless Trump provokes a war

I've seen nothing to indicate that political power is not still in the hands of the communists, nor that the Industrialists are not arrogant pricks also.

Follow the money

It does not lead to North Korea

Yet, the reds in charge continue to support North Korean despite the stress it places on their relation with their largest trading partner, and despite the danger of allowing nuclear weapons in a hair trigger situation.


Doesn't seem like following the money is the answer here.

It is a decades old relationship

China has changed tremendously in the last 20 years
N Korea is stuck in the 50s

And the actions of the Chinese demonstrates that your vaunted money guys are either not calling the shots, or are just as dismissive of US as the commies.

 

[rightwinger]

The capitalist China is far different from the newly formed Communists of 1951

The industrialists are calling the shots

China is losing tolerance with N Korea. They will not support them unless Trump provokes a war

I've seen nothing to indicate that political power is not still in the hands of the communists, nor that the Industrialists are not arrogant pricks also.

Follow the money

It does not lead to North Korea

Yet, the reds in charge continue to support North Korean despite the stress it places on their relation with their largest trading partner, and despite the danger of allowing nuclear weapons in a hair trigger situation.


Doesn't seem like following the money is the answer here.

It is a decades old relationship

China has changed tremendously in the last 20 years
N Korea is stuck in the 50s

And the actions of the Chinese demonstrates that your vaunted money guys are either not calling the shots, or are just as dismissive of US as the commies.

Think of them as Commies who love their new found wealth

 

[Markle]

Mao learned he never wanted to face the U.S. directly again, and the Red Chinese never will,

That is a gross mistake and shows you know nothing about the Chinese or the fact that they don't look into the future in terms of administrations but rather generations.

The Chinese learned from us that in order to have a vibrant, growing economy, they must have cheap energy. Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama's eight-year goal and determination were to, in his words, cause the cost of energy to "NECESSARILY SKYROCKET". We are blessed that fracking on state and private land foiled his plan to crush our country.

Yes, China has slowed their construction of ultra-clean, sophisticated coal-powered power stations. The reason is not that of anything environmental but their production is exceeding their current consumption. Their grids are not keeping up with their production. One coal-powered station per month is being built.

China has under construction and in the planning stage, more nuclear power plants than the rest of the world combined. They are also ahead of much of the world in solar and wind power.

The Mekong River is the longest and largest in China. They are in the construction phase of EIGHTEEN DAMS on the river which will all produce energy. ONE of those dams will produce, in one day, all the power it takes to power London for THREE YEARS. China is not slowed by lawsuits from landowners or environmentalists. The dams on the Mekong River will displace 40 MILLION CITIZENS also destroying the habitat of millions of acres of wildlife habitat. Netflix has an excellent 4 part documentary on the Mekong River. Check it out.

Before the Clinton administration, China could not hit the Pacific Ocean with their rockets. President Clinton made it possible for them to purchase our rocket guidance systems and rocket motors. They now have rockets which can destroy satellites in space. What is the base for all our guidance and communications systems exist?

For many years they have been producing an astonishing number of rocket equipped, sophisticated submarines. They prowl off both our coasts and in the Gulf of Mexico. They have built a massive submarine port which is under a mountain. It can only be entered underwater from the ocean so it is invisible from our satellites.

Thanks to former President Carter and President Clinton, China controls the ports at both ends of the greatly enlarged Panama Canal. They control the massive port at Long Beach, California. They have a 13,000 ft. runway in the Bahamas which will handle any of their aircraft connected to a port they are enlarging to handle their ships and submarines.

NO, China will not declare war on the United States. They will not have to. With former presidents like Barack Hussein Obama who cut our nuclear weapons arsenal and halted or slowed weapon development, China will simply demand that we turn over the keys.

 

[Markle]

I doubt NK has the capability to move on the offensive

Careful. Adolph Hitler didn't have the capability to accomplish what he wanted either.

 

[Picaro]

MacArthur invaded up to the border of China and then the Chinese entered

China stayed out when N Korea first invaded

Why would China jeopardize their valuable markets for N Korea?

Because they are arrogant pricks who think that we are fools who will go back to trading with them as soon as the war is over?

The capitalist China is far different from the newly formed Communists of 1951

The industrialists are calling the shots

China is losing tolerance with N Korea. They will not support them unless Trump provokes a war

I've seen nothing to indicate that political power is not still in the hands of the communists, nor that the Industrialists are not arrogant pricks also.

Follow the money

It does not lead to North Korea

Yet, the reds in charge continue to support North Korean despite the stress it places on their relation with their largest trading partner, and despite the danger of allowing nuclear weapons in a hair trigger situation.


Doesn't seem like following the money is the answer here.

They lose face if they dump him, and they lose face when he gets his prison camp wiped out; they also don't want the refugees, and they don't want to give up the strategic position and allow the South a border with China; too close to Peking and the Chinese shoreline. they have quite a dilemma on their hands, so they're frozen in and choose to wait.

 

[Markle]

What is your definition of victory in a war? Did we win the Korean war? Did we win in Vietman? Did we win in Iraq? Did we win in Afganastan?

We lost three of the four due to politicians running them instead of the military. SHOCK!

We won in Iraq, former petulant President Barack Hussein Obama and Vice President Joe Biden told us we did.

"I don't think you can criticize the President [Bush] for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.

- Former President Clinton Wednesday, April 16, 2003

"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."

- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010

How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going? How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President? Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities. Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.

 

[Picaro]

Mao learned he never wanted to face the U.S. directly again, and the Red Chinese never will,

That is a gross mistake and shows you know nothing about the Chinese or the fact that they don't look into the future in terms of administrations but rather generations.

.

Rubbish. I know all about how they approach foreign policy. Posting lots of rubbish doesn't hide that you don't know squat, not to mention you contradict yourself in that one sentence.

 

[Picaro]

The capitalist China is far different from the newly formed Communists of 1951

The industrialists are calling the shots

China is losing tolerance with N Korea. They will not support them unless Trump provokes a war

I've seen nothing to indicate that political power is not still in the hands of the communists, nor that the Industrialists are not arrogant pricks also.

Follow the money

It does not lead to North Korea

Yet, the reds in charge continue to support North Korean despite the stress it places on their relation with their largest trading partner, and despite the danger of allowing nuclear weapons in a hair trigger situation.


Doesn't seem like following the money is the answer here.

It is a decades old relationship

China has changed tremendously in the last 20 years
N Korea is stuck in the 50s

And the actions of the Chinese demonstrates that your vaunted money guys are either not calling the shots, or are just as dismissive of US as the commies.

they had 8 years of weak anti-American 'President' who did nothing to them, and now they have a different one to figure out now, much different. Trump is doing exactly the right thing, keeping not only the Red Chinese but their allies and everybody else off balance and unsure of what they can get away with and what they can't with him. That's the way it should be after the Obama disasters and sabotage.

 

[Picaro]

A lot of targets that shoot back.


And I thought the Air force would be blowing up the artillery that was killing civilians in Seoul.


Confidence is a good thing. Over confidence will get your people killed.

Not overconfidence

Reality. We are the best in the world
They cannot go head to head with us

Any invading force from the north would be wiped out

And when China gets involved?

Will they?

If North Korea chooses to invade (which I think they never would), I doubt China would intercede

That's what MacArthur said last time around. He was wrong and tens of thousands of US soldiers paid with their lives.

MacArthur invaded up to the border of China and then the Chinese entered

China stayed out when N Korea first invaded

Why would China jeopardize their valuable markets for N Korea?

Mao was going to stay out, but Stalin suckered him in, then got cold feet and bailed, leaving Moa holding the bag. People forget it was the Soviets who occupied NK and set up the regime, not Mao; this was also the beginning of the Sino-Soviet split, which itself came close to generating a world war more than once. So did the Soviets setting themselves in VN.

 

[Picaro]

That version of victory that you are looking for died in World War II. .

Yep. Very much dead. It's all grey now, realpolitik wherein nearly all options are bad, and it's a matter of determining the least bad option, as was the case in Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and everywhere else then and in the future as well. The simple-minded have some delusion isolationism will work, despite it never having worked any time in the past.

 

[Picaro]

And they will play the same game and say they will not strike unless we strike first

Hitting their nuclear sites is hitting first

...but if you were KJU, would you retaliate if you knew it would mean the end of your country and your own life?

If you were DJT would you preemptively strike if you knew it would result in a counterattack against Seoul ?

That is why it is a standoff

The stand off has existed because no president has had the balls to go nuclear (rightly so). Nukes were never going to be an option for Obama and NK knew that. Trump is a different story though. If Trump says "we have decided to destroy NK with nukes if they retaliate", they have to take the threat seriously. So, is KJU suicidal? I dont think so.

Why is Trump bringing nuclear war into the equation?
NK has been neutralized for 65 years. They know it, we know it
We don't attack you, you don't attack us

South Korea knows they will pay the price, not Trump

Kim is the one that brought nuclear weapons into the situation by developing them, and repeatedly testing missiles that could be delivery systems.


But the lib blames America, of course.

They're stupid; no point is attempting real discussion with that sort of idiocy, all they have is fashionable sloganeering.

 

[Picaro]

As for VN, yeah, it fell, after Congress abandoned them, while the North was fully supplied by first the Soviets, until they went bankrupt in 1973, then Red China, years after we had pulled out and they weren't facing U.S. troops. The ultimate loss ended up being the Soviets'; they went bankrupt over Nam, and with the Israeli victories they lost cred with the Arab states as well, and their imperialist dreams got shut down on all fronts around the globe; they ended up just another failed state, dependent on the West for food imports and refined petroleum imports. All they managed to do in Afghanistan was keep a highway open and guarding the capital, that's it, so please do tell us how that amounted to a 'defeat' for the U.S. and the West, again; the only kind of 'victory' it could be at best is called a 'Pyrrhic victory', but even that doesn't describe the thorough collapse of the Soviet state. As for the Gulf War, it served the same purpose as Korea, put to rest the idiotic fantasy that the U.S. 'couldn't win and was too weak', so any dictators had nothing to worry about and could whatever they want. None of the vermin think that any more; they don't want to risk a major war with us, so they do their little pissy probing and posturing.

No, these aren't WW I or WW II style decisive victories, but they are what to expect in a world of proxies and terrorist states. We're doing a lot better than the traitors and the fake news media want to ever admit. These terrorist states and criminal syndicates are the ones who will fail, and they know it; they need us a lot more than we need them. Europe is busy fracturing yet again, too, and the buzzards are circling the EU corpse, so get ready for some fun in the next 10 years there as well.