When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Tbh NK have had it coming for a long long time and no ones done anything about it. It's the only country i think would just randomly use a nuke. Sooner he gets slapped down the better.
Unlike IS NK had a military structure that can be hit, a few bases going pop and hitting the nuke development sites and things will calm down.
Tbh NK have had it coming for a long long time and no ones done anything about it. It's the only country i think would just randomly use a nuke. Sooner he gets slapped down the better.
Unlike IS NK had a military structure that can be hit, a few bases going pop and hitting the nuke development sites and things will calm down.
If you read the history of US and North Korea, the US has screwed, bombed NK savagely and broke every treaty signed between the two countries. When you read this you understand why NK will never trust the US ever again and have a deep ingrained hatred.
The US are by far the biggest threat to world peace who have ever existed.
If you read the history of US and North Korea, the US has screwed, bombed NK savagely and broke every treaty signed between the two countries. When you read this you understand why NK will never trust the US ever again and have a deep ingrained hatred.
The US are by far the biggest threat to world peace who have ever existed.
If you read the history of US and North Korea, the US has screwed, bombed NK savagely and broke every treaty signed between the two countries. When you read this you understand why NK will never trust the US ever again and have a deep ingrained hatred.
The US are by far the biggest threat to world peace who have ever existed.
Yet where would we have been without them in WW2? Would we have now been a Soviet satellite without them? Possibly. Despise them you might but they've helped us out of a few holes down the years.
Yet where would we have been without them in WW2? Would we have now been a Soviet satellite without them? Possibly. Despise them you might but they've helped us out of a few holes down the years.
True. However they had a giant by the name of Roosevelt as President then, they have pigmy Trump now.
Also worth stating that the US entered the war only after they were attacked by Japan, and Germany declared war on them.
Last edited by Martin2005; 09 August 2017 at 04:34 PM.
Yet where would we have been without them in WW2? Would we have now been a Soviet satellite without them? Possibly. Despise them you might but they've helped us out of a few holes down the years.
They may well have helped out in the past (eventually) and we can be grateful for that, although it might be said they would have had a vested interest in preserving the freedom of Europe. But that doesn't give them the right to throw their weight about.
Maybe NK is getting a bit aggressive and it's a worrying attitude they are exhibiting, but Trump telling the world he's going to rain fire and fury on them like the world has never seen is hardly going to ease tensions is it.
They may well have helped out in the past (eventually) and we can be grateful for that, although it might be said they would have had a vested interest in preserving the freedom of Europe. But that doesn't give them the right to throw their weight about.
Maybe NK is getting a bit aggressive and it's a worrying attitude they are exhibiting, but Trump telling the world he's going to rain fire and fury on them like the world has never seen is hardly going to ease tensions is it.
'Getting a bit aggressive' is somewhat understating the situation. Threatened with nuclear missiles should the US say and do nothing to avoid being accused of throwing their weight around? Responding only when actually attacked might be considered a little late when US cities have been evaporated.
'Getting a bit aggressive' is somewhat understating the situation. Threatened with nuclear missiles should the US say and do nothing to avoid being accused of throwing their weight around? Responding only when actually attacked might be considered a little late when US cities have been evaporated.
Well they haven't actually hurt anyone yet, have they? They've fired some metal into the sea and beaten their military chest.
Of course NK's posturing is a worry, but who's been harmed in reality?
As has already been said "Getting rid of a tyrant dynasty isn't going to work by bombing the place wholesale". Anyone think that idea worked well in Iraq?
Well they haven't actually hurt anyone yet, have they? They've fired some metal into the sea and beaten their military chest.
Of course NK's posturing is a worry, but who's been harmed in reality?
As has already been said "Getting rid of a tyrant dynasty isn't going to work by bombing the place wholesale". Anyone think that idea worked well in Iraq?
North Korea now has ICBMs. They have succeeded in the development of nuclear warheads that can be transported in the ICBMs. They are threatening to deploy them against the US. But they haven't actually hurt anyone yet so no cause for concern
'Getting a bit aggressive' is somewhat understating the situation. Threatened with nuclear missiles should the US say and do nothing to avoid being accused of throwing their weight around? Responding only when actually attacked might be considered a little late when US cities have been evaporated.
US cities are unlikely to be evaporated (by the by incinerated/blown away I said probably more accurate), the likelihood of a Korean nuke ever reaching its target is slim to none at this point.
US cities are unlikely to be evaporated (by the by incinerated/blown away I said probably more accurate), the likelihood of a Korean nuke ever reaching its target is slim to none at this point.
Ah, US cities not evaporated, only incinerated/blown away. Well that's ok then as long as it's nothing serious.
In the event that you had the means to stop them would you really sit idly by and do nothing if NK was threatening to explode a nuclear weapon over/in your garden? It is your human right to be blown up if you so choose of course, and perhaps if you just sat quietly they would go away. But it might be advisable to keep your fingers in your ears, just in case!
US cities are unlikely to be evaporated (by the by incinerated/blown away I said probably more accurate), the likelihood of a Korean nuke ever reaching its target is slim to none at this point.
Am I the only one that thinks Kim Jong Un is nothing more that a puppet for a group of military leaders?
In almost every photo of the retard, there are the same high ranking military types. I believe those are the real leaders pulling his strings.
So at what point would a warlike action be justified? When your country has been attacked with nuclear weapons or before, following threats?
Just for clarity's sake I'm not a pacifist in spite of how my posts might appear. So I have no qualms against appropriate military action.
I'm sure there is substantial surviellance of NK and their military activities, either on the ground or via airbourne technology, by all interested parties including China and Russia. I don't know this for a fact but I think it's a fair presumption given the gravity of the situation.
With that in mind, there will come a time when it is deemed that NK is actually preparing for a launch of armed weapons, not boasting or threatening. When that happens I would feel justified in initiating an armed response to contain that threat.
I appreciate the inherent risk in that strategy. But at what point do you turn from Defender of Freedom, to the Playground Bully, or just a plain old fashioned murderer?
09 August 2017, 07:28 AM
Trump and North Korea
