What's new

North Korean Stand Off With the US & S.Korea: News and Updates

. .
LOLOL I know....

it's annoying. I have a NK friend in the US marines and even he gets annoyed with the government in NK....that's what pushed him more towards the US.

A North Korean friend???????
 
. .
LOLOL I know....

it's annoying. I have a NK friend in the US marines and even he gets annoyed with the government in NK....that's what pushed him more towards the US.

North korean in US marines :blink:
 
.
Congrats on going pro, jh.

People have to realize the defense part of the defense treaty. US/SK aren't going to strike first.

There may not be a war now but, someday, I think fatty Kim might just push the region to that point.

I think there are probably a million way for China to get out of that treaty. Just they don't want to at the moment. Strange things tho, North Korean have been playing China for years since they have the bomb, China have not done anything bout it.
If i were Chinese Leader i would probably do somehting by now.

Anyway, if Fatty fat fat decided to strike first, then he is probably the world number 1 idiot....

On the otherhand, US and South Korea are sitting pretty in the South, there are no way the American or South Korean want to strike first.

And thank you for your congrat.
 
.
I think there are probably a million way for China to get out of that treaty. Just they don't want to at the moment. Strange things tho, North Korean have been playing China for years since they have the bomb, China have not done anything bout it.
If i were Chinese Leader i would probably do somehting by now.

Anyway, if Fatty fat fat decided to strike first, then he is probably the world number 1 idiot....

On the otherhand, US and South Korea are sitting pretty in the South, there are no way the American or South Korean want to strike first.

And thank you for your congrat.

I wonder if getting out of that treaty might make NK desperate. This would be especially true if they feel they're the only ones up against the west/SK/JP. At the moment, they have they've talked about reopening their reactor but I haven't seen any official confirmation. But that may be an example of how they may push it to that point. The last thing anyone, including China, would want is a mad man with larger and more nukes at her border. Who knows, they may eventually point that towards Beijing. It's one thing to have a dog on a leash, it's another thing when the dog grows up and is constantly at your side. Discipline becomes more problematic.

This may be a long shot but NK is ruled by a young hot-headed that probably feels he needs to prove himself and maybe even set himself higher than his father. People like that play on ego because they feel they're the most powerful. China and the west should play on that and maybe try to get him to see the benefits of developing economically and possibly opening up to the world. The more that would happen, the less likely someone would throw away all that hard work.That's the soft approach. The hard approach doesn't seem to work all that well.

I think China should make it crystal clear that they would only step in in a defensive capacity. It does stipulate in the treaty that they generally recognize reunification via peaceful means. The game would keep playing but the ball would be in NK's court.

Maybe I'm a wishful thinker.

Another option is for China to get involved by herself by military action against NK and install someone less likely to bite back. That, of course, presents its own precarious difficulties.
 
.
The point I'm trying to make is that North Korea is a decades away from having a solid fuel rocket that could actually work and nuclear warheads small enough to fit in their missiles.

I don't know if you support North Korea or just Anti-American, but if it is one of them or both, then you're bonkers

Yes am bonkers for supporting countries that stand against US Hitler like bullying. Call me bonkers, it doesnt bother me, because I know am speaking for the truth.

You on the other hand believe any bullsh!t you're told!

Do you know that everyday the US president is told certain things, certain secrets and he and his cabinet decide what to declare to the public? I bet you didnt know that.

Neither did I, untill I was doing research a few years back on 9/11 and Iraq, and several times within this research it came up that "President GW Bush decided to keep so and so undercover so he can invade Iraq".

Carry on for believeing their crap you are fed, and then dont cry when you say you got no job, or your economy is really bad.

Since 2001, US has started 2 wars. It is looking to start a further 2 wars - 1) with NK and 2) Iran.

So if we look at 2001-2015 in 14 years = 4 wars.

Lets not forget the typical trait they like to start 2 wars near simultaneously.

Since Vietnam they love wars. Without war they cannot test their weaponary did you know that? There needs to be killing, blood shedding, rockets, nuclear, chemical.

I'll give you examples of this now:

Chemical was used in Vietnam and Iraq-Iran war (this war was pumped by US supporting Iraq and pumping Saddam)

Further chemical warefare was used in Lebonan in 2006 by the IOF of Israhell.

Iraq and Afghani wars saw the use of a variety of weapons this is were UAVs have been established/used/tested heavily.

Other chemical and nuclear weapons are used which are kept secret about.

WTF do you know apart from the bullsh!t you read on CNN, ABC, BBC?

I was watching CNN/ABC the other night and they were talking about NK and they were the presenters/reporters were talking it was like it was a news channel ran by 10 year olds. They were making picky and petty remarks on NK and its leader, no wonder most of you do that on here - that is where you get it from. The ABC/CNN and other US news channels are by far worse than BBC.

No wonder why the earth opens up and swallows beds and humans. Not forgetting the year round "natural" disasters in the US. (Replaced "natural" with God).

End of.
 
.
Is China bonkers then you brainwashed western fools?

China is doing 100% right thing supporting NK because it doesnt want the US to come near it and bully it just like it did in the Middle East for oil.

I am 100% right when I say this - that the US wants countries to go backwards and not forwards and in order to do this plays dirty politics. Ahmedinejad is doing the same, why should it give in to US? Who is US or what is it? "God"?

Mind you, if US wasn't involved playing dirty games as usual Kim would not in a million years mentioned to attack US or its bases. Why should the US have bases in East Asia or anywhere else in the world? Does Iran or any other country have such bases dotted all over the world? NO!

The US asks for trouble and provokes.
 
. .
.
North Korea can attack United States anytimt they want because United States are surrounded by seas that it is far away from other territories except for Canada which is in the North and Mexico in the South but radiation wouldn't spread toward those Nations. Nuking North Korea is a bad idea because the radiation would spread toward South Korea, Japan, China, West Russia Federation and maybe India. Those five nations don't like it. So US have two choice; either deploy their troops to DMZ or World War 3 begins. By the way, it is possible for North to reach US because they have 70 submarines which is undetectable by radar systems. No wonder why US never spoke about those issues.

North Korea can attack United States anytimt they want because United States are surrounded by seas that it is far away from other territories except for Canada which is in the North and Mexico in the South but radiation wouldn't spread toward those Nations. Nuking North Korea is a bad idea because the radiation would spread toward South Korea, Japan, China, West Russia Federation and maybe India. Those five nations don't like it. So US have two choice; either deploy their troops to DMZ or World War 3 begins. By the way, it is possible for North to reach US because they have 70 submarines which is undetectable by radar systems. No wonder why US never spoke about those issues.

North Korea can attack United States anytimt they want because United States are surrounded by seas that it is far away from other territories except for Canada which is in the North and Mexico in the South but radiation wouldn't spread toward those Nations. Nuking North Korea is a bad idea because the radiation would spread toward South Korea, Japan, China, West Russia Federation and maybe India. Those five nations don't like it. So US have two choice; either deploy their troops to DMZ or World War 3 begins. By the way, it is possible for North to reach US because they have 70 submarines which is undetectable by radar systems. No wonder why US never spoke about those issues.

North Korea can attack United States anytimt they want because United States are surrounded by seas that it is far away from other territories except for Canada which is in the North and Mexico in the South but radiation wouldn't spread toward those Nations. Nuking North Korea is a bad idea because the radiation would spread toward South Korea, Japan, China, West Russia Federation and maybe India. Those five nations don't like it. So US have two choice; either deploy their troops to DMZ or World War 3 begins. By the way, it is possible for North to reach US because they have 70 submarines which is undetectable by radar systems. No wonder why US never spoke about those issues.
 
.
Patrick Buchanan: Is War With North Korea Inevitable? - OpEd Eurasia Review



“If you see 10 troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you,” said Calvin Coolidge, who ever counseled patience over the rash response.

Unfortunately, the troubles presented by North Korea’s Kim Jong Un seem unlikely to run into a ditch before they reach us.

For Kim has crawled out on a limb. He has threatened to attack U.S. forces in Korea and bases in Asia, even U.S. cities. He has declared the truce that ended the Korean War dead and that “a state of war” exists with the South. All ties to the South have been cut.

The United States has sent B-52s and stealth fighters to Korea and anti-missile warships to the Sea of Japan. Two B-2 bombers flew from Missouri to Korea and back in a provocative fly-by of the Hermit Kingdom. And both South Korea and we have warned that, should the North attack, swift retribution will follow.

Kim Jong Un is in a box. If he launches an attack, he risks escalation into war. But if his bluster about battling the United States turns out to be all bluff, he risks becoming an object of ridicule in Asia and at home.

Why is he playing with fire? Because his father and grandfather did, and got away with murder.

In 1968, Kim Il Sung hijacked the U.S. intelligence ship Pueblo and held its crew hostage. America, tied down in Vietnam, did nothing. In 1976, North Koreans ax-murdered two U.S. officers in the DMZ. In 1983, Pyongyang tried to assassinate South Korea’s president in Burma and blew up three members of his cabinet. In 1987, North Koreans blew up a South Korean airliner.

These unpunished atrocities all occurred during the rule of Kim Il Sung.
Under Kim Jong Il, Pyongyang torpedoed a South Korean patrol boat, killing 47, and shelled a South Korean island, killing four. Neither Washington nor Seoul retaliated.

The danger is that Kim Jong Un believes he, too, can get away with murder and he, too, will be appeased with aid and investments.

Yet neither President Obama nor President Park Geun Hye–whose father, President Park Chung Hee, was the target of assassination attempts and whose mother died in one–can be seen as tolerating another North Korean outrage.

To avoid a collision, a diplomatic path will have to be opened for Kim to back away from the confrontation he has provoked. But, in the longer term, America has to ask herself:

What are we doing, 20 years after the end of the Cold War, with 28,000 troops in Korea and thousands on the DMZ facing the North?

What are we doing there that South Korean soldiers could not do for themselves? Why is South Korea’s defense our responsibility, 60 years after President Eisenhower ended the Korean War?


For over a decade, some of us have urged the United States to pull all U.S. troops off the peninsula.

Had we done so, we would not be in the middle of this crisis now.

South Korea is not inherently weaker than the North. It has twice the population, and its economy is 40 times as large. And the South has access to U.S. weapons superior to anything the North can acquire.

After Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, as Robert Gates said, any defense secretary who recommends that America fight a new land war in Asia ought to have his head examined.

Why, then, are we still on the DMZ?

The long-run danger that has to be addressed is this: Kim Jong Un is about 30, and his life expectancy, absent a coup, is 40 or 50 years. Yet within a few years, if he persists as he promises to do, he could have dozens of nuclear-armed missiles pointed at South Korea, Japan, and Okinawa.

And if Pyongyang becomes a nuclear weapons state, it is difficult to see how Seoul and Tokyo will not be required to match its nuclear arsenal, as Pakistan felt compelled to match India’s.

And a nuclear-armed South Korea or Japan would hardly be welcomed in Beijing.

What would China do? Some Chinese are urging Beijing to dump North Korea as an unreliable and uncontrollable ally that could drag them into war. Hard-liners are said to be urging China to stand by her longtime ally and buffer state.

Whatever comes of this crisis, U.S. policy, seemingly frozen in the 1950s, is in need of review. We cannot indefinitely be responsible for the defense of South Korea from an erratic dictator hell-bent on acquiring nuclear missiles.

In the near-term, even a conventional war on that most heavily armed border on earth, between South and North Korea, would be a calamity. To avert it, if necessary, Obama should pick up the phone, call North Korea and talk directly to Kim.

In a far graver crisis, perpetrated by Nikita Khrushchev in 1962, John F. Kennedy did not hesitate to communicate with the culprit.
 
.
Kim Jong Un should learn a thing or two about Oppa Nuclear Style and its consequences
 
.
BBC News - US plays down North Korea threat

US officials have played down the threat of war on the Korean peninsula, after weeks of bellicose statements from Pyongyang.

A White House spokesman said the US "would not be surprised" if North Korea launched a missile, while a top US military officer said recent threats appeared to fit a familiar pattern.

Pyongyang has threatened to attack both US and South Korean targets.

It has told foreign embassies it cannot guarantee their safety in a conflict.

Diplomats in Pyongyang were asked on Friday to tell the foreign ministry by 10 April what help they would need in evacuating.

The warning prompted Russia to ask whether Pyongyang was offering help in the event of a conflict, or making a decision.

South Korean media reported on Friday that the North had moved two intermediate range missiles into position on the east coast.

The missiles are untested but it is believed they could reach as far as the Pacific Island of Guam, where the US has a military base, and where it has confirmed it will deploy a missile defence system.

Yonhap, the South Korean news agency, said two warships equipped with Aegis defence systems would monitor the situation.
'Reckless'

Joh Sudworth says that North Korea's warning on diplomats has been met with bemusement in the South

North Korea has issued a series of unusually strong threats since it was sanctioned by the UN in March for having carried out a third nuclear test.

It has threatened nuclear strikes on the US, formally declared war on the South, and pledged to reopen a nuclear reactor in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said on Friday a missile launch would not be unexpected.

"We would not be surprised to see them take such an action,'' he said. "We have seen them launch missiles in the past.''

Seoul has also played down the North's reported missile move, saying it may be planning a test rather than a hostile act.

Gen Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the North's nuclear threat "reckless", but said it seemed to fit a decades-long pattern of escalation followed by accommodation.

Even so, Gen Dempsey said the cycle was more unpredictable because relatively little was known about North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, who came to power after his father's death in December 2011.

"Though we've always said that North Korea has been a bit opaque to us, in the past we've understood their leadership and the influencers a little better than we do today," he said.

Many of North Korea's angry statements have cited the annual military exercises between US and South Korean forces as provocation.

The US flew nuclear-capable B2 and B52 bombers over the South as part of the drill, and has since deployed warships with missile defence systems to the region.

Gen Dempsey said US moves had been "largely defensive and exclusively intended to reassure our allies".

The BBC's Lucy Williamson reports from Seoul that the heightened atmosphere could make any action riskier for North Korea.

With military communication lines cut, even an unarmed test-flight of its rockets could be misconstrued, and any glitch in flight path or target could lead to a major escalation, she adds.

North Korea has not taken direct military action since 2010, when it shelled a South Korean island and killed four people.

Despite its warning that it could not guarantee the safety of foreign embassies, both Russia and the UK said they had no immediate plans to evacuate their embassies in Pyongyang.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom