N. Korea angrily makes nuclear threat

[Anjin-san]

I'll get my coat.

I'll buy you a pint mate! :beer:

[zepscoda]

[Walter]

Why, when Obama and/or his administration deserve criticism or condemnation, do we persist in bringing up Bush? What the hell does 9/11 have to do with Benghazi?

What the hell does Benghazi have to do with North Korea?

[DAS]

I think it is you who should take a history class. Yes, it was a civil war, a civil war which was first initiated by the French when they refused to let go of a colonial holding, and then brought to fruition by the US by backing Diem after he deposed the rightful leader, Emperor Bao Dai. The US backed this madman fascist simply because Minh was a communist. Now remember, Minh originally petitioned the US for aid and backing in the 50's, however Ike's shitty advisors who claimed the Truman Doctrine sacrosanct, pushed Ike to back Diem simply for that fact, bloodthirsty psychopath or not. Once we realized Diem and his dragon wife were only gonna get worst, the CIA busted some caps in his ass and took him out. We later installed Gen Thieu as military dictator from 67' - 75'. Also, our military "aid" amounted to 536,000 troops in country during the height of the war. Our "aid" killed a total of 1,166,000 million North Vietnamese civilians & soldiers, and our "aid" cost the lives of 58,000 American soldiers killed plus an additional 304,000 wounded. That is some "aid."

Another fun fact: Johnson was about to bring peace to Vietnam in the summer of 68' (after he turned down a second run for office), the North Vietnamese were ready to sign and stop the war under favorable conditions. However, Nixon's staff intervened (kinda like Bush Sr with the Iran hostages) and put the cobash on that real quick knowing it would cost the dems the election. Johnson even discovered the plot after the fact but agreed not to let this go public for fear it would tear our nation apart. Nixon was guilty of treason and is responsible for those lives post 68.' This information is all available on-line at the Library of Congress archives which were released as part of a FOI request made a few years back. They even have the taped conversations... man, gotta love technology.

Class dismissed.

So I take it the only sense in which you disagree is over the term "aid." It wasn't an American war so any support sent in was aid regardless of quantity. My point being no one has defeated America and some kid thinks he'll be able to do it. Granted, with a puss like Obama in office America is the weakest its ever been but NK will not topple one of the greatest world super powers of all-time. That little boy in Korea is an idiot.

[ZEPFAN17]

What surprises me the most is you would think his own people would take out that sawedoff douchebag...The ENOLA GAY is available as far as I know..

[ZEPFAN17]

..that fucker is only 30 years old he couldnt run a bowling alley...

Edited April 5, 2013 by ZEPFAN17

[Reggie29]

It started out as a civil war until it escalated into Cambodia and Laos and America bombed the crap out of them.

The US were not the only nation to provide "aid" to South Vietnam, something that is often overlooked or ignored by some Americans.

The allies did not withdraw, they were forced out after the fall of Saigon (later renamed Ho Chi Minh City) and the US embassy was overrun, that's hardly a victory!?

America is no longer "the" superpower, there is a bigger player now and that would be China who hopefully will put pressure on NK to stop their belligerent posturing.

I agree Kim Jong Un is an idiot and a dangerous one at that.

There are a lot of nervous people in SK and Japan at the moment.

Vietnam was a Civil War. America sent in military aid and then withdrew that aid when a ceasefire was agreed upon. Take a history class.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Reggie29

[Sagittarius Rising]

So I take it the only sense in which you disagree is over the term "aid." It wasn't an American war so any support sent in was aid regardless of quantity. My point being no one has defeated America and some kid thinks he'll be able to do it. Granted, with a puss like Obama in office America is the weakest its ever been but NK will not topple one of the greatest world super powers of all-time. That little boy in Korea is an idiot.

A proxy war is still a war, a police action is still a war. How about you go down to your local Moose Lodge or VFW hall and tell the vets Vietnam was not a war. Please let me know where to send the flowers for your wake. We were defeated, get over it.

[DAS]

^ With that kind of listening and reasoning skills I think its safe to assume you voted for Obama.

[ally]

. My point being no one has defeated America and some kid thinks he'll be able to do it. Granted, with a puss like Obama in office America is the weakest its ever been but NK will not topple one of the greatest world super powers of all-time. That little boy in Korea is an idiot.

I hope I'm misunderstanding you here. You can't seriously be trying to say that massive casualties to Americans and civilians of neighbouring countries on or near the peninsula would still constitute a victory. What if they actually do have a missile system capable of landing a nuke somewhere in North America or Australia. Still a victory in your mind ?

[Charles J. White]

Wrong thread

Edited April 6, 2013 by Charles J. White

[DAS]

I hope I'm misunderstanding you here. You can't seriously be trying to say that massive casualties to Americans and civilians of neighbouring countries on or near the peninsula would still constitute a victory. What if they actually do have a missile system capable of landing a nuke somewhere in North America or Australia. Still a victory in your mind ?

I'm not saying America won that war by any means. What I'm saying is that America was a third party lending support. If they had declared war on America as opposed to it being a civil war they would have gone the way of the dodo bird. You can't rightly say Vietnam defeated America. America lost a lot of lives in a war we never should have gotten involved in for a serious loss for the country. But losing troops and surrendering/being conquered is not the same thing. This is like saying the French won the American Revolution. Anyways, enough of this debate that's going nowhere.

[Walter]

^ With that kind of listening and reasoning skills I think its safe to assume you voted for Obama.

With that kind of response, it's safe to say you're still an idiot. Listening skills? If you're hearing things in this thread then you need to seek help. As far as the semantics of "aid" vs. "war"....were American citizens being drafted and sent there? Yes. Were there hundreds of thousands of troops over there? Yes. Were we fighting in multiple countries at the same time? Yes. Is the term Prisoners of War (POW) used to describe the American troops that were left over there as the remaining brave soldiers jumped into the helicopters to get the hell out? Yes. Is this time period referred to as the "Vietnam War" in history books? Yes. End of story. STFU. I had family members who breathed their last breath over there.

[Sagittarius Rising]

I'm not saying America won that war by any means. What I'm saying is that America was a third party lending support. If they had declared war on America as opposed to it being a civil war they would have gone the way of the dodo bird. You can't rightly say Vietnam defeated America. America lost a lot of lives in a war we never should have gotten involved in for a serious loss for the country. But losing troops and surrendering/being conquered is not the same thing. This is like saying the French won the American Revolution. Anyways, enough of this debate that's going nowhere.

Well, since you brought it up, if it were not for the French we would have, without any doubt, lost the American Revolution. Plus, the American Revolution was, you guessed it, a proxy war between France and England, we just provided the battleground.

[DAS]

With that kind of response, it's safe to say you're still an idiot. Listening skills? If you're hearing things in this thread then you need to seek help. As far as the semantics of "aid" vs. "war"....were American citizens being drafted and sent there? Yes. Were there hundreds of thousands of troops over there? Yes. Were we fighting in multiple countries at the same time? Yes. Is the term Prisoners of War (POW) used to describe the American troops that were left over there as the remaining brave soldiers jumped into the helicopters to get the hell out? Yes. Is this time period referred to as the "Vietnam War" in history books? Yes. End of story. STFU. I had family members who breathed their last breath over there.

Stick a cork in it. We just put up with your sour attitude until you get banned.

[DAS]

Well, since you brought it up, if it were not for the French we would have, without any doubt, lost the American Revolution. Plus, the American Revolution was, you guessed it, a proxy war between France and England, we just provided the battleground.

Actually we still would have won. The Revolution was costing England way too much money and was unpopular in Parliament. Eventually they would have had to surrender their land claim in North America to the United States. It is true that France wanted to stick it to England, which they did, but it wasn't a major priority and the overwhelming majority of the war did not receive French aid. They did play a big role in England finally surrendering when Washington had the English on the run and France blocked them from escaping by sea and they were forced to surrender. France made it easier but the odds of England winning without France coming to America's aid was still pretty low.

[Sagittarius Rising]

Actually we still would have won. The Revolution was costing England way too much money and was unpopular in Parliament. Eventually they would have had to surrender their land claim in North America to the United States. It is true that France wanted to stick it to England, which they did, but it wasn't a major priority and the overwhelming majority of the war did not receive French aid. They did play a big role in England finally surrendering when Washington had the English on the run and France blocked them from escaping by sea and they were forced to surrender. France made it easier but the odds of England winning without France coming to America's aid was still pretty low.

You are maybe correct in part as we might have won eventually by attrition but it would have taken another five, maybe ten years. You are however wrong that the majority of the war was without French aid, we began to receive French in 1778, right after the Battle of Saratoga they supplied the vast majority of our weapons. Also, Washington never had the English on the run until he received the famous French General LaFayette as his lieutenant and chief tactical advisor. Further, the French General Rochambeau had major numbers of French forces under his command and as a result sealed the British fate.

One other fact, the colonies were split 50/50 between Colonials & British Loyalists or Torries. The American Revolution was not as popular among the locals as our history books would have you believe. And within nine years of the wars end the country was in open revolt against the government during the Whiskey Insurrection, an incident caused by our founding fathers turning around and doing exactly what they said they would never do...tax the locals to increase federal power. You just gotta love the irony there.

[Anjin-san]

SEOUL, South Korea – A top South Korean national security official said Sunday that North Korea may be setting the stage for a missile test or another provocative act with its warning that it soon will be unable to guarantee diplomats' safety in Pyongyang. But he added that the North's clearest objective is to extract concessions from Washington and Seoul.

-AP

[Sagittarius Rising]

SEOUL, South Korea – A top South Korean national security official said Sunday that North Korea may be setting the stage for a missile test or another provocative act with its warning that it soon will be unable to guarantee diplomats' safety in Pyongyang. But he added that the North's clearest objective is to extract concessions from Washington and Seoul.

-AP

Yep, that little toad is gonna accidentally light it up playing his stupid, dangerous extortion game. I hate so say this but I believe there will be war within two weeks and many will die. It will stay within the Korean peninsula as their medium-range missiles have a 50% rate and their long range a 100% failure rate. Though that will be cold comfort to the possible millions of Koreans that may die, plus the 24,000 American ground forces and the naval and air force personnel which may die or be wounded in a confrontation.

[Anjin-san]

Yep, that little toad is gonna accidentally light it up playing his stupid, dangerous extortion game. I hate so say this but I believe there will be war within two weeks and many will die. It will stay within the Korean peninsula as their medium-range missiles have a 50% rate and their long range a 100% failure rate. Though that will be cold comfort to the possible millions of Koreans that may die, plus the 24,000 American ground forces and the naval and air force personnel which may die or be wounded in a confrontation.

Saggy,I hope your wrong.The moved missiles are SCUDS, not accurate but still. Your right about the extortion BS,that's what it is.

MacArthur,was right.

[DAS]

You are maybe correct in part as we might have won eventually by attrition but it would have taken another five, maybe ten years. You are however wrong that the majority of the war was without French aid, we began to receive French in 1778, right after the Battle of Saratoga they supplied the vast majority of our weapons. Also, Washington never had the English on the run until he received the famous French General LaFayette as his lieutenant and chief tactical advisor. Further, the French General Rochambeau had major numbers of French forces under his command and as a result sealed the British fate.

One other fact, the colonies were split 50/50 between Colonials & British Loyalists or Torries. The American Revolution was not as popular among the locals as our history books would have you believe. And within nine years of the wars end the country was in open revolt against the government during the Whiskey Insurrection, an incident caused by our founding fathers turning around and doing exactly what they said they would never do...tax the locals to increase federal power. You just gotta love the irony there.

My point was not very clear, my bad. I meant to express that the French provided a relatively small service compared to what the Colonies did. I was aware that the French were involved for a long period of time. The "on the run" comment was a reference to the end of the war when the English surrendered at Yorktown because the French blocked their escape by sea. I find this topic much more interesting than North Korea being the history buff that I am but we probably ought to get back on topic.

[DAS]

I have a question for y'all: If North and South Korea go to war would you support getting involved (whatever your respective country may be)?

[Anjin-san]

I have a question for y'all: If North and South Korea go to war would you support getting involved (whatever your respective country may be)?

Hi DAS,

If as you as you say are a history student we have been at war with N Korea for 60+ years.There was no peace treaty ever.

Get the f*** out of Iraq and Afghanistan first,where troops do 6-10 tours of duty(!)

Sorry for the rant,...

KB

[Sagittarius Rising]

It's all good DAS, nice to see a fellow history buff!!

Regarding your question Re: Korea, yes, I would support our intervention should it come to war. However I really do not know how that support should manifest itself, such as intel, drone strikes, missiles vs. actual ground forces.

Anjin, I agree with you 100% in regards to Afghanistan, that is some serious bullshit!

[redrum]

I always thought 'Pyongyang' sounded like a bullet ricocheting. Kinda like Clint's spaghetti westerns. :^)

Edited April 7, 2013 by redrum