Conquer Club

Posted: **Sun Sep 03, 2017 11:07 am**

How to deal with N-Korea?

Posted: **Sun Sep 03, 2017 11:09 am**

waauw wrote:How to deal with N-Korea?

Drop Trump on North Korea!

Posted: **Sun Sep 03, 2017 11:13 am**

Pole needed. Do you dress Drumpht like Rambo or Dubya before you send him to knock out Kim's tooth?

Posted: **Sun Sep 03, 2017 1:46 pm**

waauw wrote:How to deal with N-Korea?

Don't harass them

Posted: **Sun Sep 03, 2017 9:45 pm**

unleash till he is dead

Posted: **Sun Sep 03, 2017 10:56 pm**

How do you solve a problem like North Korea?
How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?

Posted: **Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:22 am**

GoranZ wrote:
waauw wrote:How to deal with N-Korea?

Don't harass them

Posted: **Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:32 am**

mrswdk wrote:
GoranZ wrote:
waauw wrote:How to deal with N-Korea?

Don't harass them

Hey! lay off those wolf whistles when Kim Jong bends over to tie his shoes.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:06 pm**

Thorthoth wrote:
mrswdk wrote:
GoranZ wrote:
waauw wrote:How to deal with N-Korea?

Don't harass them

Hey! lay off those wolf whistles when Kim Jong bends over to tie his shoes.

Wolves can't wistle. Also 'Kim' is the family name and 'Jong Un' is the first name, Thortho.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:38 pm**

金三胖

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:44 pm**

mrswdk wrote:金三胖

So?

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:49 pm**

So你妹

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2017 3:03 pm**

Keep it clean, swdk.

Posted: **Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:49 am**

It's been 64 years since the Korean War ended with a temporary truce, and neither side has made a good-faith effort at moving towards a permanent peace treaty. That is at the heart of the matter. The North Koreans threaten America because America defends South Korea, and South Korea needs defending because it is still at war with the North. Create a permanent peace treaty, the situation pretty much resolves itself. The American troops can go home, the American taxpayer saves a lot of money, North Korea calms down and its nukes go on the back burner for the next century until eventually they are obsolete and get dismantled.

Posted: **Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:24 am**

Dukasaur wrote:South Korea needs defending because it is still at war with the North

Yea rite... You really believe in this, I dont. 9/10 of the world doesn't believe also. Its viewed as one of your excuses for staying in South Korea.

Posted: **Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:55 am**

GoranZ wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:South Korea needs defending because it is still at war with the North

Yea rite... You really believe in this, I dont. 9/10 of the world doesn't believe also. Its viewed as one of your excuses for staying in South Korea.

I've never been to South Korea, so I don't need an excuse to stay there....

If you mean the American military's excuse for staying there, please be advised that I am not affiliated with the American military. Well, about 37 years ago I used to party with a bunch of Vietnam vets, but I don't think they were part of the Joint Chiefs or anything like that.

As for the rest, you'd have to be more specific. Which part you don't believe? You don't believe a peace treaty is possible? Or you don't believe a peace treaty would solve the problem?

Posted: **Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:58 am**

Dukasaur wrote:
GoranZ wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:South Korea needs defending because it is still at war with the North

Yea rite... You really believe in this, I dont. 9/10 of the world doesn't believe also. Its viewed as one of your excuses for staying in South Korea.

I've never been to South Korea, so I don't need an excuse to stay there....

If you mean the American military's excuse for staying there, please be advised that I am not affiliated with the American military. Well, about 37 years ago I used to party with a bunch of Vietnam vets, but I don't think they were part of the Joint Chiefs or anything like that.

Your, American... its all the same, You behave like US. You behave that what you think, what you do is the correct thing. But you dont realize that you are not very smart in the first place.

Dukasaur wrote:As for the rest, you'd have to be more specific. Which part you don't believe? You don't believe a peace treaty is possible? Or you don't believe a peace treaty would solve the problem?

I can not be more specific then I was... I quoted the sentence I dont believe in :lol:

And I'm totally aware that you are quite dumb even for a single quoted sentence.

P.S. I think that Japan and Russia also dont have signed peace treaty... and they are not threatening with war one to another

Posted: **Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:41 am**

GoranZ wrote:
waauw wrote:How to deal with N-Korea?

Don't harass them

Posted: **Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:45 am**

Obama to blame for North Korean situation due to his incompetence and mismanagement -

It’s difficult to overstate how reactionary Obama’s policies became. In contrast to Bush, and even Trump, Obama flatly rejected the idea of negotiating with the North without a prior commitment to denuclearization. He also expressed no interest in the DPRK’s offer to sign a peace agreement. More disturbingly, he was the first president in history to refer to the Korean War, which has been universally recognized as a bloody stalemate, as a “victory.” In doing so, Obama revived a right-wing trope that was first used in the 1950s and resurrected during the Bush years by David Frum and other neocons. So from the onset, Obama caused America’s policy toward Korea to take a sharp right turn.

The tensions were exacerbated by the covert cyber war Obama launched against North Korea to damage and slow its missile program. During the Obama years, North Korea tested three more nuclear bombs, and despite the cyber war, rapidly expanded its missile abilities. As the situation deteriorated, Obama embarked on a series of military exercises with South Korea that increased in size and tempo over the course of his administration. They included unprecedented overflights by B-52 and stealth B1-B bombers as well as training in “decapitation strikes” designed to take out Kim and his leadership. All of this led straight to the crisis Trump inherited.

http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-projec ... orth-korea

Posted: **Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:32 pm**

GoranZ wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:
GoranZ wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:South Korea needs defending because it is still at war with the North

Yea rite... You really believe in this, I dont. 9/10 of the world doesn't believe also. Its viewed as one of your excuses for staying in South Korea.

I've never been to South Korea, so I don't need an excuse to stay there....

If you mean the American military's excuse for staying there, please be advised that I am not affiliated with the American military. Well, about 37 years ago I used to party with a bunch of Vietnam vets, but I don't think they were part of the Joint Chiefs or anything like that.

Your, American... its all the same, You behave like US. You behave that what you think, what you do is the correct thing. But you dont realize that you are not very smart in the first place.

Dukasaur wrote:As for the rest, you'd have to be more specific. Which part you don't believe? You don't believe a peace treaty is possible? Or you don't believe a peace treaty would solve the problem?

I can not be more specific then I was... I quoted the sentence I dont believe in And I'm totally aware that you are quite dumb even for a single quoted sentence.

P.S. I think that Japan and Russia also dont have signed peace treaty... and they are not threatening with war one to another

I forgot I was dealing with a super-genius. I guess I don't have what it takes to even hold a dialogue with you.

Posted: **Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:37 pm**

Serious about peace? 'US should withdraw 50,000 troops from Japan, 30,000 from S.Korea'

Countries the US has invaded

This list does not include the 1801-1805 US Marine Barbary War operations against Barbary pirates based in Morocco , Algeria , Tunisia and Libya , and also ignores massive US subversion of virtually all countries in the world.

(1) American Indian nations (1776 onwards, American Indian Genocide; 1803, Louisiana Purchase; 1844, Indians banned from east of the Mississippi; 1861 onwards, California genocide; 1890, Lakota Indians massacre), (2) Mexico (1836-1846; 1913; 1914-1918; 1923), (3) Nicaragua (1856-1857; 1894; 1896; 1898; 1899; 1907; 1910; 1912-1933; 1981-1990), (4) American forces deployed against Americans (1861-1865, Civil War; 1892; 1894; 1898; 1899-1901; 1901; 1914; 1915; 1920-1921; 1932; 1943; 1967; 1968; 1970; 1973; 1992; 2001), (5), Argentina (1890), (6), Chile (1891; 1973), (7) Haiti (1891; 1914-1934; 1994; 2004-2005), (8) Hawaii (1893-), (9) China (1895-1895; 1898-1900; 1911-1941; 1922-1927; 1927-1934; 1948-1949; 1951-1953; 1958), (10) Korea (1894-1896; 1904-1905; 1951-1953), (11) Panama (1895; 1901-1914; 1908; 1912; 1918-1920; 1925; 1958; 1964; 1989-), (12) Philippines (1898-1910; 1948-1954; 1989; 2002-), (13) Cuba (1898-1902; 1906-1909; 1912; 1917-1933; 1961; 1962), (14) Puerto Rico (1898-; 1950; ); (15) Guam (1898-), (16) Samoa (1899-), (17) Honduras (1903; 1907; 1911; 1912; 1919; 1924-1925; 1983-1989), (18) Dominican Republic (1903-1904; 1914; 1916-1924; 1965-1966), (19) Germany (1917-1918; 1941-1945; 1948; 1961), (20) Russia (1918-1922), (21) Yugoslavia (1919; 1946; 1992-1994; 1999), (22) Guatemala (1920; 1954; 1966-1967), (23) Turkey (1922), (24) El Salvador (1932; 1981-1992), (25) Italy (1941-1945); (26) Morocco (1941-1945), (27) France (1941-1945), (28) Algeria (1941-1945), (29) Tunisia (1941-1945), (30) Libya (1941-1945; 1981; 1986; 1989; 2011), (31) Egypt (1941-1945; 1956; 1967; 1973; 2013), (32) India (1941-1945), (33) Burma (1941-1945), (34) Micronesia (1941-1945), (35) Papua New Guinea (1941-1945), (36) Vanuatu (1941-1945), (37) Austria (1941-1945), (38) Hungary (1941-1945), (39) Japan (1941-1945), (40) Iran (1946; 1953; 1980; 1984; 1987-1988; ), (41) Uruguay (1947), (42) Greece (1947-1949), (43) Vietnam (1954; 1960-1975), (44) Lebanon (1958; 1982-1984), (45) Iraq (1958; 1963; 1990-1991; 1990-2003; 1998; 2003-2011), (46) Laos (1962-), (47) Indonesia (1965), (48) Cambodia (1969-1975; 1975), (49) Oman (1970), (50) Laos (1971-1973), (51) Angola (1976-1992), (52) Grenada (1983-1984), (53) Bolivia (1986; ), (54) Virgin Islands (1989), (55) Liberia (1990; 1997; 2003), (56) Saudi Arabia (1990-1991), (57) Kuwait (1991), (58) Somalia (1992-1994; 2006), (59) Bosnia (1993-), (60) Zaire (Congo) (1996-1997), (61) Albania (1997), (62) Sudan (1998), (63) Afghanistan (1998; 2001-), (64) Yemen (2000; 2002-), (65) Macedonia (2001), (66) Colombia (2002-), (67) Pakistan (2005-), (68) Syria (2008; 2011-), (69) Uganda (2011), (70) Mali (2013), (71) Niger (2013).

The N Koreans are absolutely correct to be paranoid about an american invasion of their country.

This time tho, they can hit back, possibly with an emp.

They have already demonstrated they can fire rockets into space, they now have a hydrogen bomb, if one of them were to go off above the U.S. just at the edge of space, thats it, estimated casualties are over 90% within one year of no grid.

And if thats not enough, China has declared support for N Korea, who will Russia support?

The american neocon military industrial complex is insane.

The only possible reason the americans can have to invade N Korea is a population reduction of a few billion people.

They are simply insane.

Posted: **Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:43 pm**

armati wrote:Serious about peace? 'US should withdraw 50,000 troops from Japan, 30,000 from S.Korea'

correct

Posted: **Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:09 pm**

The U.S. is not the greatest country in the world.

7th in literacy
27th in math
22 in science
49th in life expectancy
178th in infant mortality

The U.S. leads the world in 3 categories

# of incarcerated citizens per capita
# of adults who believe angels are real
and defense spending

the U.S. spends more than the next 26 countries combined, 25 of whom are allies.

Posted: **Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:21 pm**

I heard all that in Jeff Bridges' Youtube video...opening to some HBO show.....nicely quoted....

Don't we lead in per capita gun ownership (checked....yes!)? And happiness (checked...14th..not bad)? And drinking (checked...hell, we're waaay down the list at 48th...lol)??

Go US =D>

EDIT: Holy crap...according to that list, usa avg is 9.2 L per year....I am MORE than making up for my fair share :lol:

Posted: **Fri Sep 08, 2017 8:53 pm**

Dukasaur wrote:I guess I don't have what it takes to even hold a dialogue with you.

What you wan to talk about? Yosemite

I think I said everything concerning this question in the shortest possible form. Not having US soldiers on its southern border will have enormous impact on North Korea.
Every weapon they had made will have no meaning. Presumably there wont be any new nuke tests(whats the point anyway). They might continue developing rockets with a goal of reaching the limits for commercial satellites but that eventually will cease since that development is way too expensive(unless they work together with South Korea).

GoranZ wrote:
waauw wrote:How to deal with N-Korea?

Don't harass them

Weapons usually doesn't bring anything good, its meant to kill people.

Conquer Club

To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question

Re: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question