Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → N. Korea Declares War
I think the last thing China wants is a war on the peninsula. Their involvement in the event war did break out also would not be in their best interest. Their regime's control and social stability is of paramount concern to them at this time. If war did break out, my bet is N. and South Korea would be left to fight it out on their own. In fact, China might even tolerate a S.Korean / Western-backed regime change in N.Korea.
I'm suprised China won't support that; perhaps they figure that a unified Korea under Seoul will be an American base for invading China.
In fact if the Korea situation is resolved, we'll be thrown out of Korea and Japan. We'll base no closer than Guam.
I love the crack-brained theories as if there's going to be an invasion of China or the USA by the other.
China owns a ton of land-backed US debt. Of course it's in their interests to militarize the American civilian population and gain more power over them. What good are land holdings in a free society? Not nearly as good as land holdings in a society of slaves without rights.
South Korea couldn't defend itself for a minute. Of course the USA would get involved. And they'd probably need to use tactical nukes, because there's no way they could mobilize enough forces to combat a N. Korean threat short of weeks' time. So of course China would get involved. We'd not only be fighting N. Korea but probably use nuclear arms as well.
And about China tolerating "Western-backed" regime change in North Korea, again what?? The West doesn't want regime change in North Korea. That's why they've been giving the extortionists billions for decades and not pressuring China, publicly nor privately, to do anything about its puppet state ruled by maniacs.
You may now resume your ridiculous rambling.
...and the proof of the Sino-American axis is, they won't fire nukes at us?
esa wrote:I wonder why Obama sends all those expensive stealth bombers.If they lost one over NK it would make him look like an idiot.
If they lost one over N, Korea, it would be an excuse to get involved in any war starting there.
nah ... pearl harbour, 9/11, ... a stealth bomber is not big enuf to be part of another false-flag operation, you are too konfident in your land, you tend to forget too early.
2 things I wonder:
1) does this even need an ezkuse to light the fuse?
2) in kase its needed, what lokation? what important symbol of the amerikan 'freedom' and lifestyle will be hit this time?
nah ... pearl harbour, 9/11, ... a stealth bomber is not big enuf to be part of another false-flag operation, you are too konfident in your land, you tend to forget too early.
2 things I wonder:
1) does this even need an ezkuse to light the fuse?
2) in kase its needed, what lokation? what important symbol of the amerikan 'freedom' and lifestyle will be hit this time?
You forget WW I, WW II, and the Spanish-American wars all started with one attack on one ship.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid … amp;ref=nf
Meager support and internal raids... Whole invasions of entire countries. Endless bombing from stationary naval freighters and mobile air strips (destroyers). Makes me question the severity of the issue if it went down that road.
1. Another Saxon fifth resulting in the people running from there home lands?
2. Mass hysteria and terror. Leaving dead people strewn in villages and roads?
3. Chaos and mayhem or silent ops?
I wouldn't want to ponder what would happen of old wounds opened up in that part of the middle east...
^ Anyone unable to identify troll please post notification below. I'd like to ignore you. Thanks for your time and consideration.
Moderators included. 
Not troll, man off his meds.
What the U.S. needs is a warrior president. The kind of president who is a young, brilliant, patriotic, and a courageous general who leads the troops in to battle himself. If history repeats itself, warrior heads of state have an easier time with public opinion and war. Secondly, only a warrior president could keep the cosmopolitan bankers in line.
Yeah I nominate Rand Paul for that Battlefield commander president.
And after him Bill Maher. Meghan McCain. Rachel Maddow. Heck the whole MSNBC lineup. The cast of Glee. That gay guy who made Torchwood. Lets see..
/me hums "I've Got A Little List"
Someone like Gaius Marius
Yeah I nominate Rand Paul for that Battlefield commander president.
And after him Bill Maher. Meghan McCain. Rachel Maddow. Heck the whole MSNBC lineup. The cast of Glee. That gay guy who made Torchwood. Lets see..
/me hums "I've Got A Little List"
Bad list. How bout David Petraeus? Well, he's kinda old now, but he would still be ba.
Someone like Gaius Marius
Yes. Like him!
Justinian I,
None of our presidents have had problems with public opinion. An ignorant populace and massively apathetic public opinion has enabled international bankers to elect the Republican and Democrat presidents (and legislators) they own for decades consistently without interruption. Public opinion has merely slowed down what rate of progress they could achieve on occasion to avoid risking raising alarms in public consciousness.
You sound really confused. You're arguing for what bankers need to control government and civilization more thoroughly, then claiming such a government is necessary to keep bankers in line.
Our government hasn't tried to stop the bilking of the American people by bankers. They're owned by bankers. They're responsible for the legal threat of force which enables bankers to rob people. Our government hasn't tried to stop the robbery of the American people by bankers in a century. That's why the government created the Federal Reserve, which is private yet controls our monetary system.
Government already has a monopoly on force in America. We don't need a warrior president to control bankers with laws, we need a president who enforces the law and legislators who pass sensible laws, not crony "capitalist" corrupt ones. They already have the power to make and enforce just law. They already have the power to "keep the cosmopolitan bankers in line." The problem is we keep electing people with absolutely no interest or intent in doing so.
No 'type' of president beyond an "educated, non corrupt piece of shit" like the type we keep electing will do that. Warrior or not has nothing to do with it. We don't need a president who can bully or lead public opinion, we need public opinion to support a non-corrupt president who wants to do the right things, who isn't owned by international bankers.
Petraeus lied and betrayed his country for the sake of keeping his pension and not making enemies. Everyone knew about his affair and they used it to keep him from talking about Libya, where shit was going down under his watch that he wasn't in charge of.
He didn't talk. He's not the worst guy in the room, but he didn't speak up about who was when it was going on right in front of him.
I interpret your thinking he'd be a desirable candidate to be a testament to monumental ignorance of American politics and recent history.
Kemp,
In U.S history, only one President has ever paid off the national debt and destroyed a national bank. And when elites threatened to secede, he threatened to march on them.
Andrew Jackson. Not saying he wasn't a scumbag in his own way, but only a leader who commands the love of the army can act independently of the so called "nobility."
And Petraeus is human. My guess is he tried to protect himself by reconciling with the Obama administration in some way, but his political acumen is so bad that he couldn't realize that they wanted to destroy him.
...I think you mistake the purpose of the appointment...
Anyone who has the support of the people "can act independently of the so called 'nobility.'"
We still kindof have democratic processes in the USA. And they'd be more democratic if the people stopped putting up with the crap that goes on.
You obviously don't know the details around Petraeus's role in North Africa and the shenangicans which played out. Holder and Clapper made up the most ridiculous lies about the course of events that it might as well have been an admission of scandal and cover-up (I'm not referring to Petraeus's affair).
You don't have any more basis for suggesting Petraeus was a noble man (in spite of evidence to the contrary, since he lied and betrayed the American people he swore to protect) than you do in claiming that "only a leader who commands the love of the army can act independently of the so called 'nobility.'"
What happened to your supposed respect for empiricism? Because you have no evidence, no examples, and no explanation to support your claims regarding the requirements of a good leader. You're just giving us authoritarian talking points which you've obviously embraced.
The American people haven't elected a noble president in the past century. Nobody has tried to stop corruption. There's no evidence of a military backround being required; there are no examples of anyone, with or without such a backround, trying.
Kemp,
Well Petraeus was just a suggestion. My understanding was that Petraeus was a political n00b, Obama was jealous of him and saw him as a threat, Obama decided to use him in a less important role, Petraeus eventually outlived his usefulness to Obama, and Petraeus decided to save his skin. I don't blame a man for self-preservation. But I blame him for receiving a chance to save the country in elections, and then blowing the chance because he didn't like politics.
And sorry, but historically, great warriors typically made the best political leaders.
More like the best male lovers. Autocratically incorrect in a sense of your own judgment of your own character could be formative opinion. Look at there wives...
Iron maiden with a devils whip is all I usually see when mentioned characters condone ill measured commands or political maneuvering in our sardonic society.
"Pertness that himself a god is usually a character he himself viewing the world as if in a fish bowl."
Read this! It is relevant, FYI.
Sigh Kingsnine please go away
yeah I saw similar Gwynedd
N. Korea sure seems willing to up the ante as much as they can
So that means we might see a war in a few weeks
Man you guys are so plain. I've got too switch to white bread. Wheat is
making me suffers..
this video lecture explains the origins of the Korean stalemate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfi4s8cjLFI
How is the war going,did the norks invade Compton yet?
Imperial Forum → Politics → N. Korea Declares War
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.