North Korea: Do we or don't we (invade)?

Ok. The Baltics are a flippin' economic miracle. It's such a well kept secret that nobody is moving there and the citizens apparently don't even realize how much they are benefiting from the economic boom.

Why don't you start a thread about the Baltics since you have nothing more to contribute here on what began as a discussion about possible military invasion?

Edit: Surprise, surprise.

fertility-rates-in-europe-2013.png
 
Last edited:
Musburger1 said:
Ok. The Baltics are a flippin' economic miracle. It's such a well kept secret that nobody is moving there and the citizens apparently don't even realize how much they are benefiting from the economic boom.

Why don't you start a thread about the Baltics since you have nothing more to contribute here on what began as a discussion about possible military invasion?

Edit: Surprise, surprise.

fertility-rates-in-europe-2013.png
Click to expand...

I never said they were an economic miracle. However, you made a patently stupid-*** comment, and you're too stubborn and childish to just admit you were wrong. (And ironically, it's coming from a guy who consistently idolizes a country that lost almost half it's GDP in about two years.)

Instead you're grasping at this flimsy population growth issue to judge their economies. Under your goofy pride-saving rationale, the US, Japan, and Europe would be more economically suspect than Burundi, Somalia, and Niger. In spite of that, you can't just say, "maybe I was wrong." Is it a breach of your trolling agreement to do that? If it is, just tell us. I'm not trying to ruin your gig.
 
Last edited:
I'm still waiting for you to respond to my post as promised, but you insist on postponing that until I say uncle. I've pointed out that the Baltics current GDP is in line with Europe and the population is declining. What more do you want? Perhaps we can discuss your I-phone made in Latvia, the world renowned car industry in Estonia, or the large gold mines of Lithuania?
 
Musburger1 said:
I'm still waiting for you to respond to my post as promised, but you insist on postponing that until I say uncle. I've pointed out that the Baltics current GDP is in line with Europe and the population is declining. What more do you want? Perhaps we can discuss your I-phone made in Latvia, the world renowned car industry in Estonia, or the large gold mines of Lithuania?
Click to expand...

I promised to address your other points when this matter is resolved. What I want you to do is retract your ******** statement and admit you were wrong without sarcasm or smack talk. The reason why I insist on that is that if you can't do that on something that's so clearly absurd, then it'll be obvious to me that you're not here to discuss the issues in good faith and that engaging you on them will be counterproductive and a waste of time.

Frankly, I don't see why you won't. Your credibility would be stronger if you did. Surely you're not dumb enough to think you're actually convincing anybody if anything on this.
 
The only data you've given to buttress your claim is that the Baltic GDPs are comparable with the rest of Europe (which isn't exactly on fire and require monthly QE injections of $200 billion to keep it on life support). That's it. So why should I retract anything when you've made no argument? You have nothing substantive to add or you would have done so. The End.
 
Musburger1 said:
The only data you've given to buttress your claim is that the Baltic GDPs are comparable with the rest of Europe (which isn't exactly on fire and require monthly QE injections of $200 billion to keep it on life support). That's it.
Click to expand...

My claim is only that they aren't economic basket cases or even close to it. By any serious standard, their per capita GDPs and membership in the EU are more than enough to discredit your claim. Liberia is an economic basket case. The Baltic states aren't. In fact they're not even close. It's like claiming that a guy who's 5'10" is a midget. True, he's not going to be the starting center on a NBA team, but he's not unusually short.

And again, this whole claim is a bit comical coming from a guy who routinely eulogizes Russia.
 
Mr. Deez said:
My claim is only that they aren't economic basket cases or even close to it. By any serious standard, their per capita GDPs and membership in the EU are more than enough to discredit your claim. Liberia is an economic basket case. The Baltic states aren't. In fact they're not even close. It's like claiming that a guy who's 5'10" is a midget. True, he's not going to be the starting center on a NBA team, but he's not unusually short.

And again, this whole claim is a bit comical coming from a guy who routinely eulogizes Russia.
Click to expand...
GDP is only one measure of economic health and a flawed one at that. GDP has a correlation to debt expenditure for one thing. Also, a positive GDP doesn't always reflect negative economic impacts resulting from production. For example, chemical runoffs from agriculture might create dead zones in the ocean or increase cancer rates, but only the positive component is reflected in the GDP. If GDP is your sole criteria, then the Baltics aren't a basket case. It's not my sole criteria.

As far as eulogizing Russia, please cite an example from this thread where I've done so. All I see is your ingrained Russophobic predjudice spilling over as shown by your whining about a difference of perception about three relatively small nations.
 
Apples and oranges. The Soviets had just lost 20-something million lives to the Nazis. In defeating the Germans, the Soviet army penetrated all the way to Berlin. From a long-term preservation standpoint it made no sense to pull back at that time.
Click to expand...

The Soviets had lost 20+ million lives to the Nazis in mid 1940?
 
Statalyzer said:
The Soviets had lost 20+ million lives to the Nazis in mid 1940?
Click to expand...
I was referring to the aftermath of the war. The Soviets did occupy the Balkans in 39-40 before the Germans rolled over them and moved Eastward. After the war, the front moved westward beyond Poland all the way to Berlin. The entire map changed and Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc. all fell under the influence of the USSR known as the Iron Curtain.

The world has changed a great deal when it comes to how wars are fought. It's unusual to see tens of thousands of opposing armies massed together in what amounts to mass suicide. The battles for influence are fought financially and via information as well militarily. Waging modern wars includes soft power. We're talking about sanctions, freezing assets, cutting off credit, bribes, lobbying, using NGOs to educate and spread propaganda, cyber espionage, and using proxies to disrupt order and destabilize.

Nuclear power has served as a deterrent to invasion for countries possessing the ability to retaliate with a nuclear strike, especially when the country can do this between continents. The US mainland is immune to a military invasion at this time. Only the United States is able to project power at a non-regional basis. Some 200,000 US troops are stationed outside the United States in over 100 countries.

The US has composed a plan for a first strike nuclear potential as a scenario for winning a nuclear war. Part of the plan includes anti-ballistic missiles that would "clean up" a retaliatory response from the opponent following a first strike. The expansion of NATO and implementation of a "missile defense shield" is seen as a threat to the Russians because in theory it is designed to take away their ability to respond in kind to a first strike. Also, the anti-ballistic missiles can be retrofitted with nuclear weapons to make them not only a "defensive missile" but also an offensive weapon. Combining this land based capability, the US can station sea and air based launchers from relatively close range. In light of this, it makes perfect sense for Russia to be concerned with the expansion of NATO, the buildup of arms, and more specifically surrounding Russia with missiles.

The combination of anti-Russia rhetoric and news all the time, the expansion of NATO, NGO's - some of which are sponsored by Soros in conjunction with organizations such as USAID and State Department officials like Victoria Nuland - and sanctions are all examples of low level warfare targeting Russia by the United States Government.

Russia is not the Soviet Union and Putin isn't Hitler. But neither is he Yeltsin. The Russians are not going to roll over, and if the US keeps pushing, nuclear war isn't out of the question. The Russians have a massive arsenal of tactical nukes and Putin has stated that a war will never be allowed to be fought on Russian soil again. Should the US keep pushing, I would expect Putin to strike Europe, and any country that has built up forces and erected missiles next to Russia's border would be the logical target.
 
@Statalyzer , don't get him started. Just let him go back to bed. You'll be better off. Hell, if you look at his post, the first paragraph is generally responsive to your point, and the rest of his comments are just him showing his junk. It's unresponsive and designed to trigger argument. I think he gets paid by the post.

Honestly, I think he's part of the Web Brigades - Russia's internet trolling service that hires people to post pro-Russian propaganda. That issue has been raised here a few times. He has never addressed it one way or the other, and I don't expect him to. He'd probably get canned if he did. I'm not out to ruin his living. Besides, every ruble Putin pays to Musburger is a ruble he can't use to build up his military. lol
 
Last edited:
Gen. Michael Hayden: N Korea will make nuke capable of hitting Seattle

The situation will be dire as soon as they can hit a city worth saving.
 
Here's an excerpt from Brad's post on Trump's first 100 days.
Whether tested on purpose by Assad or not, a clear message was sent not to f*ck with the big dog anymore. At the very least it'll lead to increased hesitation and caution when plotting to kneecap American interests in the future.
​
I wanted to post a reply here because I think the comment is relative to what is happening with the North Koreans.

We've seen this posturing by North Korea before. The North Koreans broadcast their nuclear strength for the dual purpose of showing off military at home for the benefit of impressing their own citizens and also to use these demonstrations as leverage to obtain concessions (aid such as food and so forth) from China. Generally the US responds with a bluff, cooler heads prevail, China gives the North Koreans what they want, and Dear Leader pulls back for several months.

Trump's response to the chemical attack in Syria puts a new dynamic in play. Its clear that the US will attack a nation without getting UN approval, without getting Congressional approval. International Law is something the US holds other nations accountable, but at the same time is irrelevant with respect factoring in what actions the US will take.

Many question with good reason, if not the sanity of the North Korean President, at least his rationality. Keep in mind "saving face" is of paramount importance to Eastern culture. The US has given the North Korean leader an ultimatum; dismantle your nuclear program or we will act.

I see three outcomes:

1. Kim assumes this is the usual bluff. As before, he holds his ground and waits counting on the same old game to play out as before.
2. Kim acquiesces and agrees to dismantle his nuclear program.
3. Kim strikes first.

Case #1 is less likely in light of Trump's recent attack on Syria. If Kim's rationality is questionable, to a lesser degree, so is Trump's. There is no reason to assume the US won't launch an attack against North Korea.

Case #2 is equally unlikely. In a culture where saving face means everything, Kim cannot back down. It would be a sign of weakness and an embarrassment. Plus he would have little to gain other than his life which may or not be as important to him as it would to you or I. We just don't know.

Case #3. Kim is assured North Korea will be attacked, and will strike - most probably South Korea first. Whether he does so with conventional weapons or nukes is an open question.

My assertion is that Trump has called Kim's bluff by launching an illegal attack against Syria and has forced Kim's hand. The US is unlikely to suffer consequences directly should Kim attack, but the same cannot be said for the countries surrounding North Korea.

Those are my thoughts this morning.
 
So Clinton is responsible for nuclear armed NK, and Obama will eventually be tagged with paving the way for Iran.

Thanks Dems. Really appreciate your providing the two most dangerous, 'death to America' nutjobs the ability to nuke us by at least 2027.

Bill is married to Hillary who was Obama's SOS and then ran to succeed him. All three have a hand in eventual nuclear arming of these two rogue enemies. Coincidence? :smh:
 
Brad Austin said:
So Clinton is responsible for nuclear armed NK, and Obama will eventually be tagged with doing the same for Iran.

Thanks Dems. Really appreciate your providing the two most dangerous, 'death to America' nutjobs the ability to nuke us by at least 2027.

Hmmmm, Bill is married to Hillary who was Obama's sec of state and then ran to succeed him. All three have a hand in the eventual nuclear arming of these two rogue enemies. Coincidence?
Click to expand...
Keep in mind the Clinton's made it possible for China to accelerate their nuclear program by giving them technology to improve their delivery systems. Their rockets were previously as unreliable as are the North Koreans. Thanks to the Clintons, the Chinese can now reliably launch intercontinental missiles as well as satellites which potentially will be part of their military arsenal.
 
Musburger1 said:
Case #3. Kim is assured North Korea will be attacked, and will strike - most probably South Korea first. Whether he does so with conventional weapons or nukes is an open question.
Click to expand...

This option is growing in likelihood by the day and probably the best bet as of now.

Lil Kim has a massive case of paranoia. It's well documented he's brutally murdered many associates (even family members) after questioning their loyalty.

If anyone were apt to "go down swinging and take everyone with me" it's this guy.

Me thinks he was already 90% sold the U.S. will eventually strike. The Syria bombing has probably jacked that up to 99%.

But honestly it's hard to see a way around conflict with this lunatic. There's no way we can allow a paranoid, unhinged guy like that to possess nukes that can reach us.

As much as I'd like to hope China will finally step up and help out, I also think nothing short of them knowing we're planning to strike would facilitate this.

It's safe to say there's no good answers in Syria or NK. Every action taken in Syria helps out a different enemy and can easily be condemned as harmful. And South Korea is most likely gonna get hammered by Kim be it his first strike or retaliation for ours.
 
Last edited:
Seems that Trump may be making it a part of any new trade negotiations with China that they bring North Korea to heel

Would China see this as in their own long term best interests?
 
I heard today NK and Jong un has threatened to use nukes against USA ...

But it's being drowned by the screeches of "bad ol airlines" mistreating a paying passenger.
 
ShAArk92 said:
I heard today NK and Jong un has threatened to use nukes against USA ...

But it's being drowned by the screeches of "bad ol airlines" mistreating a paying passenger.
Click to expand...
Well, at least both stories deal with folks with an elevated sense of self-worth.
 
We have been attempting to persuade China to pressure the NoKos on their nukes for the last 20 years.
What changed?

 
This is a bit of a "validate Mr. Deez" article, but it begs a question I've always had. Beyond superficial optics, what the hell is the point of "arms-control" deals? The article spins it as a Democratic issue, and though it mostly is, I've heard some Republicans fall into a similar trap.

If you don't want a country to have a certain kind of weapon, such as nukes (North Korea, Iran, etc.) or chemical weapons (Syria, Iraq, etc.), usually it's because you can't trust that country to be responsible stewards of those weapons. Specifically, you don't trust them not to use those weapons offensively. Well, if you can't trust them with the weapons, then why would you trust them to abide by an arms control agreement? Even if Obama and Clinton got Iran and North Korea to sign the most onerous nuclear arms deals, would anybody really trust those countries to keep their end of the deal if they truly wanted nuclear weapons? It's one of the dumbest assumptions I can imagine.
 
Joe Fan said:
We have been attempting to persuade China to pressure the NoKos on their nukes for the last 20 years.
What changed?

Click to expand...


Why would we trust North Korea to give up its nukes, and why would we trust China to enforce such a promise? It sounds similar to trusting Russia to make sure Syria gives up its chemical weapons. (BTW, I'm still not fully convinced that Syria launched the chemical attack, but I'll assume it for the sake of discussion.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top