America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 6 years ago by delta1. 56 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
North Korea fires missile over Japan
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
MACS Offline
#1 Posted: Mon, Aug 28 2017, 5:26 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,741
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/08/28/north-korea-fires-unidentified-missile-reports-say.html
frankj1 Offline
#2 Posted: Mon, Aug 28 2017, 6:34 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
have they been removed from the planet yet?
teedubbya Offline
#3 Posted: Mon, Aug 28 2017, 6:36 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I though they had been stopped.
bgz Offline
#4 Posted: Mon, Aug 28 2017, 6:50 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Ya, probably time to turn South Korea into an Island.
DrafterX Offline
#5 Posted: Mon, Aug 28 2017, 6:51 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
Underdog was out of super energy pills... Mellow
Abrignac Offline
#6 Posted: Mon, Aug 28 2017, 7:13 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,259
Seems like diplomacy isn't working.....
Brewha Offline
#7 Posted: Mon, Aug 28 2017, 8:45 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,161
Worrisome and curious.

Why would some little pip squeak country make treating moves against the super powers?
Hell, France could kick their azz. Never mind China or God help them the US, France.

WTF?
frankj1 Offline
#8 Posted: Mon, Aug 28 2017, 8:45 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
when was that?
the diplomacy thing I mean.
Brewha Offline
#9 Posted: Mon, Aug 28 2017, 8:48 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,161
I guess since France got he bomb - Their military is not so great...
teedubbya Offline
#10 Posted: Mon, Aug 28 2017, 8:49 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
seems like fatty fat fat isn't scared of orangie mop top
MACS Offline
#11 Posted: Mon, Aug 28 2017, 8:59 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,741
No, fatty thinks China is gonna save his ass.

And he thinks South Korea will talk us out of a fight, because they don't want none. His problem is, he effed with Japan... and I think even they could whoop his ass.
frankj1 Offline
#12 Posted: Mon, Aug 28 2017, 9:06 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
his is a fourth world country.
Finland could whip his ass.
frankj1 Offline
#13 Posted: Mon, Aug 28 2017, 9:07 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
and China has been crushing his bad economy...

read it so long ago, but could he be reinventing The Mouse That Roared?
delta1 Offline
#14 Posted: Mon, Aug 28 2017, 11:59 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,772
Any body notice that the NK missiles are kinda like indiscriminate firecracker/bottlerocks? All sound ...and no fury...like the juvies who shoot off m-80's at 2am...


I'd be more impressed if they announced a missile launch and identified an uninhabited atoll in the Pacific as a target beforehand...and then actually hit it or at least got it within 5 miles or so...


until then, they're just a paper tiger that our DoD needs to prop up as a boogeyman to justify increased military/defense spending...
DrafterX Offline
#15 Posted: Tue, Aug 29 2017, 8:25 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
I wonder why Japan didn't knock it out of the sky..?? Huh
dstieger Offline
#16 Posted: Tue, Aug 29 2017, 8:42 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
right? they say now it wasn't a threat....but they did warn residents to take shelter....ol' fatty fat considers the entire Pacific his sandbox...and despite all the noisy harumph-ing....nobody has a clue how to put him in a corner...once again fatty - 1; USJapanSouthKoreaChina - zero
Mr. Jones Offline
#17 Posted: Tue, Aug 29 2017, 8:55 AM EST
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,409
Send that A.M.A.T.E.U.R. AF-NAT beotch wearing a headscarf who tried to poison me at lunch yesterday, over to North Korea...
to make "a water drop" into his glass
from a sliced soft gel capsule filled with a clear
fake heart attack liquid drug....while an 85 lb HOT ASIAN SPINNER IS ON TOP OF HIM BLOCKING HIS VIEW...200 stories down in his PLEASURE BUNKER
OF DEBAUCHERY...
DrafterX Offline
#18 Posted: Tue, Aug 29 2017, 9:00 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
I could use pleasure bunker of debauchery... Mellow
dstieger Offline
#19 Posted: Tue, Aug 29 2017, 9:11 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Video from the WH situation room...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN99jshaQbY
delta1 Offline
#20 Posted: Tue, Aug 29 2017, 3:55 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,772
classic...who's the dame in the bikini top?
dstieger Offline
#21 Posted: Tue, Aug 29 2017, 4:00 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Robyn Hilton
dstieger Offline
#22 Posted: Tue, Aug 29 2017, 4:00 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Robyn Hilton
opelmanta1900 Offline
#23 Posted: Tue, Aug 29 2017, 4:11 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
An informative leaflet bombing... I'd like to see it tried... bomb the people with truth... then see if they want to rise up against their god... might accomplish nothing... then again, if they're frustrated enough with him, maybe they'll gadaffi his ass...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#24 Posted: Tue, Aug 29 2017, 4:14 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
MACS wrote:
No, fatty thinks China is gonna save his ass.

And he thinks South Korea will talk us out of a fight, because they don't want none. His problem is, he effed with Japan... and I think even they could whoop his ass.

What can he offer China? I've wondered why they like him... or tolerate him I guess... he can't have that much money... do they have some oil deposits or rare natural resources?
MACS Offline
#25 Posted: Tue, Aug 29 2017, 4:48 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,741
China props them up, as a communist ally. They account for the majority of the trade NK does. None of our sanctions have worked because China still trades with them, buying their coal... and forced labor.
TMCTLT Offline
#26 Posted: Tue, Aug 29 2017, 5:35 PM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
MACS wrote:
China props them up, as a communist ally. They account for the majority of the trade NK does. None of our sanctions have worked because China still trades with them, buying their coal... and forced labor.



Yessir, why we EVER thought it a good idea to conduct business with commie china is beyond me.
ducati996 Offline
#27 Posted: Tue, Aug 29 2017, 6:03 PM EST
Joined: 01-02-2000
Posts: 3,475
frankj1 wrote:
his is a fourth world country.
Finland could whip his ass.


Doesn't North Korea have a 1,000,000 man army, possessing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons?

Aren't there 14,000,000 people within range of these weapons?

BTW, Finland only has 160 battle tanks and 90% of their army are reservists.... Anxious
DrafterX Offline
#28 Posted: Tue, Aug 29 2017, 6:16 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
NK supposedly is sitting on a bunch of natural resources.. never figured out why they don't mine them... You'd think China would be happy to extract that stuff.. Mellow
delta1 Offline
#29 Posted: Tue, Aug 29 2017, 6:17 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,772
opelmanta1900 wrote:
What can he offer China? I've wondered why they like him... or tolerate him I guess... he can't have that much money... do they have some oil deposits or rare natural resources?


With KJU in power, he can control the country's 25.5 million plus population. China fears that if there is instability in North Korea, or a military conflict breaks out, the majority of the North Korean people will head north, into China. The number of NK refugees would be several million immediately and ten million plus over a short period of time: an exodus so severe that even a country as large and wealthy as China would not be able to handle it
frankj1 Offline
#30 Posted: Tue, Aug 29 2017, 6:34 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
they cut the coal down to nearly zero...
frankj1 Offline
#31 Posted: Tue, Aug 29 2017, 6:41 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
ducati996 wrote:
Doesn't North Korea have a 1,000,000 man army, possessing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons?

Aren't there 14,000,000 people within range of these weapons?

BTW, Finland only has 160 battle tanks and 90% of their army are reservists.... Anxious

I admit I picked Finland randomly.

would you believe Chad? Belize?

Fatso might be a lunatic, I'd say probably...but I am amazed that so many who don't trust any news media spouting negative stuff about the sides they prefer still believe they know the real truth about him.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#32 Posted: Tue, Aug 29 2017, 6:54 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Cuz we all watched The Interview... don't hate us cuz you ain't us Frank...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#33 Posted: Tue, Aug 29 2017, 6:55 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Every single person I've forced to watch that movie against their wishes has come over and watched it with me voluntarily a second time... worth watching...
robo60 Offline
#34 Posted: Tue, Aug 29 2017, 10:30 PM EST
Joined: 07-28-2016
Posts: 112
Finland bloodied Russia's nose real good in WW2. Prolly cuz of the deep snow and frozen booby trapped lakes the Russian tanks would sink to the bottom. Just sayin'.
teedubbya Offline
#35 Posted: Tue, Aug 29 2017, 10:52 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
North Korea did pretty well against us before as did Vietnam. We can't completely finish off Afghanistan for some of the same reasons. I'm not really itching for a fight no matter how easy we say it will be before getting bogged down for decades.
frankj1 Offline
#36 Posted: Wed, Aug 30 2017, 7:47 AM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
teedubbya wrote:
North Korea did pretty well against us before as did Vietnam. We can't completely finish off Afghanistan for some of the same reasons. I'm not really itching for a fight no matter how easy we say it will be before getting bogged down for decades.

so I've been kidding around, unsuccessfully, but basically agree with you.
Brewha Offline
#37 Posted: Wed, Aug 30 2017, 10:12 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,161
teedubbya wrote:
North Korea did pretty well against us before as did Vietnam. We can't completely finish off Afghanistan for some of the same reasons. I'm not really itching for a fight no matter how easy we say it will be before getting bogged down for decades.

Not bogged down - no, not at all.

The goal is to have a sustained conflict. It has been that way all the years that I have been around...
TMCTLT Offline
#38 Posted: Wed, Aug 30 2017, 10:26 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
teedubbya wrote:
North Korea did pretty well against us before as did Vietnam. We can't completely finish off Afghanistan for some of the same reasons. I'm not really itching for a fight no matter how easy we say it will be before getting bogged down for decades.




I think those reasons are a lack of willingness to " untie our military branches hands " I truly believe if civilian loss of life wasn't front and center in the conversation, we'd dominate virtually any and every military opponent.

Does anyone here believe for one minute that if war was brought to OUR shores that the " enemy " would tie their fighting forces hands by always accounting for loss of civilian life??? I DO NOT
teedubbya Offline
#39 Posted: Wed, Aug 30 2017, 11:00 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I think it's easy to win the immediate battles using brute force. I think from there is where you get bogged down. Asymmetrical warfare and home field advantage (including not only terrain, but culture and fear of the invaders) are pretty tough to over come by invading forces from across the globe. It's nothing new. It's why we beat the British to some extent. You can be advanced as you like, but there are rudimentary tactics that are difficult to overcome. Time is an enemy and getting your victory to stick is difficult.

The same would be true if someone attacked us today. They could be as brutal as they choose and even if bombed to **** and beaten militarily I like to think we'd resist using similar tactics and never give in especially if the conquerors do not share or value our culture. As soft as I think we have gotten, there are still old ladies with guns that can take one out LOL. (yes I do believe they would be brutal and unrestrained).

The Russians were not exactly kind to the afghans. They were not restrained. But that didn't change the quagmire they got in.

For some reason folks always think it will be so easy because of our truly dominant military, and all we need to do is unleash them more. But it never is true (other than the initial battle), it is a fantasy.

If we need to bomb the crap out of someplace or something fine. If it takes specialized troops to root things out and target things fine. But I am not for getting into another quagmire because this time we will try harder or take off the gloves. I just don't buy that premise.

That said, we can't let NK just develop rockets and nukes until they can nuke Omaha. We must do something.


By they way.... kudos to Trump. I really like Nikki Haley and think she is doing an excellent job.
Gene363 Offline
#40 Posted: Wed, Aug 30 2017, 11:44 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,796
teedubbya wrote:
I think it's easy to win the immediate battles using brute force. I think from there is where you get bogged down. Asymmetrical warfare and home field advantage (including not only terrain, but culture and fear of the invaders) are pretty tough to over come by invading forces from across the globe. It's nothing new. It's why we beat the British to some extent. You can be advanced as you like, but there are rudimentary tactics that are difficult to overcome. Time is an enemy and getting your victory to stick is difficult.

The same would be true if someone attacked us today. They could be as brutal as they choose and even if bombed to **** and beaten militarily I like to think we'd resist using similar tactics and never give in especially if the conquerors do not share or value our culture. As soft as I think we have gotten, there are still old ladies with guns that can take one out LOL. (yes I do believe they would be brutal and unrestrained).

The Russians were not exactly kind to the afghans. They were not restrained. But that didn't change the quagmire they got in.

For some reason folks always think it will be so easy because of our truly dominant military, and all we need to do is unleash them more. But it never is true (other than the initial battle), it is a fantasy.

If we need to bomb the crap out of someplace or something fine. If it takes specialized troops to root things out and target things fine. But I am not for getting into another quagmire because this time we will try harder or take off the gloves. I just don't buy that premise.

That said, we can't let NK just develop rockets and nukes until they can nuke Omaha. We must do something.


By they way.... kudos to Trump. I really like Nikki Haley and think she is doing an excellent job.



+1 Though in the case of NK, dropping sandwiches and candy bars might get most of the forces to defect to the South.

One thing that might help, secret talks between South Korea and China about trade and cooperation to avert Chinese fears of a North Korean refugee invasion. The Chinese might, 'encourage' the regime replacement in North Korea.

One this for sure, NK is not going to stop missile development, we need to hack one to have it land in China. Sickquot;
DrafterX Offline
#41 Posted: Wed, Aug 30 2017, 12:09 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
Or have it land in Iran... That would be interesting... Mellow
teedubbya Offline
#42 Posted: Wed, Aug 30 2017, 12:10 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Actually if a few of them just spontaneously blew before take off.... the nuke ones that is
TMCTLT Offline
#43 Posted: Wed, Aug 30 2017, 12:13 PM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
teedubbya wrote:
Actually if a few of them just spontaneously blew before take off.... the nuke ones that is



Beer
DrafterX Offline
#44 Posted: Wed, Aug 30 2017, 12:24 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
teedubbya wrote:
Actually if a few of them just spontaneously blew before take off.... the nuke ones that is



North Koreans or missiles.?? Huh
.
RMAN4443 Offline
#45 Posted: Wed, Aug 30 2017, 12:38 PM EST
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
TMCTLT wrote:
I think those reasons are a lack of willingness to " untie our military branches hands " I truly believe if civilian loss of life wasn't front and center in the conversation, we'd dominate virtually any and every military opponent.

Does anyone here believe for one minute that if war was brought to OUR shores that the " enemy " would tie their fighting forces hands by always accounting for loss of civilian life??? I DO NOT

If war came to our shores the attacking enemy would be facing the most well armed country in the world.The FBI estimates there are over 200 million privately owned guns in this country......not including guns owned by military and law enforcement personnel.


Some recent estimates:

A 2011 Gallup poll estimates that 47 percent of US households own a gun.
A 2007 Small Arms Survey estimates there are 88.7 guns per 100 Americans (#1 in the world for guns per capita)
A 2010 estimate from the NRA states "Privately owned firearms in the U.S.: Approaching 300 million, including nearly 100 million handguns. The number of firearms rises over 4 million annually."
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states.......this is a breakdown of guns in the US as of 2014....you can search google for more recent #s
Any enemy combatants to attack our shores would not only face a well trained and well armed military,but also the most well armed civilian population in the world.
Just on this forum,how many gun owners?How many guns per gun owner?.......do the mathThink
Gene363 Offline
#46 Posted: Wed, Aug 30 2017, 12:42 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,796
DrafterX wrote:
Or have it land in Iran... That would be interesting... Mellow


Perfect!
Gene363 Offline
#47 Posted: Wed, Aug 30 2017, 12:43 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,796
DrafterX wrote:
North Koreans or missiles.?? Huh
.


Yes! Beer
Gene363 Offline
#48 Posted: Wed, Aug 30 2017, 12:44 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,796
RMAN4443 wrote:
If war came to our shores the attacking enemy would be facing the most well armed country in the world.The FBI estimates there are over 200 million privately owned guns in this country......not including guns owned by military and law enforcement personnel.


Some recent estimates:

A 2011 Gallup poll estimates that 47 percent of US households own a gun.
A 2007 Small Arms Survey estimates there are 88.7 guns per 100 Americans (#1 in the world for guns per capita)
A 2010 estimate from the NRA states "Privately owned firearms in the U.S.: Approaching 300 million, including nearly 100 million handguns. The number of firearms rises over 4 million annually."
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states.......this is a breakdown of guns in the US as of 2014....you can search google for more recent #s
Any enemy combatants to attack our shores would not only face a well trained and well armed military,but also the most well armed civilian population in the world.
Just on this forum,how many gun owners?How many guns per gun owner?.......do the mathThink


And some might just have enough vital supplies to equip a neighborhood army, I'm just saying. Not talking
bgz Offline
#49 Posted: Wed, Aug 30 2017, 3:08 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
I couldn't arm my neighbors, I only have 2.

But knowing some of my neighbors, they have enough to compensate for my inadequacies.
victor809 Offline
#50 Posted: Wed, Aug 30 2017, 3:28 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
... you know how well hung your neighbors are? Huh... kinky
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Back to Top