Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Nth Korea cuts Military Hotline to Sth Korea

north korea; south korea;

  • Please log in to reply
187 replies to this topic

#91    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 06 April 2013 - 03:34 PM

View PostStellar, on 06 April 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

Because their government is chosing to do that. When their government keeps the food they do get from the civilian population and stock it up for their military, that's the NKs decision, not the USs. That means, it's the NKs fault their civilians are dying, not the USs.

I never said it's the US's fault solely... Not once. I specifically stated loads int his thread and others thta it doesn't help. :whistle:

View PostStellar, on 06 April 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

Oh, really?

Oh wow completely twisting what I said there.

It's BLATENTLY OBVIOUS I never mean in all cases or in general I was tlaking specifically about NK, where in fact they could just wipe NK out with drones. That's jsut common sense. My point there was about the US being way ahead in tech compared to NK and it will just be a slaughter....

My "lol" made that even more obvious.

View PostStellar, on 06 April 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

The US trained for Iraq in desert areas. Iraq trained for the defense of Iraq in the terrain they would defend it on. SK is training to defend SK by, shockingly, training in the area they will be defending. It is perfectly within their right.


"Will be"... There is the mistake. That's saying ther eis a war coming, and thta is exactly how NK sees it.

Never said SK shouldn't anyway, it's their land. I'm tlaking about US forces.

Also US forces did not trian in the Iraqi dessert, thye trianed in A dessert... Huge difference. US forces could trian in similar terrain int he US or in the south of SK.

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 06 April 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

So the SK armed forces should go to the US to train just so that they don't annoy their deranged neighbour? isn't that rather handing victory to the silly little man on a plate; "the Imperialist Dogs are afraid of the Glorious People's Democratic Army, and have been driven from their own land without a shot being fired, praise be to the Dear leader!"?

Never menationed SK forces alone.....

I was talking about US forces.


View PostThe New Richard Nixon, on 06 April 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

The British train in the Falklands I dont see you moan about that

Never spoken about it or been in a thread where it was mentioned..... So that's invalid.

Edited by Coffey, 06 April 2013 - 03:35 PM.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#92    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,868 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 06 April 2013 - 03:54 PM

View PostCoffey, on 06 April 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

I never said it's the US's fault solely... Not once. I specifically stated loads int his thread and others thta it doesn't help. :whistle:

No, but I'm saying its not the USs fault at all.

Quote


Oh wow completely twisting what I said there.

It's BLATENTLY OBVIOUS I never mean in all cases or in general I was tlaking specifically about NK, where in fact they could just wipe NK out with drones. That's jsut common sense. My point there was about the US being way ahead in tech compared to NK and it will just be a slaughter....

Exactly. You are saying at the army and airforce is not necessary to fight NK, because drones alone could win. That is quite frankly wrong and naïve. Drones can not do that.



Quote

"Will be"... There is the mistake. That's saying ther eis a war coming, and thta is exactly how NK sees it.

Yes! Will be! If NK attacks the south, SK will be defending their country. Do you know which of the 2 parties are saying there "will be" a war? The North is, because they're literally saying there will be a war.

Quote

Never said SK shouldn't anyway, it's their land. I'm tlaking about US forces.

US forces are training with SK! How on Earth do you expect US and SK to train together if SK is training in their country, and the US can't be in the same location?

Quote

Also US forces did not trian in the Iraqi dessert, thye trianed in A dessert... Huge difference. US forces could trian in similar terrain int he US or in the south of SK.

They did not train in the Iraqi desert because Iraq had not yet been invaded! The point is that you train on terrain that's as close as possible to the terrain you'll be operating on. In SKs case, that is their own country.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#93    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 06 April 2013 - 04:06 PM

View PostStellar, on 06 April 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

No, but I'm saying its not the USs fault at all.

They ARE making the situation worse whatever your opinion is. Common sense....

View PostStellar, on 06 April 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

Exactly. You are saying at the army and airforce is not necessary to fight NK, because drones alone could win. That is quite frankly wrong and naïve. Drones can not do that.

Yes they could actually... very easily. If they equiped SK with drones and used drones int he region the US could obliterate the NK army. A drone can carry strategic nuclear weapons.... lol



View PostStellar, on 06 April 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

Yes! Will be! If NK attacks the south, SK will be defending their country. Do you know which of the 2 parties are saying there "will be" a war? The North is, because they're literally saying there will be a war.

Yes... BECAUSE of the trianing etc.. lol

View PostStellar, on 06 April 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

US forces are training with SK! How on Earth do you expect US and SK to train together if SK is training in their country, and the US can't be in the same location?

Just do it further Sotuh as I said thousands of times... Just not make a bid deal out of it and shove it in NK's face... Which they did. How is this not obvious?!

View PostStellar, on 06 April 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

They did not train in the Iraqi desert because Iraq had not yet been invaded! The point is that you train on terrain that's as close as possible to the terrain you'll be operating on. In SKs case, that is their own country.

Again, I never said SK shouldn't... I said the US being there is the problem...

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#94    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,868 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 06 April 2013 - 04:17 PM

View PostCoffey, on 06 April 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:



They ARE making the situation worse whatever your opinion is. Common sense....

That is nothing but your opinion. Mine is that inaction would make the situation worse.

Quote


Yes they could actually... very easily. If they equiped SK with drones and used drones int he region the US could obliterate the NK army. A drone can carry strategic nuclear weapons.... lol


Drones can only operate effectively when you have air superiority... Something that will not happen without an air force. Furthermore, drones would not be able to contend with the enormity of the NK army. Fact.

And which drones carry nuclear weapons? Care to show me?

Like I said. Naive.


Quote

Yes... BECAUSE of the trianing etc.. lol

Training to defend their country will cause them to get invaded? So, in the face of a country threatening to destroy them, you suggest they don't prepare their military? What was it you said about common sense?

Quote

Just do it further Sotuh as I said thousands of times... Just not make a bid deal out of it and shove it in NK's face... Which they did. How is this not obvious?!

The exercises take place all over the country. Part of the SKs defense, a large part Infact, relies on them defending the border. It's purely stupid to do as you suggest, and would result in SK being illprepared if an invasion did occur. And they're not making a big deal out of it. NK is making a big deal out of it.


Quote

Again, I never said SK shouldn't... I said the US being there is the problem...

Yeah, we'll, SK wants the US there, and my opinion is that the USs presence is a deterrent and a good idea.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#95    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Mainly Spherical in Shape

  • Member
  • 25,100 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:there

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 06 April 2013 - 04:29 PM

View PostThe New Richard Nixon, on 06 April 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

The British train in the Falklands I dont see you moan about that
were you talking to me or to Coffey?

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#96    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,397 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 06 April 2013 - 04:31 PM

By the logic of some of what I read above, we have a situation where a man is threatening his wife and children, so the police come and they restrain the man, so he threatens to kill them.  The police are at fault.


#97    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Mainly Spherical in Shape

  • Member
  • 25,100 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:there

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 06 April 2013 - 04:34 PM

There might also be an analogy with 1939-40, when, again by this logic, it was the presence of British troops in France that provoked Hitler to invade.
:unsure2:

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#98    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,397 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 06 April 2013 - 04:52 PM

Oh dear let us be ever so careful to never "provoke" a brutal dictator.


#99    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 06 April 2013 - 05:36 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 06 April 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

By the logic of some of what I read above, we have a situation where a man is threatening his wife and children, so the police come and they restrain the man, so he threatens to kill them.  The police are at fault.

Wrong. I never said anythign like that.

The Man is threatening another man because his wife and children are starving, then instead of helping said man, they parade thier strength in front of them and block all food form going to his family. Absolutely nothing like what you said.

View PostFrank Merton, on 06 April 2013 - 04:52 PM, said:

Oh dear let us be ever so careful to never "provoke" a brutal dictator.

Not what I am saying at all. lol

I'm making the point thta they knew he was nuts, then they are suprised that he threatens them with nukes (AGAIN) when they flex their muscles in his face. That is my point.

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 06 April 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

There might also be an analogy with 1939-40, when, again by this logic, it was the presence of British troops in France that provoked Hitler to invade.
:unsure2:

No we didn't play stupid games back then like thye do now.


Not replying to this thread anymore though, those who disagree with my comments twist what I say and I'm actually replying just to point that out 80% of the time and it's irritating. What I said was obvious.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#100    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Mainly Spherical in Shape

  • Member
  • 25,100 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:there

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 06 April 2013 - 07:00 PM

View PostCoffey, on 06 April 2013 - 05:36 PM, said:


No we didn't play stupid games back then like thye do now.



if they had, perhaps he might not have thought that Britain would cave in as easily as he thought it would.

Edited by Colonel Rhuairidh, 06 April 2013 - 07:00 PM.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#101    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 06 April 2013 - 07:16 PM

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 06 April 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

if they had, perhaps he might not have thought that Britain would cave in as easily as he thought it would.


Not at all, it would have angered him, Hitler like most psychotic nutjobs holds on to grudges and insults. That was made obvious by the signing of France's surrender. He set the whole thing up to be like WW1 as he wanted revenge.

Hitler didn't hold a grudge with the UK for a long time, in fact he hoped the UK would have joined him. Luckily we didn't.

These man child nutjobs can't stand being made to look stupid or having others show their capabilities. That's the stuff that drives them to do their worst.

You don't back a wild animal into a corner if you want to tame it.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#102    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,970 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 06 April 2013 - 07:20 PM

View PostCoffey, on 06 April 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

They ARE making the situation worse whatever your opinion is. Common sense....



Yes they could actually... very easily. If they equiped SK with drones and used drones int he region the US could obliterate the NK army. A drone can carry strategic nuclear weapons.... lol





Yes... BECAUSE of the trianing etc.. lol



Just do it further Sotuh as I said thousands of times... Just not make a bid deal out of it and shove it in NK's face... Which they did. How is this not obvious?!



Again, I never said SK shouldn't... I said the US being there is the problem...
Drones might carry tactical nukes - but they'd still be NUKES for goodness sakes..
Here's the difference - and no, I'm not trying to be insulting just informative for those who don't know:
A tactical nuclear weapon (or TNW) refers to a nuclear weapon which is designed to be used on a battlefield in military situations. This is as opposed to strategic nuclear weapons which are designed to menace large populations, to damage the enemy's ability to wage war, or for general deterrence. Tactical nuclear weapons were a large part of the peak nuclear weapons stockpile levels during the Cold

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#103    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 06 April 2013 - 07:24 PM

View Postand then, on 06 April 2013 - 07:20 PM, said:

Drones might carry tactical nukes - but they'd still be NUKES for goodness sakes..
Here's the difference - and no, I'm not trying to be insulting just informative for those who don't know:
A tactical nuclear weapon (or TNW) refers to a nuclear weapon which is designed to be used on a battlefield in military situations. This is as opposed to strategic nuclear weapons which are designed to menace large populations, to damage the enemy's ability to wage war, or for general deterrence. Tactical nuclear weapons were a large part of the peak nuclear weapons stockpile levels during the Cold

I never said they would use them or should.

I was specifically pointing out that drones can carry that payload so arming them with a lesser payload that can be used to wipe out the NK forces without troop support would not be difficult.

I know all about the differences and different payloads etc.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#104    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Mainly Spherical in Shape

  • Member
  • 25,100 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:there

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 06 April 2013 - 07:31 PM

View PostCoffey, on 06 April 2013 - 07:16 PM, said:

Not at all, it would have angered him, Hitler like most psychotic nutjobs holds on to grudges and insults. That was made obvious by the signing of France's surrender. He set the whole thing up to be like WW1 as he wanted revenge.

Hitler didn't hold a grudge with the UK for a long time, in fact he hoped the UK would have joined him. Luckily we didn't.

That's what I mean. he didn't take Chamberlain seriously, did he, but if Chamberlain hadn't decided to do all he could not to antagonise him, it might not have made AH so confident to go to war when he did.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#105    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 06 April 2013 - 08:10 PM

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 06 April 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

That's what I mean. he didn't take Chamberlain seriously, did he, but if Chamberlain hadn't decided to do all he could not to antagonise him, it might not have made AH so confident to go to war when he did.


That's the same with NK then... If the US didn't antagonise NK then maybe NK would be as blood thursty with nukes etc.

When we did go for AH he gave us hell.

I rekcon if we tried these games the US is playing on NK, on AH... He would have held of going for Stalin and we would have been royally *****ed. You can praise the UK and US airforce as much as you want, we would have got blitzed if most of Hitlers army wasn't sent East to go for Stalin. Not a lot of people realise that. We got the easy side and struggled more with it.

We owe a lot to the Russians, unlike the media propaganda we always here about with the US being the heroes.

Edited by Coffey, 06 April 2013 - 08:10 PM.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users