[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions This Speech Just Broke the Internet This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God! The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’ The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross History and Beliefs of the Waldensians Status: Not Logged In; Sign In WORLD WAR III See other WORLD WAR III Articles Title: Grim cost predicted in effort to destroy North Korea's nukes Source: Yahoo News / Associated Press URL Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/grim-cos ... nukes-033721436--politics.html Published: Nov 5, 2017 Author: AP Post Date: 2017-11-05 19:11:41 by A Pole Keywords: war, Korea, China Views: 678 Comments: 16 The only way to locate and destroy with complete certainty all components of North Korea's nuclear weapons program is through a ground invasion. That blunt assessment from the Pentagon is in response to a letter from two Democratic congressmen asking about casualty assessments in a conflict with North Korea. Rear Adm. Michael J. Dumont of the Joint Staff offered the assessment in response to a letter from Reps. Ted Lieu of California and Ruben Gallego of Arizona. [...] In a joint statement issued Saturday, 15 Democratic lawmakers and one Republican— all military veterans — called the assessment that a ground invasion would be required to destroy the North's nuclear arsenal "deeply disturbing" and that such an action "could result in hundreds of thousands, or even millions of deaths in just the first few days of fighting." "It is our intent to have a full public accounting of the potential cost of war, so the American people understand the commitment we would be making as a nation if we were to pursue military action," the lawmakers said. [...] They also said the Trump administration "has failed to articulate any plans to prevent the military conflict from expanding beyond the Korean Peninsula and to manage what happens after the conflict is over." [...] Click for Full Text! Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: A Pole (#0) here we go again, a preemptive strike because Kim has WMD, but this time he really has WMD. Kim is not a paper tiger like Saddam. It is time to change tack and stop talking about invasion and war. The NK are paranoid, the USA is paranoid and all this talk is just feeding the paranoia. The US has learned to live with China having WMD, with India having WMD, with Pakistan having WMD, they just might have to live with Kim having WMD. Anyway Kim's nuclear test site is a mess so the problem may be solving itself paraclete  posted on  2017-11-05   21:52:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: paraclete, Vicomte13, Tooconservative, sneakypete (#1) "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it"?: [...] In 1950 "China was still not prepared for an invasion. One example would be that the CCP started a large campaign of demobilisation of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) five days before the outbreak of conflict, in which 1.4 million of the PLA were supposed to be demobilised. As a result, the border area near the Yalu River was left with only one army which was stationed there for crop production purposes. At the same time, the domestic situation, especially the economic one, was not favourable for an intervention. Agricultural production fell by 40 per cent compared to the pre-civil war years, while major industrial outputs fell by more than 50 per cent. Moreover, the military expenditure was cut, together with the large campaign of demobilisation mentioned above. It was estimated that less than 10 per cent of the budget was allocated for the militaries in the Northeast region in 1950. With other problems including a high inflation rate and remaining anti-Communist forces of local ‘bandits’ which sought to establish their own authorities and KMT agents, the situation seemed highly unfavourable for armed intervention. In fact, at the initial stage, China took a passive response to the situation in North Korea." [...] On June 27, the U.S. Seventh Fleet was sent to the Taiwan Strait to ‘neutralise’ the situation. On the same day, President Truman announced air and naval support for South Korea. These movements lead the Chinese leaders to reassess American intentions towards China and redeploy some of its troops to the Northern border. But the debate on whether to send troops across the border still continued in the Politburo. The second and third events are the Inchon landing on September 15 and the U.S. troops’ crossing of 38th parallel on September 25. The former event, according to the explanations found in much of the literature, endangered China’s security interests and threatened the security of the Chinese mainland directly. China quickly mobilised troops and resources in preparation for possible escalation, and issued its warning through Indian ambassador Kavalam Madhava Panikkar that China would intervene in the war if the American troops entered North Korea. [...] The deteriorating economic situation [in China] and weak military power could hardly support such an intervention, and the unstable political situation at home required relatively high resources to be deployed domestically. Moreover, China had at the time an important security guarantee from the Soviet Union which theoretically could reduce the need to intervene. The Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance, which was signed in February 1950 and stated that ‘all-out’ support would be provided by the Soviet Union if China was involved in military confrontations with the so-called imperialist countries, served as a clear insurance of security of mainland China. The security treaty therefore greatly reduced the possibility of an American invasion. As a result, staying out of the war seemed to be a cheap and secure alternative for Beijing besides sending its troops to assist Kim, especially given the fact that Beijing had great faith and confidence of the reliability of such strategic alliance and the treaty. [...] it is necessary to look at the role the Soviet Union played in Chinese strategic considerations. As the tension in the Korean peninsula escalated, Stalin became more cautious in avoiding direct confrontation with the United States and refused to send troops to Korea. Instead, he encouraged the Chinese to send their armies to assist the North and promised, according to the alliance treaty mentioned above, to support China with military equipment and air force cover for Chinese troops in Korea and to defend Chinese borders.13 Beijing considered the Soviet support crucial to China’s intervention. Mao specifically sent Premier Zhou Enlai to Moscow to discuss the Soviet support and made the decision to intervene only after such assurance was made. ... after learning that the Soviet Union would not provide air support at the initial stage ... Beijing still proceeded in the absence of the important Soviet air support. [...] In a telegram to Zhou [Enlai], explaining the necessity to intervene, Mao emphasised that if the U.S. proceeded near the border ‘all the North-eastern border defence forces will be absorbed’. Zhou later also implicitly expressed his worries that there would be not enough troops to guard the ‘one thousand kilometres’ of borders if the Americans occupied North Korea. Such concerns imply that the leaders in Beijing were deeply worried about the fact that once American troops were stationed in the border region, China would be forced to focus most of its troops and resources on the North-eastern border region. This would be both fiscally expensive and politically dangerous. On the one hand, the Northeast region contains the main economic resources including steel, coal and hydropower to support the economic reconstruction and recovery for most of China. As Zhou points out that if the U.S. troops proceeded to the Yalu River, industries (especially heavy industries) would be ‘within range of enemy bombers’ and it was impossible to have ‘the peace of mind to go about production’. With resources and heavy industries under threat, the economic production and reconstruction would be severely constrained. Furthermore, the troops were forced to deploy troops around the border lines, the CCP would have limited military resources. [...] Influenced by the traditional Chinese strategic culture of regarding crisis (weiji) as constituted by both danger (wei) and opportunity (ji), the outbreak of crisis in Korea was seen by the CCP as both a challenge and a rare opportunity for the CCP [...] It was obvious that leaders in Beijing, especially Mao, were deeply worried about the possible impact of a U.S. victory over North Korea on domestic anti-Communist forces. In his telegram to Zhou, Mao mentioned that allowing the U.S. to press to the border would allow the growing of arrogance of ‘reactionaries at home’, and would be ‘disadvantageous’ not only to China. [...] By sending troops to combat the U.S. forces and prevent their arrival at the border regions, the CCP leaders hoped that it can ‘beat the arrogance’ of both the U.S. abroad and the reactionary forces at home. In doing so the CCP could increase its strength on anti-sabotage campaigns as well as domestic reconstruction, and hence consolidated its authorities. In this sense, the intervention in Korea served as an important move to prevent the enemy from ‘fanning counterrevolution sentiments’ in China to threaten its domestic unity and security. Another aspect of domestic consideration is the CCP’s desire and need to gain wider support among the public by successfully managing the Korean crisis. [...] The CCP also realised that the Korean crisis was an opportunity to ‘mobilise the masses’ and to ‘inspire the comrades-in-arms’. [...] By sending its troops to assist the North Koreans in countering what they saw as ‘imperialist’ invasion, the CCP could decrease the morale of domestic anti-Communist forces on the one hand, and strengthen its legitimacy and authority by showing to the public its dedication to defend national sovereignty and Communism and fight against imperialism (which were the objectives the CCP had always stressed on before coming to power) [...] [Mao] responded to those who were against intervention in the Politburo by saying ‘once another nation is in a crisis, we’d feel bad if we stood idly by’. On the other hand, Mao and the CCP leaders had been long aware of Washington’s hostility towards China, and believed that the confrontation between communist China and capitalist United States was inevitable. In the official propagandas, the CCP leaders repeatedly emphasised that the United States was China’s enemy, from both the historical perspective (that the U.S. was one of the leading nations to exploit China) and the current perspective (that the capitalist U.S. was the natural enemy of communist China). [...] This justification and emphasis of moral high ground can on the one hand persuade the majority of Politburo members who argued against intervention, and on the other hand mobilise the support from the population. On the other hand, it also explains why the CCP decided to intervene and not to choose to rely on the alliance treaty [with Soviet Russia]. [...] The main driving forces behind Beijing’s decision to intervene in Korea in 1950 were the ones of security concerns, domestic considerations and ideologies possessed by leaders of the CCP. The common explanations contend that China decided to intervene in Korea mainly because of the security consideration of possible U.S. invasion of Chinese territory. This paper argues that the security concern was not simply an invasion of Chinese sovereignty, because under the Sino-Soviet Alliance Treaty, China was guaranteed with an all-out Soviet support if it was invaded by other countries. As a country with its material power largely destroyed by the civil war and its military power far weaker than the United States, China’s intervention was extremely risky and brought a huge burden on its reconstruction projects. Therefore, the fact that China did not choose the alternative of relying on the Sino-Soviet Alliance Treaty and to stay outside of the war indicates that there are other factors influencing Beijing’s decision. [...] [One] factor is the domestic consideration of safeguarding and consolidating the CCP’s regime and authority. Beijing calculated that the intervention could boost domestic morale and help suppress the growing anti-Communist activities at home, and therefore strengthen the CCP’s authority and internal control, which was crucial to the CCP regime. [...] A Pole  posted on  2017-11-06   5:00:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: A Pole (#0) (Edited) The only way to locate and destroy with complete certainty all components of North Korea's nuclear weapons program is through a ground invasion. That blunt assessment from the Pentagon is in response to a letter from two Democratic congressmen asking about casualty assessments in a conflict with North Korea. No,that might be the STUPIDEST way,or the least effective way,but it's certainly not the most effective or life-conscious way. The best way to do it with the least expense in either money or human life is to organize and pay for a coup to depose him and execute him. They most likely asked some senior Army staff officer that has never heard a shot fired,and like a 8 year old boy with a hammer that sees everything as a nail,that SOB sees everything as a huge tactical military operation that will cover him in glory for his planning. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. sneakypete  posted on  2017-11-06   17:14:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: sneakypete (#3) The best way to do it with the least expense in either money or human life is to organize and pay for a coup to depose him and execute him. Perhaps. But they remeber how Americans destroyed all cities with carpet bombings and killed 1/4 of population. Imagine 70 million of Americans and all cities levelled down. The chance for Communist coup would be minimal. A Pole  posted on  2017-11-06   18:35:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: A Pole (#4) Perhaps. But they remeber how Americans destroyed all cities with carpet bombings and killed 1/4 of population. When was this? Wasn't it after THEY moved into South Korean and were executing women and children along the way? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. sneakypete  posted on  2017-11-07   0:37:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: sneakypete (#5) (Edited) "Perhaps. But they remeber how Americans destroyed all cities with carpet bombings and killed 1/4 of population." When was this? Wasn't it after THEY moved into South Korean and were executing women and children along the way? Yes, it was when anti-Japanese Communists were building their state in the north and Americans in south were carving a right wing regime based on Japanese collaborators and few long time expats. Remember, even after the armistice in 1953, the South was not a cuddly democracy. Either way, my point is - how the Koreans in the north who remember vividly their 1950s sufferings and almost genocide, feel about Trump threatening to "totally destroy North Korea" or that "North Korea will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen"? (PLEASE, understand me well, I want to focus on their perception, not on who is good or bad.) I am sure NK regime did not neglect to play those statements above, mixed with 1950s footage etc, (samples below), on TV in prime time for several days. This episode details the UN bombing campaign over North Korea and the results for the people on the ground. The majority of civillians killed in the Korean War were killed in North Korea by air attack. This segment on the bombing of North Korea was censored from the US version of this documentary. A Pole  posted on  2017-11-07   5:40:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: A Pole (#6) I am sure NK regime did not neglect to play those statements above, mixed with 1950s footage etc, (samples below), on TV in prime time for several days. I'm sure they did too,and I am also sure it means nothing because NK is a communist police state,and the people are their slaves. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. sneakypete  posted on  2017-11-09   8:59:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: sneakypete (#7) I'm sure they did too,and I am also sure it means nothing because NK is a communist police state,and the people are their slaves. It means a lot. It might mean that NK people will put a stiff resistance and fight back. Might ... A Pole  posted on  2017-11-09   17:47:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: A Pole, Y'ALL (#8) sneakypete (#5) (Edited --- When was this? Wasn't it after THEY moved into South Korean and were executing women and children along the way? Yes, it was when anti-Japanese Communists were building their state in the north and Americans in south were carving a right wing regime based on Japanese collaborators and few long time expats. Remember, even after the armistice in 1953, the South was not a cuddly democracy. --- Either way, my point is - how the Koreans in the north who remember vividly their 1950s sufferings and almost genocide, ---- A pole Are you trying to claim the NKoreans/Chinese weren't the aggressors, and didn't damn near win the war twice? Our bombing helped us to achieve an armistice, and the North deserved everything they got. tpaine  posted on  2017-11-09   18:37:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: tpaine (#9) Are you trying to claim the NKoreans/Chinese weren't the aggressors, and didn't damn near win the war twice? No. How the HELL did you come to that conclusion? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. sneakypete  posted on  2017-11-09   18:57:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: sneakypete (#10) Yes, it was when anti-Japanese Communists were building their state in the north and Americans in south were carving a right wing regime based on Japanese collaborators and few long time expats. Remember, even after the armistice in 1953, the South was not a cuddly democracy. --- Either way, my point is - how the Koreans in the north who remember vividly their 1950s sufferings and almost genocide, ---- A pole Are you trying to claim the NKoreans/Chinese weren't the aggressors, and didn't damn near win the war twice? Our bombing helped us to achieve an armistice, and the North deserved everything they got. I addressed that comment to what A Pole said If you're talking about 'twice'.. They had us cornered at first down south, when we could have lost, and again when the Chinese came over the border. --- It was close to being a rout in both instances, from what I've been told.. I served with quite a few Korean war combat vets, during 55/58, and that war was no cakewalk. tpaine  posted on  2017-11-09   19:19:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: tpaine (#9) Are you trying to claim the NKoreans/Chinese weren't the aggressors Indeed, they were invaders who came from China, Manchuria and Russia more than 2000 years ago. Why do you ask? A Pole  posted on  2017-11-10   4:22:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: tpaine (#11) Our bombing helped us to achieve an armistice, and the North deserved everything they got. Armistice was worth death of millions and horrible suffering for the rest? Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it. A Pole  posted on  2017-11-10   7:25:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: tpaine (#11) I addressed that comment to what A Pole said OK. Since you quoted me in the body of your reply,I was assuming you were addressing me. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. sneakypete  posted on  2017-11-10   7:45:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: A Pole (#13) Are you trying to claim the NKoreans/Chinese weren't the aggressors, and didn't damn near win the war twice? Our bombing helped us to achieve an armistice, and the North deserved everything they got. Armistice was worth death of millions and horrible suffering for the rest? --- A Pole Now you're trying to claim that without an armistice, if the North had won and taken over the South, millions wouldn't have died? You're bat shit crazy... Millions in the North have died anyway, of starvation, under commie rule tpaine  posted on  2017-11-11   13:19:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: tpaine (#15) Millions in the North have died anyway, of starvation, under commie rule Like in Poland, Yugoslavia, Cuba, etc ? A Pole  posted on  2017-11-11   19:49:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com