User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 1:57:18 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why are we attacking North Korea again? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 1:58:29 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't need to hit it with a nuke. They could sneek a sub in someplace close enough and pull the cord. Why do you all think a nuke needs to be air born to blow up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 1:59:57 PM EDT
[#3]
Everything North Korea is some manner of dong. Even their news services. "Rodong" Rod dong.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 2:04:37 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol I told them not to get to comfortable they might be going back soon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 2:14:11 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The biggest gross animal in NK is Kim I'm Fat himself..... You see it in every picture of him with his military leadership. They're expected to treat his every word as the words of god and jot them down If they didn't do so, they'd find themselves staked out on the ground with an incoming artillery shell with their name on it RE: submarines, it seems like I once read a story, Tom Clancey maybe?, where the enemy put a sub in place and then sent two other subs to get our attention.when our ships gave chase the subs led them into shooting range of the waiting sub. Plausible? If they could fit a nuke abord a sub and send it on a suicide mission, use minimum crew so as to maximize oxygen for submerged time. Hell, I dunno. I'm from Nebraska. I get nervous around bodies of water I can't wade across. Pretty sure about the pig farm thing though. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 2:21:43 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because they're pissin' us off. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why are we attacking North Korea again? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 2:25:34 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yet. Every rocket launch and nuclear test brings them one step closer to being a threat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm reading is NK poses no actual threat to america, then? Every rocket launch and nuclear test brings them one step closer to being a threat. So we should leave them alone. And we wonder why everyone hates us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 2:29:05 PM EDT
[#8]
If you get bored, read through some of the 2003 posts on the run up to the Iraq War and you can see the same language being used.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 2:31:14 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They will get their shit pushed in before they come close to the Jan Michael Vincent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 2:35:48 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you get bored, read through some of the 2003 posts on the run up to the Iraq War and you can see the same language being used. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 2:44:07 PM EDT
[#11]
I don't want a war. I really don't. But a very small part of me wishes this obnoxious little fucker would do something so we could go in there and deal with is ass once and for all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 2:45:18 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But they're not a threat, yet. So we should leave them alone. And we wonder why everyone hates us.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 2:47:31 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Kim is makin' a move. We have to get it on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 3:22:31 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But they're not a threat, yet. So we should leave them alone. And we wonder why everyone hates us. A nut job is actively progressing towards building a nuke capable of hitting us all while telling us and the world he plans to use it against us. Acting now before a mushroom cloud goes up on the West Coast would be stupid. Reactionary policies are best for national defense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 4:03:36 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There cannot be more than 2 Jan Michael Vincents to a quadrant! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They will get their shit pushed in before they come close to the Jan Michael Vincent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 4:05:52 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you get bored, read through some of the 2003 posts on the run up to the Iraq War and you can see the same language being used. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 4:08:30 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's what the lawn sprinklers are for. 
http://i.imgur.com/8IBoGYm.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/9b/f5/42/9bf5424a994a6e174baa1024f7dfbeb9.jpg I wonder what the crew would feel should a time ever come when those have to be used in combat knowing that measure will mostly protect the vessel and probably won't do much to save them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 4:12:31 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Midget subs can sit/crawl around submerged on battery, being pretty quiet while doing so. They have limited operational range and endurance, but can be used in littoral environments and choke points to get a few "sneak attack" torpedoes or mines off. Running their diesels would likely result in detection but that can be complicated by the presence of other fishing vessels etc. in the area, which would intentionally be there just for that reason. Their small size also makes them harder to detect on active sonar in shallow water. If you have enough of them out there, it's certainly possible to some damage to a naval force that is technologically and numerically superior. It's like the guerilla warfare of the sea. That's not to say that I think they're going to sink 7th Fleet or anything, just that they do pose a threat, in some circumstances, to an extent. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If they can hit it. Why didn't the South Korean ship respond before hit? If their subs are not quiet wouldn't the SK ship respond? Or do SK ships suck? Really would like to know. If you have enough of them out there, it's certainly possible to some damage to a naval force that is technologically and numerically superior. It's like the guerilla warfare of the sea. That's not to say that I think they're going to sink 7th Fleet or anything, just that they do pose a threat, in some circumstances, to an extent. Thanks for the response. I know we sunk one of our carriers years ago to test how it's vulnerabilities can sink it and of course they'll ever disclose it but what could a modern NK torpedo do to a modern CVN? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 4:29:36 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're totally right. A nut job is actively progressing towards building a nuke capable of hitting us all while telling us and the world he plans to use it against us. Acting now before a mushroom cloud goes up on the West Coast would be stupid. Reactionary policies are best for national defense. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
But they're not a threat, yet. So we should leave them alone. And we wonder why everyone hates us. A nut job is actively progressing towards building a nuke capable of hitting us all while telling us and the world he plans to use it against us. Acting now before a mushroom cloud goes up on the West Coast would be stupid. Reactionary policies are best for national defense. Doesn't mean they will be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 4:35:44 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While you're at it. Lets just kill everyone. Fuck'em. Every single man, woman, and child is capable of being a threat. Doesn't mean they will be.
Well if their open ambition is the pursuit or weapons of mass destruction with the intention of using them to hold the world hostage I would agree. Kill them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 4:37:45 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While you're at it. Lets just kill everyone. Fuck'em. Every single man, woman, and child is capable of being a threat. Doesn't mean they will be. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But they're not a threat, yet. So we should leave them alone. And we wonder why everyone hates us. A nut job is actively progressing towards building a nuke capable of hitting us all while telling us and the world he plans to use it against us. Acting now before a mushroom cloud goes up on the West Coast would be stupid. Reactionary policies are best for national defense. Doesn't mean they will be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 4:41:04 PM EDT
[#22]
Everyone laughs but they are a threat.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 4:45:58 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's what the lawn sprinklers are for.
http://i.imgur.com/8IBoGYm.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/9b/f5/42/9bf5424a994a6e174baa1024f7dfbeb9.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 4:50:46 PM EDT
[#24]
the analysis of foreign events and issues from GD never fails to entertain.
Stick to talking about trannies and AntiFa |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 4:52:50 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought those were in case John McCain decided to come on board. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 4:55:46 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't get it. Here in the states, if you shoot someone in the face who is doing nothing but talking shit, you get charged with murder. If the government does it, they're looking out for national interests or whatever the party line is nowadays. The only ethical use of force is in defense of life. So if your neighbor builds an illegal firing range in his back yard and uses pictures of your family as targets, then announces to all of your neighbors that you're a bad man and if you look at him funny he'll "defend himself", and then you find him in your front yard with a gun, watchu gun do? When the cops (aka UN) say "Sorry, nothing we can do, he's a friend of the chief." what's next? In real life - not the narrow little utopia you think the world should be - when someone makes overt threats of death or injury to another and those threats are credible, then responding with force is both legal and moral. The same is true between nation states. We are under no ethical obligation to ignore Best Korea, their threats, nor the threats to our allies and strategic national security interests. Now crawl back under your isolationist rock with Rand Paul's latest newsletter and let the grown ups handle the real world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:08:56 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Really? So if your neighbor builds an illegal firing range in his back yard and uses pictures of your family as targets, then announces to all of your neighbors that you're a bad man and if you look at him funny he'll "defend himself", and then you find him in your front yard with a gun, watchu gun do? When the cops (aka UN) say "Sorry, nothing we can do, he's a friend of the chief." what's next? In real life - not the narrow little utopia you think the world should be - when someone makes overt threats of death or injury to another and those threats are credible, then responding with force is both legal and moral. The same is true between nation states. We are under no ethical obligation to ignore Best Korea, their threats, nor the threats to our allies and strategic national security interests. Now crawl back under your isolationist rock with Rand Paul's latest newsletter and let the grown ups handle the real world. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't get it. Here in the states, if you shoot someone in the face who is doing nothing but talking shit, you get charged with murder. If the government does it, they're looking out for national interests or whatever the party line is nowadays. The only ethical use of force is in defense of life. So if your neighbor builds an illegal firing range in his back yard and uses pictures of your family as targets, then announces to all of your neighbors that you're a bad man and if you look at him funny he'll "defend himself", and then you find him in your front yard with a gun, watchu gun do? When the cops (aka UN) say "Sorry, nothing we can do, he's a friend of the chief." what's next? In real life - not the narrow little utopia you think the world should be - when someone makes overt threats of death or injury to another and those threats are credible, then responding with force is both legal and moral. The same is true between nation states. We are under no ethical obligation to ignore Best Korea, their threats, nor the threats to our allies and strategic national security interests. Now crawl back under your isolationist rock with Rand Paul's latest newsletter and let the grown ups handle the real world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:09:02 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably the more likely scenario. However, I don't think he would do that...he'd have to give up his endless free supply of Asian pussy and his status as the only fat North Korean...plus, the US would get a 51st state. Way too much to loose, imo Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Don't need to hit it with a nuke. They could sneek a sub in someplace close enough and pull the cord. Why do you all think a nuke needs to be air born to blow up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:17:52 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So much brain washing. Enjoy WW3. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't get it. Here in the states, if you shoot someone in the face who is doing nothing but talking shit, you get charged with murder. If the government does it, they're looking out for national interests or whatever the party line is nowadays. The only ethical use of force is in defense of life. So if your neighbor builds an illegal firing range in his back yard and uses pictures of your family as targets, then announces to all of your neighbors that you're a bad man and if you look at him funny he'll "defend himself", and then you find him in your front yard with a gun, watchu gun do? When the cops (aka UN) say "Sorry, nothing we can do, he's a friend of the chief." what's next? In real life - not the narrow little utopia you think the world should be - when someone makes overt threats of death or injury to another and those threats are credible, then responding with force is both legal and moral. The same is true between nation states. We are under no ethical obligation to ignore Best Korea, their threats, nor the threats to our allies and strategic national security interests. Now crawl back under your isolationist rock with Rand Paul's latest newsletter and let the grown ups handle the real world. In your opinion, what should the red line be? Should Best Korea nuke someone first before we determine that they are indeed hostile? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:22:19 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol. What is it with the note pads? This fat youngster has some valuable input.....or they will be executed if they dont take notes? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The commentary was carried on page three of the newspaper, after a two-page feature about leader Kim Jong Un inspecting a pig farm. Kim is the one in the white shirt. http://exploredprk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/tae3.png |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:26:37 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep they have already shown they have "intent" to destroy America and its allies. It's only a matter of time before we respond. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yet. Every rocket launch and nuclear test brings them one step closer to being a threat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:28:54 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Constant appeasement led to WWII because so many leaders in Europe didn't want to deal with Hitler, hoping that he'd play nice. Look where that got us. In your opinion, what should the red line be? Should Best Korea nuke someone first before we determine that they are indeed hostile? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't get it. Here in the states, if you shoot someone in the face who is doing nothing but talking shit, you get charged with murder. If the government does it, they're looking out for national interests or whatever the party line is nowadays. The only ethical use of force is in defense of life. So if your neighbor builds an illegal firing range in his back yard and uses pictures of your family as targets, then announces to all of your neighbors that you're a bad man and if you look at him funny he'll "defend himself", and then you find him in your front yard with a gun, watchu gun do? When the cops (aka UN) say "Sorry, nothing we can do, he's a friend of the chief." what's next? In real life - not the narrow little utopia you think the world should be - when someone makes overt threats of death or injury to another and those threats are credible, then responding with force is both legal and moral. The same is true between nation states. We are under no ethical obligation to ignore Best Korea, their threats, nor the threats to our allies and strategic national security interests. Now crawl back under your isolationist rock with Rand Paul's latest newsletter and let the grown ups handle the real world. In your opinion, what should the red line be? Should Best Korea nuke someone first before we determine that they are indeed hostile? You defend your country by knocking ladders off of walls, not by building them. If I had it my way, I'd close every military base outside CONUS. Everyone gets the same ability to trade with us. The only time the military would see any use is in defense of our CONUS borders. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:29:05 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So much brain washing. Enjoy WW3. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't get it. Here in the states, if you shoot someone in the face who is doing nothing but talking shit, you get charged with murder. If the government does it, they're looking out for national interests or whatever the party line is nowadays. The only ethical use of force is in defense of life. So if your neighbor builds an illegal firing range in his back yard and uses pictures of your family as targets, then announces to all of your neighbors that you're a bad man and if you look at him funny he'll "defend himself", and then you find him in your front yard with a gun, watchu gun do? When the cops (aka UN) say "Sorry, nothing we can do, he's a friend of the chief." what's next? In real life - not the narrow little utopia you think the world should be - when someone makes overt threats of death or injury to another and those threats are credible, then responding with force is both legal and moral. The same is true between nation states. We are under no ethical obligation to ignore Best Korea, their threats, nor the threats to our allies and strategic national security interests. Now crawl back under your isolationist rock with Rand Paul's latest newsletter and let the grown ups handle the real world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:29:49 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Constant appeasement led to WWII because so many leaders in Europe didn't want to deal with Hitler, hoping that he'd play nice. Look where that got us. In your opinion, what should the red line be? Should Best Korea nuke someone first before we determine that they are indeed hostile? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't get it. Here in the states, if you shoot someone in the face who is doing nothing but talking shit, you get charged with murder. If the government does it, they're looking out for national interests or whatever the party line is nowadays. The only ethical use of force is in defense of life. So if your neighbor builds an illegal firing range in his back yard and uses pictures of your family as targets, then announces to all of your neighbors that you're a bad man and if you look at him funny he'll "defend himself", and then you find him in your front yard with a gun, watchu gun do? When the cops (aka UN) say "Sorry, nothing we can do, he's a friend of the chief." what's next? In real life - not the narrow little utopia you think the world should be - when someone makes overt threats of death or injury to another and those threats are credible, then responding with force is both legal and moral. The same is true between nation states. We are under no ethical obligation to ignore Best Korea, their threats, nor the threats to our allies and strategic national security interests. Now crawl back under your isolationist rock with Rand Paul's latest newsletter and let the grown ups handle the real world. In your opinion, what should the red line be? Should Best Korea nuke someone first before we determine that they are indeed hostile? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:31:44 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The rest of the world isn't our problem. You defend your country by knocking ladders off of walls, not by building them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't get it. Here in the states, if you shoot someone in the face who is doing nothing but talking shit, you get charged with murder. If the government does it, they're looking out for national interests or whatever the party line is nowadays. The only ethical use of force is in defense of life. So if your neighbor builds an illegal firing range in his back yard and uses pictures of your family as targets, then announces to all of your neighbors that you're a bad man and if you look at him funny he'll "defend himself", and then you find him in your front yard with a gun, watchu gun do? When the cops (aka UN) say "Sorry, nothing we can do, he's a friend of the chief." what's next? In real life - not the narrow little utopia you think the world should be - when someone makes overt threats of death or injury to another and those threats are credible, then responding with force is both legal and moral. The same is true between nation states. We are under no ethical obligation to ignore Best Korea, their threats, nor the threats to our allies and strategic national security interests. Now crawl back under your isolationist rock with Rand Paul's latest newsletter and let the grown ups handle the real world. In your opinion, what should the red line be? Should Best Korea nuke someone first before we determine that they are indeed hostile? You defend your country by knocking ladders off of walls, not by building them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:35:11 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the United States isn't impervious to attacks. The Norks also don't need a ballistic missile to deliver a nuke. They could just as easily smuggle one in a shipping container and detonate it off the Los Angeles coast. Should we wait for that to happen? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't get it. Here in the states, if you shoot someone in the face who is doing nothing but talking shit, you get charged with murder. If the government does it, they're looking out for national interests or whatever the party line is nowadays. The only ethical use of force is in defense of life. So if your neighbor builds an illegal firing range in his back yard and uses pictures of your family as targets, then announces to all of your neighbors that you're a bad man and if you look at him funny he'll "defend himself", and then you find him in your front yard with a gun, watchu gun do? When the cops (aka UN) say "Sorry, nothing we can do, he's a friend of the chief." what's next? In real life - not the narrow little utopia you think the world should be - when someone makes overt threats of death or injury to another and those threats are credible, then responding with force is both legal and moral. The same is true between nation states. We are under no ethical obligation to ignore Best Korea, their threats, nor the threats to our allies and strategic national security interests. Now crawl back under your isolationist rock with Rand Paul's latest newsletter and let the grown ups handle the real world. In your opinion, what should the red line be? Should Best Korea nuke someone first before we determine that they are indeed hostile? You defend your country by knocking ladders off of walls, not by building them. In the words of Lil'John. Don't start no shit, there won't be no shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:35:56 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're totally right. A nut job is actively progressing towards building a nuke capable of hitting us all while telling us and the world he plans to use it against us. Acting now before a mushroom cloud goes up on the West Coast would be stupid. Reactionary policies are best for national defense. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
But they're not a threat, yet. So we should leave them alone. And we wonder why everyone hates us. A nut job is actively progressing towards building a nuke capable of hitting us all while telling us and the world he plans to use it against us. Acting now before a mushroom cloud goes up on the West Coast would be stupid. Reactionary policies are best for national defense. 
LMAO. You're right. All of those duds that go 50 miles and explode are to throw us off. They're totally capable of hitting the US. Do you all seriously believe they're capable of hitting the US, or even close? What data has been released that has proven this to you? The media? A smile and wink from our "intelligence community?" You people will believe anything... And why are the Ayatollahs still breathing? Let's not lie to ourselves and call the Norks a serious threat to the US...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:36:10 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't need to hit it with a nuke. They could sneek a sub in someplace close enough and pull the cord. Why do you all think a nuke needs to be air born to blow up. They used an old diesel boat running electric to close in then nuked them. Fucking Google... Nimitz Class by Patrick Robinson |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:40:23 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The rest of the world isn't our problem. You defend your country by knocking ladders off of walls, not by building them. If I had it my way, I'd close every military base outside CONUS. Everyone gets the same ability to trade with us. The only time the military would see any use is in defense of our CONUS borders. We don't need Japan, South Korea, Great Britain, or any of our other allies. We won't have any trading partners if we don't help defend them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:40:52 PM EDT
[#40]
So, is the Carl Vinson still afloat, or have those bad ass North Korean SEAL Team Delta suicide crews taken care of it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:41:32 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah. Fuck Hawaii and Pearl Harbor, Midway, Guam, Solomon Islands, We don't need Japan, South Korea, Great Britain, or any of our other allies. We won't have any trading partners if we don't help defend them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The rest of the world isn't our problem. You defend your country by knocking ladders off of walls, not by building them. If I had it my way, I'd close every military base outside CONUS. Everyone gets the same ability to trade with us. The only time the military would see any use is in defense of our CONUS borders. We don't need Japan, South Korea, Great Britain, or any of our other allies. We won't have any trading partners if we don't help defend them. Are they too big to fail? You know what the difference is? I treat everyone alike. We aren't too good for any assholes money. It all spends. You want to pick and choose. Its inevitable one asshole we are not trading with points at an asshole we are trading with and gets pissed. We then get dragged into a war not of our choosing. It almost as if we were warned against that by some very smart gentleman in our history. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:47:14 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://m.popkey.co/3d55bd/DyVy5.gif LMAO. You're right. All of those duds that go 50 miles and explode are to throw us off. They're totally capable of hitting the US. Do you all seriously believe they're capable of hitting the US, or even close? What data has been released that has proven this to you? The media? A smile and wink from our "intelligence community?" You people will believe anything... And why are the Ayatollahs still breathing? Let's not lie to ourselves and call the Norks a serious threat to the US... At the end of WW2 the Soviet union was not a serious threat to us. Until the late 60s China was not a serious threat to us. See a pattern here? We did not nip those in the bud and you can see the outcomes. In the case of Japan there was a population that viewed their emperor as a god and it cost us how many lives? At least Russia and China are rationally led nations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:48:07 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Kim is the one in the white shirt. http://exploredprk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/tae3.png |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:51:39 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's a fundamental flaw in your cleverly crafted plan when it comes to talking about Nork subs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If they can hit it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:52:10 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah. Fuck Hawaii and Pearl Harbor, Midway, Guam, Solomon Islands, We don't need Japan, South Korea, Great Britain, or any of our other allies. We won't have any trading partners if we don't help defend them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The rest of the world isn't our problem. You defend your country by knocking ladders off of walls, not by building them. If I had it my way, I'd close every military base outside CONUS. Everyone gets the same ability to trade with us. The only time the military would see any use is in defense of our CONUS borders. We don't need Japan, South Korea, Great Britain, or any of our other allies. We won't have any trading partners if we don't help defend them. And why can't Japan and South Korea take care of themselves? We've only been prepping SK for what, 60 years? If theyre such a threat to us, then they've been a threat to Japan and SK for a while, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:52:57 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Before 12/7/1941 Japan was not a serious threat to us. At the end of WW2 the Soviet union was not a serious threat to us. Until the late 60s China was not a serious threat to us. See a pattern here? We did not nip those in the bud and you can see the outcomes. In the case of Japan there was a population that viewed their emperor as a god and it cost us how many lives? At least Russia and China are rationally led nations. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
https://m.popkey.co/3d55bd/DyVy5.gif LMAO. You're right. All of those duds that go 50 miles and explode are to throw us off. They're totally capable of hitting the US. Do you all seriously believe they're capable of hitting the US, or even close? What data has been released that has proven this to you? The media? A smile and wink from our "intelligence community?" You people will believe anything... And why are the Ayatollahs still breathing? Let's not lie to ourselves and call the Norks a serious threat to the US... At the end of WW2 the Soviet union was not a serious threat to us. Until the late 60s China was not a serious threat to us. See a pattern here? We did not nip those in the bud and you can see the outcomes. In the case of Japan there was a population that viewed their emperor as a god and it cost us how many lives? At least Russia and China are rationally led nations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:55:06 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We are absolutely responsible for every attack launched against us. In the words of Lil'John. Don't start no shit, there won't be no shit. So, you think Poland was "startin' shit" with Germany in the 1930's to cause Hitler to steamroll over them? What about Russia? Were they all up in Germany's business and they just didn't have a choice to invade them? What about any other war in history where some prick of a leader decided he was going to roll some neighboring country for the hell of it? If you think the part in red is the magic key to avoiding conflict, you haven't learned a single thing from history. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:55:31 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Before 12/7/1941 Japan was not a serious threat to us. At the end of WW2 the Soviet union was not a serious threat to us. Until the late 60s China was not a serious threat to us. See a pattern here? We did not nip those in the bud and you can see the outcomes. In the case of Japan there was a population that viewed their emperor as a god and it cost us how many lives? At least Russia and China are rationally led nations. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
https://m.popkey.co/3d55bd/DyVy5.gif LMAO. You're right. All of those duds that go 50 miles and explode are to throw us off. They're totally capable of hitting the US. Do you all seriously believe they're capable of hitting the US, or even close? What data has been released that has proven this to you? The media? A smile and wink from our "intelligence community?" You people will believe anything... And why are the Ayatollahs still breathing? Let's not lie to ourselves and call the Norks a serious threat to the US... At the end of WW2 the Soviet union was not a serious threat to us. Until the late 60s China was not a serious threat to us. See a pattern here? We did not nip those in the bud and you can see the outcomes. In the case of Japan there was a population that viewed their emperor as a god and it cost us how many lives? At least Russia and China are rationally led nations. Your comparison of North Korea to any of those is laughable. How many carriers does NK have? How big is their blue water navy, again? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:56:57 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why can't they defend themselves? Are they too big to fail? Second bunch are allies which with the exception of Great Britain are not nuclear capable. How long do you figure Japan of South Korea would last if China decided that they wanted that territory? How about Great Britain? They are probably our greatest ally. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 5:59:34 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's has to be the dumbest thing I've read all day. So, you think Poland was "startin' shit" with Germany in the 1930's to cause Hitler to steamroll over them? What about Russia? Were they all up in Germany's business and they just didn't have a choice to invade them? What about any other war in history where some prick of a leader decided he was going to roll some neighboring country for the hell of it? If you think the part in red is the magic key to avoiding conflict, you haven't learned a single thing from history. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We are absolutely responsible for every attack launched against us. In the words of Lil'John. Don't start no shit, there won't be no shit. So, you think Poland was "startin' shit" with Germany in the 1930's to cause Hitler to steamroll over them? What about Russia? Were they all up in Germany's business and they just didn't have a choice to invade them? What about any other war in history where some prick of a leader decided he was going to roll some neighboring country for the hell of it? If you think the part in red is the magic key to avoiding conflict, you haven't learned a single thing from history. But a threat isn't a threat until they have the equipment and means to make good on that threat. If you think the Norks are a threat because MSM said so, you haven't learned anything from this last election. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
