Is Donald Trump's Campaign A Spoof?

[ParisInAKilt]

6 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

North Korea really does have Nuclear weapons for a start 

 

And rightly so. 

[Ally Bongo]

9 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

And rightly so. 

?

[ParisInAKilt]

2 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

?

Who's that? 

Why shouldn't North Korea have a nuclear weapons program like other countries do? 

[thplinth]

9 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

And rightly so. 

Yep.

And it is a real mystery why they feel the need for the bomb...

Quote

 

Bombing of North Korea

The first major U.S. strategic bombing campaign against North Korea, begun in late July 1950, was conceived as similar to the major offensives of World War II.[305] On 12 August 1950, the U.S. Air Force dropped 625 tons of bombs on North Korea; two weeks later, the daily tonnage increased to some 800 tons.[306] Following the intervention of the Chinese in November, General MacArthur ordered increased bombing campaign on North Korea which included incendiary attacks against their arsenals and communications centers and especially against the "Korean end" of all the bridges across the Yalu River.[307] As with the aerial bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan in World War II, the nominal objective of the U.S. Air Force was to destroy North Korea's war infrastructure and shatter their morale. After MacArthur was removed as Supreme Commander in Korea in April 1951, his successors continued this policy and ultimately extended it to all of North Korea.[308] The U.S. dropped a total of 635,000 tons of bombs, including 32,557 tons of napalm, on Korea, more than during the whole Pacific campaign of World War II.[309][310]

Almost every substantial building in North Korea was destroyed as a result.[311][312] The war's highest-ranking U.S. POW, U.S. Major General William F. Dean,[313] reported that the majority of North Korean cities and villages he saw were either rubble or snow-covered wasteland.[314][315] North Korean factories, schools, hospitals, and government offices were forced to move underground, and air defenses were "non-existent."[310] In November 1950, the North Korean leadership instructed their population to build dugouts and mud huts and to dig underground tunnels, in order to solve the acute housing problem.[316] U.S. Air Force General Curtis LeMay commented, "we went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea anyway, some way or another, and some in South Korea, too."[317] Pyongyang, which saw 75 percent of its area destroyed, was so devastated that bombing was halted as there were no longer any worthy targets.[318][319] On 28 November, Bomber Command reported on the campaign's progress: 95 percent of Manpojin was destroyed, along with 90 percent of Hoeryong, Namsi and Koindong, 85 percent of Chosan, 75 percent of both Sakchu and Huichon, and 20 percent of Uiju. According to USAF damage assessments, "eighteen of twenty-two major cities in North Korea had been at least half obliterated."[320] By the end of the campaign, US bombers had difficulty in finding targets and were reduced to bombing footbridges or jettisoning their bombs into the sea.[321]

As well as conventional bombing, the Communist side claimed that the U.S. used biological weapons.[322] These claims have been disputed; Conrad Crane asserts that while the U.S. worked towards developing chemical and biological weapons, the U.S. military "possessed neither the ability, nor the will", to use them in combat.[323]

 

They carpet bombed North Korea until it was reduced to rubble. Not an exaggerated claim.  

[Ally Bongo]

I'm fairly sure that Nazi Germany was allowed to masively rebuild it's Navy, Airforce and Army because people felt guilty about how they had suffered after WWI through the Versaille agreement.........

 

 

[ParisInAKilt]

8 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

I'm fairly sure that Nazi Germany was allowed to masively rebuild it's Navy, Airforce and Army because people felt guilty about how they had suffered after WWI through the Versaille agreement.........

 

 

 

[Parklife]

First Neville Chamberlain, now treaty of Versailles. Has Ally Bear just been studying Appeasement and the road to war in Standard Grade History?  

[Ally Bongo]

China has enabled North Korea’s economy and protected it diplomatically, while providing critical weapons technology. “China’s repeated call for a ‘peaceful solution’ is wonderful,” wrote Richard Gunde, retired Assistant Director of the Center for Chinese Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Although, to me, it smacks of ‘peace in our time.’” The quote “peace in our time” refers to a 1938 speech by U.K. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who sought to appease Germany, but failed.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/north-korea-poses-an-existential-threat-to-the-world-why-are-we-appeasing-it-20170519-gw8ii0.html

Eighty years ago, Adolf Hitler had just remilitarised the Rhineland and had his eye on taking Austria and the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. Nothing happened after those takeovers but talks, and British prime minister Neville Chamberlain declared: "Peace in our time." Naivety and appeasement.

Today, we have North Korea's Kim Jong-un.

The history is similar. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all tried combinations of talks, partial sanctions, aid and subsidies. Every time they tried to encourage or cajole the various members of the Kim dynasty to stop going down the path of obtaining nuclear weapons and the wherewithal to deliver them intercontinentally, the Kims just ignored them and pressed on.

This week, the new South Korean President tried the same thing, saying he wanted to open a channel of dialogue with North Korea while maintaining sanctions. North Korea's response was to launch a missile that travelled 700 kilometres before dropping into the Sea of Japan, and to engage in worldwide cyber attacks.

Clinton and Bush's efforts culminated in North Korea testing an atomic bomb in 2006. United Nations sanctions were imposed in 2006, but the Obama administration failed to use all of its financial and diplomatic power to enforce the sanctions to bring the regime to its knees. This was through fear of angering China and because South Korea thought the North could be persuaded to open up to the outside world and end its nuclear program.

It is fine to be persuasive, compassionate and generous within the boundaries of a democracy, but this is a wa The North Korean regime is determined to build a nuclear bomb small enough and a missile powerful enough to threaten continental United States and, for that matter, Australia. No amount of persuasion or attempts at dialogue will dissuade it. ste of precious time – and it is precious – when dealing with people like Kim Jong-un.

It is highly dangerous to try. If Clinton, Bush and Obama failed, what chance has Trump, who makes Bush look like a foreign-affairs sophisticate and statesman?

The only thing that will stop Kim Jong-un perfecting the multibillion-dollar nuclear program begun by his grand-father, Kim Il-sung, and continued by his father, Kim Jong-il, is duress so great that it threatens his regime.

Look at the history. Clinton's 1994 "agreed framework" gave Kim Jong-il's regime fuel aid and help to build two peaceful nuclear power stations in return for a promise to give up the nuclear-weapons program. It was worse than folly. It probably helped the North's nuclear-weapons technology.

Bush ended the framework when he discovered North Korea was cheating. Then he stupidly entered his own agreement to ease sanctions, remove North Korea from the state-sanctioned terrorism list and, worse, allow North Korea to use the dollar system.

Shortly after Obama came to office, his "reaching out" was met with the first long-range missile test and then the testing of a nuclear device. In 2012, Obama entered the aid-for-nuclear-freeze leap day agreement. Six weeks later, North Korea tested a long-range missile

Meanwhile, South Korea engaged in several economic and food-aid arrangements, hoping to lure the North into the global economic system and to liberalise the regime. Again, worse than foolish. The South handed hard currency to the North, which it used for the weapons and missile programs and to stave off economic collapse and military rebellion.

Hitler, you must not remilitarise the Rhineland and we will ease war reparations. Hitler, leave Austria alone. Hitler, do not occupy any part of Czechoslovakia. Every time, he just ignored Britain, France and the US. Every time, he gained time to build up his weapons systems. The allies foolishly waited until Poland was invaded. By then, it was too late to avoid catastrophic war.

Trump has at least seen that he needs Chinese help. His rhetoric with China has moved from "currency manipulator" and "American job-stealer" to President Xi Jingping delivering "tremendous goodwill and friendship".

But China is unwilling to bring the North Korean regime to its knees. It will require the US to bring full duress. Yet that duress will require a great deal of subtle and intelligent use of massive financial coercion. Subtlety and intelligence are not Trump's hallmarks.

The key here is to undo Bush's deal to allow North Korea into the dollar system and to impose third-party sanctions on corporations or nations that have any dealings with the North, particularly Chinese banks. Give these banks a choice between continued dealing with the US or dealing with North Korea: they will choose the former, whatever the Chinese government urges. Profit before politics.

Tell third-world nations that now import North Korean weapons and reflag North Korean ships to stop or face expulsion from US markets.

North Korea keeps most of its currency reserves in US dollars. The US could mandate that any bank that dealt with the North would be denied access to the dollar system. US banks would be banned from dealing with North Korean-sourced dollars.

China regularly votes for sanctions in the UN but allows its state-owned corporations to ship arms and weapons technology and, importantly, the luxury goods for the elites who prop up the regime.

The US should forget the Chinese government. Rather, it should use every financial weapon at its disposal to deny the North Korean regime the wherewithal to sustain either its weapons program or, indeed, itself.

It will take time – time we may still have if no more silly appeasement arrangements are put in place.

The plus and the minus of Trump is that he enjoys chaos. That will be fine if he avoids military action and instead forcefully tells the Chinese and South Koreans that the US and its allies would prefer the chaos of a North Korean regime collapsing under the toughest financial and third-party sanctions ever seen than have a "stable" nuclear-armed North.

The big problem with Trump would be if Russia moved in to fill the Chinese vacuum. His conflict of interests might be too great to do much about it.

That aside, this is an existential threat to the democratic world and requires a response of an existential threat to the North Korean regime.

If Hitler had developed a deliverable nuclear weapon late in World War II, as he hammered the V1 and V2 doddlebugs across the English Channel, could anyone imagine him not using it?

Edited August 9, 2017 by Ally Bongo

[ParisInAKilt]

Why should anyone take anything the mainstream corporate media says seriously in terms of US / western foreign, wars etc? 

And why shouldn't North Korea be able to defend themselves against the US?

[Donaldo87]

1 hour ago, Parklife said:

First Neville Chamberlain, now treaty of Versailles. Has Ally Bear just been studying Appeasement and the road to war in Standard Grade History?  

[Ally Bongo]

46 minutes ago, Donaldo87 said:

Aww - did the board's odious cvnt and instigator of it's demise make a wee funny ?

I'm happy for him

For reference i studied it many years ago but it would seem a great deal of the TAMB's liberal pseudo intellectuals might need to brush up on it

[Parklife]

5 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Aww - did the board's odious cvnt and instigator of it's demise make a wee funny ?

I'm happy for him

For reference i studied it many years ago but it would seem a great deal of the TAMB's liberal pseudo intellectuals might need to brush up on it

 

[ParisInAKilt]

 

2 hours ago, Parklife said:

 

Haha 

[Parklife]

12 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Haha 

I'm touched to know that he thinks me so important, to so many people that i can be single-handedly blamed for the reduced TAMB traffic. 

[Orraloon]

7 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

North Korea really does have Nuclear weapons for a start 

 

And Iraq had WMDs, or so they told us anyway.

[ParisInAKilt]

1 hour ago, Parklife said:

I'm touched to know that he thinks me so important, to so many people that i can be single-handedly blamed for the reduced TAMB traffic. 

I hope I'm not the liberal, never been so offended!

[ParisInAKilt]

Just now, Orraloon said:

And Iraq had WMDs, or so they told us anyway.

Bingo. 

People who should know better falling for the same shite year after year. 

[Ally Bongo]

So it's all fake and North Korea dont really have any Nuclear Weapons ......

Absolutely fvcking bonkers

[ParisInAKilt]

4 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

So it's all fake and North Korea dont really have any Nuclear Weapons ......

Absolutely fvcking bonkers

I think it's acknowledged that they do, the issues are,

what's the immediate threat? if any?

whats there capabilities? 

And for a third time, why shouldn't North Korea protect themselves in a world where sovereign nations like Iraq, Libya and Syria for example can be destroyed? 

[Ally Bongo]

33 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

I think it's acknowledged that they do, the issues are,

what's the immediate threat? if any?

whats there capabilities? 

And for a third time, why shouldn't North Korea protect themselves in a world where sovereign nations like Iraq, Libya and Syria for example can be destroyed? 

The basic answer is that North Korea's leaders are not responsible enough to have nuclear weapons

Anyone that thinks NK needs Nuclear Weapons to defend itself and justifies NK having them for that reason is a total zoomer.

Anyone that thinks the World is safer with NK having Nuclear Weapons along with other states that could go rogue at anytime is a dangerous individual.

Who are their enemies, apart from the ones they imagine ?

Who would attack them when they would most likely be backed by China ?

From the point of view of North Korea, nuclear weapons keep Kim Jong-un and his regime in place and that's the reason why North Korea shouldnt have them.

 

 

 

 

[thplinth]

During the recent carpet bombing of North Korea by the USA (less than 70 years ago) that literally reduced the country to the stone age where they all had to live underground to survive it... during that little episode the USA was also threatening (and planning) to use nuclear weapons against the North.

Amazing they seem to want a bomb themselves eh.

 

[ParisInAKilt]

4 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

The basic answer is that North Korea's leaders are not responsible enough to have nuclear weapons

Anyone that thinks NK needs Nuclear Weapons to defend itself and justifies NK having them for that reason is a total zoomer.

Anyone that thinks the World is safer with NK having Nuclear Weapons along with other states that could go rogue at anytime is a dangerous individual.

Who are their enemies, apart from the ones they imagine ?

Who would attack them when they would most likely be backed by China ?

From the point of view of North Korea, nuclear weapons keep Kim Jong-un and his regime in place and that's the reason why North Korea shouldnt have them.

 

 

 

 

Who decides which countries leaders are responsible enough to hold nuclear weapons? The UN?

Why a zoomer? Look at the dozens of countries that have been destroyed by western imperialism because they could not defend themselves. 

Im not saying the world is safer, im offering reasons why I understand any country who isn't an ally of the US etc would want to protect itself. 

 

[ParisInAKilt]

10 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

From the point of view of North Korea, nuclear weapons keep Kim Jong-un and his regime in place and that's the reason why North Korea shouldnt have them.

So get rid of the weapons, invade and do a humanitarian regime change?

Solid idea . . . 

[Eisegerwind]

53 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

The basic answer is that North Korea's leaders are not responsible enough to have nuclear weapons

Unlike the USA and Mr Trump,did you not get on to  Nagasaki and Hiroshima after you did Chamberlain

 

 

 

Anyone that thinks NK needs Nuclear Weapons to defend itself and justifies NK having them for that reason is a total zoomer.

That's already been established.

Anyone that thinks the World is safer with NK having Nuclear Weapons along with other states that could go rogue at anytime is a dangerous individual.

Certainly safer if you're North Korean.

 

Who are their enemies, apart from the ones they imagine ? The USA.

Who would attack them when they would most likely be backed by China?

Doubt it.

From the point of view of North Korea, nuclear weapons keep Kim Jong-un and his regime in place and that's the reason why North Korea shouldnt have them.

They seem to have managed Ok up till now without them.

 

 

 

 

Sorry,but must be a candidate for the wrongest post ever.

 

 

[Grim Jim]

Surely NK just must have some MAD?

Bonkers that I should support that position, ffs!!!    ...or indeed Thplinth over Ally.

What happens if you corner a helpless animal?   (Shite and insulting, I know, but can't think...   full stop,)