It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Well, it was fun while it lasted...

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 02:22 AM
a reply to: neutronflux

Go play all the republican debates from 2008, and the democrat deabtes, and then come back here and tell me that the out in the open context of "all options are on the table" wasn't/isn't in the context I speak. I double dog dare you to try.

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 02:22 AM

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: neutronflux


Source posted

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 02:25 AM
a reply to: neutronflux

"Appeasement"? How about we get out of South Korea, let them handle their own pissing match, and watch how quick NK loses interest in "threatening" us with "nuclear first strikes". It's a cycle of provocation, intimidation, and violence and we're all up in them guts as bad as they are you can rest assured.


Oh, and dont forget to go enlist too. You want a nuclear war well you had better be on the front lines.

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 02:30 AM
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

How many questions have you totally ignored? Is this about a debate and the security of the USA, or you controlling a narrative.

My statements are simple and clear.

If attacked, who will back the USA.

Appeasement does not prevent attack, nor garentee peace. Only the ability to enforce peace garentees peace,

Are you willing to trust the security of the USA to the sanity of leaders threating a nuclear strike, that NK would abide by any agreement in the pursuit of peace, and what assurance is there NK will not find any means available to attack the USA?

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 02:35 AM
a reply to: neutronflux

You have no sources to back up your threat assessment, and you're going to call into question my debatabilties?

And how about the poster worth of questions and lines of counter-logic I've provided that the whole lot of you keep conveniently skipping past?

Cant wait to see you all in tomorrows new NK threads arguing as if your logicks just make total sense and there's no doubt about any of it.

FACTS: We've been over there agitating a conflict for decades, the 'enemy' talks a lot of smack, our MSM etc spins never ending war propaganda that has US more wanting a war than their actual rivals, etc.

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 02:36 AM
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

North Korea threats of nuclear war against USA claim on a scale one to four.

I would say three

North Korea threatens nuclear strike against Australia if it doesn't stop 'blindly toeing US line'

In an escalating war of words with the United States, North Korea warned Thursday of a "super-mighty preemptive strike" against the United States that would reduce "to ashes" American military forces in South Korea and the U.S., according to The Rodong Sinmun, official newspaper of North Korea's Workers' Party.

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 02:40 AM
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Yes, it would be in return if the USA attacks NK.....

And I still will go with the three out of four stars North Korea threatens nuclear war

Kim Jong-un threatens NUCLEAR ATTACK on America as Trump sends strike group to North Korea

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 02:45 AM
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The simplest question of all:
How does appeasement garentee peace?

Simple point:
Asia has been at war and engage in blatant disregard for human life / rights long before the USA was founded.

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 02:46 AM
a reply to: neutronflux

How about you read past headlines and soundbytes.

""If Australia persists in following the US' moves to isolate and stifle North Korea … this will be a suicidal act of coming within the range of the nuclear strike of the strategic force of North Korea.""

And that's the western propaganda version, with a section missing out of it even.

Presumed Trump supporter types / conservatives / etc all the sudden buying what the MSM is selling? This is nuts.

Okay, lets try the second one:
Well the link doesnt work. But going by that piece there, actually read it! Everything being said is about our meddling and provoking them in SK. If we weren't there, SK could handle its own business, and in case there was an invasion we'd show up, but beyond that the hostilities directed at US would be marginal at worst.

While the bigger issue is this hypothetical: If we've been in a decades old pissing match war with Canada, China had military bases in Canada, had embargoes (which are acts of war by the way) on us, navies surrounding us, weapons pointing at us, supplying Canada weapons, had half their population polling that they want to bomb us, and all these other tables were turned, you dont think we'd be making those same kinds of "threats"???

Lets not be the most ruthless hypocrites that ever walked the Earth, PLEASE!
edit on 30-4-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 02:51 AM

 In South Korea, War Hysteria Is Seen as an American Problem
 So far, however, my stay here has overlapped with the greatest contrast of all: the sharp difference between American and South Korean coverage of North Korea’s nuclear and missile program and the huge perception gap about the situation by US and South Korean citizens.

Shortly before I flew from Washington, DC, to Seoul, a US Navy aircraft-carrier group led by the USS Carl Vinson was ordered to move toward Korean waters. Immediately, the US media started broadcasting dire reports about the possibility of US pre-emptive strikes from these ships on the North’s military facilities. With CNN available on most cable systems here, the alarming news spread far and wide.

The reports were fueled by a steady flow of threatening tweets from President Trump and dire predictions and warnings from his cabinet (led by the oafish secretary of state, Rex Tillerson). Their pronouncements were reinforced by the hawkish and frequently unhinged Korea “experts” who dominate cable television.

For the most part, the US media have been split between lurid speculation about what such a war might look like and gleeful guesswork about whether Trump will send SEAL Team 6 assassination squads to take out Kim Jong-un, the North’s boyish, 33-year-old dictator.

 Observers with deep understanding of Korean affairs, such as John Delury, a professor at Seoul’s Yonsei University who recently mapped out a sensible plan for diplomacy with the North in The New York Times, are rarely consulted. And, as is usual with coverage of North Korea, most American reporting lacks any historical context, includes virtually no Korean voices, and is almost universally in favor of the confrontational approach adopted by both Trump and his predecessor, Barack Obama.

As the historian Bruce Cumings pointed out in The Nation last month, the American press assiduously avoids any mention of the horror inflicted on the North by US warplanes during the Korean War, as well as the long history of US military provocations on the peninsula. (His article should be required reading for anybody seeking to understand Kim’s motives; perhaps Chris Hayes, a Nation editor at large, would consider inviting Cumings on his MSNBC show, All In with Chris Hayes, to counter the inflammatory, one-sided discussions on his network.)

Sadly, though, NBC has been the source for the most abysmal stories. On April 13, the network, citing “multiple senior US intelligence officials,” proclaimed that Trump was “prepared to launch a preemptive strike with conventional weapons against North Korea should officials become convinced that North Korea is about to follow through with a nuclear weapons test.”

But the story was widely rebuked as reckless and without foundation. According to South Korea’s Hankyoreh, “reporters covering the South Korean Ministry of National Defense for other US news outlets unanimously dismissed the report as false. South Korean foreign affairs sources bluntly called the report ‘a canard.’” The story was so outlandish that the Trump administration itself was forced to repudiate it, with a National Security Council spokesperson telling ABC the story was “way wrong.”

edit on 30-4-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 03:45 AM
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I was honest. The right out threat by NK to engage in nuclear war is probably three out of four stars. Four stars being NK stating they would launch a full out Nuclear strike.

I never made this about South Korea. Just pointing out Asian countries have waged wars and atrocities long before the USA. The age long horror of war is not dependent on the existence of the USA.

Again, my arguments:
Are you willing to gamble the security of the USA, and I guess Australia, on the sanity of NK leaders.

Rational persons wouldn't make idle threats of nuclear war because of the implied consequences as you stated. Because, who in their right mind would use nukes in war? Yet, NK has made threats. By the way, thanks for moving the goal post. You implied I couldn't cite a source that NK threaten Nuclear War with the USA. I was able to cite sources of two countries threatened.

Thanks for the quote out of context. If NK sales a nuke to a terrorist willing to use it. The point, who is the the world going to wipe off the map.

Appeasement does not secure peace. To allow countries to make grave threats against the USA unchecked only encourages other countries to threat the security of the USA.

I stand by the only garentee to peace is when you have the ability to enforce peace.

I hope the world would retaliate against a counrty committing a first strike nuclear attack. However, the world let's NK make threats of nuclear war with little consequence. Who is going to champion the USA if attacked? China? Russia? France? Germany?

In fact. I would say sanctions are more devastating to the people already suffering in NK than the leadership.

I used WWII and Hitler to outline appeasement and agreements place no restrictions on a leader willing to break treaties, hell bent on invasion, and willing to pursue genocide. Another item you presented out of context.

So? You ignore direct questions, you moved the goal post on citing sources of NK threats, and tried to create arguments on what I said by taking at least two points out of context.

And? Did you ever cite the last time the USA stated it would use a nuclear strike as their first action in an offensive attack. Not all the quotes of "all options are on the table" where you set no context for each quote?
edit on 30-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 04:00 AM
a reply to: neutronflux


"The right out threat by NK to engage in nuclear war" IF WE KEEP PROVOKING THEM AND THEN ACTUALLY ATTACK THEM "is probably three out of four stars."

"I never made this about South Korea."


"Are you willing to gamble the security of the USA, and I guess Australia, on the sanity of NK leaders."

Are you able to look at what people actually say (beyond the Imperial War Machine MSM's headlines), and discern actual meanings? Clearly not.

"Rational persons wouldn't make idle threats of nuclear war because of the implied consequences as you stated."

If some foreign power had US enveloped like we've had them for decades, as I gave you a tables turned hypothetical in my just above, I'd be calling for "threatening such a force as they are doing in response to US.

"Appeasement does not secure peace."

1. pacify or placate (someone) by acceding to their demands.
2. relieve or satisfy (a demand or a feeling).
antonyms: provoke, inflame

You can only make peace with your enemies.

What you suggest is never ending provocation with an 'enemy' that wont bow and scrape. If you value your own liberty and self-determination you should at respect them for standing their ground.

And if you were rational you'd see that all our direct presence there does is inflame the situation, all the while SK doesn't need US there anymore. SK has more money & industry than they do (which means more means of waging warfare whether it be defense OR offense).

"I stand by the only guarantee to peace is when you have the ability to enforce peace."

And I stand by my guarantee that the only way nuclear Armageddon will come is by provoking it just as you propose with your every breath herein.

Now how about you actually deal with my breakdown of those "quotes" you provided, rather than skip over that and double down with arguments and logic I've been smacking down since page 1.

edit on 30-4-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 04:38 AM

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
The sky is falling!

The sky os falling!

At least chicken little was original at one time.

No, the sky already fell a long time ago, and we are in the aftermath, still living by the same system that killed the american dream, and OP is suggesting we abandon this 2 party system. There's nothing alarmist about it because the disaster Already happened, look around you things are ALREADY bad enough that something must be done if we value our living standards, our freedom, our values... Yes, I said something must be done if we value our values. I value My values that's why I call them values, because they're valuable to me.
edit on 4/30/2017 by 3n19m470 because: typo

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 05:24 AM
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The challenge was I could not cite that NK was threatening to strike with Nuclear Wespons? You moved the goal post.

So the USA and Australia mandating that NK respect established boundaries and international treaties is a provocation for a nuclear strike? How are we provoking NK? Why are NK and SK not trying to reunite by treaty and arbitration?

You have misrepresented so much of what I have presented.

Your logic is faulty. Nothing is going to stop an individual from using a nuclear device if they are capable and hell bent to use it.

I still stand by allowing NK to freely pursue their agenda is no garentee the USA will not be attacked. The lessons of WWII? Hello?

And I still stand by peace is only secured by those with the ability to enforce peace!

We should stand down because somebody is willing to use a nuclear device to force the world to give into their demands? What happens if their demands never stop? Can you cite where NK's ambitions will stop if the USA takes a step back?

And if you can cite a source where NK's ambitions lie, can you garentee the leadership of NK is truthful and doesn't have a bigger agenda than they put forth?

Great logic. The world should not physically stop NK in the pursuit of their agenda because they "might" use a nuclear weapon.

So? Which is it. Trump should not give into NK because "they" want war. Who are they and the reward? Trump has already pledged to increase military spending without war.

Or we should not enforce international law because NK might resist by nuclear strike? If international law is not enforced, who will respect international law?
edit on 30-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Added

edit on 30-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 05:56 AM
a reply to: neutronflux

You didnt fulfill the challenge prompted by your own claims: That NK is just going around THREATENING (not warning) preemptive nuclear strikes.

Define "THREAT". And do it within the context of a WARNING.

THREAT: We're over her eminding our own business and some bully travels halfway across the planet to bully us into submission.
WARNING: Come halfway across the planet to oppress us and we'll fight back.

See the distinction? Of course you dont.

Do the half ass "quotes" you provided demonstrate actual THREATS? Absolutely NOT.

Is NK a threat to your everyday way of life???? Not unless your everyday of life involves oppressing other peoples in far away places!!!

Nothing you've provided demonstrates that anybody (except for maybe the likes of you) is hellbent on detonating nuclear warheads.

I wont even go on any further, as its pointless. A complete waste of time. You're entirely incapable of putting yourself into their shoes (as would be any proper psychopath), wont listen to nor directly address reason, wont back up the 'logic' of your own claims, are incapable of discerning the meaning of the words of other peoples (outside of how the MSM frames it all fr you), pay no mind to actual South Koreans (the ones who actually face nuclear annihilation if you get your way, which also happen to not even care half as much about the affair as we er YOU do), and so forth and so on.

edit on 30-4-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 07:53 AM
Its pretty obvious the MIC and the moneyed elites have been sort of "saving" NoKo as a pre-packaged, ready to go, bad guy on the shelf whenever they need a quick (or maybe not so quick, if they decide for some reason it benefits them to ramp up the death and destruction) war for: economic reasons, political reasons, a distraction, or simple bloodlust... And it looks like maybe they decided to take their toy off the shelf to play with... Oh, wait, I mean, no... This all happened organically with no external manipulation, anyone could see that!

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 07:54 AM
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

What is NK threating to use Nuclear weapons over? What threat is Australia and the USA implementing that literally warrants NK to go nuclear?

Title: North Korea threatens nuclear war ahead of Trump meeting with U.N. Security Council

Title: North Korea threatens to sink US nuclear submarine tml

Title: How potent are North Korea's threats?

It said North Korea was ready to respond to what it called US hostility with nuclear weapons. The announcement is likely to raise tensions significantly.

Title: ALL OUT WAR' North Korea warns ‘nuclear war could break out at any moment’ as country vows to test missiles WEEKLY

Titke: North Korea threatens nuclear war with Australia saying the country is 'within range' of Kim Jong-un's missile arsenal and warning Malcolm Turnbull not to cosy up to Trump's U.S.

Title: North Korea threatens nuclear strike against Australia if it doesn't stop 'blindly toeing US line

In response to the comments, Ms Bishop said Pyongyang's threat "underlines the need for the regime to abandon its illegal nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs".

"These present a grave threat to its neighbours, and if left unchecked, to the broader region including Australia," she said.

Title: The North Korea Paradox: Why There Are No Good Options on Nuclear Arms /north-korea-threatens-usa-with-nuclear-war

The High Costs of a Deal

Any agreement that North Korea would be likely to consider minimally acceptable would come at huge cost to the United States and its allies. North Korea would be likely to require:

■ A tacit acknowledgment of the country’s right to retain its existing programs.
■ A declaration that the United States considered the North Korean government legitimate and would not seek to topple it.
■ The lifting of sanctions.
■ The withdrawal or reduction of the American military commitment to South Korea.

Any partial or full American withdrawal would risk sending the American relationship with South Korea and Japan into crisis, empowering North Korea and weakening American influence in Asia.

The obvious questions:
Why will NK not settle and unite with SK under peaceful negotiations?

What is NKs goals? Seems they are more than a threat to SK. They seem to be a threat to Australia and Japan?

edit on 30-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 08:15 AM
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Not big on the source. But if it's legitimate information, it's legitimate..,,

Title: The North Korean military threat to America and its allies, explained

If the standoff in North Korea becomes something much worse, Trump won't be able to say he wasn’t warned. As the Obama administration handed the White House keys over to the Trump team, the president told his successor that North Korea would be America’s top national security threat. And as predicted, things are headed south, with both Washington and Pyongyang now threatening “preemptive” strikes.

Again! Are you willing to bet the regional and USA security on the sanity and good will of the NK leaders?

Are you saying we should give a pass to NKs criminal activity because of threats?


From drug traf cking to counterfeiting, from money laundering to cigarette smuggling, North Korea’s Central Committee Bureau 39 is an active participant in the criminal economy of the region with tentacles extending well beyond Asia. The authors discuss how these activities have negative strategic consequences for a number of stakeholders and nations throughout the region while describing how such activities provide critical funding streams for military programs and regime supporters.
As a result, North Korea is not just a “rogue state,” but practices what is essentially criminal sovereignty whereby it organizes its illegitimate activities behind the shield of non-intervention while using the tools of the state to perpetrate these schemes abroad. The authors argue that this arrangement has important links to succession issues within the regime. They also argue that policy makers who are concerned with the development of future policies and strategies aimed toward North Korea must view those new policies from a different perspective than that used in the past.

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 08:20 AM
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

We're there because of what happened at the end of the last hot spell in the Korean conflict.

And, like with Europe, because we are there South Korea really has made no adequate provisions to defend themselves. We could withdraw, and it would be nice to do so, but it would have to be a gradual process in order to give the South Koreans a chance to build up their own army and arsenal to take over the function we serve.

North Korea is simply a war footing state with no other purpose. It serves the function of the isolated state. Have you ever read 1984? They are always at war with Eastasia; they have never been war with Oceania ... The populace is kept controlled enough that it works. Their chocolate rations can be increased from 15oz to 10. They have an enormous army out of all proportion to their size.

For the US to withdraw suddenly would leave a very large army on one side and next to no army on the other with a leader on one side who desires reunification using said army.

I'm sure it's the business of the Koreans, but at this point would it be entirely fair to suddenly up and leave one side more or less defenseless?
edit on 30-4-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 08:44 AM
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Hear me, fellow outsiders / purveyors of sanity, the battle to take down the Two Party System must begin now. We have a few years until the next election. If you think waiting until the last year, and then complaining about how the "third" parties have no chance, then they wont. And this isn't about what we're told is "conservatism", or "liberalism", it's about cutting out all the insanity. We all know what it all looks like, from both sides now. We seen it all after 8 years of Bush, and 8 years of Obama.

took you long enough to see what I already saw months ago. I already forsaw where this was all heading. The syria attack sealed the deal. But even then there are those who refuse to acknowledge it. Which is why I mostly settled down as a mere observer accurately predicting events. this time I scare myself. But welcome to my world brother. but if you know i've been right so far, just ponder on what else I may be right on.

The stakes have never been higher. Over the next couple decades the very survival of our species is at stake, and the Two party System its as if its hell bent on ensuring our total destruction. We're in the brave new world now, and its time to step up against these psychopathic dinosaurs of tyranny.


There is only one way to do that. And it is the only option out of all my research and archives, I arrive at the same conclusion:
WARRIOR BRIDE OF CHRIST. RISE UP!! Rise Men of the West! Motivational Christian Video!!

You cannot defeat Bohemian Grove Moloch without God. It is plain and simple. How long will it take for people to realize this one fact? The Clock is ticking, tic toc WW3. (Just as Biblical Prophecy predicted, on wars and rumors of wars; nation against nation...)

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in