It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Tillerson : US 'not seeking' regime change in Pyongyang , "We're not your enemy"

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: gortex

North Korea's end game is nuclear war with the US, and I bet Lil Kim is willing to die fulfilling his countries (and his own) destiny.



Outright lie.

North Korea's end game is to maintain it's status as a sovereign nation. The end game of every state on the planet. There's also the long term goal of reunification of Korea, which is shared by their neighbours in the South.

Since the US adopted a regime change policy towards the DPRK in the early 2000s under the Bush administration they have sought nuclear weapons since they see those as the only way of deterring US invasion. That is literally all the weapons are for. They have no plans for a first strike on anyone.

All their rants about reducing this or that city to a sea of fire is just rhetoric they've been using since the mid 50s.

BS and you know it. Oh, you're right, the N.Ko wants to maintain its sovereignty...in the form of a unified nation. However, at the expense of subjugating their southern neighbors. Did you forget who invaded who?

The vision of reunification stems from a small group of people, mainly old people who knew, these days, N.Ko and S.Ko carry a unique identity and whole there are those that wish peace, it isn't so.

Nothing justifies their rhetoric, regardless of how old it is.




posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Why do you think Tillerson is backing off. The generals told him a war with NKorea would be a terrible move, and critical for the Japanese and SKoreans.


It’s not an easy call. Sure, one wants to prevent NKorea from attaining the ability to strike US shores but that’s not easily attainable.


I would try to placate Kim. Make friends with the guy, give it a try. We don’t really have any great strategic interests against him.

Its always easy to make friends when you have the edge, and the US has the edge here.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: UKTruth

What you refuse to see is that the real victims here, if the US makes a wrong move, might be millions of South Koreans, who are vulnerable to the North.


That’s why its not as simple as it seems




Of course it is not simple... and people will die.
The courage to stand and fight a man like Kim Jong Whatever has never been easy to come by.
Fortunately for all of us, those that would appease lost the debate in our recent history - we're free because if it.


Fight him for what exactly?

If his country collapses so does all of East Asia for a multitude of reasons. Which includes America's allies South Korea and Japan. I doubt they'd be happy about that.


They have developed / or are developing nuclear capability and openly threatening a nuclear strike on the USA.
You can run but you can't hide.
One thing I know from my history is that Americans are not cowards - their penchant for bullying those that cant fight back is a recent trend and one which I don't think reflects the will of the people, just the cowards that have led your country (and mine) for the last couple of decades.

Amen brother, I think the same of our UK brothers as well



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire
I wonder if those who advocate for interventionism in North Korea are also advocates for assisting refugees (innocent civilians) who lose their homes and lives because of warfare.


Refugees must be given assistance - in or close to their own country - and then returned to their own country.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: gortex

North Korea's end game is nuclear war with the US, and I bet Lil Kim is willing to die fulfilling his countries (and his own) destiny.



Outright lie.

North Korea's end game is to maintain it's status as a sovereign nation. The end game of every state on the planet. There's also the long term goal of reunification of Korea, which is shared by their neighbours in the South.

Since the US adopted a regime change policy towards the DPRK in the early 2000s under the Bush administration they have sought nuclear weapons since they see those as the only way of deterring US invasion. That is literally all the weapons are for. They have no plans for a first strike on anyone.

All their rants about reducing this or that city to a sea of fire is just rhetoric they've been using since the mid 50s.

BS and you know it. Oh, you're right, the N.Ko wants to maintain its sovereignty...in the form of a unified nation. However, at the expense of subjugating their southern neighbors. Did you forget who invaded who?

The vision of reunification stems from a small group of people, mainly old people who knew, these days, N.Ko and S.Ko carry a unique identity and whole there are those that wish peace, it isn't so.

Nothing justifies their rhetoric, regardless of how old it is.


You know that'd be all well and good, except South Korea also seek Reunification.

Else they wouldn't have this or this

Both Koreas seek reunification and have since, well, their foundations. Neither recognises the other's government as legitimate.

If you want them both to coexist then that's going to be a long, long road. They started something like that in South Korea with the Sunshine policy with the blessings of the Clinton Administration but Bush and Hardliners in the South put an end to that.

Their rhetoric is entirely justified and they're probably not going to change it. Why would they? Everyone knows it's simple rhetoric. Mostly intended for domestic ears.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: RomeByFire

Do you think China will let hundreds of thousands of refugees cross their border or mow them down?



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
Why do you think Tillerson is backing off. The generals told him a war with NKorea would be a terrible move, and critical for the Japanese and SKoreans.


It’s not an easy call. Sure, one wants to prevent NKorea from attaining the ability to strike US shores but that’s not easily attainable.


I would try to placate Kim. Make friends with the guy, give it a try. We don’t really have any great strategic interests against him.

Its always easy to make friends when you have the edge, and the US has the edge here.


Which is exactly what they are trying to do, but not passively.
The choice is being given to NK. War and destruction OR peace and prosperity.
One without the other is a bad negotiating position.
Neither - which is how things have been handled up to Jan 20th 2017 - is a recipe for disaster.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
Why do you think Tillerson is backing off. The generals told him a war with NKorea would be a terrible move, and critical for the Japanese and SKoreans.


It’s not an easy call. Sure, one wants to prevent NKorea from attaining the ability to strike US shores but that’s not easily attainable.


I would try to placate Kim. Make friends with the guy, give it a try. We don’t really have any great strategic interests against him.

Its always easy to make friends when you have the edge, and the US has the edge here.


"We're not your enemy, we're not your threat but you're presenting an unacceptable threat to us and we have to respond."

In other words, a response is still on the table.

"The strategy, said Mr Tillerson, is a sustained campaign of peaceful but intensifying economic pressure to change its mind. But given the advances in ballistic technology demonstrated by the recent ICBM tests, there's growing doubt that denuclearisation is a realistic possibility."

An old strategy that isn't working and continuing to do so will only lead to an actual weapon. Even the article states that denuclearization is not feasible.

"If there's going to be a war to stop [North Korea], it will be over there. If thousands die, they're going to die over there. They're not going to die here. And he [Mr Trump] has told me that to my face."

A president being real and standing up to the threats.





edit on 1-8-2017 by Arnie123 because: format



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: UKTruth

What you refuse to see is that the real victims here, if the US makes a wrong move, might be millions of South Koreans, who are vulnerable to the North.


That’s why its not as simple as it seems




Of course it is not simple... and people will die.
The courage to stand and fight a man like Kim Jong Whatever has never been easy to come by.
Fortunately for all of us, those that would appease lost the debate in our recent history - we're free because if it.


Fight him for what exactly?

If his country collapses so does all of East Asia for a multitude of reasons. Which includes America's allies South Korea and Japan. I doubt they'd be happy about that.


They have developed / or are developing nuclear capability and openly threatening a nuclear strike on the USA.


So what?

Those weapons are purely for deterrence. Their threats are just the same stuff they've been saying for half a century. Not gonna happen.

Seems like a good reason not to have a war if anything.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka

Nobody denies that they seek reunification. Just in their own VISIONs.
Ohanka, we've been on that road, where has it lead us? an almost functional weapon, with rhetoric to strike the US. A regime that executes using Anti Air fire. Meanwhile, on our side of the road we have a prospering S.ko nation, rich and advanced. What has china done for N.Ko? that directly helps with the situation?



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: gortex

North Korea's end game is nuclear war with the US, and I bet Lil Kim is willing to die fulfilling his countries (and his own) destiny.



Outright lie.

North Korea's end game is to maintain it's status as a sovereign nation. The end game of every state on the planet. There's also the long term goal of reunification of Korea, which is shared by their neighbours in the South.

Since the US adopted a regime change policy towards the DPRK in the early 2000s under the Bush administration they have sought nuclear weapons since they see those as the only way of deterring US invasion. That is literally all the weapons are for. They have no plans for a first strike on anyone.

All their rants about reducing this or that city to a sea of fire is just rhetoric they've been using since the mid 50s.

BS and you know it. Oh, you're right, the N.Ko wants to maintain its sovereignty...in the form of a unified nation. However, at the expense of subjugating their southern neighbors. Did you forget who invaded who?

The vision of reunification stems from a small group of people, mainly old people who knew, these days, N.Ko and S.Ko carry a unique identity and whole there are those that wish peace, it isn't so.

Nothing justifies their rhetoric, regardless of how old it is.


You know that'd be all well and good, except South Korea also seek Reunification.

Else they wouldn't have this or this

Both Koreas seek reunification and have since, well, their foundations. Neither recognises the other's government as legitimate.

If you want them both to coexist then that's going to be a long, long road. They started something like that in South Korea with the Sunshine policy with the blessings of the Clinton Administration but Bush and Hardliners in the South put an end to that.

Their rhetoric is entirely justified and they're probably not going to change it. Why would they? Everyone knows it's simple rhetoric. Mostly intended for domestic ears.


There is no simple and agreed upon route to unification. What do you think Kim Jong Un would think about the system of govt and who leads it in a unification scenario?

What do the people of SK actually want?
www.eastasiaforum.org...

Trying to unify both countries could lead to civil war.

Is unification now nothing more than NK invading and imposing it's regime on SK?

Regardless, it's a red herring. NK have threatened a nuclear strike on the USA and they have the means to carry it out. What are you going to do about it? Bury your head in the sand and hope they don't bother you? I seem to recall a similar strategy being proposed in the 1930's.
edit on 1/8/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986


North Korea's end game is nuclear war with the US, and I bet Lil Kim is willing to die fulfilling his countries (and his own) destiny.



No it is not...it is nuc war with SK, so how does SK think about all this with their 25 million in Soul alone...



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: UKTruth

What you refuse to see is that the real victims here, if the US makes a wrong move, might be millions of South Koreans, who are vulnerable to the North.


That’s why its not as simple as it seems




Of course it is not simple... and people will die.
The courage to stand and fight a man like Kim Jong Whatever has never been easy to come by.
Fortunately for all of us, those that would appease lost the debate in our recent history - we're free because if it.


Fight him for what exactly?

If his country collapses so does all of East Asia for a multitude of reasons. Which includes America's allies South Korea and Japan. I doubt they'd be happy about that.


They have developed / or are developing nuclear capability and openly threatening a nuclear strike on the USA.


So what?

Those weapons are purely for deterrence. Their threats are just the same stuff they've been saying for half a century. Not gonna happen.

Seems like a good reason not to have a war if anything.


Thankfully for us all the same views were not echoed in the cold war.
The threat is real whether you like it or not and a strategy is required to deal with it.
edit on 1/8/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: yuppa




If i was president id be willing to sacrifice Sk over this since its not really americans at risk there.


I'm stunned , what a terrible thing to say.


Don't be stunned at adolescents that have read a few articles in Jane's and consider themselves military experts.
They have no idea what they are talking about, no real experience, just macho BS to try and impress others.



Im nearly 40 yrs old. so you stfu on that.
And Im not trying to impress anyone here. im just stating a way to do the objective without losing american lives period in that region.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Actually the US had them militarily beat in Vietnam according to one of their generals who was in charge. Politically it was a loss though.

The US dont have to beat NK anyway. you take out their infrastructure and command and control. then let nature take its course.

US mil in Nam should had bombed the capital in that war but wussed out until it was too late to do so.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: olaru12

What vast tactical acumen do you bring to the table?

Served on the DMZ?
Been to Gary Owen?
Combat in similar environments?

Read about it in a Vox article?



Oh he served apparently,but i come from a military family myself. my grandfather served in Army airforce in WW2 and my father was in the army motor pool. I would had went into the military but my scoliosis prevents me from lifting alot of weight.
Anyway He taught me about the ways of aerial bombing and such so i have alot of respect for the flyers who drop those bombs and fire missiles.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: gortex

Good, not seeking a new regime. Nation building in the 1960's and 1970's sure hurt in the 1990's.


And '80's. Reagan's October Surprise...
But hell, they were able to give Saddam chemical weapons AND arm the Iranians at the same time...
And everyone involved got off with pardons. That were caught...



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't really know what you are talking about. Like I said, we already invaded Korea, 36,000 KIA.

I don't really care about the east one way or another. We are no longer a super power, so its up the to rest of the world.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 06:01 AM
link   
meanwhile, multi millionaire oil magnate rex tillerson threatens china with military action because america is useless at making things.

with trumps obvious ties to saudi arabia and therefore wahhabi it's little surprise he and his team are turning their attention to the far east.
fox no doubt will run some fake news for his mentally deficient acolytes to lap up.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 06:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: gortex

Nk dont really hold all the aces. If i was president id be willing to sacrifice Sk over this since its not really americans at risk there. Id pull out all our citizens then strike NK during a parade to decap the leadership.


(Jaw drops)
You are aware that NK has artillery within range of the South Korean capital Seoul aren't you?
And you think that South Korea could be sacrificed just because they're not Americans?
Good grief.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join