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.

 

North Korea masses 50,000 troops on border

page: 6
54
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


All I have to say is this is just very, very bad news.

The US will certainly get involved, if you think otherwise because our president likes to pretend he's all about peace, you're sadly mistaken.

Look at the false promises about returning our troops home in war we will never win all because it's actually over oil... you think he cares about sending more into another all out war? NO.




posted on May, 6 2010 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by aboveandbeyond
 


Possibly. Sending more of our own troops to the North Korean/South Korean border in response to this could go one of two ways. Either their presence would prevent anything from happening, or it would be seen as a threat and provoke NK into attacking directly.

When I said our troops are stretched thin in the post you quoted, I didn't mean that there aren't any available were they to be needed somewhere because a war breaks out. Just that the two wars currently ongoing and multiple peace-keeping missions around the world are already taxing enough without adding a third war into the mix. Another war would likely require longer deployments, shorter time off between deployments, or both, and regardless of who are you that will take it's toll on you. Soldiers are still human and they can break if pushed too hard for too long, whether it's mentally or physically. We can find the manpower if we have to, I just worry about the effect that would have on the troops.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by vaevictis
 


Sexist comments such as that are the mark of someone who needs a reality check, not a female who dares to discuss military issues. It doesn't take testes to understand them, nor are "neutral topics" more suitable for discussion by females just because they have ovaries.


All i'm doing is pointing out alternatives which many on here are reluctant to express themselves. if this is to be construed as sexism - so be it. sometimes opinions can appear to be crude in nature but it's an unfortunate side effect of what used to be called a 'frank exchange of views.' someone - to use the politically correct term - mentally challenged will use expletives because it's all they know, while someone who is intelligent will utilize all language forms known to man.

regards, Jenna.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by UberL33t
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Well this is a rather disturbing development. Posturing indeed like belial259 said. I feel this move is seemingly solidifying what some have said is an inevitable event. This is the last thing that the World needs right now. The phrase "To hell in a hand-basket on greased rails" comes to mind. I'm going to pray for a peaceful resolve to this.

[edit on 5/5/2010 by UberL33t]


On the contrary this might be EXACTLY what the world needs right now.

No matter how much it disgusts me(it really does not disgust me...i just figured saying that would soften the disgust for what im about to suggest)and how bad it would be for many humans...war might be the only thing that could pull us out of the abyss of financial and civilization collapse along with the fall of the west.

No matter how much me saying this will disgust you...war makes money.How do you think we got out of the great depression? it was not the 'new deal' which actually worsened the economy(sounds like obama huh..history repeats).It was the greatest war humanity has fought...it killed 70 million people...but it got us out of the abyss and it solidified the wests power.

Following the great war...humanity had the greatest explosion of prosperity and science the world has ever seen.Everything that you can think of that existed back then improved...life was great.

So no matter how much it might disgust you...war might be the only thing that can get us out of the abyss again.And im sure many lives would be lost in this war...but this war could be the one that push's humanity to greatness...remember humanity always experiances the greatest technological achievments and heights during war.

And you guys think the world leaders have not realized this? what do you think all this crap thats going on in iran,korea,china,and russia is? the leaders of the war are fanning the flames of war.

If we survive the coming war...we could bear witness to humanity reaching greatness never before achieved.

I know..im a pig of a human being....look at the big picture.

im a pig.



[edit on 6-5-2010 by tauempire]

[edit on 6-5-2010 by tauempire]

[edit on 6-5-2010 by tauempire]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by vaevictis

Originally posted by aboveandbeyond

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by Demos
 


They also know the US is stretched thin in both manpower and funding. Our troops can't be everywhere and we can't afford another war. I hope nothing comes of this, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me if something does.


Maybe manpower will work as a deterrent without doing anything?


aboveandbeyond, I don't mean to appear rude or callous, but i don't think military matters are for you to discuss. you just haven't earned it. you'd be the first to cower in the corner uttering some skirt-clutching squeals of horror like 'what are THEY going to do about it? THEY - never YOU. i know what i said doesn't sound politically correct but it's time someone said it. women really need to conduct a reality check. i'm sure you've a lot to offer on ats maybe it'd be better to choose a more neutral topic where you can actually contribute rather than pulling one-liners out of your girlish a**


Personally should anything kick off I'd want my partner covering my back, am sure she'll give anyone a really hard time...

Going back down the timeline a bit, before the Puritan and Victorian moral systems pushed women down, women hereabout where as adept at defending their homes and families as the men...



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by thoughtsfull

Originally posted by vaevictis

Originally posted by aboveandbeyond

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by Demos
 


They also know the US is stretched thin in both manpower and funding. Our troops can't be everywhere and we can't afford another war. I hope nothing comes of this, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me if something does.


Maybe manpower will work as a deterrent without doing anything?


aboveandbeyond, I don't mean to appear rude or callous, but i don't think military matters are for you to discuss. you just haven't earned it. you'd be the first to cower in the corner uttering some skirt-clutching squeals of horror like 'what are THEY going to do about it? THEY - never YOU. i know what i said doesn't sound politically correct but it's time someone said it. women really need to conduct a reality check. i'm sure you've a lot to offer on ats maybe it'd be better to choose a more neutral topic where you can actually contribute rather than pulling one-liners out of your girlish a**


Personally should anything kick off I'd want my partner covering my back, am sure she'll give anyone a really hard time...

Going back down the timeline a bit, before the Puritan and Victorian moral systems pushed women down, women hereabout where as adept at defending their homes and families as the men...


Thats a lie..and you know it. i know your trying to stick up for women but...how were they as 'adept' as men? could they fight just as well(remember men are stronger,faster,and have better lung capacity).They might have been able to hold there own but they were NEVER as 'adept' as men when it cames to what your talking about.

There have been numerous studys proving that gender roles are apart of the animals kingdom...there has even been studies shown where they study human children.children were asked(five yr olds)who should wear a dress.

All boys and girls said:women.


They were all asked if men should stay at home and take care of the kids as mommy went to work...they all said the mom should stay at home and men should be the one to work.

If this and other studies are true then gender roles are as real in humanity as in the animal kingdom:sorry feminists.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by tauempire]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by grantbeed
 


Even Obama would not avoid this one.

If any American president would do so, it would be him. As a previous person pointed out, this is the perfect timing for NK to try something; and, unfortunately, there will be no significant consequences, in my opinion. Has anyone else noticed that South Korea seems to be the "Israel" of Asia?



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by vaevictis
 


Inferring that women are mentally incapable of understanding military issues is not "pointing out alternatives". It is sexism plain and simple, regardless of what you call it. You might as well have said that us poor feeble women-folk ought to get ourselves back in the kitchen where we belong.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by vaevictis
 


Inferring that women are mentally incapable of understanding military issues is not "pointing out alternatives". It is sexism plain and simple, regardless of what you call it. You might as well have said that us poor feeble women-folk ought to get ourselves back in the kitchen where we belong.


You can MENTALLY understand war issues..along with politics but you girls are becoming rare and rarer now adays.

But i guess you would also cry sexism if i said women should not be going into combat(well at least the AVERAGE woman).



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by tauempire
 


And who defended the home while men where away? from animals and raiders, who fixed the home when it fell apart... they did not curl up in a ball.. they used what was available to them.

You are right about the strength part, but still when using a seaxe those differences are reduced and when using modern weapons those differences are reduced further..

There are girls here abouts that enjoy getting into fights and are happy to take on the bigger males
especially when they are tanked up...



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauempire
You can MENTALLY understand war issues..along with politics but you girls are becoming rare and rarer now adays.


I'm taking that as a compliment.



But i guess you would also cry sexism if i said women should not be going into combat(well at least the AVERAGE woman).


As much as I'd like to, no I wouldn't because there are logical reasons why women should not be on the front lines.



Originally posted by thoughtsfull
There are girls here abouts that enjoy getting into fights and are happy to take on the bigger males
especially when they are tanked up...


The bigger they are, the funnier it is to take them down.


[edit on 6-5-2010 by Jenna]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by vaevictis

Originally posted by aboveandbeyond

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by Demos
 


They also know the US is stretched thin in both manpower and funding. Our troops can't be everywhere and we can't afford another war. I hope nothing comes of this, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me if something does.


Maybe manpower will work as a deterrent without doing anything?


aboveandbeyond, I don't mean to appear rude or callous, but i don't think military matters are for you to discuss. you just haven't earned it. you'd be the first to cower in the corner uttering some skirt-clutching squeals of horror like 'what are THEY going to do about it? THEY - never YOU. i know what i said doesn't sound politically correct but it's time someone said it. women really need to conduct a reality check. i'm sure you've a lot to offer on ats maybe it'd be better to choose a more neutral topic where you can actually contribute rather than pulling one-liners out of your girlish a**


indeed you said it! Not only are you being politically incorrect, but flatout rude and discriminating to the other sexe. Everybody learns by participating. Glad to have some woman aboard here, nicely ballances some things out.


ontopic-

disturbing news this is. 50.000 is like some earlier post stated not a number to play any wargames with. Also someone mentiont the end of the Korrean war. would like to point out that this war never ended, ony a longlasting ceasefire. The Korreans are always at state of war.


kind regards,



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 05:39 AM
link   
Hello, Vitchilo,
Thanks for your insights and observations.

May I respectfully point out...

The correct abbreviation for The Republic of Korea is ROK, not SK.
and
The correct abbreviation for Communist North Korea is nK, not NK.

THe question becomes...

Will obamadinejad surrender us to The Dear Leader, Kim Jong-IL
or will he just bow down to him?

Appropriate External Image:




posted on May, 6 2010 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauempire

Originally posted by thoughtsfull

Originally posted by vaevictis

Originally posted by aboveandbeyond

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by Demos
 


They also know the US is stretched thin in both manpower and funding. Our troops can't be everywhere and we can't afford another war. I hope nothing comes of this, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me if something does.


Maybe manpower will work as a deterrent without doing anything?


aboveandbeyond, I don't mean to appear rude or callous, but i don't think military matters are for you to discuss. you just haven't earned it. you'd be the first to cower in the corner uttering some skirt-clutching squeals of horror like 'what are THEY going to do about it? THEY - never YOU. i know what i said doesn't sound politically correct but it's time someone said it. women really need to conduct a reality check. i'm sure you've a lot to offer on ats maybe it'd be better to choose a more neutral topic where you can actually contribute rather than pulling one-liners out of your girlish a**


Personally should anything kick off I'd want my partner covering my back, am sure she'll give anyone a really hard time...

Going back down the timeline a bit, before the Puritan and Victorian moral systems pushed women down, women hereabout where as adept at defending their homes and families as the men...


Thats a lie..and you know it. i know your trying to stick up for women but...how were they as 'adept' as men? could they fight just as well(remember men are stronger,faster,and have better lung capacity).They might have been able to hold there own but they were NEVER as 'adept' as men when it cames to what your talking about.

There have been numerous studys proving that gender roles are apart of the animals kingdom...there has even been studies shown where they study human children.children were asked(five yr olds)who should wear a dress.

All boys and girls said:women.


They were all asked if men should stay at home and take care of the kids as mommy went to work...they all said the mom should stay at home and men should be the one to work.

If this and other studies are true then gender roles are as real in humanity as in the animal kingdom:sorry feminists.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by tauempire]


And who do you think 'convinced' girls to wear dresses, long hair and all the rest of it in the first place? Five years is a long time and surely it didn't just happen on a whim, right? I must say I'm surprised, I expected that sexist opinion regarding women's knowledge about war to be gone but it's still there...how is telling me to shove something up my ''girlish a**'' anywhere near nice?



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Sorry I got off topic..

Anyway.. I'm just not sure how long things can continue before an error on one side or the other will set the situation alight..

lets hope this all calms down..



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by aboveandbeyond

Originally posted by tauempire

Originally posted by thoughtsfull

Originally posted by vaevictis

Originally posted by aboveandbeyond

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by Demos
 


They also know the US is stretched thin in both manpower and funding. Our troops can't be everywhere and we can't afford another war. I hope nothing comes of this, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me if something does.


Maybe manpower will work as a deterrent without doing anything?


aboveandbeyond, I don't mean to appear rude or callous, but i don't think military matters are for you to discuss. you just haven't earned it. you'd be the first to cower in the corner uttering some skirt-clutching squeals of horror like 'what are THEY going to do about it? THEY - never YOU. i know what i said doesn't sound politically correct but it's time someone said it. women really need to conduct a reality check. i'm sure you've a lot to offer on ats maybe it'd be better to choose a more neutral topic where you can actually contribute rather than pulling one-liners out of your girlish a**


Personally should anything kick off I'd want my partner covering my back, am sure she'll give anyone a really hard time...

Going back down the timeline a bit, before the Puritan and Victorian moral systems pushed women down, women hereabout where as adept at defending their homes and families as the men...


Thats a lie..and you know it. i know your trying to stick up for women but...how were they as 'adept' as men? could they fight just as well(remember men are stronger,faster,and have better lung capacity).They might have been able to hold there own but they were NEVER as 'adept' as men when it cames to what your talking about.

There have been numerous studys proving that gender roles are apart of the animals kingdom...there has even been studies shown where they study human children.children were asked(five yr olds)who should wear a dress.

All boys and girls said:women.


They were all asked if men should stay at home and take care of the kids as mommy went to work...they all said the mom should stay at home and men should be the one to work.

If this and other studies are true then gender roles are as real in humanity as in the animal kingdom:sorry feminists.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by tauempire]


And who do you think 'convinced' girls to wear dresses, long hair and all the rest of it in the first place? Five years is a long time and surely it didn't just happen on a whim, right? I must say I'm surprised, I expected that sexist opinion regarding women's knowledge about war to be gone but it's still there...how is telling me to shove something up my ''girlish a**'' anywhere near nice?


what? i never said that women cant have knowledge of war. i just said it was rare.

and furthermore...there was no 'convincing'.im sure you wont believe it but...there are gender roles in the chimpanzee and gorilla species...why do you women fight it so hard? im not saying we should return to the victorian era im just saying the maybe certain things should be off limmits for one gnder(men AND women).


[edit on 6-5-2010 by tauempire]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   
actually the correct term for north korea is the DPRK , democratic peoples republic of korea !

DPRK

I believe Kin wont go to war , it simply a show of force , Kim likes to show he has power to other nations , not only in nuclear deterrent but also in man power , he is just showing the world he has force which is mobile and ready to do his bidding.
This gives him leverage , he mobilises his troops and the western world craps themseleves , they start asking Kim not to get all crazy with his itchy trigger finger .

Kim isnt stupid , he likes his socialist state , he wants to keep it that way and doesnt want to wipe his beloved korea off the map , he just wants unification for the korean people , and for the entire peninsula not to be the slaves of the american imperialists !

.

With regards to comments about women in war , I believe women do have a role to play during war , that role IMO is not in combat however , there are things that happen in war that no one should be subjected to , and certainly not mothers of our planet , if we lose our female population then the human race is doomed. Women are more intelligent than your average male or so studies suggest , therefore females should be in intelligence roles or even direct combat as generals , however should never see combat or the horrors of war in person.

I like to think that women are the direct extension of the earth as our mother , and we should protect them from the evil of the world so they can remain uncontaminated by the evil things men can do !

call my statement sexist , if you like , but im not trying to be sexist because I love women, for everything they are and can be .I love my mother , my sister and my fiance and their womenly ways but I would never see them in a war ever!



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
Possibly. Sending more of our own troops to the North Korean/South Korean border in response to this could go one of two ways.


Doesn't need to be troop numbers. Our strength is not in the number of troops we have but our technological supremacy. Just parking a carrier in the general area and firing off a few missiles for the media is enough to make most countries take pause.

We in the west don't have the industrial capacity and manpower we once used to military or economically. If it comes to a total war I think we're going to be fond wanting. Especially with the state of the economy.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


all that from 1 news source eh?
wow.. it would be nice to see like 10 more sources ..
if you can find em ..



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Demos

Good to know not everyone's been sucked into the vortex of feminist insanity and regarding why they fight it so hard it's simple to them everything is a conspiracy: wearing a dress equals conspiracy ponytails are a conspiracy..yeah,everything is just one big damn conspiracy to turn women into inferior creatures. ah,not to mention the lack of that precious organ between their legs-damn,that's one heck of a conspiracy! besides,look at their responses,sums their psyche better than any study. let's end this discussion here,it went off-topic.

Mod Edit: How to Quote

[edit on 5-6-2010 by worldwatcher]



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join