North Korea directs missiles towards Australia

Originally posted by maestromason
It is really easy to understand our international policies when it comes to our interests and our allies.....

DON'T # WITH EITHER ONE OF THEM!

We have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy and we back it up....oh do WE EVER BACK IT UP!

I am not a war monger BUT I am also a TRUE AMERICAN who believes in defending our freedoms AT ANY AND ALL COSTS!

"defending our freedoms"...do you, honestly, even believe that line yourself anymore?

"Freedom isn't free...freedom costs a buck o' five...we must fight THEM there so we don't fight THEM here..."

WHATEVERRRR LMAO

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by AGWskeptic

 

These types of conflicts do take generations to heal, Jerusalem is still getting argued over thousands of years later. The new NK leader does appear a bit more receptive to peace, he is still pretty young so depends on what type of guidance he gets. So far I have been happy with what little I have heard.

I hope you are right. At 28 years old one would hope that the guidance Kim Jong-un receives, is peaceful in nature. After all he has 900.000 men ready and waiting.

Originally posted by SheopleNation

Originally posted by Jace26
STOP REFERRING TO WW2, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE BATTLE FOR AUSTRALIA #WIT, SOMETHING THAT AMERICA HAD VERY LITTLE ROLE IN.

My apologies, Got away for awhile.

I think that maybe it's you that has to calm down son. You have come completely unhinged to the point where your choice of language very well might get you in trouble here. Not my business though, Cause as much as your foolishness frusterates me, I know you're just suffering from some brainwashing or at the very worst some sort of brain disorder. ~$heopleNation

I doubt that Jace26 is brainwashed, more than likely frustrated with how people interpret historical events. You may find the below information interesting ...

WHAT WAS THE BATTLE FOR AUSTRALIA 1942-43?

"The fall of Singapore can only be described as Australia’s Dunkirk…The fall of Dunkirk initiated the Battle for Britain. The fall of Singapore opens the Battle for Australia."


"historian, with a special focus on Japanese history and the Pacific War, it fell to me to define the concept and scope of a Battle for Australia, and to write a paper that justified commemoration of a Battle for Australia in 1942. At private meetings during 1997, Major General James and I defined the concept of a Battle for Australia to describe the clash of Japanese and American strategic war aims with Australia as their focus that produced a series of great battles in 1942 across the northern approaches to Australia, including the Battle of the Coral Sea, the Kokoda Campaign, and Guadalcanal Campaign. In this context, the Battle for Australia was to be viewed as a lengthy and bloody struggle to prevent the Japanese achieving their strategic Pacific War aims of controlling Australia, and preventing the United States aiding Australia and using Australia as a base for launching a counter-offensive against the Japanese military advance. For their part, the Americans were determined to protect their access to Australia and its New Guinea territories in 1942, even at the risk of their five precious fleet carriers that had survived the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."

Originally posted by StealthyKat
reply to post by Jace26

 

I wasn't aware Australians hate us....maybe I should ask some of my many Australian friends about that.

Individually Americans are fine. It is only when they function as a group that bad things happen. Soz mate, consider it a sign of affection. We like to rip off people that we feel comfortable with.

All that said: The rivalry between Australia, Canada, NZ, UK and US is somewhat akin to sibling rivalry - which is nothing compared to NK, which is a clear and present danger, and still technically at war.

Unfortunately ICB capability renders the Australian defensive posture somewhat obsolete. Us Auzzies have always lived in the comfort of knowing that no aircraft is capable of such long range transit, and any invasion convoy could be blown out of the water by F-111 (which btw are now retired without replacement)... And any invading army would not survive the tyranny of distance and supply chain issues that would result. We have till late lived in a defence vacuum. But ICB is a game changer.

reply to post by kwakakev

no matter how you try to cut it nk is not on our side, they move to there own drum beat and its not working for the hence what obama said.. The days of give me this or will shoot missles is over for them. No one wants to take over nk anymore if they did they would of done so when nk shelled sk no to long ago...

Im glad you are not in office, my goodness! You actually want our enemies to have an even playing field for war, are you kidding me? You love and feel for nk so bad, then i tell you what, why dont you move over there...

I wouldnt want nk to be taken over just cause, but with there track record i would never allow them to have nukes.. Well, at least for a few generations till they fix that track record..

What is wrong with you... What you think if nk became super power they would spare you, lmfao... Sorry but your a joke, didnt want to disrespect you but c'mon.... You actully think by letting everyone have nukes that would create world peace! Wow.... Just... Wow!

Australia. Besides its logistics problems, it IS a potential target and a very strong strategy point. Why? Simple! It is huge, and exactly because it is situated in a strategic position, gives anyone who controls it, a VERY good base point to attack US by the west coast.

reply to post by beam1


It worked in creating peace between Russia and America.

So what is your option, stick to Bush's Axis of evil plan and invade NK? Then what, create another generational war like Afghanistan? Or maybe just drop a bomb on two on them and further enrage the generational animosity in the region?

It is good that the UN is getting serious about the nuclear issue, but I am more concerned with stateless organisations and rouge groups than national institutions.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by beam1

 

It worked in creating peace between Russia and America.

So what is your option, stick to Bush's Axis of evil plan and invade NK? Then what, create another generational war like Afghanistan? Or maybe just drop a bomb on two on them and further enrage the generational animosity in the region?

It is good that the UN is getting serious about the nuclear issue, but I am more concerned with stateless organisations and rouge groups than national institutions.

How you going to compare russia with nk!?

Like i said if we wanted to invade nk we would of done it in the korean war and finished it, or more recently when nk shelled sk.. Ive said numerous times what nk should do.. Are you even reading what im saying or just picking a sentance here and there?

Wasnt it you that said it takes about a generation for things to get better? What is your option... Just give them nukes and cross our fingers that they dont use them just cause they woke up on the wrong side of the bed?

Once again... Look how sk is doing after the war compared to nk.. Its like you ppl actually think that things just get fixed over night... Afgahn look bad now but give it time, ppl dont just get adjusted over a couple of nights.. Believe it or not, over throwing a bad regime as big as theres is no easy task but in the end you will see how well worth it it was..

Originally posted by thecrippler
Australia. Besides its logistics problems, it IS a potential target and a very strong strategy point. Why? Simple! It is huge, and exactly because it is situated in a strategic position, gives anyone who controls it, a VERY good base point to attack US by the west coast.

Exactly! No matter how ignorant ats australians are, loosing them would put a big hole on defense..

Here i am actually trying to convince an australian him self (akwak) that its not good to have missles pointed at them and he seems to think that by giving them nukes it will all go away, all because he thinks it worked for russia.. Smh... The blind hate some ppl have towards america and they dont even understand the ramifications..

We are protecting his country, yet we are the bad guys in his eyes, go figure..

Originally posted by beam1
We dont want to attack nk just cause, so nk should find other non violent means to make them selves relevent in the world and join a side to be protected by, sk did it..

Im sorry, are you suggesting North Korea give up their right to self determination? Once upon a time didn't your nations founding fathers choose to question their allegiance to one of the worlds predominant powers, in order to secure sovereignty? I've got a better idea. If we don't want to see NK launch test missiles. Why not offer to both teach and instruct them how to use test proven rockets? Of course strictly under supervision until they can reasonably prove they can be entrusted with such technology. With no intent for use in warfare besides the exemption of national defense?

Has such an offer been afforded to them? Yes they have a bad track record. But constantly throwing it in their face isn't going to improve relations or encourage them to be more conscious of those around them. It can't all be on the rest of the worlds terms though. There has to be compromises on both sides. Just because select nations have made all these advances, does not give them the right to give everyone else the hurry on. Like some implied sense of conformity. There are some things nations must come to achieve on their own, in order to learn from the experience. That doesn't exempt the rest of the world from offering a hand. Just be willing to understand their reservations about your incentive.

reply to post by daaskapital


You and I have already been over that 10 times. Don't make assumptions, because we agree on alot of points. ~$heopleNation

reply to post by Amdusias


LMAO! Tell me something that I don't already know, minus the drivel. Oh and uh, Your corrupt politicians are allowing Red China to rape the resources of your continent by the way. ~$heopleNation

Mmmmmmmmmm that propaganda tastes sooooo good. Hurry, Re-elect Obama so we can save ourselves!!!!!

Originally posted by DonaldD


I doubt that Jace26 is brainwashed

I don't. Course Nationalism is blind. I understand though and respect that.

more than likely frustrated with how people interpret historical events.

Yeah well opinions very when it comes to interpreting historical events. That's why the saying goes, The victors write the history books. However, we were both winners in this case.

You may find the below information interesting .

I do, and it proves my point which is that without America, The Japanese Empire surely would have conquered Australia. That's the discussion he and I were having, and that is a fact. All other deflections amount to nothing more than pointless drivel. Which includes, all the time wasted trying to convince me of how corrupt I already know our Government is. It's like listening to music that I wrote. ~SheopleNation

Originally posted by Amdusias

Originally posted by beam1
We dont want to attack nk just cause, so nk should find other non violent means to make them selves relevent in the world and join a side to be protected by, sk did it..

Im sorry, are you suggesting North Korea give up their right to self determination? Once upon a time didn't your nations founding fathers choose to question their allegiance to one of the worlds predominant powers, in order to secure sovereignty? I've got a better idea. If we don't want to see NK launch test missiles. Why not offer to both teach and instruct them how to use test proven rockets? Of course strictly under supervision until they can reasonably prove they can be entrusted with such technology. With no intent for use in warfare besides the exemption of national defense?

Has such an offer been afforded to them? Yes they have a bad track record. But constantly throwing it in their face isn't going to improve relations or encourage them to be more conscious of those around them. It can't all be on the rest of the worlds terms though. There has to be compromises on both sides. Just because select nations have made all these advances, does not give them the right to give everyone else the hurry on. Like some implied sense of conformity. There are some things nations must come to achieve on their own, in order to learn from the experience. That doesn't exempt the rest of the world from offering a hand. Just be willing to understand their reservations about your incentive.

Ok... You know what, # it.. Its your country they are pointing the missles at, its your country that doesnt have much of a defense system. You australian atsers are comfortable with all this, so be it..

America is on your side but you want nk to have nukes and an even playing field, wtf is wrong with you ppl?! Do you realise its 2012? You couldnt win a paint ball fight war, but hey you guys seem to think that you will be spared even when missles sre being pointed at you, the irony!

reply to post by beam1


I never said I wanted them to have nukes. Nor is that Australia's policy. If they want to use nuclear technology however. Then we should encourage them to listen to other nations actively using it as such. Better to be able to instruct them, rather than just let them experiment? It's not like you tell someone to just go and drive a vehicle. Sure they could and learn the hard way and most likely encounter an accident OR you can atleast offer to instruct them. Atleast there are plenty of examples of how detrimental the tech can be if used and not appropriately safe guarded. Maybe if your country hadn't been so invasive in some regards and atleast took the time to ask before taking action. An by asking, I mean asking the relative nation. Not the U.N. Then your government and militaries actions may not be so frowned upon.

Okay there pointing a missile at Australia, IF they hit and that is a very big IF, the North Western corner of Australia is a very big and sparsly populated area, if the rocket actually hits one of these areas it will mean a great big cash injection into our millitary. for something that is realatively begning it may actually bring defence to the forfront of australian political arena giving real thought to a real replacement for the F-111 instead of the stupid F-35 which is no replacement in a stratigic sence.

Originally posted by SheopleNation
reply to post by Amdusias

 

LMAO! Tell me something that I don't already know, minus the drivel. Oh and uh, Your corrupt politicians are allowing Red China to rape the resources of your continent by the way.

~$heopleNation

edit on 26-3-2012 by SheopleNation because: TypO

I'm well aware of the fact they're buying up land. Not all of us agree with it, but atleast they are doing it within set grounds. They aren't the ones being implicated in invading nations strictly to be able to secure resources now are they? They aren't the ones using 'terrorism' as a blanket statement in order to point fingers and engage in combatives with select groups and individuals. They aren't the ones with members of their intelligence communities frankly talking of waterboarding a member of our nation, let alone assassinating them (Julian Assange). Members of your nation can denote your government and military all you want. BUT it is their actions that are having an affect across the globe. Not you...

Originally posted by wondera
Okay there pointing a missile at Australia, IF they hit and that is a very big IF, the North Western corner of Australia is a very big and sparsly populated area, if the rocket actually hits one of these areas it will mean a great big cash injection into our millitary. for something that is realatively begning it may actually bring defence to the forfront of australian political arena giving real thought to a real replacement for the F-111 instead of the stupid F-35 which is no replacement in a stratigic sence.

In other words, it will kick start a wild military spending spree, buying weapons you don't need, to protect you from enemies you don't have.

Save your money Australia.

reply to post by beam1


Russia and NK are both communist nations that have huge ideological differences with America. If America did push through in to NK during the Korean war, where would have it stopped? Beijing, Moscow as both were supporting NK with the American incursion as the rally against the Reds was loud at the time. I do understand where you are coming from and appreciate the civil and candid discussion on this difficult matter.

I do not suggest giving NK the technology, but if they demonstrates the fortitude to develop them it needs to be acknowledged. As a country they do also show the security and strength to handle these weapons. The final question is do they have the responsibility? Their new leader is still quite young and has been exposed to some western ways, I am not yet prepared to sacrifice a possible solution to regional tension until his aims and direction are clear. I think it is preposterous to indicate that Australia will be hit because it failed to give some aid money. If Australia took part on a new invasion into NK then that is a different story.

These weapons are the final solution when all hope is lost and in a way it is reassuring that Australia will be included if the world does go MAD. If the international community can accept their existence and work with nations to implement the proper safeguards, protocols and accounting it does further enhance the overall security. Or if the international community does push the issue underground it will not have a clue what it is working with. The UN START treaty has shown that the days of international conflicts are nearing an end, we are not their yet but the tools and capabilities of conflict resolution without using a gun is improving.