salttee wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

L410Turbolet wrote:

You are not THAT naive, are you?

What do you mean?

I guess he is.

What I am saying, it is international airspace or space, in this case, it isn't Japanese airspace which alot of people seems to think. So it is blown out of proportion. So who is being naive here? This kind of talk takes us closer to war, not solving the problem. Is it uneasy, sure, but com'on this way you play right in the hand of the DPRK's regime, do you want that?

bhill wrote:

Time to star using the THAAD and AEGIS systems that we paid for. Shoot the fuckers down! What is NK going to do? And this will render his love for missiles moot.

War crime, you do realize that? So you think it's ok because NK isn't going to do anything?

Dutchy wrote:

bhill wrote:

Time to star using the THAAD and AEGIS systems that we paid for. Shoot the fuckers down! What is NK going to do? And this will render his love for missiles moot.

War crime, you do realize that? So you think it's ok because NK isn't going to do anything?

How would shooting down a missile fired over your territory constitute a "war crime"?

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

bhill wrote:

Time to star using the THAAD and AEGIS systems that we paid for. Shoot the fuckers down! What is NK going to do? And this will render his love for missiles moot.

War crime, you do realize that? So you think it's ok because NK isn't going to do anything?

How would shooting down a missile fired over your territory constitute a "war crime"?

Because it is outside their territory, that is the whole point. It was in space, so outside Japanese air space. So legally it is the same as shooting down an aircraft in international airspace. So war crime, or better act of war against the DPRK. So that is bhill advocating here. And since the then candidate Trump advocating war crimes by suggesting quite explicitly that America should kill the family of terrorist in order to stop terrorism, nothing surprises me anymore. I, for one, still believe in international law, guess some would prefer back to the times where the right of the strongest is supreme.

Dutchy wrote:

guess some would prefer back to the times where the right of the strongest is supreme.

Obviously right of the strongest is still supreme, it's just that nasty things are usually done more covertly than in earlier times. That's one reason why I like Putin and Trump, at least they are honest with their actions and don't pretend to be something else than what they truly are.

pvjin wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

guess some would prefer back to the times where the right of the strongest is supreme.

Obviously right of the strongest is still supreme, it's just that nasty things are usually done more covertly than in earlier times. That's one reason why I like Putin and Trump, at least they are honest with their actions and don't pretend to be something else than what they truly are.

Ah yes, why not put a picture of Trump in your avatar.

I would like to ask all of the members here that advocate that firing a missile above a certain altitude over Japan meant as only for the purpose of carrying a warhead of some sort over Japan as not being a concern enough to stop it in the future would also then agree that the same is true with regard to the skies over the United States or any United States territory?

By extension, it would then mean that firing ballistic missiles above a certain altitude over any other nation on Earth would also be acceptable, correct?

Is that what is now being advocated when it is stated that because that missile flew above a certain altitude it is not problem for Japan, or her allies?

And if a piece of a missile returning through airspace that is used by airliners were to hit an airliner, then that would also be acceptable?

Dutchy wrote:

pvjin wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

guess some would prefer back to the times where the right of the strongest is supreme.

Obviously right of the strongest is still supreme, it's just that nasty things are usually done more covertly than in earlier times. That's one reason why I like Putin and Trump, at least they are honest with their actions and don't pretend to be something else than what they truly are.

Ah yes, why not put a picture of Trump in your avatar.

I'll change it to Santa Claus in December 24th.

pvjin wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

pvjin wrote:

Obviously right of the strongest is still supreme, it's just that nasty things are usually done more covertly than in earlier times. That's one reason why I like Putin and Trump, at least they are honest with their actions and don't pretend to be something else than what they truly are.

Ah yes, why not put a picture of Trump in your avatar.

I'll change it to Santa Claus in December 24th.

Can't wait

CH47A wrote:

I would like to ask all of the members here that advocate that firing a missile above a certain altitude over Japan meant as only for the purpose of carrying a warhead of some sort over Japan as not being a concern enough to stop it in the future would also then agree that the same is true with regard to the skies over the United States or any United States territory?

By extension, it would then mean that firing ballistic missiles above a certain altitude over any other nation on Earth would also be acceptable, correct?

Is that what is now being advocated when it is stated that because that missile flew above a certain altitude it is not problem for Japan, or her allies?

And if a piece of a missile returning through airspace that is used by airliners were to hit an airliner, then that would also be acceptable?

Do you advocate just shooting down anything you like, just because you don't like it? Or do you think we should obey the international law even though this state doesn't?

Please accept my apology, Dutchy, when I state that I feel it is impolite for you to not answer any of my questions, but then move forward by asking your own questions of me.

I apologize because it might be that I am wrong and ignoring my questions before asking me follow-up questions is an acceptable style here on this site.

Wow, thát is passive aggressive.

I explained the international law and yes if it is international (air) space it is not acceptable to shoot any craft down, missile, bomber or passenger a/c. It is a problem, yet not a problem which is going to be helped by shooting down anything.

Or do you think the UK or France should shoot down the next Russian Tu-95 that passes through international airspace between France and the UK.

Dutchy wrote:

Or do you think the UK or France should shoot down the next Russian Tu-95 that passes through international airspace between France and the UK.

There is something odd about your thinking processes when you equate a manned aircraft flying over water in international airspace, with an IRBM which is designed to carry a nuclear warhead being launched in a trajectory directly over an island nation. Especially when that island nation is Japan, which has been the recipient of the only wartime use of nuclear weapons.

You really should give up on this one, you're going to make a complete fool of yourself if you continue beating this dead horse.

CH47A wrote:

Please accept my apology, Dutchy, when I state that I feel it is impolite for you to not answer any of my questions, but then move forward by asking your own questions of me.

I apologize because it might be that I am wrong and ignoring my questions before asking me follow-up questions is an acceptable style here on this site.

It should not be considered acceptable style. That obnoxious practice is often used to deflect from an issue or to avoid admitting to errors that have been posted.

In my opinion it is rather uncivil.

salttee wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Or do you think the UK or France should shoot down the next Russian Tu-95 that passes through international airspace between France and the UK.

There is something odd about your thinking processes when you equate a manned aircraft flying over water in international airspace, with an IRBM which is designed to carry a nuclear warhead being launched in a trajectory directly over an island nation. Especially when that island nation is Japan, which has been the recipient of the only wartime use of nuclear weapons.

You really should give up on this one, you're going to make a complete fool of yourself if you continue beating this dead horse.

Believing in the rule of law is easy when you agree with something and it is hard if you don't.

As for my comparison, the TU-95 is designed to carry a nuclear bomb. The Dover straights are narrow, so the TU-95 passes much closer to the national airspace of France or the UK then this missile to the national airspace of Japan. Yes, it is manned, true of course, but the point I was trying to get across that it is a craft from another nation, manned or not and shooting it down is not acceptable in my point of view.
And I don't get this remark about being bombed by a nuclear device, does that give you any special privileges, which I don't know about?

Look I do not defend the actions of this rogue nation, it is tasteless, could be dangerous if there was someone on the other end whom is trigger happy and I would be very glad to see this regime go, it is one of two nations which terrorize its citizens and de facto is a giant prison camp (the other is Eritrea).
But, and that is a big but, that doesn't justify for a nation to break all the rules which the international community agreed up on.
I take a stand for international law and I believe that international law makes the world a little better and then you can't just say, well this nation we do apply the international treaties because we think they are more or less okay (moral standpoint or they are a bit too strong, geo politics) and other nations well screw them they can't do what others do within the same framework. And yes, I know it is an unpopular point of view, but heck I don't care and if you think I am a fool for thinking that way, so be it, I don't care I would have no backbone if I would only pick the easy popular point of views, but if you rather hear or better read from people whom you agree with, well it would be a rather short conversation which will never challenge your ideas.

BobPatterson wrote:

CH47A wrote:

Please accept my apology, Dutchy, when I state that I feel it is impolite for you to not answer any of my questions, but then move forward by asking your own questions of me.

I apologize because it might be that I am wrong and ignoring my questions before asking me follow-up questions is an acceptable style here on this site.

It should not be considered acceptable style. That obnoxious practice is often used to deflect from an issue or to avoid admitting to errors that have been posted.

In my opinion it is rather uncivil.

So, Bob, that is an indirect attack. I will accept many opinions, but this one, I am sorry to say, I can't accept, not from you. I have asked many questions to you, many times, over and over again, you choose to ignore them over and over again, including personal attacks which I asked you many times to give me examples (that I would be anti-American for instance which you have accused me of on many occasions), you choose this tactic over and over again to go into one very specific detail which doesn't mean anything, thus derailing a discussion.
So this moral knight thingy you do here doesn't suit you at all and is rather hypocrite. So when you pass judgement, my friend, be damn sure you don't have done exactly the thing you accuse others of.

Dutchy wrote:

As for my comparison, the TU-95 is designed to carry a nuclear bomb. The Dover straights are narrow, so the TU-95 passes much closer to the national airspace of France or the UK then this missile to the national airspace of Japan. Yes, it is manned, true of course, but the point I was trying to get across that it is a craft from another nation, manned or not and shooting it down is not acceptable in my point of view.

If the USA launched a multi-mach scram cruise missile at Russia or China but then blew it up remotely 12 miles from the nations borders.... do you think that might be destabilizing? Do you think that either nation would strike first, destroy the missile prior to it entering their airspace at supersonic speeds? I know if a nation fired a missile at the USA that began to approach closer than probably 50-100 miles from the coast there would be defensive action taken. Why?

The simple fact is that the speed means there is no way to know what will happen, you need to defend at a distance that allows you to prevent a possible attack from impacting. "Fake punching" at you is not OK, if you were stuck in place and I kept swinging my fist at you and just keep coming close to you but don't hit you, just keep coming within a few inches of your face, that is bullying. That is not OK. Any reasonable person would understand if you swatted my fist away, if you felt the need to do something to protect yourself. The lack of notification by the launching party creates a situation where the parties involved just cannot know in time what is not an attack. Bullying is not OK.

Finally Dutchy, looking through wiki, I will note that there is no international agreement on the vertical limit of sovereign airspace (the boundary between outer space—which is not subject to national jurisdiction—and national airspace). While the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale has established an altitude of 100 km (62 mi), as the boundary between the Earth's atmosphere and outer space, there has been no actual unified agreement to that. So your statement "100km is space" (and therefore international) is not accurate. I guess Japan and other nations could just declare a very high altitude and request advance notification or knowledge of any items prior to its entry into that space. Maybe it could be called the "9 dash line of air and space".... It certainly would cause debate in the UN on the subject.

Tugg

Tugg, in this case you are talking about a missile traveling in an arc, not a missile flying more or less level and then blowing up 12 nm off the coast. That is quite a different thing, wouldn't you agree. Bullying is not ok, well I agree, I think what the DPRK is doing is wrong, but that doesn't mean two wrongs make it right.

You think provocation is not the right way, well again you find me by your side. Just like I think what China is doing in the South China Sea is wrong, but then again the US Navy thought it necessary to do the same, I suspect the latter you might find that acceptable, is that a right guess?

As for the vertical limit, do you think the airspace is indefinite? So to that extent, I think you find it more than acceptable to knock spy satellites out of orbit, right? The 100km line is more or less established and internationally accepted, but yes it doesn't seem to be formal indeed. But then again, there is an international treaty which says you can't own space, so you can't own the moon, for instance, so extending that logic we can establish that 550km above the earth is space, right? Even though you don't seem to accept the Kármán line. Or do you feel that the astronauts, cosmonauts, or whatever they are called in their home country, aboard the ISS (orbits between 330 and 435 km above the earth), need visa's to enter those countries airspace and they constantly neglect to show their passports? Although I think there might be some logistical problems to overcome, orbeting the earth 16 times a day.

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

CH47A wrote:

Please accept my apology, Dutchy, when I state that I feel it is impolite for you to not answer any of my questions, but then move forward by asking your own questions of me.

I apologize because it might be that I am wrong and ignoring my questions before asking me follow-up questions is an acceptable style here on this site.

It should not be considered acceptable style. That obnoxious practice is often used to deflect from an issue or to avoid admitting to errors that have been posted.

In my opinion it is rather uncivil.

So, Bob, that is an indirect attack. I will accept many opinions, but this one, I am sorry to say, I can't accept, not from you. I have asked many questions to you, many times, over and over again, you choose to ignore them over and over again, including personal attacks which I asked you many times to give me examples (that I would be anti-American for instance which you have accused me of on many occasions), you choose this tactic over and over again to go into one very specific detail which doesn't mean anything, thus derailing a discussion.
So this moral knight thingy you do here doesn't suit you at all and is rather hypocrite. So when you pass judgement, my friend, be damn sure you don't have done exactly the thing you accuse others of.

My response to CH47A was in no way an attack upon you or even a reference to you.

The fact that you choose to take such comments as "personal attack" is only a reflection of your hypersensitivities.

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

It should not be considered acceptable style. That obnoxious practice is often used to deflect from an issue or to avoid admitting to errors that have been posted.

In my opinion it is rather uncivil.

So, Bob, that is an indirect attack. I will accept many opinions, but this one, I am sorry to say, I can't accept, not from you. I have asked many questions to you, many times, over and over again, you choose to ignore them over and over again, including personal attacks which I asked you many times to give me examples (that I would be anti-American for instance which you have accused me of on many occasions), you choose this tactic over and over again to go into one very specific detail which doesn't mean anything, thus derailing a discussion.
So this moral knight thingy you do here doesn't suit you at all and is rather hypocrite. So when you pass judgement, my friend, be damn sure you don't have done exactly the thing you accuse others of.

My response to CH47A was in no way an attack upon you or even a reference to you.

The fact that you choose to take such comments as "personal attack" is only a reflection of your hypersensitivities.

Haha, thanks for the laugh, regardless still my comments stand, it is a very hypocrite comment of you.

At some point, the U.S., South Korean and Japan are going to start shooting at the North Korean missiles. That will be interpreted as an act of war by North Korea, which will probably react by firing more missiles. And, should an errant firing hit China? A dangerous time, indeed.

The question is what is the goal you want to achieve ?

I think like 11725Flyer that shooting down missiles would only escalate matters.

Aesma wrote:

The question is what is the goal you want to achieve ?

I think like 11725Flyer that shooting down missiles would only escalate matters.

If a bully in your neighborhood keeps threatening you, what do you do?

There are no police to go to and you are going to be stuck living with the neighbor for a long time. You can't move. You life is degraded and you are scared.
What do you do?

That's how you could look at it. And I can't answer that for you, can you?

Tugg

In hopes that Aesma would not mind if I take the first step in answering:

Tugger wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The question is what is the goal you want to achieve ?

I think like 11725Flyer that shooting down missiles would only escalate matters.

If a bully in your neighborhood keeps threatening you, what do you do?

There are no police to go to and you are going to be stuck living with the neighbor for a long time. You can't move. You life is degraded and you are scared.
What do you do?

That's how you could look at it. And I can't answer that for you, can you?

Tugg

I would like to offer the first important piece of information to answer the question as it relates to what has already been done.

Well, it is not one piece of information, of course. It is a list of the United Nations official documentation related to the problems that members of the United Nations view as associated with the DPRK.

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un ... rth-korea/

Dutchy wrote:

salttee wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Or do you think the UK or France should shoot down the next Russian Tu-95 that passes through international airspace between France and the UK.

There is something odd about your thinking processes when you equate a manned aircraft flying over water in international airspace, with an IRBM which is designed to carry a nuclear warhead being launched in a trajectory directly over an island nation. Especially when that island nation is Japan, which has been the recipient of the only wartime use of nuclear weapons.

You really should give up on this one, you're going to make a complete fool of yourself if you continue beating this dead horse.

Believing in the rule of law is easy when you agree with something and it is hard if you don't.

As for my comparison, the TU-95 is designed to carry a nuclear bomb. The Dover straights are narrow, so the TU-95 passes much closer to the national airspace of France or the UK then this missile to the national airspace of Japan. Yes, it is manned, true of course, but the point I was trying to get across that it is a craft from another nation, manned or not and shooting it down is not acceptable in my point of view.
And I don't get this remark about being bombed by a nuclear device, does that give you any special privileges, which I don't know about?

Look I do not defend the actions of this rogue nation, it is tasteless, could be dangerous if there was someone on the other end whom is trigger happy and I would be very glad to see this regime go, it is one of two nations which terrorize its citizens and de facto is a giant prison camp (the other is Eritrea).
But, and that is a big but, that doesn't justify for a nation to break all the rules which the international community agreed up on.
I take a stand for international law and I believe that international law makes the world a little better and then you can't just say, well this nation we do apply the international treaties because we think they are more or less okay (moral standpoint or they are a bit too strong, geo politics) and other nations well screw them they can't do what others do within the same framework. And yes, I know it is an unpopular point of view, but heck I don't care and if you think I am a fool for thinking that way, so be it, I don't care I would have no backbone if I would only pick the easy popular point of views, but if you rather hear or better read from people whom you agree with, well it would be a rather short conversation which will never challenge your ideas.

Shooting down a manned bomber plane from a very powerful world player is very different from shooting down a potential nuclear missile from a rogue state that is literally the only thing the UN Security Council can unanimously agree upon is another.

Why do you think the US and USSR never shot at each other? The shit wouldve hit the fan. International laws are guidelines, there is no enforcement. If there was, NK would've been invaded after their second nuclear test. And rich countries never get in trouble. When was the last time any of the permanent members of the Security Council invaded if they ever pissed of the world community in some way? Not since WW2 ended. Then there's the rest of the world, and the few actual asshole countries in the world that do need to be put in place, like NK or Iraq in 1990/91.

TWA772LR wrote:

Shooting down a manned bomber plane from a very powerful world player is very different from shooting down a potential nuclear missile from a rogue state that is literally the only thing the UN Security Council can unanimously agree upon is another.

I would like to challenge you to be very precise. What exactly is the thing that is very different here?
1. manned versus unmanned?
2. powerful nation versus less powerful?
3. potential nuclear missile versus potential nuclear bomber?
4. Rogue state versus "normal" state?

And I don't understand your comment about the UNSC, what can and can't they agree upon?

TWA772LR wrote:

Why do you think the US and USSR never shot at each other? The shit wouldve hit the fan. International laws are guidelines, there is no enforcement. If there was, NK would've been invaded after their second nuclear test. And rich countries never get in trouble. When was the last time any of the permanent members of the Security Council invaded if they ever pissed of the world community in some way? Not since WW2 ended. Then there's the rest of the world, and the few actual asshole countries in the world that do need to be put in place, like NK or Iraq in 1990/91.

You are right about international laws being guidelines. The only accepted enforcement is through the UNSC, not perfect, but the best we have.
Nobody is debating if North Korea is an asshole country or not. The question is what you are willing to do and what consequences are you prepared to accept? North Korea has quite literally a gun pointed at Seoul and more over has a very powerful ally in China.

CH47A wrote:

In hopes that Aesma would not mind if I take the first step in answering:

Ignoring a question is perfectly acceptable and good manner but responding to a question with another question will bring hell and fury, check. I have so much to learn

We all have so much to learn. And the learning never stops.

It has come to it that I actually agree with Putin.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/31/asia/ ... index.html

Dutchy wrote:

It has come to it that I actually agree with Putin.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/31/asia/ ... index.html

Pointless.

There has been plenty of 'talking', even provision of aid to NK in return for not following its nuclear program. NK has ignored or reneged on everything it had previously agreed to. Talking to NK will achieve nothing since they have clearly shown they are not interested in giving up their nuclear ambitions.

scbriml wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

It has come to it that I actually agree with Putin.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/31/asia/ ... index.html

Pointless.

There has been plenty of 'talking', even provision of aid to NK in return for not following its nuclear program. NK has ignored or reneged on everything it had previously agreed to. Talking to NK will achieve nothing since they have clearly shown they are not interested in giving up their nuclear ambitions.

Perhaps you are right, but nowadays the US is also talking to the DPRK, the talking is done by threats and the DPRK answers with missile tests. All this trigger happy talk of invasion, shooting down missiles etc. only contributes to brings us closer to war and plays right into the hands of the leadership of the DPRK, for the people of the DPRK it only shows how divalent the Americans are. If you want to form a tide group, create an out side enemy and Trump's rhetoric is perfect for that.

It is quite a good question, what is the main goal here? Can't be for the DPRK to give up nuclear weapons, it is their life policy and China will not allow the removal of the DPRK's leadership. Given these two facts, what is the main goal here?

Dutchy wrote:

........ nowadays the US is also talking to the DPRK, the talking is done by threats......

Neither you nor I are fully aware of all the talking that us going on.

Dutchy wrote:

All this trigger happy talk of invasion......

Perhaps talk by you and your ilk. Is the USA threatening invasion? Official references for this?

Dutchy wrote:

.......brings us closer to war......

Who is this "us", kemo sabe? Surely you can sit with your thumb in the dike and wait out any war.

Dutchy wrote:

......... what is the main goal here? Can't be for the DPRK to give up nuclear weapons......

It has been an international goal for many years.

Dutchy wrote:

......China will not allow the removal of the DPRK's leadership.

Until that hypothesis is tested you cannot know that to be the case.

Quite a collection of feelings posing as facts. Good job.

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

........ nowadays the US is also talking to the DPRK, the talking is done by threats......

Neither you nor I are fully aware of all the talking that us going on.

Dutchy wrote:

All this trigger happy talk of invasion......

Perhaps talk by you and your ilk. Is the USA threatening invasion? Official references for this?

Dutchy wrote:

.......brings us closer to war......

Who is this "us", kemo sabe? Surely you can sit with your thumb in the dike and wait out any war.

Dutchy wrote:

......... what is the main goal here? Can't be for the DPRK to give up nuclear weapons......

It has been an international goal for many years.

Dutchy wrote:

......China will not allow the removal of the DPRK's leadership.

Until that hypothesis is tested you cannot know that to be the case.

Quite a collection of feelings posing as facts. Good job.

Oh Bob, when you quote me, I feel so much misunderstood.

1. I was talking about the language created by the military movements.
2. How about the President of the United States? "They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen." & “We are sending an armada, very powerful. We have submarines, very powerful, far more powerful than the aircraft carrier, that I can tell you. And we have the best military people on Earth. And I will say this. He is doing the wrong thing. He is doing the wrong thing.”
Or dropping bombs by South Korea (and perhaps also the US military) and holding military exercises in times of tensions.
I could be wrong about this of course, but this isn't talking about appeasement.
But I never mentioned the US, that is your US centric view, in this case, I was talking about the people here.
3. Us, in this case, is the world at large. The same could be said for you, any war would affect the US the same as the Netherlands. If it would go nuclear it would affect the whole world. So your condescending tone is not needed, but then again you would not be you.
4. Officially, but it is a stupid goal that will never be achieved as I have given you the reason for that. If you give me any reasoning why the North Korean regime will give up its nuclear weapons, please enlighten us and show why I am wrong in this analysis, then we have a discussion about it, this again doesn't help to move the discussion forward
5. That one made me laugh out loud. What a bull shit. Again I gave you a plausible reasoning (rhetoric from China for instance and policy going back decades if not centuries) for this, and yes it is a hypothesis, would you like to test it? Invade North Korea and see what happens.

So quite a collection of your usual rhetoric and misinterpretations.

Dutchy wrote:

1. I was talking about the language created by the military movements.

An armada is not an invasion. If you do not understand the words that you use, then why use them?

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

1. I was talking about the language created by the military movements.

An armada is not an invasion. If you do not understand the words that you use, then why use them?

1. Quote me the correct way, if you want to use the quoting button.
2. I gave you 5 points and you choose to respond to one, ignoring yet again the others (remember you took a moral stand about this, love to rub your face into that one, hypocrite again). And yet again you totally misunderstood, either it is me and my inability to reach your level or it is you and you try to do another pointless frame.
I quite explicitly said, 1. American President talking about war. 2. But in this case, I was talking about people here. It is your language (or actually the British), so it should be quite easy to understand, yet you choose not to. Fine. We have nothing to say to each other and you know your behavior annoys me tremendously looking for the worst things in mine responses. Fine, I will not give you any more of my time, only drains energy which is much better spend on other things. Good luck.

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

1. I was talking about the language created by the military movements.

An armada is not an invasion. If you do not understand the words that you use, then why use them?

The way "armada" was used in Trump's passage does strongly imply invasion or at least attack.

BTW
As an old Lone Ranger viewer, do you know what "kemo sabe" means?

salttee wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

1. I was talking about the language created by the military movements.

An armada is not an invasion. If you do not understand the words that you use, then why use them?

The way "armada" was used in Trump's passage does strongly imply invasion or at least attack.

BTW
As an old Lone Ranger viewer, do you know what "kemo sabe" means?

I grew up on the Lone Ranger, paleface. I had the big map of the badlands on the bedroom floor and moved the people around as I listened to each radio episode.

Nevertheless, I checked for meaning before the last post at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ke-mo_sah-bee

And yes, an armada does imply attack of some sort or blockade, but not invasion.

Dutchy wrote:

....... love to rub your face into that one, hypocrite again

There you go again with your personal attacks.

Do you get warnings or bans from the moderators for this (as I do) or do you enjoy some sort of favoritism?

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

....... love to rub your face into that one, hypocrite again

There you go again with your personal attacks.

Do you get warnings or bans from the moderators for this (as I do) or do you enjoy some sort of favoritism?

You really don't get your language.
1. you ignore most of it, so why do I bother?
2. I don't call you, as a person hypocrite, I call your statement hypocrite, quite a different thing. So no attack on you as a person, just call what you write here hypocrite as I have explained to you, which it is, so why should anyone warn me about anything. So stop playing the victim here, you are not.

BobPatterson wrote:

I grew up on the Lone Ranger, paleface. I had the big map of the badlands on the bedroom floor and moved the people around as I listened to each radio episode.

Nevertheless, I checked for meaning before the last post at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ke-mo_sah-bee

That's cute that someone created a Wiki page in an attempt to smooth over a minor sore spot in American cultural history.

But "Kemo" in Latin ie: Spanish, means "Drugs", "Saber" in Spanish is the verb for "knows", Sabe is the third person version of saber. Thus Kemo Sabe means "knows about drugs." "Tonto" is much simpler, in Spanish, Tonto means stupid.

That's the reason there are no Lone Ranger re-runs. Sombody was having a hoot back in the 1950s putting this over on America.

BobPatterson wrote:

And yes, an armada does imply attack of some sort or blockade, but not invasion.

Blockade is a specific naval action; the way armada was used by Trump implied warlike action, but did not indicate a blockade. He was threatening an attack, not a blockade.

salttee wrote:

Blockade is a specific naval action; the way armada was used by Trump implied warlike action, but did not indicate a blockade. He was threatening an attack, not a blockade.

No argument there. Whatever he meant to imply, it probably did not mean "invasion" or attack by land forces (or assault over beaches by marine forces).

So Dutchy's original assumption was closer to the truth than your assumption.
And your rude correction of him in post 84 was out of place.

Right?

salttee wrote:

So Dutchy's original assumption was closer to the truth than your assumption.
And your rude correction of him in post 84 was out of place.

Right?

Only to someone who thinks as you do. An armada can support an invasion (think D-Day). But I doubt that anyone can seriously think that was what Mr. Trump had in mind. A seaborne missile attack is much more likely.

So, not right.

BobPatterson wrote:

salttee wrote:

So Dutchy's original assumption was closer to the truth than your assumption.
And your rude correction of him in post 84 was out of place.

Right?

Only to someone who thinks as you do. An armada can support an invasion (think D-Day). But I doubt that anyone can seriously think that was what Mr. Trump had in mind. A seaborne missile attack is much more likely.

So, not right.

You and Trump have a lot in common.

They should carpet bomb all the religious Glorious leader sites, his presidential palaces and any launch sites and then follow it up with a South Korean invasion force and the final goal should be reunification of Korea. There is one option and that is to take out the Kim Dynasty and any military installations. Nuclear warheads shouldn't be necessary. Unfortunately if this happens then Trump will have another 4 years. It would be nice to think that we could pool up resources and smash them with US/Korean/Japanese and Chinese bombs.

salttee wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

salttee wrote:

So Dutchy's original assumption was closer to the truth than your assumption.
And your rude correction of him in post 84 was out of place.

Right?

Only to someone who thinks as you do. An armada can support an invasion (think D-Day). But I doubt that anyone can seriously think that was what Mr. Trump had in mind. A seaborne missile attack is much more likely.

So, not right.

You and Trump have a lot in common.

Yes, we are both white, republican (kinda), male and in our 70s.

That's pretty much it.

I want to see him impeached.

Tugger wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The question is what is the goal you want to achieve ?

I think like 11725Flyer that shooting down missiles would only escalate matters.

If a bully in your neighborhood keeps threatening you, what do you do?

There are no police to go to and you are going to be stuck living with the neighbor for a long time. You can't move. You life is degraded and you are scared.
What do you do?

That's how you could look at it. And I can't answer that for you, can you?

Tugg

Considering the thread is about the US response, it looks like the US is the police in that story.

Now if I was Japan I would be doing exactly what they're doing, and I wouldn't want a direct intervention from the US.

I don't know how to write this without coming across as an old man preaching. I'm afraid that might, though, be exactly what this is. EXCEPT I have personal involvement here that goes over a number of decades and the loss of life of a friend. Yes, on the other side of that DMZ, so it won't be too hard to guess who that individual is. (Yes, that remains present tense.)

Anyway, I always read the posts in these threads where I think my life intersects with the event(s) being discussed in the thread, and I realize that one thing many of the frequent participants to this discussion seem to have left on the kitchen table as they darted off to work is responsibility.

Now that is going to jump off your screen as you read that and you are going to think - - - ***What the F... is that fart of an old man trying to place upon me now!? Where does he get off trying to place any responsibility on me!?***

Well, I apologize, folks, but it is true.

You see, your leaders many years ago felt it was proper to send your fathers/mothers, uncles/aunts, maybe brothers/sisters, into danger on that peninsula and in a system we have of a democracy we really should support our troops and support folks once that decision has been made. And we are referring to a whole bunch of fine folks losing their lives to get the job done. Back in those years during the active war years in the early 50s the citizens of our country pretty much supported the troops and support folks and that war is not over. And you have thousands of our citizens over there right now in a bid to keep on with the initial goal, but it changed from stopping a rather strange and possibly cruel form of government called something like communism to now stopping a certainly strange and definitely cruel system called "You-Shut-Up-My-Family-Owns-This-Country".

You see, folks, the job that all those U,S, citizens died for back in the 50s hasn't changed one little bit. That job is to halt those rather odd leaders from spreading their nasty style of government to others. Or have you folks forgotten that part? You know, keeping those folks south of the DMZ free of that strange government up above the DMZ?

Looks so simple when I write that word, doesn't it? FREE. Funny how you forget the really true meaning of the word when you are born and raised in a society where it seems like the air you breath --- it's just there.

But it hasn't changed, in that respect, one little bit. That Kim family might want to plant their style in the ROK and maybe even Japan, if they could.

Of course, you'll then think how ridiculous that seems. But what stops that Kim family from moving south of the DMZ? Your brothers and sisters and friends and family friends and neighbor's family and friends and it don't fly if you think, "Oh, but it is a volunteer military now."

That "military" is designed for one purpose in a world where not all stuff is like the air we breath, keep our country free.

And I could probably max out the character limit in this software for one post by putting together the many messages the three DPRK governments have written about how they would tromp on the U.S. of A., if only they could.

Let's not let them. Please.

And at the same time, how about showing the folks living in the ROK and those living in Japan that maybe the U.S. of A. is still willing to place their own citizens in danger's way so that those folks in the ROK and those folks in Japan can live sort of free lives.

Yes, I did just modify the word "free" but that is only because you folks in some countries might not completely understand how "free" in Asia is still not solidly planted. And now I have just pissed off a whole bunch of Koreans and Japanese and throw in all you western folks already pissed off at me and it might be a good idea if I pulled my head back into my shell and dragged this keyboard in with me.

You know, this salt water is really tough on my computer.

CH47A wrote:

And you have thousands of our citizens over there right now in a bid to keep on with the initial goal, but it changed from stopping a rather strange and possibly cruel form of government called something like communism to now stopping a certainly strange and definitely cruel system called "You-Shut-Up-My-Family-Owns-This-Country".

One of my brothers spent a year in Korea during the war (USAF - Kimpo) and my wife spent a year there after the war (foreign service secretary - USAID).

Why should the United States have ANY military personnel in Korea now (except perhaps for some advisors)?

Now that Korea is free and prosperous (in large measure due to the USA), why can't that country be fully responsible for its own defense?

Well, you sure don't let a turtle rest, do you? But I'm still glad down in Key West they don't let you humans eat us, anymore.

Okay, now for that human stuff.

Why? The big question.

Well, the answer has many, many pieces.

But the simple answer is that the war is not over. Very, very basic. We got into that war and it is not finished.

I know, it seems so simple that it can't be valid. But - - - uh oh! I was almost going to ask a question that I can't answer.

I was going to ask when any nation that was still free and alive didn't finish a war?

I don't know the answer to that.

Anyway, we're still at war. And the other side seems to have gotten worse, not better.

AND they have clearly stated many times they have no problem with doing our citizens harm, if only they could. And they are getting really close to "could". We don't have any choice but to defend our people. No choice. This ain't just about the ROK. Or Japan. Them Kim folks have clearly stated many times they would harm our citizens. if they could figure out how to do it.

So it is not just the defense of the ROK that is at stake.

But even if it were, I am not sure that I would support breaking off our relationship with them. That's what we'd be doing, right?

But it doesn't matter, because it hasn't happened. If the majority of Americans vote for a President that has a platform that we are pulling our military out of the ROK, then that's the way it is. We scoot. That hasn't happened, yet. So we have thousands to support in the ROK right at this very moment and it might not be so bad to indicate some sort of support for them.