PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on April 05, 2017, 06:01:24 AM
-
We have finally given a response to North Korea that I l love:
The statement from U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson totaled 23 words: "North Korea launched yet another intermediate range ballistic missile. The United States has spoken enough about North Korea. We have no further comment."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tillersons-terse-words-seen-tactical-change-over-nkorea-080459181.html
-
Yeah, that really clears things up. What a statesman.
-
Yeah, that really clears things up. What a statesman.
How are you going to "clear it up"? The message he is saying is that the time for talk is pretty much over, and actions will follow, and NOT necessarily military actions. Read between the lines.
-
Yeah, that really clears things up. What a statesman.
Maybe we should send Hillary to NK with the cheap red plastic "reset" button, I'm sure that would be very statesman like!
-
Steingar just wants Tillerson to do what Obama's SecStates would do - issue a strongly worded condemnation, draw a line in the sand, do nothing, and then endorse an anti-Israel resolution in the UN.
-
How are you going to "clear it up"? The message he is saying is that the time for talk is pretty much over, and actions will follow, and NOT necessarily military actions. Read between the lines.
Ahh, nothing like leaving things open to interpretation to really assuage people's concerns. You can read between the lines, but what you choose to "read" may be correct or 100% incorrect with no way to validate either way. So the better response on NK would have been:
a) No comment at all.
b) NK's continued defiance has caused the US and other UN nations to pursue additional means of compliance. Details of that additional means of compliance will be released at a later date, thank you.
No need for reading between the lines.
-
Steingar just wants Tillerson to do what Obama's SecStates would do - issue a strongly worded condemnation, draw a line in the sand, do nothing, and then endorse an anti-Israel resolution in the UN.
Speaking of lines in the sand, didn't Obama draw one in Syria on using chemical weapons? ::)
-
How are you going to "clear it up"? The message he is saying is that the time for talk is pretty much over, and actions will follow, and NOT necessarily military actions. Read between the lines.
Yeah, that's pretty much the same thing that I heard on CNN this morning.
I think the meaning was much more clear than the usual stern warnings and red lines that have never worked in the past.
-
Ahh, nothing like leaving things open to interpretation to really assuage people's concerns. You can read between the lines, but what you choose to "read" may be correct or 100% incorrect with no way to validate either way. So the better response on NK would have been:
a) No comment at all.
b) NK's continued defiance has caused the US and other UN nations to pursue additional means of compliance. Details of that additional means of compliance will be released at a later date, thank you.
No need for reading between the lines.
I disagree. Sometimes more is conveyed by what is UN-SAID. Let them think about what it means, and churn over it. We are not dealing with reasonable "allies" here. They are enemies. Think Iran type enemies. I don't want it to be crystal clear to them yet. It will be clear when we park a few carrier groups, and some nuke subs (already there btw) off their coast. They don't respect diplomacy, or words, only force, or the threat thereof. They are terrorists.
-
Maybe we should send Hillary to NK with the cheap red plastic "reset" button, I'm sure that would be very statesman like!
She even got the translation from English to Russian on the button wrong. Their equivalent of Sec. of State had to laughingly correct her. The entire show was an embarrassment. It showed weakness, ineptness, and most of all incompetence.
-
We have finally given a response to North Korea that I l love:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tillersons-terse-words-seen-tactical-change-over-nkorea-080459181.html
Not much else to say. Doubt North Korea cares what we say.
-
Not much else to say. Doubt North Korea cares what we say.
Sure they do. This is the MO for NK, sabre rattle, make threats and get the western world to send them more aid, mainly food.
NK is starving because the little chubby boy dictator is feeding his army at the expense of his population. He relies on that food. If the west gives him the finger, he has problems.
-
Sure they do. This is the MO for NK, sabre rattle, make threats and get the western world to send them more aid, mainly food.
NK is starving because the little chubby boy dictator is feeding his army at the expense of his population. He relies on that food. If the west gives him the finger, he has problems.
It's the same cycle its always been with North Korea. Launch missiles or conduct missile tests, get the regional forces to come to the table to negotiate. The "negotiation" ends up being strongly worded statements, aid to the North Korean people and a promise by the North Koreans to stop their nuclear program. Fast forward a few months or a year and we're back to the start of the cycle.
-
Steingar just wants Tillerson to do what Obama's SecStates would do - issue a strongly worded condemnation, draw a line in the sand, do nothing, and then endorse an anti-Israel resolution in the UN.
I seriously doubt that.
Steingar seems to have to wait to be told what he wants and then he'll show up and pretend to want it really badly.
-
Yeah, that really clears things up. What a statesman.
Do you think yesterday's strike against Syria helped clear things up a bit for N korea?
-
North Korea is a rogue state. They have blustered their way through the past 50 years. Weak US presidents have allowed themselves to be manipulated by North Korea for political purposes. I fear that North Korea doesn't understand the gravy train isn't going to stop this time. Trump gains nothing from doing anything with them. The cycle is escalating bluffs, but what will they do when nobody cares?
-
Do you think yesterday's strike against Syria helped clear things up a bit for N korea?
Not at all. We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and they were still doing this. They don't care.
-
North Korea is the Asian equivalent of Al Sharpton. Never ending posturing, threats of violence, and pandering for free money.
-
N. Korea threatened a "major event" for this weekend.
Trump moved a carrier task force up there and let them know a "major event" would not be tolerated.
N. Korea attempted to launch a missile of some sort (I haven't been able to find out what kind).
It blew up seconds into the launch.
I immediately wondered if we somehow caused that? Some sort of telemetry interference or something.
Later today I read that many others are wondering the same thing and the Pentagon is pretty much saying "no comment", or "we don't comment on such things".
What do you think? Did we somehow hack their launch computers, or otherwise cause the explosion?
Or was it just another N. Korean "fizzle"?
Either way: :) :) :)
-
North Korea fired off another missile.
Does (or should) Trump do anything about it? Didn't he mention something about consequences? At least he didn't draw a red line.
-
North Korea fired off another missile.
Does (or should) Trump do anything about it? Didn't he mention something about consequences? At least he didn't draw a red line.
Just a thought experiment. What if we just nuked Pyongyang. Flatten it. We'd take out Kim and most of the Party hopefully. Would that end North Korea once and for all or would there be too much of the military left to keep the country intact? Or are they hiding nukes somewhere they'd just launch at us, or at Seoul?
-
It would take very little to collapse North Korea but the real risk would be what comes next.
A unified Korea would quickly emerge but would China or India, or Iran for that matter, let such a thing exist?
-
It would take very little to collapse North Korea but the real risk would be what comes next.
A unified Korea would quickly emerge but would China or India, or Iran for that matter, let such a thing exist?
Sounds like Iraq. We go and replace these dictators that we've been working with previously, for years, then have no viable exist scenario in sight. Same thing happened in Libya. It seems our leadership plays checkers, not chess.
-
One of the down sides to changing leaders every 4 or 8 years. Obama (and Hillary) completely screwed up Iraq. Without proper following through after a victory - which is arguably THE single most important thing in war other than actually winning it - we would have been better off leaving Sadam in charge. Look what happened after WWI how we followed up with Germany vs following up with Japan after WWII.
Checkers not chess is a good analogy, you need to know your long term plan and be able to foresee decades ahead. With our system that allows something like Obama to take over, there is no good long term plan. I often wonder how other countries trust us at all. Any promise made by a President can be broken by the next one. Sometimes I think benevolent dictatorship would be better than what we've got. But you can't risk that; no guarantees a dictator would be or stay benevolent. It is what it is and I guess history has shown the U.S. system of government the best man has come up with so far. At least for a couple hundred years until people figure out they can vote themselves other people's money.
-
Without China to prop them up, North Korea is a nothing.
However, Iran and India seem to be great friends of the Norks, so....
-
Without China to prop them up, North Korea is a nothing.
However, Iran and India seem to be great friends of the Norks, so....
GWB (Bush II) talked about the "Axis of Evil".
Fifteen years ago, President George W. Bush labeled Iraq, North Korea, and Iran the "Axis of Evil." This comment was roundly mocked. It was largely forgotten after the war in Iraq and the persistent insurgency. Because two of the countries are still dominating current events and OpsLens analysts described North Korea as the location of a future war, it is worth revisiting the key phrase and how it exhibited wisdom and foresight.
In the 2002 State of the Union Address, just a few months after Sept. 11, Bush described North Korea as "a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens." In regards to Iran, he said they "aggressively pursue these weapons and export terror." Liberals blasted this concept as a ridiculous comparison to the Axis powers in World War II and described it as an attempt by a war cowboy to argue for the Iraq war.
Critics pointed out this phrase didn't accurately reflect the hatred that Iran and Iraq shared for each other after their long war in the 1980s. But the original Axis powers didn't like each other either and would have likely fought each other after winning the initial war.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/revisiting-the-axis-of-evil-15-years-after-george-w-bush-coined-the-term/article/2622576
Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vnezuela, Cuba, etc are NOT our friends. They probably never will be. The best we can do is to show them that we are strong, and will combat any deed they do that is not in our best interest, or is a threat. Appeasement will never work, as it just shows our weakness, which the DO NOT respect. (See Obama)