RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Obama Condemns North Korea's Nuclear Test, Promises 'Action'

You're losing it now, he did not want war with France. And he also would have avoided war with the USSR if possible. Where are you getting your ideas from? From yourself?

And it was quite a bit more complicated than your talk about bitch slapping. The Great War was only 15 years ago, having caused over 9 million casualties for the Allies. They weren't exactly dying to jump into another war, and if they did so before 1938 they probably would find very little support by the population of their own countries.



Their military build up was just fair, you really can't debate about this part. What were they going to do about it? Attack because of the militarization of Rheinland? They knew Hitler was dangerous of course, starting a war just isn't as easy as you describe, like I explained in previous posts.



Not literally of course, but almost every German felt that they had lost a war that they shouldn't have lost. Also take the Treaty of Versailles in account, which were very harsh. That adds up to feelings of revenge yes, I'm sure you would have felt the same way.

No, because the common population had no idea about the holocaust, they weren't guilty to anything. They had just voted Hitler into power, and were glad he was rebuilding their industry and economy. He already lost a lot of support in the mid 40's, when the rumours started leaking that Germany was losing the war.

And the bombings of Dresden were indeed overkill.

"Defense Power" apparently. Oh well.

But as far as embarrassing myself...You're the one who's actually saying that amassing tremendous military power during peace time isn't evidence of an oncoming invasion.

You actually believe every country made military a prioritized investment?

Iwo Jima costed thousands of American lives because the Japanese entrenched themselves so thoroughly. That was your own point about the North Koreans. Hypocritical much?

The 101st is a lesser example, but they similarly invaded a country entrenched with enemies.

Non-Jewish citizens watched Jews get dragged away. They knew about the concentration camps.

Explain to me how amassing tremendous (actually not bigger than the UK and France had themselves) is evidence of a coming invasion.

And eh yes, countries invested much more in their military during these times.

But you're comparing a 21km² island with the whole of North Korea? If the US are so good at invading, how come they didn't invade Japan but just bombed it instead?



And yes but they didn't know they were going to be killed or starved to death of course.

Because we would have lost around one million soldiers. Fucking retarded douche bitch.

Spot on, that's why you are not going to invade North Korea.

fucking retard douche bitch

I still think if it's that similar a situation, we should use the same solution we used on japan. it worked pretty well.

You're comparing the Japan situation to the North Korea situation now?

I just wanna see shiny stuff again.

...They were amassing military power and allying themselves with the war-hungry Japanese.



You're honestly comparing the construction of the Wermacht to the military constructs within the UK, France, US, etc?

I think you're purposefully ignoring the political and social climate of Nazi Germany for the sake of shielding your struggling argument.



I'm pointing out a mass of entrenched enemies on an island death-trap just like you did with North Korea. Accept, unlike your assumption that America wouldn't invade something so dangerous, we actually did invade it.

You want a bigger land mass? Fine. Vietnam. Check and mate.



I never said that they were good at invading. I said that when push comes to shove, they will eventually invade whatever/wherever. As I already pointed out earlier (but you ignored my post to stay in your own little world), even if we didn't have the bomb, we still would have invaded.



Oh yeah, that makes the fact that they were imprisoned for no reason and mysteriously secluded all better...

You clearly didn't pay attention to Mein Kampf, did you? The whole point of his talking of an alliance with Italy and Britain was to have the three of them wipe out the threat of communism together and clearing the way for Germany to give what Hitler saw as payback to France.

There was no alliance untill 1940. There was just an Anti-Comintern pact between Germany and Japan. The UK, Italy, Nationalist China and Poland were also invited to join. It proved to be worthless too, since Japan didn't attack the Soviet Union.



How do you call my argumenting struggling? Yours are mostly grabbed out of the air, please explain what the political and social climate had to do with this. And yes I compare these, the US didn't build up their military yet so I'm not mentioning them.



Yes, invaded Vietnam, and learned from it. Never again. The USA isn't going to interfere, they're going to let China do it, who'll probably do it well. It'll be over before you can ask yourself "where did that Chinese puppet regime come from?".



See my argument above. ^



They were simply not welcome anymore, anti-semitism was very common In Europe at that time. Of course genocide was a bridge too far, but the Germans were good enough at influenting the public opinion that they'd find a nice place for the Jews to live. I believe Madagascar was one of the places targetted as a new Jewland.

Ehm, and what he wrote there will automaticly be the state policy of his Germany 15 years later? It really isn't that simple, the circumstances were already totally different.

The adventures of Detective Juche, Homocide Cop and his trusty sidekick, Sgt. Pariah:

• SGT. PARIAH: Detective, we've got a dead body here, a Mrs. Smith
  
  JUCHE: Hmmmm. I wonder who did it.
  
  PARIAH: Her husband was overheard saying he wanted to kill her.
  
  JUCHE: That could be a coincidence.
  
  PARIAH: He even wrote a book entitled "I want to kill my wife."
  
  JUCHE: Seems inconclusive.
  
  PARIAH: He spent the last several years stocking up on guns and knives and poisons.
  
  JUCHE: Probably self defense.
  
  PARIAH: He had maps detailing her route home from work and a big "X" on one that corresponds to the murder scene.
  
  JUCHE: Why are you so quck to judge, O'Hara?
  
  PARIAH: You STUPID FUCK. He hired a hit man. We have a record of him paying Jimmy "the Knife" $10,000 just the OTHER DAY."
  
  JUCHE: Come on, that was just a loose arrangment. Not an actual pact....

Hahaha

Uh, yeah, the fact that the alliance didn't go through until 1940 doesn't contradict me. The anti-comintern pact was an attempt at throwing off the other countries (see also: Japan's friendship medals they sent to America). Poland knew this especially when they were offered an opportunity to be in the pact.



You said every country at the time. You didn't say "except the US." Your concessions hurt your credibility.

As was outlined by Mein Kampf, an Aryan mentality was promoted in Germany that just so happened to push a statist/eugenic elitism. This is exacerbated by the fact that they were still pretty sore about losing all the territory that they did in WWI and this led to Revanchist behavior. So even if France hadn't declared war first, Germany was going after it sooner or later.

Likewise, this also pushed a mentality that sought to unite the entire continent. Without conquering countries, there's not many ways to do that.



First you say we learned our lesson from North Korea, then you say we learned our lesson from Vietnam even though the two instances were subsequent.

You're an idiot.



I did. It was self-contradictory.



....Entire families were dragged off and no one cared. That's a little worse than antisemitism. That's kidnapping and destruction/theft of private property. Do you honestly believe that citizens cared about their comfort when they're the target of discrimination.

What other countries? You know that comintern means communists international, and that at the time USSR, Mongolia, Tannu Tuva and Communist China were the only communist countries in the world.



Haha, every country except Haiti, Jamaica and the US then. No smartass I mean the countries that had anything to do with this.

I agree with the beginning, except that they didn't want to get the complete of France, they just wanted their old belongings back. Of course this is very hypothetical because they know chances were very small that the allies were going to let them take back their Polish territories that easily. And where does it say they were actually planning to unite the entire continent?



These two actually add up, two wars that didn't end the way they expected. What makes you think the USA should/will invade North Korea?



Huh? how are they the target of discrimination? Just communists, roma, homosexuals and jews were. Please explain what you're saying here, I don't really get how this sentence works.

No you didn't. You're backpeddling.



It sounds here like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

"No, they weren't going after France, but they knew France wouldn't just let them take back the territory, so your claim that they wanted war with France is bunk."

Do you even realize how stupid you sound?



So you missed that entire 'spread the master race' thing?



More backpeddling. You say we "learned our lesson," then it turns out we didn't since we invaded another Asian country about 20 years later and now you're trying to say they serve as one example.



If North Korea poses enough of a threat, America will invade. Simple.

Usually with a liberal president I'm never totally sure, but Obama, for all his Carter tendencies, is more of a showman than an idiot. He would invade.

You know what I meant, now focus on what I actually said instead of this shit.



I believe what I say sounds very logical. Controll over France was not one of their objectives before the war started.



I know the Lebensraum concept, they wanted to expand into Poland. Not the complete continent.



Obviously they didn't learn their lesson, because they invaded 20 years later indeed. I believe I said they learned their lesson from invading Asian territories, and that they won't again, especially in Korea.



They would if North Korea uses a nuke on their territory, but they won't so USA won't invade North Korea, ever. The penalty would be too high. At the moment China watches over North Korea, that's enough for them.

And what citizens are you talking about? I really don't get that from your context.

This is exactly what you said:



Then you backpeddled.



They prepared to go to war with France before invading Poland.



They knew beforehand that they were going into France.



That would be a mighty long "lesson." Midway, Iwo Jima, Korea, and Vietnam all took place over a span of 35 years. By your reasoning, we just would have dropped the bomb on Vietnam after knowing Japan would have cost more lives and that Korea was tough--but we didn't.

I imagine that if we fought an Asian war in the 90s, you'd still say "we learned out lesson."



China has been unable to defend North Korea for awhile now. NK is its embarrassing wayward child.



Non-Jewish citizens didn't give a shit about Jewish citizens.

I guess that's me on the right, thinking I can actually talk some sense into him.

Hey, I give you props for trying to get it through his thick skull for as long as you have. You've smacked his bitch ass around in two threads now. Don't make it self-deprecating, understand it as the win that it is. Revel in it. Overkill it if you feel like. Mainly, enjoy it.

A few points:

1) The whole notion that Nazi buildup and W W II have anything at all relevant to North Korea today, is a total non-sequitor.

2) I actually agree with some of what Juche has to say about there being huge misconceptions about Hitler's motives and actions leading up to World War II.
Many of those misconceptions about Nazi objectives, and errors by the allies that led to the most devastating war in history in 1939, are explored in Pat Buchanan's new and heavily sourced and documented work, Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, released just a few months ago.
Mussolini despised Hitler, but was forced into an alliance with Hitler, when he was isolated (primarily by the British) and had no other allies, and thus reluctantly signed a pact with Hitler.
Hitler was largely simply reversing the unjust terms of Versailles Treaty, in the 1933-1939 period, until the door to further negotiation was closed to him by the British.
While Poland was ruled by a dictatorship, and seized the richest mining area of Czechoslavakia in March 1939, Britain vowed to defend Poland, while Poland was arguably as Guilty as Germany in carving up Czechoslavokia.
Hitler negotiated with Poland and saw them as a potential ally against Stalinist Russia. From March to August 1939, Hitler offered again and again to resolve the Polish Corridor issue with Poland, wanting only the port city of Danzig (400,000 people, 95% German) and was willing to let Poland KEEP the Polish Corridor and the 1.2 million Germans there, in exchange for Poland allowing Germany to build railroad and highways over the Corridor to connect Germany with East Prussia peacefully.
Which was a very reasonable offer.
But the British signed a war guarantee with Poland, guaranteeing Britain would send troops to defend Poland if invaded by Germany, despite that it was a completely hollow guarantee and a bluff, with no ability by the British to back Poland with military action. And with a war guarantee, Poland refused any further attemps to peacefully negotiate even the most reasonable terms to resolve the Danzig and Corrisor issues.
Even after Nazi/Soviet invasion of Poland, Britain could have sued for peace after Dunkirk, and Hitler would have gladly accepted. Because war in the West was just a distraction from invading Russia, his true and clearly stated objective.

Britain and France went to war to save 6.5 million poles from German occupation, but then ultimately, Churchill in 1945 (Potsdam and Yalta agreements) signed away 100 million East Europeans to enslavement by the Soviets. And Britain and France lost their wealth and global empires in the process. Which hardly seems worth it.

The right action would have been to let Germany invade Russia (as clearly envisioned in Mein Kampf, Hitler's goal of lebensraum, "living space", expansion east into Russia, and Hitler considered Communism the greatest threat to Germany, that had to be eliminated). As was inevitable, let the two brutal dictatorships clash as Stalin and Hitler both planned, let the two exhaust each other. The British and French democracies would have survived the war in the sidelines unscathed, and reaped the benefits of their enemies ceasing to be global players, or any further threat to them.

Similarly, invading North Korea now would be a waste of men and resources and inefficient, while other methods exist to neutralize North Korea and its nuclear ambitions.
Japan and South Korea are the ones threatened by North Korea's nukes and million-man army, let them invade, if someone has to. They have huge economies, both, and can easily afford their own defense. Each has at least 40 times North Korea's economy and resources, more than enough to defend themselves.
If China thought we would allow Japan to get nuclear weapons capability, they would react to that threat by immediately clamping down on North Korea. And since North Korea is completely dependent on China for energy, food, and its economy, it would be like shutting off a switch in China, to bring N. Korea to its knees within days.
Alternately, If the status quo were simply maintained against North Korea, maintaining their military consumes a huge percentage of North Korea's economy, and is unsustainable. Force them to sustain it indefinitely, and their state will collapse under its own weight, as the Soviet Union did in 1989-1991.

But either way, there are many ways to cripple as fragile a state as North Korea, short of an all-out frontal American assault.

At most, we need only bomb (conventionally) North Korea's nuclear facilities, eliminating their ability to create or proliferate nuclear technology to other countries. It is only North Korea's proliferation potential that would warrant any military action.

Japan doesn't have the resources or the know-how to invade another country. At the end of WWII, their Western-drafted constitution stipulated that they weren't allowed more than 250,000 trained military, and their arsenal is meager. That always really bothered; we basically played UN and castrated Japan. And some days I think we should have let them have China for all the trouble it's causing us now.

I realize that the most likely scenario would be South Korea invading NK with waide from us (and perhaps Taiwan), but Juche's point is that America would never invade an Asian country, which is absolutely wrong.

I think we should cut all those countries loose from our obligatory defense, and have them arrange their own defense.
South Korea, Japan, the Phillipines, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan... not one of them would come to our aid, or even allow our nuclear vessels to port in their nations. So open treaties to defend these nations are liabilities that obligate us to wars in their defense, with no upside for the U.S., of them ever potentially coming to our aid if the U.S. were attacked.
We can always choose to aid them, but should not be obligated by treaty to do so.

Similarly, eastern Europe. It is not our place to defend eastern Europe, let alone make former Warsaw Pact and Soviet nations members of NATO. That's just pissing in Russia's face, and partly explain's Russia's increasing hostility toward us in recent years. Since 1991, we've taken advantage of Russia's weakness and expanded our military presence on their border, that to Russian hardliners is a clear threat to their security.
We should let Russia manage its "near abroad" as they term it, as we would want no one else in our hemisphere. The former Soviet states are their own territory, their own Monroe Doctrine sphere of influence, and we should back off from it and improve relations with Russia, if it is not already too late for that.

We should be committed to defend the Western Hemisphere, and that's it.

All these other alliances are obligations to costly wars, if any incident occurs. They have been obsolete alliances since the Cold War, and should have been dropped at that point. We can always elect to go to war if it's in our national interest. We shouldn't be obligated to, no matter how provocative the action by our allies. Again, with the examples of Poland, Latvia, Estonia and Lituania, Rumania, Hungary and others as NATO members, with Europe considering Georgia and Ukraine for similar NATO status. Gee, why should that upset Russia?
It's as if Russia gave Mexico and Cuba Warsaw Pact membership. NATO expansion is a provocative threat in their own back yard. Georgia being the prime example. If Georgia was a NATO member in August 2008, we would be supremely fucked right now. Like the war guarantee to Poland in 1939, that would obligate us to an unnecessary war, not in our interest, where ultimately everyone, including us, loses.

Rex is right on this point. That was the official U.S. military pre-invasion estimate, that it would cost a million American casualties to capture the home islands of Japan in 1945, and would have cost an estimated 3 million Japanese lives.

So all the liberal dumbasses who say that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unnecessary and brutal... wrong. It saved millions of lives on both sides, by pushing for a quick surrender.

Also Hiroshima was the port city from which the Japanese invasions of Korea and Manchuria were launched.
Hiroshima had a population of 160,000 at the time the bomb was dropped, 40,000 of whom were Japanese troops.
So Hiroshima was not an innocent city filled with unfairly targeted civilians. It was a legitimate military target. If not for the Japanese basing military facilites right next to civilians, the civilians would not have been targeted.

And as proven by North Korean components in Syria's nuclear program that Israel bombed away a year or so ago, that proliferation began as soon as North Korea developed the beginnings of a nuclear program.
Even without ICBM's.

Although contrary to what you said, North Korea is testing missiles in recent weeks that would be able to reach the United States, and it's only a matter of years, if we don't stop them.

Again, I don't advocate U.S. all-out invasion.

I'd start with negotiating the pullout of U.S. forces in South Korea, and encouraging self-reliant military programs by South Korea and Japan (that the U.S. could always choose to, but not be obligated to, back) along with the suggestion that Japan could be develop nukes (or possibly even suggest giving Japan nukes by the U.S. ) to defend itself from N. Korea. With the goal of getting the full attention of the Chinese, who alone have the ability to neutralize North Korea's threat peacefully, and force the North Koreans to negotiate away their nukes.

Again, nuclear proliferation to islamic countries is justification enough for the U.S. to war with North Korea.

The key to getting China's cooperation with the U.S. is to make it either 1) North Korea gives up its nukes, or 2) Japan as a defense against N. Korea is permitted to get nukes (which would threaten China). And China would move heaven and earth to prevent Japan getting nukes.

North Korea is a state that exists entirely at the whim of the Chinese government. All that is needed is the proper leverage to get China to pull North Korea's strings.

I agree that their defenses should be increased (Japan is one of the few countries out there I'd endorse developing their own nuclear weapons), but I don't think we should cut loose the countries that outlay China. I agree that being forced into a war over there would be disastrous; however I also think there would be a dramatic downside if any of those countries are lost to China. I still think it's paramount to support capitalism wherever we can find it.

Yeah, I admit we probably won't get any military aid, but our relations with Japan and Taiwan our invaluable towards the interests of our economy.

I used the term "cutting them loose", but I just meant cutting away our contractual obligation, so that no matter what stupid antagonism (again, Shalakashvili, in former soviet Georgia, who by provocation invited a Russian invasion, that if Georgia were a NATO member as has been proposed) we would have been obligated to defend, each of which could expand into World War 3.

What I mean is, take away the unconditional obligation to war that each of these alliances strangles the U.S. with, and force each of these nations to provide a larger percentage of their economy to pay for their own defense (again, Japan and South Korea are nations very capable of paying for their own defense and keeping adequate military forces to allow the U.S. to leave, and only be called upon to send U.S. troops if some new situation warrants it).
And again, in the absence of treary obligations, we can always choose to defend them if it is in our interest and for legitimate reasons.
And choose not to be obligated to war, if it's something senseless (again, former soviet Georgia).

Yep, most likely true. I didn’t want to go as far as saying Poland provoked the war, but let’s say they were very aware of their situation and the possible consequences of a German attack.

Even though he stated such things there, I’m not convinced Germany actually wanted the war. If he wasn’t so terrified by the thought of a possible Soviet attack, I don’t think he would have invaded, however this is purely hypothetical of course. However I’m convinced that the Soviet Union on the other hand, contrary to popular belief, would never have attacked Germany. Stalin was much too scared, he would have never taken such a risk.


Japan and South Korea can’t handle North Korea, especially Japan, didn’t the USA forbid them to take part in military action outside their own territory ever again in the 1945 treaty? Their action against the pirates in Somalian water a few months ago was already frowned upon.


Yup that’s true. What do you mean with ‘let them have China’ though?

Not within our, or our children’s lifetime I prospect.

I agree with most of what Wonder Boy says about Eastern Europe, however in the later half of the 20th century the USA was regarded as the only nation powerful and influental enough to take part in such actions. Kind of like the British Empire did in the 19th century, as global peace keeper, although I would hardly give the US that title.

I recall that the missions they tested last week’s could reach Hawaii, Alaska at most, not the US mainland.

South Korea already has one of the strongest militaries in the world, however on paper North Korea’s is still stronger. I really really don’t see Japan getting nukes, it would violate to the ’45 treaty and it would really piss China off.

There already have been many incidents that would justify a war against North Korea. Doesn’t mean it’ll happen though. And let’s just say, Japan aren’t going to get nukes, it’s not going to happen. 

Yes, especially Israël.

he should have had the other guy hold up cue cards.....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/...apons-material/

a UN resolution with no teeth? thats a first.

Surely they were mistaken in that statement.

The President was lauded for getting Russia and china to sign onto this agreement, surely the press would have mentioned it was a paper tiger resolution.