Korean missile...
Today (Saturday, April 04) North Korea launched a test missile into the ocean.
Why do you think they did this? And what do you think this could lead to? |
Proving their own technology? Everyone one keeps saying that they would sell their technology. But based upon what?
Anyways, news peoples said that Obama wants to get back to the negotiation table with N. Korea and also wants the other 6 parties in the region(China, S. Korea, Japan, others) to chat about all the jazz that has been going on. He(Obama) is supposed to give a speech at 4am ET in America(he isn't in America, that's the region time) addressing a "nuke free" world and address the N. Korean launch. Should be interesting. |
Quote:
Well. I guess we'll just have to wait and see the outcome of this "meeting" in order to get some possible answers. |
just read that not 2 seconds ago. N. Korea is planning something, otherwise why the test missile. it sounds paranoid but its my opinion
|
my bro told me that he heard they are planning to send a satelite into space...i dont really believe him tho...is it true?
|
I heard that too. I think people's main beef with it is that the launch system, whether it's sending a satellite or warhead, its the same thing so that's why everyone is riled up.
|
yea thats whats getting everybody whiled up. if they tried to launch a missle to hit a place. i think s.korea, china, and japan would probably try to stop them b4 they did it. dont you guys think?
|
I'm hoping it is less sinister than it seems.
I do know one thing... I am a perfectly healthy young man... If they attack South Korea, America, or Japan... I may be inclined to join the armed forces earlier than I originally planned. We'll see how things end up. |
Quote:
Another reason why I'm scared. For all I know, they were just testing some of their defense missiles, like we (America) has done countless times. But...something tells me this isn't the case. |
I'm sure there's a couple of subs named after states sitting at launch depth in the Sea of Japan right now.
|
North Korea primarily uses fear through diplomatic talks, not military, to taunt other countries.
I guess people finally know this by now. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Like its nuclear plan,it just a way to transfer its people's attention from the hard life in NK. In fact,I don't like N.Korea(Attention,N.Korea,not N.Korean) very much.It always be the troublemaker of the NE Asia'safety.And N.Korea is ungrateful. It accept the international help,but still do these kinds of things.And about 350000 Chineese soldiers died to help them resist U.S in 1950s(including my grandfather).But they even didn't mention a word about this in their textbook. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'd gladly go to prison before I go to war. |
You may get mixed responses to that last comment, but yeah he could. It would take Congress to do it, but it could still happen. If anything, they would most-likely transplant the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan to where ever the "new" action is.
|
Quote:
|
They want to use their missiles as bargaining chips, IMO.
|
Quote:
@alan: yea same here...i dont think i could be drafted anyway. if i get too worked up my heart start hurting and its hard for me to breath. i had heart problems when i was lil |
Quote:
Yes,I'm a student in Southern China Is the mood in japan very nervous now?Well, I don't know. If N.korea don't want to lost its northern allies,it won't attact China and Russia:mtongue: . |
Quote:
Do you think he would have even attacked Iraq/Afghanistan when then bombed us in 9/11? I think not... |
Quote:
People can be extremely irrational... Communists are definitely no different. It's one thing to want peace with other nations; It's another thing to allow other nations step all over us. Hopefully, our dear Mr. President can sense the distinction when it matters the most. Like MMM pointed out, Obama would have to be insane to not react after an attack on the U.S. ... But I understand what you're saying: Complacency is basically an invitation for evildoers to do as they please. It is a scary thought. |
I'm sure it's more then they say it is.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't really see them trying to attack anyone, it would be more logical to threaten to sell the technology, not use it themselves to attack. That would be like a bulldog biting an elephant's ankle. |
Quote:
And it's not "guts" that I lack. I wouldn't defend a country that I have no attachment to whatsoever. But this is not the place to fight. So let's leave it at this. Back on subject. |
Quote:
Congress is not nearly 90% Democratic. Almost 60% in the Senate and about 55% in the House. Again, read the news. Don't just look at the headlines but READ instead of spout. I know you aren't going to read more than a few sentences, but I'll be brief. You don't know what you are talking about. Google news on "Obama, Afghanistan, troop increase". Simply put, you are talking out your a$$ about something you know too little about. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
... But what of the cost of letting the accused prove you right? I'm not suggesting we bomb North Korea because we "think" they'll attack someone. However, the extent of our ability and the values from which our nation is founded upon - those being of Freedom and Justice - should already be clear enough that preemtive action can be justified and necessary against those that threaten and aggressively oppose them. I don't think this logic is naive. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Well that's what the article said, Rods from God | Popular Science.
|
Quote:
|
Well, it's like showing off wares for sell, seeing how they are undoubtedly selling weaponry to other counties. Also in light of the Nuclear tech they recently got, it puts everyone over the edge on it going on the black market. Secondly it's a rouge nation and does not care for who they would potentially kill when it comes to a sell of arms for there need for money (they are in an economic disaster). Not to mention that they threaten to shoot down any spy planes that where watching the site. Lastly the biggest concern is the potential for Iran to get a hold of this tech, leading to a more volatile situation with them.
All congress needs is 60 percent. With only 57 seats, they only need 3 Republicans to vote for there proposals to have an super majority (which means no one can stop them from passing anything). The chance for us to go to war with anyone now is next to zero, well I mean our "Overseas Contingency Plan" (War on Terror) seems to be going like he wanted. Well we are going back to 9/11 pre-mentality, if we have another "man-caused disaster" (terrorist attack) I would bet it would be Obama's fault for letting it happen. I mean he already sold out the USA to the G-20 summit, also he continues to down-play the War on Terror (closing of Gitmo without an actual plan, thus causing terrorist cases to be dropped potentially allowing them to go free). I mean how can you deny one serge and expect to get credit for another, when you won't give credit to one? |
Quote:
Quote:
Who are you wanting to go to war with that we aren't already? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This thread is full of posts filled with information that appears to be collected in schoolyards and cafeterias. Spend five minutes and read an article, people. Don't depend on what your classmate or AM radio talking head says. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The way I see it, the Korean Wars aren't over yet. The DMZ is a good example of why. |
Quote:
We are playing tit-for-tat now, but never has a left-wing radio host or pundit wished for the American president to FAIL just to prove a point. Why would someone wish for the president to fail? |
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:59 PM. |