North Korea's military calls Trump's threat a 'load of nonsense'

[spookyturtle 9,465]

1 hour ago, Ban Hammer said:

the point is they attacked our soil with nuclear weapons.  so what if the attack failed due to technical failures on the part of north korea? 
failing to respond with nuclear weapons gives north korea more time to get it right the next time........

I really wonder if the US would respond with nuclear weapons or a devastating attack with conventional weapons. I'm guessing NK isn't a target rich country. Wipe out the military and see what big mouth Kim says then. 

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

13 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

I really wonder if the US would respond with nuclear weapons or a devastating attack with conventional weapons. I'm guessing NK isn't a target rich country. Wipe out the military and see what big mouth Kim says then. 

that would be a decision way up the chain.  and wiping out the military is like shooting a bank robber to wound...........

[spookyturtle 9,465]

4 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

that would be a decision way up the chain.  and wiping out the military is like shooting a bank robber to wound...........

What else is there in NK besides the military? The people are poor and starving. 

[CaliCat 3,957]

5 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

I really wonder if the US would respond with nuclear weapons or a devastating attack with conventional weapons. I'm guessing NK isn't a target rich country. Wipe out the military and see what big mouth Kim says then. 

 

Not on a preemptive strike. I wish to believe our country is better that that. The NK government is not crazy enough to strike first. That's why what we need is diplomacy, not empty mindless bravado. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by CaliCat

[OriZ 3,157]

Bottom line to me is - Kim was talking tough. President did not back down. With people like Kim, you have to show them you are not intimidated, and convince them you mean what you say so that they KNOW they have alot to lose. I don't know if Kim would have gone back on it anyway or not, but I do know that was not the time to appease him and I'm glad that didn't happen. I think he knew there were going to be severe consequences. I seem to recall a recent president with whom there were never any consequences for anything and anybody could run wild. 

[Jacque67 7,328]

3 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Bottom line to me is - Kim was talking tough. President did not back down. With people like Kim, you have to show them you are not intimidated, and convince them you mean what you say so that they KNOW they have alot to lose. I don't know if Kim would have gone back on it anyway or not, but I do know that was not the time to appease him and I'm glad that didn't happen. I think he knew there were going to be severe consequences. I seem to recall a recent president with whom there were never any consequences for anything and anybody could run wild. 

You think Trump has reigned in Kim?

I have a bridge to sell ya!

[OriZ 3,157]

10 minutes ago, Jacque67 said:

You think Trump has reigned in Kim?

I have a bridge to sell ya!

Is that what I said? I said I don't know if it was because of him or not but either way I think it was the right thing to do. Sitting quietly while knitting and going "yeah lets see what he does" is not an option.

[Jacque67 7,328]

17 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Is that what I said? I said I don't know if it was because of him or not but either way I think it was the right thing to do. Sitting quietly while knitting and going "yeah lets see what he does" is not an option.

Knitting rocks btw.

 

no it was not the right thing to do. Appointing an ambassador to S Korea is the right thing to do. Kim will continue his nonsense as will Donnie. 

[Jacque67 7,328]

China is telling the U.S. and North Korea to “hit the brakes” on threatening words and actions and work toward a peaceful resolution of their dispute, in a sign of growing concern over the standoff on the part of Pyongyang’s only major ally.

Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in a phone conversation with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, that the two countries should work together to contain tensions and permit no one to “stir up an incident on their doorstep,” according to a statement posted on the Chinese foreign ministry’s website.

“The most important task at hand is for the U.S. and North Korea to ‘hit the brakes’ on their mutual needling of each other with words and actions, to lower the temperature of the tense situation and prevent the emergence of an ‘August crisis,’” Wang was quoted as saying in the Tuesday conversation.

The ministry quoted Lavrov as saying tensions could rise again with the U.S. and South Korea set to launch large-scale military exercises on Aug. 21.

“A resolution of the North Korea nuclear issue by military force is completely unacceptable and the peninsula’s nuclear issue must be peacefully resolved by political and diplomatic methods,” Lavrov was quoted as saying.

China is North Korea’s main economic partner and political backer, although relations between Beijing and Pyongyang have deteriorated amid the North’s continuing defiance of China’s calls for restraint. In recent months, China has joined with Russia in calling for the U.S. to suspend annual military exercises with South Korea in exchange for Pyongyang halting its missile and nuclear tests as a first step toward direct talks.

On Wednesday, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, continued a visit to China following talks the day before with his Chinese counterpart that touched on North Korea. No details of the talks have been released.

Dunford on Tuesday told Fang Fenghui, chief of the People’s Liberation Army’s joint staff department, that the sides had “many difficult issues” between them but were willing to deal with them through dialogue.

 

 

https://apnews.com/a3010eae0a1c4666ac0a6cc5419747b6

Edited August 16, 2017 by Jacque67

[Teddy B 17,252]

6 hours ago, OriZ said:

Bottom line to me is - Kim was talking tough. President did not back down. With people like Kim, you have to show them you are not intimidated, and convince them you mean what you say so that they KNOW they have alot to lose. I don't know if Kim would have gone back on it anyway or not, but I do know that was not the time to appease him and I'm glad that didn't happen. I think he knew there were going to be severe consequences. I seem to recall a recent president with whom there were never any consequences for anything and anybody could run wild. 

Gerald Ford?

[IAMX 3,055]

7 hours ago, OriZ said:

Bottom line to me is - Kim was talking tough. President did not back down. With people like Kim, you have to show them you are not intimidated, and convince them you mean what you say so that they KNOW they have alot to lose. I don't know if Kim would have gone back on it anyway or not, but I do know that was not the time to appease him and I'm glad that didn't happen. I think he knew there were going to be severe consequences. I seem to recall a recent president with whom there were never any consequences for anything and anybody could run wild. 

Or you can just do what Obama did while North Korea threatened the US of nuclear attacks way before it even had nukes -- nothing.

Edited August 16, 2017 by IAMX

[CaliCat 3,957]

10 hours ago, OriZ said:

Bottom line to me is - Kim was talking tough. President did not back down. With people like Kim, you have to show them you are not intimidated, and convince them you mean what you say so that they KNOW they have alot to lose. I don't know if Kim would have gone back on it anyway or not, but I do know that was not the time to appease him and I'm glad that didn't happen. I think he knew there were going to be severe consequences. I seem to recall a recent president with whom there were never any consequences for anything and anybody could run wild. 

 

The NK regime knows full well what they stand to lose. They don't need our buffoon in chief to make promises he is not planning to keep. You don't draw a gun on someone unless you mean to shoot. In the end, the whole world won, but it was thanks to neither Supreme Leaders.

 

ETA: Why doesn't Trump use the same rhetoric towards Putin, instead of praising him for expelling Americans diplomats from Russia?

Edited August 16, 2017 by CaliCat

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

15 hours ago, CaliCat said:

 

Not on a preemptive strike. I wish to believe our country is better that that. The NK government is not crazy enough to strike first. That's why what we need is diplomacy, not empty mindless bravado. 

i do not recommend betting the farm on that.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

59 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

The NK regime knows full well what they stand to lose. They don't need our buffoon in chief to make promises he is not planning to keep. You don't draw a gun on someone unless you mean to shoot. In the end, the whole world won, but it was thanks to neither Supreme Leaders.

 

ETA: Why doesn't Trump use the same rhetoric towards Putin, instead of praising him for expelling Americans diplomats from Russia?

Did Putin threaten to nuke us. I missed that 

[IAMX 3,055]

2 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Did Putin threaten to nuke us. I missed that 

Dems lost an election.. pretty much a declaration of war.