Are we ramping up to war with North Korea?

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, {::'KayCeeS::} said:

 

Well, here's the thing: Russia and China have been careful to not officially ally themselves with North Korea.  Because duh.  But both of those countries have a border with North Korea.  So obviously, that's a serious national security issue for both Russia and China, no matter what.

 

"If" North Korea is offering to denuclearize, it will probably be something like Iran: with serious economic/trade considerations that will enable them to engage in the world economy without sacrificising their way of life.

 

In other words: Russia and China are "vouching" for North Korea, because both of those countries have certain assurances/deals/understandings with North Korea which now allows North Korea to deal .  And we, as the US, can't ignore this because we certainly can't ignore anything Russia or China does.

 

That would be my hypothesis, anyway.  I have no illusion that it's the total truth, but I think it's a very reasonable theory.

 

Your theory is perfectly reasonable  

 

For clarity, it's my contention that a deal has already been reached between the DPRK and the US, and it involves Kim giving up his nuclear program in its entirety - as well as an official peace treaty ending the Korean War. This deal was made months ago, and is only just leaking out now. The meeting will be (imo) ceremonial - and all this build up is smoke as the media catches up to events which already happened...

 

This will be followed by the Mullahs leaving Iran by year's end.  

 

I'd propose that the DPRK is not quite what you (or most) think it is. It's a true puppet state - but not for another nation state like Russia or Iran, but something more nebulous. 

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

I'd propose that the DPRK is not quite what you (or most) think it is. It's a true puppet state - but not for another nation state like Russia or Iran, but something more nebulous. 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

 

That would be nice - and make it an easier sell. But sadly, no. 

[3rdnlng]

11 minutes ago, {::'KayCeeS::} said:

 

Not sure what you mean by this?

Wouldn't you want to give up that way of life?

[{::'KayCeeS::}]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Your theory is perfectly reasonable  

 

For clarity, it's my contention that a deal has already been reached between the DPRK and the US, and it involves Kim giving up his nuclear program in its entirety - as well as an official peace treaty ending the Korean War. This deal was made months ago, and is only just leaking out now. The meeting will be (imo) ceremonial - and all this build up is smoke as the media catches up to events which already happened...

 

This will be followed by the Mullahs leaving Iran by year's end.  

 

I'd propose that the DPRK is not quite what you (or most) think it is. It's a true puppet state - but not for another nation state like Russia or Iran, but something more nebulous. 

 

Very interesting!  You are making me think about this for a moment....

 

<<thinking>>

 

Okay, two main things:

 

1) I don't think DPRK gives a F about the Korean War treaty.  I think they give a F about pushing the US off as long as they can.  Because, obviously, their neighbors are, let's be honest now (in terms of the future), the two most powerful countries on the planet.  So this whole "denuclearize" thing is obviously a long-established gambit that they would never do unless it OBVIOUSLY benefit DPRK.  But that leads me to your whole "nebulous" thang....  I don't disagree.  It would make sense, right?  I mean, wouldn't it benefit us if we had a convenient "enemy" in a strategic part of the world?  Which would force us to move our military into the South China Sea?  So I see your whole thought structure, I think, and I don't explicitly disagree.  Moves with moves.

 

2) Why do you think Iran is just gonna give their religious leaders?  We tried in what, 2011, and it **** the bed.  Meanwhile, they're literally going about their business.  You're gonna have to be more specific about this one.

 

[{::'KayCeeS::}]

16 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Wouldn't you want to give up that way of life?

 

I don't have a f'in clue if I would or not.  I'm so far removed from North Korea, they might as well be an alien species.

 

Propaganda goes both ways.  We here take our "info" from US media sources.

 

Do you honestly think that a media controlled by our corporate/govermental structure gives us objective info about countries we are currently trying to imperialize?

 

If so, I've got a bridge in Arizona to sell you.

 

My advice:

 

Bookmark as many different news sources from around the world as you can, and then compare the information that they distribute.  That's the only way to actually come to an understanding of world politics, because we are just one part of it.

 

 

[3rdnlng]

26 minutes ago, {::'KayCeeS::} said:

 

I don't have a f'in clue if I would or not.  I'm so far removed from North Korea, they might as well be an alien species.

 

Propaganda goes both ways.  We here take our "info" from US media sources.

 

Do you honestly think that a media controlled by our corporate/govermental structure gives us objective info about countries we are currently trying to imperialize?

 

If so, I've got a bridge in Arizona to sell you.

 

My advice:

 

Bookmark as many different news sources from around the world as you can, and then compare the information that they distribute.  That's the only way to actually come to an understanding of world politics, because we are just one part of it.

 

 

Take a look at a night time satellite picture of the two Koreas. That country is so poor that even their military members are malnourished. I'd build a convincing case but it's 2nd OT.

[{::'KayCeeS::}]

19 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Take a look at a night time satellite picture of the two Koreas. That country is so poor that even their military members are malnourished. I'd build a convincing case but it's 2nd OT.

 

Yes, tell me about a night-time satellite picture which shows that the people within it are malnourished.

 

I mean, c'mon.  Like we give a F about malnourished people!

 

This is my point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by {::'KayCeeS::}

[3rdnlng]

30 minutes ago, {::'KayCeeS::} said:

 

Yes, tell me about a night-time satellite picture which shows that the people within it are malnourished.

 

I mean, c'mon.  Like we give a F about malnourished people!

 

This is my point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

My haste to return my attention to the game probably prevented me from making it simple enough for you to understand. Take a look at a night time satellite pic of the two Koreas. NK is dark. SK is partying like its still the 90's. NK is a militaristic country but so poor that they can't even feed their military personnel properly. If you are really this misinformed regarding NK and think that their abject poverty is all U.S. propaganda, then I don't know what to say other than I suggest you bone up on NK before getting into further discussion about them.

[{::'KayCeeS::}]

56 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

My haste to return my attention to the game probably prevented me from making it simple enough for you to understand. Take a look at a night time satellite pic of the two Koreas. NK is dark. SK is partying like its still the 90's. NK is a militaristic country but so poor that they can't even feed their military personnel properly. If you are really this misinformed regarding NK and think that their abject poverty is all U.S. propaganda, then I don't know what to say other than I suggest you bone up on NK before getting into further discussion about them.

 

First of all, I reference the bolded parts of your statement.  I forgive you for being a total !@#$.

 

But, okay, let's talk about the rest.  What was the "Korean War"?  What it really was, is we INVADED KOREA, because we wanted a foothold against Communist Russia.

 

That's obvious.

 

So, imagine, if China, for example,  invaded Canada around Vancouver.  To get a foothold against us.

 

Imagine what you would do?  Imagine what ALL of US what do?

 

The reality is: North Korea is no threat at all.  Because, as I've said in another post, we could wipe them off the face of the planet in thirty minutes.  Do you not think the leaders of North Korea know this?  I mean, do you honestly think they've survived for 60 years against our CIA by being morons?

 

Propagandha overtakes the best of us.  Steel yourself, and force yourself to find as many independent sources as possible to make the most informed decision possible.  That's me being a total !@#$, by the way.

Edited April 18, 2018 by {::'KayCeeS::}

[Koko78]

NK opening up economically is an interesting proposition for the longevity of the Kim dynasty. They've built their power around a cult of personality that Great/Dear/SuperAwesome Leader provides for them. Granted, I'm sure most Best Koreans privately call bullschiff on it, but the regime cannot maintain the facade if their population has widespread access to food, technology, and, more importantly, information.

[Tiberius]

4 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

NK opening up economically is an interesting proposition for the longevity of the Kim dynasty. They've built their power around a cult of personality that Great/Dear/SuperAwesome Leader provides for them. Granted, I'm sure most Best Koreans privately call bullschiff on it, but the regime cannot maintain the facade if their population has widespread access to food, technology, and, more importantly, information.

Granted, you are a dipsh it, but how would a totalitarian dictatorship open up? 

 

The Best Koreans, lol 

[TakeYouToTasker]

12 hours ago, {::'KayCeeS::} said:

 

Very interesting!  You are making me think about this for a moment....

 

<<thinking>>

 

Okay, two main things:

 

1) I don't think DPRK gives a F about the Korean War treaty.  I think they give a F about pushing the US off as long as they can.  Because, obviously, their neighbors are, let's be honest now (in terms of the future), the two most powerful countries on the planet.  So this whole "denuclearize" thing is obviously a long-established gambit that they would never do unless it OBVIOUSLY benefit DPRK.  But that leads me to your whole "nebulous" thang....  I don't disagree.  It would make sense, right?  I mean, wouldn't it benefit us if we had a convenient "enemy" in a strategic part of the world?  Which would force us to move our military into the South China Sea?  So I see your whole thought structure, I think, and I don't explicitly disagree.  Moves with moves.

 

2) Why do you think Iran is just gonna give their religious leaders?  We tried in what, 2011, and it **** the bed.  Meanwhile, they're literally going about their business.  You're gonna have to be more specific about this one.

 

 

Greg is advancing the idea that DPRK has been, for the last 50 years or so, a CIA blacksite and a protected "playground for the global elite" where human rights abuses go completely unchecked and a global hub for human trafficking to those ends.  Think Epstein's pedo island on steroids.  The way to peace there has been paved by a series of military ops which have cleared out the CIA influence there.  This speaks to why Pompeo's CIA was handling the logistics there instead of State.

 

As to Iran and it's religious leaders:  the Iranian people don't bow to them.  They have been protected and propped up by the same bad actors within the CIA who had their hands all over NK.  The funding for Hezbollah and the Mullahs have been completely cut off by the Trump administration, and the Iranian people are ousting them with the support of the Iranian army.

Edited April 18, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Deranged Rhino]

13 hours ago, {::'KayCeeS::} said:

 

Very interesting!  You are making me think about this for a moment....

 

<<thinking>>

 

Okay, two main things:

 

1) I don't think DPRK gives a F about the Korean War treaty.  I think they give a F about pushing the US off as long as they can.  Because, obviously, their neighbors are, let's be honest now (in terms of the future), the two most powerful countries on the planet.  So this whole "denuclearize" thing is obviously a long-established gambit that they would never do unless it OBVIOUSLY benefit DPRK.  But that leads me to your whole "nebulous" thang....  I don't disagree.  It would make sense, right?  I mean, wouldn't it benefit us if we had a convenient "enemy" in a strategic part of the world?  Which would force us to move our military into the South China Sea?  So I see your whole thought structure, I think, and I don't explicitly disagree.  Moves with moves.

 

2) Why do you think Iran is just gonna give their religious leaders?  We tried in what, 2011, and it **** the bed.  Meanwhile, they're literally going about their business.  You're gonna have to be more specific about this one.

 

 

(Sorry, signed off early last night...)

 

Full disclosure: both my answers are admittedly speculative on my part. I feel they are backed by a lot of solid indicators and sources, but they're still speculations. With these particular ones there is a put-up-or-shut-up end date, which is nice because if I'm wrong (and I'm more than open to that possibility) it'll make for easy public mockery for the dungeon audience down here...   

 

1) Conventional wisdom and analysis agrees with the first part of this statement, no argument. As to the second part, you're in the ballpark of my thinking. There's an absolute benefit to "rogue states" for certain sectors of the global economy and various countries' geopolitical strategy. My general thesis for the past year+ has been that there is an ongoing civil war between various elements within the USIC which is bleeding through to most of the headlines we are seeing everyday.

 

The bare bones of it, for reductionist purposes, boils down to DIA vs CIA. Pentagon versus Langley. The goal is control of American foreign policy from behind the scenes (regardless of party in power, this group calls the shots). For the last seven decades, elements within the CIA have held that position. Sometime around 2014, elements within the Pentagon decided they had enough of it and went to work on a plan.

 

For decades the DPRK has been a boon to various bad elements, including this corrupt CIA element who held the reins for the past half-century plus both here at home and in the DPRK. Ending the Korean War, denuclearizing the North would be major accomplishments towards true global stability. It's only possible now because those corrupt elements have been shown the door (as I cover in the next section).  

 

2) It's not covered much anymore, but the protests in Iran are still ongoing. There's been a serious run on the banks, the people have been protesting and winning over both the military and security forces to their side. Add to this, the GCC has been waging an effective (and somewhat unprecedented) campaign against Hezbollah and Iran in multiple countries for the past three years - driving Hezbollah out of Lebanon, nearly completely out of Syria and Iraq while making a heavy dent in Yemen.

 

This GCC/Iranian battle in the region really picked up steam in November of '17, immediately after the KSA confiscated trillions in dirty money and detained dozens of the biggest terrorist backers in the world. The people detained in the KSA "purge" were the primary funders of both Sunni and Shia Islamist groups - they provided heavy financial support for both the Mullahs and (directly and by extension) Hezbollah. These detainees were also closely tied to the most corrupt elements of the USIC mentioned above as well as major western institutions like CitiBank, 20th Century Fox, Twitter, and more (Bandar Bush, bin Talal). 

 

Funny thing happened almost immediately after the KSA purge detained this group of puppet masters... the puppets began to lose. Badly. Major set backs for Iran occurred in November-December in Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq. The GCC ratcheted up their war efforts on the ground, attaching small commando teams to other larger (and foreign) divisions. This was designed to give other Arab nations victories against Iran (and others) they can take home with them and will be useful for long term stability in the coming months post-Mullahs. Within in three months of the purge, Hezbollah was crumbling in Shia strongholds like Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. 

 

Then, in January at the height of the Iranian protests, Trump's administration has pledged to support the Iranian people "at the appropriate time":

 

 

That "appropriate time" is fast approaching. The US is playing a very important role in the region and in the Iranian regime change which is ongoing. The first thing the US had to do was convince the Iranian people, and the region, that we wouldn't be making the same mistakes we made under 42 when he abandoned the Iraqi people who he incited to rise up against Saddam and left them to get slaughtered after we left. The region took note of that, and hasn't trusted us because of it for decades. So, for the first year of Trump's term the US has been in the region allowing the Iranian people to do it themselves, while serving as a deterrent to both China and Russia from trying to take a more proactive role in the struggle. The US is also supporting the GCC (and the protesters) with logistical support and communications - much of the January protests, for example, were really reconnaissance through protest (probing the IRRC and the weaknesses of the regime, testing and seeing how they react). 

 

US support won't be an invasion, it won't be a massive war to spark regime change - no, it's clear the plan is to let the GCC and Iranian people take the lead and be there with the hammer if needed with a limited strike package. Iran has a functioning (western) government that would remain in place if the Mullahs left tomorrow. There wouldn't be a vacuum of power or chaos within the government if this is handled without a full on invasion. Meaning, you could conceivably lose the Mullahs tomorrow and Iran wouldn't skip a beat in terms of its ability to function as a nation state. 

 

Now look at how the pieces on the board are arranged today: The DPRK denuclearizing hurts the Mullahs, the US efforts in Syria keeping Russia in check (killing 200+ mercenaries, the recent strikes which focused on Hezbollah in addition to the chemical warehouses) and Bolton being appointed as NSC with one mission: to shred the Iran deal (which only benefited the Mullahs, not the people and not us). Israel has been openly hitting Iranian targets in Syria for the past few days, and the GCC has been doing its thing on multiple fronts. All the while, the Mullahs have lost large chunks of Hezbollah controlled territory, lost control of the banks, lost control of their own military, and are now clinging to a fractured security force (Basij) and the IRRC (who are still formidable). 

 

All of this is to say the Iranian people don't need to be convinced to give up their religious leaders - they are trying to do it themselves, and have been doing it themselves. The difference between now and 2012 is we have a president who actually wants to help the Iranian people rather than help the Mullahs. The way things are going, the Mullahs won't last the year. 

 

 

[4merper4mer]

On April 18, 2018 at 1:05 AM, {::'KayCeeS::} said:

 

First of all, I reference the bolded parts of your statement.  I forgive you for being a total !@#$.

 

But, okay, let's talk about the rest.  What was the "Korean War"?  What it really was, is we INVADED KOREA, because we wanted a foothold against Communist Russia.

 

That's obvious.

 

So, imagine, if China, for example,  invaded Canada around Vancouver.  To get a foothold against us.

 

Imagine what you would do?  Imagine what ALL of US what do?

 

The reality is: North Korea is no threat at all.  Because, as I've said in another post, we could wipe them off the face of the planet in thirty minutes.  Do you not think the leaders of North Korea know this?  I mean, do you honestly think they've survived for 60 years against our CIA by being morons?

 

Propagandha overtakes the best of us.  Steel yourself, and force yourself to find as many independent sources as possible to make the most informed decision possible.  That's me being a total !@#$, by the way.

The millions upon millions of people born into the last few generations of South Koreans are probably glad you weren't in charge.  You know because they haven't been enslaved and stuff.

[row_33]

don't have time to imagine false either-or scenarios

 

 

 

 

 

 

especially from 60 years ago

Edited April 19, 2018 by row_33

[Deranged Rhino]

Without conditions: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/north-korea-willing-accept-complete-denuclearization-without-conditions-moon-says-n867421

 

(Deal is done, folks. This is all a slow roll out for optics)

[snafu]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Without conditions: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/north-korea-willing-accept-complete-denuclearization-without-conditions-moon-says-n867421

 

(Deal is done, folks. This is all a slow roll out for optics)

 

"Complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula."

 

I'm very curious to see what the Peninsula will look like in 1 year, 5 years, 10 years. 

...and the East China Sea for that matter. This could turn into an ugly transition period. 

[Deranged Rhino]

13 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

"Complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula."

 

I'm very curious to see what the Peninsula will look like in 1 year, 5 years, 10 years. 

...and the East China Sea for that matter. This could turn into an ugly transition period. 

 

It could, certainly. Then again, with nuclear weapons in the DPRK taken off the table, it likely will not be as ugly as it could have been.

[Deranged Rhino]

Pelosi admits to going to North Korea before... REALLY, Nacy? That's mighty interesting...

 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?444272-1/democrats-back-farm-bill-leader-pelosi

13 minute mark (of course)

 

(She went, by the way. Unofficially. More than once - this is a slip on her part.)

Edited April 19, 2018 by Deranged Rhino