Cutting the last channel of communications

[Stonewall]

SEOUL, South Korea — Reclusive North Korea is to cut the last channel of communications with the South because war could break out at "any moment," it said on Wednesday, days of after warning the United States and South Korea of nuclear attack.
The move is the latest in a series of bellicose threats from North Korea in response to new U.N. sanctions imposed after its third nuclear test in February and to "hostile" military drills under way joining the United States and South Korea.
The North has already stopped responding to calls on the hotline to the U.S. military that supervises the heavily armed Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) and the Red Cross line that has been used by the governments of both sides.
"Under the situation where a war may break out at any moment, there is no need to keep north-south military communications which were laid between the militaries of both sides," the North's KCNA news agency quoted a military spokesman as saying. "There do not exist any dialogue channel and communications means between the DPRK and the U.S. and between the north and the south."

http://www.newsmaxworld.com/Asia/nkorea-skorea-channels-cut/2013/03/27/id/496507#ixzz2OkNBF4Qg

This issue at a crisis and I believe moreso because this new dictator is such an unknown. Kim Jong-il was at least a somewhat known and therefore predictable....to a degree, this Kim Jong-un, a much less known individual.

With same sex marriage our current focus, I once again must ask what in God's name is happening abroad? Do we have a direction, is there an overall strategy, what is our broader US policy, where do we stand in the world? (by the way, for those that love to argue and the many who disregard content in here, this paragraph the purpose for this thread start. I'm asking questions here seeking comment. Seeking content, not irrelevant banter, thanks.)

For my part, I'd explain to this new son that he's right....war could break out at any moment. And you need to be concerned with your own outcome as well, Kim Jong, any war with SK and thus the US won't end well for you....at all. War very well could break out at any moment....but we're not the ones that need to be a tad nervous about that one.....you do. We will rain hell all over your little parade, your leadership will end with you being pulled out of a spider hole...and shot for treason. Play on.

 

[tecoyah]

http://www.newsmaxworld.com/Asia/nkorea-skorea-channels-cut/2013/03/27/id/496507#ixzz2OkNBF4Qg

This issue at a crisis and I believe moreso because this new dictator is such an unknown. Kim Jong-il was at least a somewhat known and therefore predictable....to a degree, this Kim Jong-un, a much less known individual.

With same sex marriage our current focus, I once again must ask what in God's name is happening abroad? Do we have a direction, is there an overall strategy, what is our broader US policy, where do we stand in the world? (by the way, for those that love to argue and the many who disregard content in here, this paragraph the purpose for this thread start. I'm asking questions here seeking comment. Seeking content, not irrelevant banter, thanks.)

For my part, I'd explain to this new son that he's right....war could break out at any moment. And you need to be concerned with your own outcome as well, Kim Jong, any war with SK and thus the US won't end well for you....at all. War very well could break out at any moment....but we're not the ones that need to be a tad nervous about that one.....you do. We will rain hell all over your little parade, your leadership will end with you being pulled out of a spider hole...and shot for treason. Play on.

Though I have much to say on this issue, could provide information on U.S foreign policy, help with an understanding of where we stand in the world, provide some level of insight into the overall strategy (according to the Pentagon)...it would likely be considered irrelevant banter.

So I will pass.

 

[Stonewall]

Though I have much to say on this issue, could provide information on U.S foreign policy, help with an understanding of where we stand in the world, provide some level of insight into the overall strategy (according to the Pentagon)...it would likely be considered irrelevant banter.

So I will pass.

Oh..it's the Pentagon that is providing our overall strategy?

I think passing though is a good move on your part.

 

[David]

Oh..it's the Pentagon that is providing our overall strategy?

I think passing though is a good move on your part.

Yes, our military leaders are responsible for deciding how we deal with military threats. I'm not sure why you find this so odd.

 

[Stonewall]

Yes, our military leaders are responsible for deciding how we deal with military threats. I'm not sure why you find this so odd.

You're not sure becase you've misread and a reminder to please read my posts if you're going to attempt a repsonse.

I clearly asked; "Do we have a direction, is there an overall strategy, what is our broader US policy, where do we stand in the world? (by the way, for those that love to argue and the many who disregard content in here, this paragraph the purpose for this thread start. I'm asking questions here seeking comment. Seeking content, not irrelevant banter, thanks.)"

With a reminder I wasn't looking for irrelevant banter....see that part...?

The military does not decide overall strategy, David. What's more, the military threats and national securoty issues in the world often derive from our overall strategy, correct? Was it not "Bush's invasion" of Iraq that so infuriated the Muslim world, many Progressives claiming it had destabilized the balance in the ME making Iran more of a threat.

I'm asking.....and trying to remain on point....what is our overall broader strategy? North Korea given as an example here, many other nations pose a threat as far as we're concerned.

What are we doing about it? What is the overall foreign policy of this administration, do we even have one? I believe Obama is in reaction mode, I think he deals with thiese incidents as they occur, there seems to be no overall broader theme to our policies abroad. Perhaps you could show me some, David.

Watch this.....

 

[RoccoR]

Stonewall, et al,

This question presupposes that the US has a unified strategy that:

• The people of the US understand.
• The people of the US agree with in its application.

You're not sure becase you've misread and a reminder to please read my posts if you're going to attempt a repsonse.

I clearly asked; "Do we have a direction, is there an overall strategy, what is our broader US policy, where do we stand in the world? (by the way, for those that love to argue and the many who disregard content in here, this paragraph the purpose for this thread start. I'm asking questions here seeking comment. Seeking content, not irrelevant banter, thanks.)"

With a reminder I wasn't looking for irrelevant banter....see that part...?

The military does not decide overall strategy, David. What's more, the military threats and national securoty issues in the world often derive from our overall strategy, correct? Was it not "Bush's invasion" of Iraq that so infuriated the Muslim world, many Progressives claiming it had destabilized the balance in the ME making Iran more of a threat.

I'm asking.....and trying to remain on point....what is our overall broader strategy? North Korea given as an example here, many other nations pose a threat as far as we're concerned.

What are we doing about it? What is the overall foreign policy of this administration, do we even have one? I believe Obama is in reaction mode, I think he deals with thiese incidents as they occur, there seems to be no overall broader theme to our policies abroad. Perhaps you could show me some, David.

Watch this.....

(COMMENT)

I do not think that there is a clearly stated US Foreign Policy; one overarching idea or set of principles that is followed. It is a series of little pieces of disjointed relationships.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Stonewall]

RR, it doesn't seem to me we have a unified strategy either. It seems no policy is in place, we're merely reacting to world events. We're in reactive and not proactive, we're without vision.....without leadership.

Glaring that many cannot even begin to answer my questions here, we're too busy arguing irrelevant issues like same sex marriage or gun control....what is happening abroad is being ignored, especially by his supporters.

 

[David]

RR, it doesn't seem to me we have a unified strategy either. It seems no policy is in place, we're merely reacting to world events. We're in reactive and not proactive, we're without vision.....without leadership.

Glaring that many cannot even begin to answer my questions here, we're too busy arguing irrelevant issues like same sex marriage or gun control....what is happening abroad is being ignored, especially by his supporters.

The world isn't being ignored, intervention in Libya, supplies to Syria, money to Ethiopia and Kenya so they can pay for their war with Somalia, redirecting our military's force projection into the Pacific, etc. Just because we don't have a cookie cutter plan for the whole world (which would be stupid) doesn't mean we don't have plans.

 

[Stonewall]

The world isn't being ignored, intervention in Libya, supplies to Syria, money to Ethiopia and Kenya so they can pay for their war with Somalia, redirecting our military's force projection into the Pacific, etc. Just because we don't have a cookie cutter plan for the whole world (which would be stupid) doesn't mean we don't have plans.

Intervention in Libya, not in Syria. Money "fueling" wars in Africa, redirecting our forces to the Pacific(reaction to North Korea), we're in reaction....not proaction mode.

We have no clear cut policy, that's why you're having so much trouble elaborating.

 

[David]

Intervention in Libya, not in Syria. Money "fueling" wars in Africa, redirecting our forces to the Pacific(reaction to North Korea), we're in reaction....not proaction mode.

We have no clear cut policy, that's why you're having so much trouble elaborating.

I said supplies to Syria, not intervention.

Somalia is a serious pirate risk.

Most of our territory is actually in the Pacific (not always obvious due to being mostly water) and China is our #1 rival. Redirecting to the Pacific now that Europe has been pacified is something we should have been doing the moment the Russian mob seized power in Russia and ended the Cold War.

 

[Stonewall]

Exactly. Supplies only to Syria, intervention in Libya resulting in amongst other things, the Benghazi incident. You mention Somalia, I find that odd as it's just across from Yemen that is a full boat terrorist sanctuary where Obama has been launching drone strikes and 'intervening.'

North Korea and Iran continue to develop nukes and delivery systems. China you claim is our 'main rival', they're also our largest ecomomic trading partner, exceeded perhaps only by Canada for obvious reasons. What about Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, or the entire Indian Ocean arena?

The Middle East....Iraq, Syria, Yemen, the Israeli/Palestinian situation, Egypt, Libya, or even Saudi Arabia.

Hillary Clinton declaring we now have a serious and growing Islamic militant threat in North Africa. Yemen a continuing festering hole, Afghanistan John Kerry just "reaffirmed"...what is it we're reaffirming? What are we doing?

 

[David]

what is it we're reaffirming?

Control of the $1,000,000,000,000 worth of lithium.

 

[Stonewall]

Control of the $1,000,000,000,000 worth of lithium.

Kerry said it was continued nation building, occupation, and propped up puppet government. I appear to once again be the more well informed.

 

[David]

Kerry said it was continued nation building, occupation, and propped up puppet government. I appear to once again be the more well informed.

Or the gullible fool who actually believes the propaganda. OBL is dead, the Taliban are actually willing to talk and al Qaeda is just a brand name everyone has decided to start using, the actual organization is dead. We start pulling out and then someone thinks to double check on Soviet reports of lithium deposits and now we're fully committed again. I'm sure even you can figure out why.

 

[Stonewall]

Or the gullible fool who actually believes the propaganda. OBL is dead, the Taliban are actually willing to talk and al Qaeda is just a brand name everyone has decided to start using, the actual organization is dead. We start pulling out and then someone thinks to double check on Soviet reports of lithium deposits and now we're fully committed again. I'm sure even you can figure out why.

The actual organization nearly "dead" long before OBL's death. And the Taliban has been willing to talk for decades! Taliban Willing to Talk to U.S. About Bin Laden - Los Angeles Times

And so is this a broader policy in Afghanistan, David? I mean, you seem to be making my point for me as you sometimes do. Starting to pull out and then committing again based on a Russian report of lithium deposits is a reactive rather than a proactive foreign policy theme. And it's all I see across the globe, Obama's foreign policy without a broader thesis, seeming to merely react when he deems it necessary.

Your Syrian example a good example, why supplies only when he was willing to step in and save Libyan lives....doesn't feel that burder in Syria.

He's a reactionist, he's not a leader, not proactive. We don't have a broader foreign policy, it's glaringly obvious.

 

[David]

Your Syrian example a good example, why supplies only when he was willing to step in and save Libyan lives....doesn't feel that burder in Syria.

Syria doesn't have oil and our European allies have no interests their.

 

[tecoyah]

Syria doesn't have oil and our European allies have no interests their.

There is also the simple fact that any aircraft would be subject to relatively advanced weaponry.....and the risk/value ratio is prohibitive.

We call this intelligent warfare.

 

[Stonewall]

Syria doesn't have oil and our European allies have no interests their.

Iran...does have interests there, David. Not to mention they being primary instigators in the region. But, you do prove my point. There is no consistent policy. Each situation or reality reacted to, there is no American Foreign policy anyone can point to that defines America.

This North Korean reality now heating up....I started the thread with this and it's a perfect example. I'll ask again as it seems my arguments confuse so many.....Do we have a direction as far as North Korea goes? Is there an overall strategy, what is our broader US policy...or do we just seem to be reacting.....dancing to their every threat or utterance?

Syria same way. Look to David pointing out they have no oil. There is no broader strat, this nation that facilitates international terrorism can't be put under any broader policy because they apparently have no oil.....makes em 'different' I guess. So, when this horrific slaughter by Bashar occurs, there is no human suffering ingredient involved as there was in Libya, Libya has oil as David points out.

Btw, I appreciate the wingman examples David, helping to make my points clear. Thanks

 

[Stonewall]

There is also the simple fact that any aircraft would be subject to relatively advanced weaponry.....and the risk/value ratio is prohibitive.

We call this intelligent warfare.

This risk value ratio going up....or down. Perhaps waiting for the risk/value to move from prohibitive.....to impossible isn't that intelligent a warfare technique.

Seems many observers remain blind to lessons burned in on 9-11. Allowing potential threats to fester and boil.....until it's not only more prohibitive to do anything about it, but it's going to cost unnecessary losses isn't intellgent. It's wholesale naive and stupid.

 

[David]

Assad is hardly a threat to us.