Cold War Returned: B-52s Back On 'Ready Alert'

[Danke]

That's the only way those ancient beasts are going to get a payload into Russia--by allowing the payload to deliver itself and the aircraft running away without ever getting close to Russian airspace.

That is one of the deterrents with using aircraft to deliver nukes. The enemy can see them coming, see our resolve and has a lot of time to change their mind and back down.

[acptulsa]

That is one of the deterrents with using aircraft to deliver nukes. The enemy can see them coming, see our resolve and has a lot of time to change their mind and back down.

And the deterrence from doing it is your attempt to bluff someone can get one of your vulnerable antiques shot down. Then the bluffing stage is over, and it's on like Donkey Kong.

That is what is known as a two-edged sword. And sometimes 'deterrence' is just a convenient excuse for provoking a war.

'China is having a new war, and we are having trouble getting into it. We always have gunboats there, so if there is any shooting, why, one of our boats will be shot at and that gives us the usual alibi.

'But this time it seems we only had one gunboat and it had to maneuver around for days before it could get in the line of fire.'

[osan]

What do you define as "sufficient" threat to a country?

Hard to say, since I'm not in the biz, but KJU is developing weapons systems that are clearly intended to attain intercontinental reach. Given how looney much of the world is these days, we in America being plenty of that ourselves, I would consider this enough cause to be at some level of alert. Would I be hovering B-52s? I don't know, but I sure as hell would not be sleeping at the switch.

Would another nation that previously invaded bombed your country into the stone age, killing 15% of the population be a sufficient threat?

Very valid point. However, the response of developing nuclear-armed ICBMs does not strike me as particularly rational, given the facts at hand.

Would a nation that has constantly threaten to bomb year year in and year out and practices a mock invasion of your nation be a sufficient threat?

I don't recall this being a news item. It would seem certain that it would have made headlines, at least when an R occupied the Oval Office.

Would a nation that has previously used nuclear nations n another nation - civilian cities no less, and then adopts policies of pre-emptive warfare and nuclear first strike pose a sufficient threat?

The use of nukes on Japan is irrelevant to the current issue. We could debate all day whether we should have used those bombs. One thing I will guaRONtee you: if Japan had had them, they would have used them on us without hesitation. So would have Germany, SU, China, and so on. Humans.

Would a nation that has a repeated history of initiating invasions of other nations, based on lies and false flags, and repeatedly threatens your country pose a sufficient threat?

Another valid point.

Would a nation that has imposed sanctions and used their overwhelming military to blockade your country be a sufficient threat?

Since when have we blockaded NK? I do not recall this. Could be my memory is that far gone.

Would a nation that has consistently rejected every attempt at peace made by you and your willingness to give up all nuclear ambitions in exchange for that nation simply stopping is practice invasion operations of your country, be a sufficient threat?

I don't know the particulars of such negotiations, so I cannot say. Do you? Were you there?

Would a nation that has consistently and repeatedly sabotaged your trade, economic, dialogue and reconciliation measures with your neighbor be a sufficient threat?

What leads you to believe SK has any desire whatsoever to reconcile with NK? I don't know too many Koreans, but the very few with whom I have conversed on such matters left me with no reason to think they wanted anything to do with NK, save perhaps to see it ground into the dust. NK has 11K artillery pieces parked on their border with SK. NK has routinely invaded the territorial waters of SK. Hell, the even had a shooting incident over it, maybe 15 years ago (??).

If you mean to paint the NKs as innocent victims, you're on a fool's errand.

What would a rational country do in the face of such sufficient threat?

They would do what the Swiss does: they would arm every last citizen and provide for their annual training exercises. They have about 25 million people. If we assume one third are able bodied adults of the right age for such service, that would leave them with an army of about 8 millions. Eight million well-trained, well-practiced soldiers would be enough to leave any nominally rational would-be attacker with much pause. The only "practical" approach to such a nation would be nukes, and NK can do nothing about that, ultimately speaking. Therefore, the rational NK leader would arm, train, and help his people maintain vigilant readiness in the case of a land-based attack.

Furthermore, I would wholly dispense with development of nukes and intercontinental deliver platforms in favor of detection systems (RADAR and so on), as well as energy weapons and short-range (< 300-500 miles) anti-missile systems to best ensure defense against a possible missile attack from Eville™ America.

Instead of terrorizing my own people, I would set them free, replete with truly free markets and the loosing their creative genius. Koreans have some strange quirks, but on the whole I admire them greatly. They are industrious, very creative, proud, self-respecting, honorable people whose fundamental world views seem to me to be very different from that of the average American, who is a whiny, whinging, entitled little $#@!.

Would a rational county not develop the best means of deterrent available - a nuclear weapon against such sufficient threat?

Your assumption is deeply erroneous on this one. Nukes as deterrent depends almost solely on having both the numbers and the delivery capability to shower an enemy with so many incoming MIRVs that they would not be able to deal with them all. That ship sailed in the 1960s or 70s. Once the big boys had established their arsenals, anyone else trying to get into the club faced huge barriers precisely because nobody in wanted more members to join.

Who is really threatening who?

WHOM.

Everyone is threatening everyone else. Diplomacy is mostly dead. Just look at how the Klown Obama spoke as a "diplomat". Cringe-worthy. Trump has his moments. Bush^2 may have been worse than Obammy, as I recall him saying "bring it on" in the manner of a dull and ill-bred 7th-grade cur. Nixon was just another low-rent crook in a good suit, but at least he outwardly comported himself as a statesman and not a hormonally-crazy, low-IQ über-Douche.

The most militarily powerful and aggressive government on earth backed "in a corner" ? Is this for real? Has Osan gone off the deep end?

This is most non-circumspect.

If KJU manages to develop the correct configuration warheads and detonates them about 200 miles up and about 1000 miles apart over the fat middle of North America, the resulting meltdown of the electrical transmission network would result in as much as 95% death rate. Before you scoff, do the analysis. It has been openly admitted that it would take at least 25 years to replace all the low-level transformers that would be blown - the ones that step-down the 7200 volts at the top of the drop to a pair of 120 V lines that come into our houses.

Without those, not to mention all the other equipment that would fry, people would drop like flies in a matter of a few short months. Or is it your opinion that Americans are well prepared to live a 19th-century lifestyle?

How is the Washington backed in "in a corner"? Please try to explain this absurdity. We can use a good laugh.

I am disappointed in your tone. I have addressed you with respect while you employ derision. How does this help you?


Furthermore, I have not claimed to be right in all cases and have in fact taken pains to point out that I might be mistaken. What the hell more do you want? Come back at me with adult discourse and persuade me if you can. Sarcasm and the like buys you nothing that I can discern.

Washignton can end its ancnctions and open trade with NK any time.

True, but it also appears NK has no desire to trade with us, either.

Yes, plenty of nations have both nukes and delivery platforms capable of reaching America. Best not to start wars , threaten, invade, bomb, instituted regime change, false flag , false accusations, perpetual escalations, barking orders and never considering their interests, implementing economic blockade of such nations. Better to open dialogue and trade. In other words - to reduce risk, don't act like Washington.

We agree.

As to psychosis, NK is actions are extremely rational, logical and predictable in light of all the threats mentioned above, as well as Washington's pattern and practice of invading nations - either outright bombing or via proxy armies or regime changes , and of course Washington pattern of continuously reneging on its promises - Libya, Iraq, treaties. Of course any sane and rational government would do what it takes to defend itself and develop the best means of deterrent it can.
No, NK looks like a bastion of sanity compared to Washington's psychotic actions and pattern.

We disagree for the reasons I cite above. Developing nukes at this stage of the game is not nearly rational. NK is a tiny patch of land, America is huge. NK may have a handful of nukes and at present no apparent way of delivering them to Eville™ America, though they are working on it. Lobbing even 20 nukes into the USA will result in only one thing: NK becomes the world's largest glow-in-the-dark parking lot. Therefore, developing nuclear weapons that can avail you nothing but a small handful of spite points at best, is in fact very much non-rational.

Free your people, train and arm them. That's about the best for which one can hope in the face of a globally roving madman called "America".

I've ignored the rest of your rant. The difference between myself and you is that I take a broader view of things, including the practical considerations along with those of principle. I can look at things from another's point of view without prejudging, whereas you seem unwilling to do so. It's all good so far as I am concerned. We just do things differently. It does not follow that I am a evil simpleton, just because you don't agree with some of the things I have written, especially in the face of the fact that I fully admit I may be mistaken on any of a number of points.

Once again, what in hell do you want from a man? I don't do the echo-chamber thing and never have since the first time I posted here. Not all truth has the flavor of unicorn poo. Reality can be a real bitch.

[osan]

What evidence do you have that Kim Jong Un is a madman? His rhetoric? John Bolton's testimonies? Three minute $#@!ty North Korean propaganda videos?

What evidence do I have that the man standing 20 feet from me with a knife, telling me he is going to gut me like a fish poses a genuine threat? Hi knife and his rhetoric is all I have to go on. Therefore, I draw my sidearm and lay him down on the ground. Regrettable, but I'm not giving my life up to anyone on demand without a good fight.

Come now man, you are smarter than this.

That he is developing these weapons proves he at the very least understands the fall of countries opposed to US hegemony. To wit: develop and maintain a nuclear arsenal or be murdered in the street.

You may well be correct. But what if you're not? What if he really is just a fat little lunatic whose next move is anyone's guess? All I am doing is keeping an open mind about it. Maybe the B-52s are justified. Maybe not. We cannot know because neither you nor I are in the deep of it. All we have are the sources you cite and sometimes that has got to be enough.

Donald Trump seems a wee bit more dangerous than some pissant North Korean dictator who would have sooner been poisoned if it weren't for US policy strengthening his base.

Possibly so. We won't really know until the day after he leaves office. If we're not glowing in the dark and all wearing manacles while being forcedly marched into a nickel mine, then we will know you were mistaken. If we are all dead or dying, we will know you were correct.

What more can we do?

Donald Trump can spend this country into default and you could be eaten by your neighbors?

Trump isn't going to stop that and he knows it - at least not in such neat and rapid fashion. The current situation here in America is VERY much about choosing one's battles. It appears few people see this. They want instant fixes and all that. Well, the world doesn't work like that - especially in the wholly $#@!ed up state in which it currently finds itself.

Oh you meant about some despot having nuclear weapons. Most 'Gods' aren't suicidal. His comfortable life is ended the moment he makes that step.

You assume sufficient connection to reality. I don't even assume that in OUR politicians, from Trump on down. We are living in epic times, and not in the good sense of the term. I would recommend to you my method: nothing should be off the table in terms of what Theye might do. Almost anything is possible. If a pink elephant flew from Trump's boothole on live television, I really would not be that surprised anymore.

Forgive me, I misread it as B2. That is the plane they typically use when pissing on North Korea's sovereignty.

No sweat.

You would be confused, your intelligence officer friend would be the probable whore for the state.

Well, now here you should tread a bit more carefully. If you met him, if you knew what he is like, what he has done (and I know only the least of it all), I suspect you would hold s very different opinion, even if you still chose to disagree.

Remember the Alabama Maersk where the SEALs shot three terrorists simultaneously? He was the operation's architect, though he was not the OIC. He came up with the idea and it came off like a charm. A very interesting guy, even if you don't agree with some of his positions. He was with SEAL VII and, unlike most intelligence officers, he routinely went on operations as OIC. I suspect he may have been the man who found Bin Laden, though he won't speak of it, so that is just conjecture. He is one of the guys to whom men like presidents turn when nobody else can find a solution. He really is that capable and I am very pleased to call him my little brother.

We just need to trust the 'experts.' You know, those in this country who have $#@!ed us into war the last dozen times. But this time is different you see. A madman has weapons of mass destruction. GMAFB.

Your assumption that all such people are unworthy of trust or just bumbling fools is equally flawed with the one that asserts they are all perfect and honorable. We both know that it is not the case.

Yeah but after like the twelfth time of lying us into war you might say, hey these people are kind of untrusty, Godless, $#@!ty men.

Could not agree more. I make this very point to people all the time on many issues. We've been lead down the garden path so many times, few are willing to trust even those worthy of it. It is a very bad corner into which we have been painted. It is the corner that paralyzes because people are incapable of discerning truth from lies and deceit.

Then go fight them!

Great idea. Just let me pack my M16, and the M60, plenty of ammo and a bunch of warm clothing and MREs. That should do it. I'll be back next Wednesday with KJU's head and a signed peace treaty.

One would think after 15 years in Iraq and 17 years in Afghanistan and wars in Somalia, Yemen, Syria, et $#@!ing cetera you would stop and think, 'Hey, maybe I shouldn't assume the worst about every despot the media pimps tell me to hate.'

But I'm not doing that. For one thing, I have an alternate source of information that I trust and I can assess based on what KJU says and does, most of which appears consistent with the view that he is not my friend.

Ah. The good old prove a negative! Very good. Brings me back to 2002.

Negatives are readily proven, under conditions. The old saw that one cannot prove a negative is wrong. The method is called "proof by contradiction" and it doesn't apply in all cases, but is valid where one is able to positively prove an assertion that the truth of which is mutually exclusive of the negative. But I digress.

Cheers.

[AZJoe]

"Would a nation that has constantly threaten to bomb year year in and year out and practices a mock invasion of your nation be a sufficient threat?"
I don't recall this being a news item. It would seem certain that it would have made headlines, at least when an R occupied the Oval Office.

The annual mock Korean war games are no secret. They are reported on regularly and have been highlighted right here on RPF. To be willing to spend the time proffering long-winded comments in defense of neocon talking points, but unwilling to take the time for a mere two minutes of research effort to educate on the major history of US war games on the Korean peninsula suggests selective willful ignorance in favor of the neocon mass media bias reporting confirmation.

On top of the US mock Korean war games there are the repeated threats of nuclear annihilation against North Korean people by Washington, including being turned into “charcoal briquettes” and “completely destroyed,” so that they “literally cease to exist” — and this before they had nuclear weapons and the rudimentary means to deliver them.

Washington repeatedly sends multiple aircraft carriers to the waters between Japan and Korea, to conduct “exercises,” “a show of force not seen there for more than two decades,” At the same time, the Pentagon sent B1-B strategic bombers to conduct simulated nuclear bombing runs “near the Military Demarcation Line that divides the two Koreas” in other words, along the North Korean border. Washington publicly vows to be considering a "bloody nose" first strike.

Washington may call these "defensive maneuvers" but from any objective viewpoint when you are activating missiles, troop deployments, bringing ships and flying bombers right up to a country's borders, it looks like Washington is preparing an attack. And Washington has been doing this annually, and now even multiple times per year.



Rehearsed invasion of North Korea
Foal Eagle
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/us-s...ming-soon.html
https://gowans.wordpress.com/2017/07...eas-icbm-test/
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/11/polit...rea/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/03/asia/...ntl/index.html
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/...2171052a6b39cd
http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/no...bda2065e46e90f

The use of nukes on Japan is irrelevant to the current issue.

To the contrary. Past behavior is directly relevant to assessing threats. To say otherwise is akin to saying - just because a child molester has molested children in the past is no reason to be concerned or take action when he comes to your neighborhood or hangs outside your neighborhood school now. The willful disregard of history defies the most basic of common sense.

Washington's history of not only using nuclear weapons on another nation, and in a nuclear first strike, but also its willingness to intentionally target civilian population centers in an act of overt terrorism is directly relevant to assessing its threats. Combine that with the fact that Washington has formally adopted a doctrine of "preemptive" warfare, and an official policy of nuclear first strike in its Nuclear Posture Review, using nuclear weapons in a first strike, nuclear weapons in conventional battles, and using nuclear weapons in response to "cyber threats". It is all madness, but the last one is exceptionally alarming given Washington's continued barrage of false accusations, false flags, and now the proven CIA/NSA operations exposed by Snowden and Wikileaks revealing the CIA and NSA have been hacking systems and intentionally leaving behind code and codes to falsely implicated other foreign states, project Marble exposed in Vault 7.

And then there was Vice President Pence recent instructions when he visited the Minot Nuclear missile base and recklessly and irresponsibly told the launch crews:
“We are entering a very dangerous time, and I have come here personally to tell you that you may receive a Launch Order in the near future. I want you to know that we have planned for all contingencies, but it is possible that things may escalate beyond what we believe will take place. If you receive a properly formatted launch order, you launch. Don’t waste time trying to confirm the order,because it is not standard operating procedure for you to delay like that. If you get a launch order, carry it out.”

Since when have we blockaded NK? I do not recall this. Could be my memory is that far gone.

Is it a horrible memory or another act of selective ignorance. This issue too has been addressed right here on RPF.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...RIAN-SANCTIONS

THE PATHETICISM OF U.S.' TOTALITARIAN SANCTIONS

Just ask Bert Sacks, the American citizen from Washington State who dared to violate U.S. sanctions ... It’s what [totalitarians in Washington] do to anyone who dares to violate their sacred sanctions. ....

Samsung ... has a policy of giving out smartphones to the Olympic athletes ... Not so for the North Korean athletes, who won’t be taking any selfies home with them. ... not because they might be punished by North Korean officials ... but because Samsung was scared to death that they would be violating U.S. [totalitarian] sanctions if they gave free phones to the North Korean athletes. Samsung officials were scared of what the U.S. government, not the Korean government, might do to them.
Is that pathetic or what? ...

A North Korean 229-member cheerleading squad ... has mesmerized the crowds and the press at the Olympics. They came down from North Korea in a huge ferry ... But a big problem arose with the ferry. After it arrived, it was low on fuel and asked the South Koreans to refuel it. South Korean officials were scared to death... [of] how the [totalitarian] U.S. government would react to what would amount to a clear violation of sanctions. According to an article in the New York Times, “As of Wednesday evening, the South had not decided whether to supply the fuel.”

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. ...

the sanctions problem extends to hockey sticks and uniforms. When North Korea’s hockey team showed up at a tournament in New Zealand last year ... The organizers lent them high-tech carbon fiber sticks but required they return them before going home for fear of what [totalitarian] U.S. officials would do to them for violating the sanctions.

Nike is another company afraid of antagonizing the U.S. government. ... it decided to let a Finnish company furnish the uniforms for the Korean hockey team for fear of violating the sanctions. ...

The sanctions require that when a plane flies into North Korea, it has to wait six months before entering U.S. airspace. ...

don’t forget the purpose of the sanctions: To kill the North Korean populace, including those North Korean cheerleaders, through starvation and illness. The idea is that if enough of them are dying, either Kim Jong-un will abdicate in favor of a pro-U.S. dictator or ... a violent revolution and install a pro-U.S. dictator into power. ...

When Kim Yo Jong extended an invitation to South Korean president Moon Jae-in to visit North Korea, he deflected the invitation, no doubt scared to accept the invitation without first checking with [totalitarian overlords in Washington] U.S. officials to see if it was okay to accept. ...

I can’t help but wonder whether the North Korean people are more afraid of their government than Samsung, Nike, and other big businesses are scared of the U.S. government. ...

When not only individuals and private business cannot conduct business with North Koreans out of fear of force by the US government, but sovereign nations wont even dare the most simply of actions (refuel a ferry or give a simple token gift) out of fear of reprisal by Washington, that is an economic blockade.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ighlight=korea

I don't know the particulars of such negotiations, so I cannot say. Do you? Were you there?

Anyone paying an ounce of attention should know. The professed ignorance of what is readily available is only a reflection on the faults of the ignorant. As Washington has refused negotiations, there aren't any. However we do have a plethora of public statements and dialogue. The events are not secret. Many of such news reports and history have also been readily posted to RPF. Professed lack of knowledge is again inexcusable and suggests again willful selective ignorance confirmation bias.

NK has publicly and repeatedly stated it will “sit with the U.S. anytime” to discuss US war games and its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. Pyongyang proposed that the United States “contribute to easing tension on the Korean peninsula by temporarily suspending joint military exercises in south Korea and its vicinity this year, and said that the DPRK is ready to take such responsive steps as temporarily suspending the nuclear test over which the U.S. is concerned.” Until Trump just recently agreed to a meeting, Washington has repeatedly and publicly rejected any talks. Washington has publicly demanded 100% obedience with its orders before any talks. In other words, Washington did not want talk and diplomacy to achieve an outcome, but rather demanded the outcome first before any dialogue - making the talk pointless. No diplomacy or discussion, just do as we say or we will use force, sanctions, an economic blockade by using force on other nations to prevent trade, threats, overt war games with mock invasions , etc.

In order to appease Washington, DPRK offered to suspend its nuclear test if only Washington would suspend its war games mock invasion of DPRK. Completely sensible. South Korea publicly endorsed a temporary freeze. So did neighbors Russia and China. There is no rational basis to refuse unless Washington did not want resolution but rather to escalate.

DPRK has previously and repeatedly publicly stated for years it would end it nuclear program if Washington would end its war games. Washington refused any dialogue for years, and continues its mock invasion practice war games.

These are not secrets. Ignorance of these important facts is inexcusable for anyone clamoring in defense of the neocon mantras.

http://theantimedia.com/north-korea-give-up-nukes/

https://gowans.wordpress.com/2017/07...eas-icbm-test/

What leads you to believe SK has any desire whatsoever to reconcile with NK?

Oh I don't know . Maybe its the actual statements by the South Korea's president. Maybe it was all the diplomatic actions takn by South Korea recently (and in the past), and the promotion of a unified Korea at the Olympics, and unified teams, and uniforms and Olympic logo of a unified Korea, and the diplomatic luncheon (that Pence attempted to sabotage) event where they promoted reconciliation and the desert entree was a shape of a Korea where the guests were asked to pour white chocolate on it to dissolve the border between the two Koreas. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ighlight=pence
And then there is prior Sunshine Policy that was implemented between the two Koreas previously with the end goal of reunification. It too was ended by the actions of the George W. Bush administration.

In 2000, North and South Korea entered into the "Sunshine Policy". This was a policy for expanded economic trade and relations between the North and South with an eventual end-goal of peaceful reunification. The two Koreas signed a non-aggression pact. Tens of thousands of South Koreans began visiting the North. The South set up factories in the North that employed thousands of North Korean workers. Investment money rolled in. The North was opening up. Capitalism had taken roots. Information, travel, dialogue, capitalism, exchange , trade, progress was taking place.

Bush and particularly the neocon members of his incoming cabinet were wholly against the Sunshine Policy and any peaceful advances between the two Koreas. They sought ways to stop it. In 2001 Bush gave his "Axis of Evil" speech naming North Korea, and the onslaught of accusations and criticizing everything North Korean began.

In 2002, "WMD" Bush and his neocon cabinet members claimed NK unilaterally violated the agreements in 2002. This opened sanctions back up, and immediately pulled the plug on the North-South Sunshine Policy. (The same "Iraq has WMDs" and "We're only going into Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laded" Bush administration). More on Bush sabotage of the Sunshine Policy.

Unsurprisingly "WMD" Bush & Co.'s assertions have been disputed. The Bush claims were far less than sufficient, lacking in credibility, and without any actual verified corroboration. See here.

But again, why let an avalanche of actual facts and events and reality get in the way of neocon propagandized false mantras. Its so much easier to bury the head in the sand and willfully ignore reality, and go along as a another sheep.

Developing nukes at this stage of the game is not nearly rational. NK is a tiny patch of land, America is huge. ... Lobbing even 20 nukes into the USA will result in only one thing: NK becomes the world's largest glow-in-the-dark parking lot.

This argument is pure lunacy.

It would not be rational if NK were intent on starting a war. It is rational to prevent an attack. It is called deterrence. Of course NK cannot defeat Washington. That is not the point. The point is to make any attack on NK too costly for the attacker.

It is like telling a gun owner when faced with superior numbers that the best defense to surrender his guns. It is like telling a South African farmer who wants to protect his family against an angry lynch mob of a hundred people bent on killing his family and looting his property that he must surrender his weapon because he cant win. Sure, he cannot defeat that mob, but having that rifle in hand sure is a potent deterrent to keep the mob at bay from killing his family. But in the NK context, the position is even worse. It is not to request the farmer disarm himself, but to disarm that farmer by force ahead of time. This is utter lunacy.

Osan's argument that arming the populace with small arms is sufficient stop Washington's missiles and bombs also defies logic. An armed populace poses a deterrent to ground invasion by troops, but does nothing for Washington's pattern and practice to launch missiles and drop bombs (Libya, Yugoslavia, Syria) or its threats to preemptively launch nukes. But regardless of what Osan thinks is the best deterrent, that option still belongs to the sovereign nation to decide for itself, not for Washington.

...

It is one thing to disagree. It is another to disagree while willfully ignoring all of the information already posted and readily available on RPF on these very topics.

[Ender]

^^^THIS^^^
@AZJoe

Absolutely On. The. Nose.

Plus people like to ignore that the whole Korean War was set up by the great US of A.

And, I'd +rep you if I could.