WHAT WAR WITH KOREA LOOKS LIKE:

Knowing the truth about the Kennedy Assassination is understanding America today.

Moderators: kenmurray, dankbaar, Bob, Dealey Joe

WHAT WAR WITH KOREA LOOKS LIKE:

Postby Bruce Patrick Brychek » Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:08 am

07.22.2017:

Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Members and Readers:

OPERATION NORTHWOODS MAKES ME DOUBT EVERYTHING ABOUT ANY U.S. ALLEGED WAR.

THE HYPED-UP PHONY SCAM TO REMOVE FIDEL CASTRO, WHO OUTLIVED SEVERAL PRESIDENT's AND SEVERAL CIA
DIRECTOR's, 90 MILES OFF OF THE COAST OF FLORIDA, IS PERHAPS THE GREATEST INTELLIGENCE-MILITARY INDUSTRIAL
CORPORATION CHARADE OF ALL TIMES IN MY OPINION.

THEN OF COURSE WE HAVE VIET NAM, LAOS, AND CAMBODIA POLICE ACTIONS, WHICH WERE NEVER DECLARED WARS,
SO ESSENTIAL TO STOP THE DOMINO THEORY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COMMUNISM. HOW DID THAT TURN OUT ?

NOW THE 16+ YEAR WAR IN AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN THAT AT BEST IS A DRAW, ACCORDING TO U.S. COMMANDERS.

BUT CERTAINLY MY FAVORITE IS THE U.S. HOMELAND WAR ON DRUGS WHICH IS NOW APPROACHING ITS 4TH DECADE,
WITH NO BEGINNING GAME, NO MIDDLE GAME, AND CERTAINLY NO END GAME IN SIGHT.

NEED DRUGS OR WEAPONS ? ASK ANY JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUENT, HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT, OR COLLEGE STUDENT
YOU KNOW. YOU WON'T HAVE TO ASK MANY.

THE DONALD TRUMP AND VLADIMIR PUTIN RUNNING JOKE GROWS EXPONENTIALLY DAILY. MANY IN THE MAIN STREAM
MEDIA DECLARE THAT THIS IS BIGGER THAN WATERGATE. "We the People..." STILL HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD THE REAL TRUTH
ABOUT WATERGATE.

AND NOW WAR WITH NORTH KOREA LOOMING ON THE HORIZON.

WHAT IS THE TRUTH ?

THE TRUTH IS WHAT "We the People..." ARE TOLD THE TRUTH IS.

THE REMOVALS OF JFK, MX, MLK, AND RFK, THE OKLAHOMA BOMBING, 09.11.2001, FALSE FLAGS, etc., "We the People
..." HAVE BEEN TOLD WHAT THE TRUTH IS, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

RIGHT ? (07.21.2017, BB).

WHAT WAR WITH KOREA LOOKS LIKE:
Bill Powell, Newsweek 17 hours ago

The batteries of North Korean artillery lie just on the other side of the divided peninsula’s demilitarized zone. There are
thousands of them—some hidden, others out in the open. Artillery shells are stored in an elaborate network of tunnels;
and though much of the weaponry and ammunition is old, U.S. forces stationed in South Korea have no doubt they
would be effective.

Less than 40 miles to the south is the sprawling city of Seoul, the capital of South Korea, with a metropolitan area of
24 million inhabitants. Ever since a cease-fire ended hostilities between North and South Korea in 1953, the residents
of Seoul have lived with the knowledge that a war with their brethren in the north could break out again; it is a notion
not often acknowledged but embedded in their DNA. And now, again, the fraught Korean Peninsula seems a single
miscalculation away from calamity. Since his election, President Donald Trump and his foreign policy team have
escalated their rhetoric about the North, insisting that U.S. patience with North Korea’s nuclear and missile program
has run out. Pyongyang has responded with rhetoric even more bellicose than usual. On April 20, a state-owned
newspaper threatened that Pyongyang would deliver a “super-mighty pre-emptive strike’’ against the U.S., whose
forces were in the midst of massive military exercises with their South Korean ally.

No one in Seoul is heading for the bomb shelters yet. Pragmatism, and an abiding assumption that nothing terribly bad
will actually happen, prevails. “No matter how much tensions increase, we just go about our lives,” says Park Chung Hee,
a 40-year-old businessman whose grandfather was killed in the Korean War. “What else can we do?” But everyone living
on the peninsula knows that those North Korean artillery batteries are there to pummel Seoul if another war breaks out.
And that if it does, Seoul will get hit, and hit hard. The amount of time from the instant a shell is fired to impact in the South
Korean capital ? Just 45 seconds.

U.S. alarm about North Korea has spiked for two main reasons: The first is the aggressive missile-testing regimen
Pyongyang has carried out under Kim Jong Un. During his four-year reign, Pyongyang has already test-fired 66 missiles,
more than twice as many as his father Kim Jong Il did during his 17 years in office. Kim’s regime has gradually increased
the range of its missiles. Combine that with the North’s efforts to miniaturize its nuclear arsenal, so that its 10 to 16 bombs
can fit onto a warhead, “and you have two streams coming together—range and miniaturization—that you don’t want to
cross,” says retired Admiral James Stavridis, now dean of the Fletcher School for diplomacy at Tufts University.

An underwater test-firing of a strategic submarine ballistic missile is seen in this undated photo released by North Korea's
Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in Pyongyang on April 24, 2016. KCNA/Reuters

Some U.S. commanders fear the North can already put a nuclear warhead on a missile. Admiral Bill Gortney, head of the
North American Aerospace Command, told Congress two years ago that he believes Pyongyang can use a medium-range
missile to deliver a nuclear payload, meaning it can hit South Korea or Japan. The consensus intelligence estimate is that
the North is now 18 to 36 months away from sticking a nuke on a missile that can reach Los Angeles. All that explains why
from both current and former military officials, there has been increasing talk of pre-emption. In November 2016, General
Walter Sharp, former commander of U.S. Forces Korea, stated that if North Korea puts a long-range missile on a launch
pad, and the U.S. is unsure of its payload, Washington should order a pre-emptive attack to destroy that missile.

But the grim reality is that a pre-emptive strike, against North Korean missiles or nuclear facilities—or both—could well
mean war. Should the day come when President Trump believes he needs to order a pre-emptive strike against targets in
North Korea to eliminate a direct threat, the U.S will not be able to take out all of the North Korean artillery front loaded
near the border. “Not,” says former National Security Council staffer Victor Cha, “without using tactical nuclear weapons,”
which is not something the U.S. would consider, given that Seoul is right down the road. A U.S. strike, simply put, could
well trigger the second Korean War.

What would another armed conflict on the peninsula look like ? During the Korean War, which lasted from 1950 to 1953,
some 2.7 million Koreans died, along with 33,000 Americans and 800,000 Chinese. In any pre-emption scenario now, the
U.S. would try keep the strike limited to the task at hand; at the same time Washington would signal in any way it could—
probably via the North’s ally in Beijing--that it did not seek a wider war.

For the past two years, the U.S. and South Korea have been practicing pre-emption exercises. In 2015, they adopted a new
war plan, OPLAN 5015, which includes attacks on the North’s nuclear and missile facilities, as well as “decapitation attacks”
against Kim Jong Un and the rest of the North Korean leadership.

South Korea also developed its own pre-emptive attack plans, and has acquired, U.S. and Korean officials say, weapons
capable of destroying some of North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction. Seoul has also built an elaborate defense system,
which includes the recent delivery of the U.S. terminal high altitude area defense system, which shoots down incoming missiles
in the final phase of their descent.

The U.S. does not want to have to pre-empt, of course. As Trump’s National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said on April 16,
every option “short of war” is on the table in order to dissuade the North from deploying nukes on long-range missiles. “No one
is looking for a fight here,” insists another Trump adviser not authorized to speak about this matter on the record.

A cutout of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is set alight during an anti-North Korean rally in Seoul, South Korea, on August
21, 2015. Kim Hong-Ji/Reuters

Whether it does will come down to how Kim reacts to the pressure now being put on him from the West. The U.S. knows
relatively little about the young man’s psyche and stability, but what it does know isn’t encouraging. In addition to his
aggressive missile testing program, Kim has a new war plan of his own: to complete an invasion of South Korea within a
week using asymmetric capabilities (including nuclear weapons and missiles).

Reunification of the two Koreas under Pyongyang’s rule, as ludicrous as that possibility seems to the outside world, has
always been the foremost goal of both Kim Jong Un and his father. For a while, in the wake of the famine in the late 1990s
that killed tens of thousands of North Koreans and the deep, relentless poverty that followed, military strategists began to
discount that possibility, believing it to be rhetoric unmoored from reality. All you had to do was look at the satellite images of
Seoul and Pyongyang at night, one brightly lit and the other dark, to see which half of Korea was strong, and which was
weak.

And although the economic disparity hasn’t changed much, the North’s weaponry has, its war plan has, and its dictator’s
bellicose rhetoric has. The young man known in China as “Fatty Kim the Third” (Kim Jong Un is the grandson of Kim Il
Sung, who was the supreme leader of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea from its founding in 1948 until 1994) appears
to be serious about being a nuclear power. In speeches, he mentions the reunification far more often than his father did,
North Korea watchers say. If the U.S. launches a pre-emptive strike, Kim appears likely to hit back, starting with an artillery
barrage—thousands of rounds per hour. “Without moving a single soldier in its million-man army,” says former CIA analyst
Bruce Klingner, now at the Heritage Foundation, “the North could launch a devastating attack on Seoul.”

Would the two sides be able to de-escalate at that point? A senior North Korean military defector has said that under Kim’s
new war plan, the North intends to try to occupy all of South Korea before significant U.S. reinforcements could flow in from
Japan and elsewhere. This invasion could start, Cha wrote in his recent book, The Impossible State , by terrorizing the South
Korean population with chemical weapons. “An arsenal of 600 chemically armed Scud missiles would be fired on all South
Korean airports, train stations and marine ports, making it impossible for civilians to escape.” The North’s arsenal of medium
-range missiles could also be fitted with chemical warheads and launched at Japan, delaying the flow of U.S. reinforcements.
And those reinforcements would be urgently needed on the Korean Peninsula, since the U.S. has only 28,000 troops in South
Korea, and the South’s armed forces, though far better trained and equipped than the North’s, consist of 660,000 men, more
than 300,000 smaller than the South’s.

Vice President Mike Pence looks at North Korea from an observation post in the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) which has
separated the two Koreas since the Korean War, on April 17. U.S. strikes earlier this month against Syria, coupled with
President Donald Trump's dispatching of what he called an “armada” of U.S. warships to the Korean region, touched off
fears that the United States was preparing for military action. Lee Jin-man/AP

U.S. war planners believe North Korean forces would to try to overrun South Korea’s defenses and get to Seoul before the
U.S. and the South could respond with overwhelming force. As Cha says, “as wars go, this would be the most unforgiving
battle conditions that can be imagined—an extremely high density of enemy and allied forces—over 2 million mechanized
forces all converging on a total battle space the equivalent of the distance between Washington, D.C., and Boston.’’ The
United States would immediately dispatch four to six ground combat divisions of up to 20,000 troops each, 10 Air Force
wings of about 20 fighters per unit and four to five aircraft carriers. In Cha’s scenario, U.S. and South Korean “soldiers
would be fighting with little defense against DPRK artillery, aerial bombardments, and in an urban warfare environment
polluted by 5,000 metric tons of DPRK chemical agents.”

Even if that artillery barrage and push into the South gave the North the initiative, there is no question, military planners
all say, who would ultimately prevail in a second Korean War. The U.S. and South Korea have far too much firepower,
and if Kim Jong Un decided to go to war, that would be end of his regime, whether he knows it or not.

But this would not be a one-week walkover, like the first Gulf War against Saddam Hussein, when his forces were arrayed
like clay pigeons in the Iraqi and Kuwaiti deserts, where they were easily destroyed by U.S. air power. Conventional
thinking in the Pentagon is that it would be a four- to six-month conflict with high-intensity combat and many dead. In
1994, when President Bill Clinton contemplated the use of force to knock out the North’s nuclear weapons program, the
then commander of U.S.-Republic of Korea forces, Gary Luck, told his commander in chief that a war on the peninsula
would likely result in 1 million dead, and nearly $1 trillion of economic damage.

The carnage would conceivably be worse now, given that the U.S. believes Pyongyang has 10 to 16 nuclear weapons. If
the North could figure out a way to deliver one, why wouldn’t Kim go all in?

Has the messaging so far from the Trump administration regarding North Korea made war more or less likely? Trump was
sobered by the Obama administration’s counsel that things with North Korea were becoming more dangerous. He initiated
a comprehensive policy review shortly after taking office, which led to press reports that “all options” were on the table
(including use of force) in dealing with North Korea. Too much may have been made of that, given that, in any formal review,
all aspects of policy are scrutinized. When President-elect Donald Trump was told North Korea had claimed it had reached
the “final stage of preparations to test-launch an intercontinental ballistic missile,” he tweeted, “It won’t happen.” Kellyanne
Conway, counselor to the president, explained that Trump had sent a “clear warning” to North Korea and put Pyongyang “on
notice.” She added that “the president of the United States will stand between them and missile capabilities.”

Shortly after taking office, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the era of “strategic patience”—the Obama administration
phrase for its policy—with the North was over. And even though McMaster said every option “short of war” was being
considered, he also said a nuclear-capable North Korea “is unacceptable [and] so, the president has asked us to be
prepared to give him a full range of options to remove that threat to the American people and to our allies and partners in
the region." His use of the word “remove” seemed to imply a use of force, and made the governments in Seoul, Tokyo and
Beijing nervous.

Women escape as they cover their mouths and noses against smoke during an anti-terrorism drill against possible attacks in
Seoul, South Korea, on September 29, 2009. Lee Jin-man/AP

Has President Trump drawn a red line to use all means necessary to prevent North Korea from completing its ICBM program ?
Or is he doing a “madman across the water” bluff in order to spook North Korea, and instill some panic in the Chinese, hoping
to prod them into using their economic leverage (85 percent of North Korea’s external trade is with the China) to rein in Kim ?

Former CIA analyst Klingner notes that, given the rapid pace of North Korea’s 2016 test program and the regime’s tendency to
test a new president early, it might not be long before President Trump gets reports of another North Korean long-range missile
or nuclear test. This is when things could get very perilous. Another missile test does not constitute a crisis of the sort that should
trigger another Korean War. It would, if anything, give the U.S. more leverage with China to tighten the economic noose around
Pyongyang. Yet all the chatter about pre-emption—some of which has also come from Seoul—has prompted the DPRK
leadership to issue its own threats about pre-emption.

In a recent report widely read in the Pentagon and intelligence community, Klingner argued that the talk about pre-emption, and
declarations that all options are on the table, needs to stop. “Advocacy of pre-emption both by North Korea and by the U.S. and
its allies is destabilizing,” he wrote, and could lead to greater potential for either side to miscalculate. Pyongyang may not realize
that the more it demonstrates and threatens to use its nuclear prowess, the more likely allied action becomes during a crisis.
“Each side could misinterpret the other’s intentions, thus fueling tension, intensifying a perceived need to escalate, and raising
the risk of miscalculation, including pre-emptive attack. Even a tactical military incident on the Korean Peninsula always has the
potential for escalating to a strategic clash. With no apparent off-ramp on the highway to a crisis, the danger of a military clash
on the Korean Peninsula is again rising.”

That is where we are now. Instead of making threats, say several current and former diplomats, intelligence analysts and military
officers, reducing tensions now requires the steady, quiet deployment of additional military hardware to the region; and a behind
the scenes application of Chinese diplomatic muscle from what many analysts believe to be an increasingly exasperated Beijing.
Those are the things that may get Kim Jong Un’s head straight. One miscalculation away from the next Korean War is way too
close to for anyone’s comfort.

Instead of making threats, a steady, quiet deployment of additional military hardware to the region; a behind the scenes
application of Chinese diplomatic muscle. Those are the things that may get Kim Jong Un’s head straight. One miscalculation
away from the next Korean War is way too close to for anyone’s comfort.

As always, I strongly recommend that you first read, research, and study material completely
yourself about a Subject Matter, and then formulate your own Opinions and Theories.

Any additional analyses, interviews, investigations, readings, research, studies, thoughts,
or writings on any aspect of this Subject Matter ?

Bear in mind that we are trying to attract and educate a Whole New Generation of JFK
Researchers who may not be as well versed as you.

Comments ?

Respectfully,
BB.
Last edited by Bruce Patrick Brychek on Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bruce Patrick Brychek
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 9:09 am

Re: WHAT WAR WITH KOREA LOOKS LIKE:

Postby Bob » Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:52 pm

The last time the U.S. was in a war with Korea, my dad's brother was killed just a few weeks before he was set to come home. Bob was a medic and he was killed while he was aiding a wounded soldier. I am named after my Uncle Bob as a matter of fact.

The U.S. had 109,000 casualties in the Korean War, including over 36,000 deaths.
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 5686
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:39 pm
Location: Florida/Wisconsin

Re: WHAT WAR WITH KOREA LOOKS LIKE:

Postby kenmurray » Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:21 pm

While North Korea has around 1,020,000 troops their equipment is is old and has been around for decades:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04 ... y-arsenal/
kenmurray
 
Posts: 4832
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 8:55 pm

Re: WHAT WAR WITH KOREA LOOKS LIKE:

Postby Tommy Wilkens » Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:06 pm

Hello Ken..After reading your post I couldn't help but think about my early days in the US Army and in the Field Artillery. Trained at Fort Sill Oklahoma.Ken we did two things day after day after day.Practiced firing and cleaning weapons. So if the North Koreans do anything close to what we did that old weaponry is cleaned scrubbed cleaned even more and even polished.Might not be modernized but I would bet it's still ready to be used and fired!!!
Tommy Wilkens
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:16 pm

WHAT WAR WITH KOREA LOOKS LIKE:

Postby Bruce Patrick Brychek » Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:33 pm

08.09.2017

Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Members and Readers:

07.22.2017 - I originally Posted this Very Important Headline. Today its significance is seemingly growing.

Allegedly Kim Jung-Un is Crazy. Doe that make you feel better, or worse ?

I think that Kim Jong-Un and some of his followers, people, and supporter's have The Conscience's, Souls,
and Thought Patterns of Terrorists. (08.09.2017, BB).

As always, I strongly recommend that you first read, research, and study material completely
yourself about a Subject Matter, and then formulate your own Opinions and Theories.

Any additional analyses, interviews, investigations, readings, research, studies, thoughts,
or writings on any aspect of this Subject Matter ?

Bear in mind that we are trying to attract and educate a Whole New Generation of JFK
Researchers who may not be as well versed as you.

Comments ?

Respectfully,
BB.
Bruce Patrick Brychek
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 9:09 am

Re: WHAT WAR WITH KOREA LOOKS LIKE:

Postby Slav » Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:26 am

User avatar
Slav
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 6:08 pm

WHAT WAR WITH KOREA LOOKS LIKE:

Postby Bruce Patrick Brychek » Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:48 am

08.10.2017:

Dear JFK Murder Solved Members and Readers:

07.22.2017 - I originally Posted this Important, Cautionary, Probative Headline, and Supporting Material.

08.09.2017 - PEOPLE, "We the People..." ARE NOW IN THE UNKNOWN QUAGMIRE CREATED, AND DIRECTED BY THE
SECRET STATE, THE SECRET GOVERNMENT, THE HIGH CABAL, AND THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATIONS THAT
ARE ALL ANALYZING WAR WITH KOREA, AND ITS RAMIFICATIONS.

HOW REAL IS THIS ? HOW MUCH BLUSTER IS THERE ? HOW MUCH OBFUSCATION IS THERE ? (08.10.2017, BB).


What War Between North Korea and the U.S. Might Look Like: Quicktake Q&A
Isabel Reynolds, Enda Curran 23 hours ago


With the window closing fast for the U.S. to stop Kim Jong Un from obtaining a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile,
North Korea watchers are starting to analyze President Donald Trump’s military options. He warned on Tuesday that North
Korea would be met with “fire and fury” if it continues to make threats. After the United Nations agreed to its most stringent
sanctions yet on Kim’s regime, North Korea repeated its stance that its nuclear weapons program is necessary to deter a
U.S. invasion. For Trump and the U.S., there are no easy choices.

1. Can’t the U.S. try a surgical strike ?

It probably wouldn’t work well enough. North Korea’s missiles and nuclear facilities are dispersed and hidden throughout the
country’s mountainous terrain. Failing to hit them all would leave some 10 million people in Seoul, 38 million people in the
Tokyo vicinity and tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel in northeast Asia vulnerable to missile attacks -- with either
conventional or nuclear warheads. Even if the U.S. managed to wipe out everything, Seoul would still be vulnerable to
attacks from North Korea’s artillery.

2. Why might Kim go nuclear ?

“Even a limited strike" by the U.S. “would run the risk of being understood by the North Koreans to be the beginning of a
much larger strike, and they might choose to use their nuclear weapons," said Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia
nonproliferation program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. Somehow, the U.S. would need to signal to
both North Korea and China -- Pyongyang’s main ally and trading partner -- that a surgical military strike is limited, and
that they should avoid nuclear retaliation.

3. Is regime change an option ?

New leadership wouldn’t necessarily lead to a new way of thinking among North Korea’s leadership. Kim’s prolonged
exposure to Western values while at school in Switzerland led some to speculate that he might opt to open his country to
the world -- until he took power and proved them wrong. Moreover, if Kim somehow were targeted for removal, the ruling
clique surrounding him would have to go as well -- making for a very long kill list. China, fearing both a refugee crisis and
U.S. troops on its border, would likely seek to prop up the existing regime.

4. Does that mean all-out war is the best U.S. option ?

A full-scale invasion would be necessary to quickly take out North Korea’s artillery as well as its missile and nuclear programs.
Yet any sign of an imminent strike -- such as a buildup of U.S. firepower, mobilization of South Korean and Japanese militaries
and the evacuation of American citizens in the region -- could prompt North Korea to strike preemptively. China and Russia may
also be sucked in. "Realistically, war has to be avoided," said John Delury, an assistant professor of international studies at
Yonsei University in South Korea. "When you run any cost-benefit analysis, it’s insanity."

5. How might North Korea retaliate ?

The most immediate reaction would likely be massive artillery fire on Seoul and its surroundings. North Korean artillery installations
along the border can be activated faster than air or naval assets and larger ballistic missiles that can target South Korean, Japanese
or American bases in the region with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Those countries have ballistic-missile-defense
systems in place but can’t guarantee they will shoot down everything. Japan has begun offering advice to its citizens on what to do
in the event a missile lands near them -- essentially try to get under ground -- and U.S. firms are marketing missile shelters. While
it’s unclear if North Korea can successfully target U.S. cities like Denver and Chicago with a nuclear ICBM, it’s similarly unknown if
U.S. defense systems can strike it down -- adding to American anxieties.

6. What would be the economic toll if war broke out ?

South Korea accounts for about 1.9 percent of the world’s economy and is home to companies including Samsung Electronics Co.
and Hyundai Motor Co. A severe drop in business activity due to war on the peninsula would cause widespread pain in the region
and globally -- and that’s without deployment of North Korea’s nuclear weapons against its neighbor. Global financial markets would
also suffer a tremendous shock in the short term, with flight to safe haven assets such as gold, the U.S. dollar and the Swiss franc.
"The humanitarian crisis and economic reconstruction of the Korean peninsula after such a nuclear conflict would require large-scale
international co-operation led by China, the U.S. and the European Union and it would likely take over a decade to rebuild the
economy," according to Rajiv Biswas, chief Asia-Pacific economist for IHS Markit.

7. What options remain on the table ?

Many analysts say it’s time to start talks to prevent the situation from worsening. Stopping North Korea from obtaining a
thermonuclear weapon, or more advanced solid-fuel missiles, is a goal worth pursuing, according to Lewis. However unpalatable it
may seem, that means offering rewards to entice North Korea back to the negotiating table. Lewis suggested one reward could be
to scale back U.S.-led military drills around North Korea. The question of what can be offered to the North Koreans "is a conversation
that should be happening both with the public, with Congress and with the North Koreans, instead of having this imaginary
conversation about war scenarios," said Delury. "The realistic option is a diplomatic one that slows this thing down. And that’s going
to require a lot of talks."

As always, I strongly recommend that you first read, research, and study material completely
yourself about a Subject Matter, and then formulate your own Opinions and Theories.

Any additional analyses, interviews, investigations, readings, research, studies, thoughts,
or writings on any aspect of this Subject Matter ?

Bear in mind that we are trying to attract and educate a Whole New Generation of JFK
Researchers who may not be as well versed as you.

Comments ?

Respectfully,
BB.
Bruce Patrick Brychek
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 9:09 am

Re: WHAT WAR WITH KOREA LOOKS LIKE:

Postby bob franklin » Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:10 am

Not to worry, folks - I'm sure once they have a nice Rothschilds controlled central bank set up for them, everything will reach a state of "normalcy" & we'll all get along famously. always seems to fix things...
Never trust a man who doesn't like dogs, & never EVER trust anyone your dog doesn't like.
User avatar
bob franklin
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 4:16 pm

WHAT WAR WITH KOREA LOOKS LIKE:

Postby Bruce Patrick Brychek » Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:59 pm

08.10.2017:

Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Members and Readers:

07.22.2017 - I originally Posted this Important, Cautionary, Probative Headline, and Supporting Material.

08.10.2017 - Mr. Bob Franklin, an Excellent Contributing, Original Long Time JFKMS Forum Member Posted
a Laser Like, Analytical Response. Kudos to Bob Franklin.

Bob, I miss your Blue Clown Avatar.

I think that there are only a few countries left that Do Not Operate on The Federal Reserve System today. I
previously Posted the list, which I will try to add here later.

But as I recall: China, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and were Russia on the list several years ago. Anybody
aware of that Current Short List of Countries Not Under The U.S. Federal Reserve System ? (08.10.2017, BB).

As always, I strongly recommend that you first read, research, and study material completely
yourself about a Subject Matter, and then formulate your own Opinions and Theories.

Any additional analyses, interviews, investigations, readings, research, studies, thoughts,
or writings on any aspect of this Subject Matter ?

Bear in mind that we are trying to attract and educate a Whole New Generation of JFK
Researchers who may not be as well versed as you.

Comments ?

Respectfully,
BB.
Bruce Patrick Brychek
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 9:09 am


Return to Who shot JFK, and why?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

cron