by mighty_tiger_79 » Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:22 am
by Lightning McQueen » Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:33 am
by Dog_ger2 » Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:46 pm
by Grenville » Mon Apr 17, 2017 4:51 pm
Dog_ger2 wrote:If Trump is going to hit North Korea, now is the time to do it.
Otherwise everyone is bluffing.
It will be mass destruction and over in 3 days.
No one wins may save us.
You need to win a war,
you won't drop a MOAB.
by Magellan » Mon Apr 17, 2017 4:56 pm
Grenville wrote:Dog_ger2 wrote:If Trump is going to hit North Korea, now is the time to do it.
Otherwise everyone is bluffing.
It will be mass destruction and over in 3 days.
No one wins may save us.
You need to win a war,
you won't drop a MOAB.
Dropping a character from the Old Testament on them wouldn't do a lot of damage I reckon.
by GWW » Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:12 pm
by Grenville » Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:11 pm
Magellan wrote:Grenville wrote:Dog_ger2 wrote:If Trump is going to hit North Korea, now is the time to do it.
Otherwise everyone is bluffing.
It will be mass destruction and over in 3 days.
No one wins may save us.
You need to win a war,
you won't drop a MOAB.
Dropping a character from the Old Testament on them wouldn't do a lot of damage I reckon.
He could clean them up with his washpot, though.
by shoe boy » Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:52 am
Dog_ger2 wrote:If Trump is going to hit North Korea, now is the time to do it.
Otherwise everyone is bluffing.
It will be mass destruction and over in 3 days.
No one wins may save us.
You need to win a war,
you won't drop a MOAB.
by Psyber » Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:20 pm
by Booney » Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:51 am
Psyber wrote:The clue to where it will go is in the Chinese response offering to ensure North Korea's security if they give up the nuclear weapons.
China doesn't want a war to occur either now that its`economy is more`dependent on international trade, So every country around NK wants the same outcome, but only China has any credibility with the North Korean regime. Encouraging China's motivation to apply pressure to NK is central to every else's strategic aim.
by MW » Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:01 am
Booney wrote:Psyber wrote:The clue to where it will go is in the Chinese response offering to ensure North Korea's security if they give up the nuclear weapons.
China doesn't want a war to occur either now that its`economy is more`dependent on international trade, So every country around NK wants the same outcome, but only China has any credibility with the North Korean regime. Encouraging China's motivation to apply pressure to NK is central to every else's strategic aim.
Absolutely, the last thing China want is for the US and it's allies to cease trading with them. They've become much smarter over the last 3-5 years and in my dealings with a small number of Chinese manufacturing facilities they have increased pricing and become far more resistant to pressure, as in they don't just do what you ask anymore. As suppliers they set the agenda more than they once did.
by Booney » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:24 pm
MW wrote:Booney wrote:Psyber wrote:The clue to where it will go is in the Chinese response offering to ensure North Korea's security if they give up the nuclear weapons.
China doesn't want a war to occur either now that its`economy is more`dependent on international trade, So every country around NK wants the same outcome, but only China has any credibility with the North Korean regime. Encouraging China's motivation to apply pressure to NK is central to every else's strategic aim.
Absolutely, the last thing China want is for the US and it's allies to cease trading with them. They've become much smarter over the last 3-5 years and in my dealings with a small number of Chinese manufacturing facilities they have increased pricing and become far more resistant to pressure, as in they don't just do what you ask anymore. As suppliers they set the agenda more than they once did.
Depends on your buying power Booney.
by Dog_ger2 » Sun Apr 23, 2017 2:42 pm
by stan » Wed Apr 26, 2017 12:05 pm
Dog_ger2 wrote:It seems only USA can have weapons of mass destruction.
Only USA has used nuclear weapons in war.
by Wedgie » Wed Apr 26, 2017 12:25 pm
stan wrote:Dog_ger2 wrote:It seems only USA can have weapons of mass destruction.
Only USA has used nuclear weapons in war.
Atomic actually, not Nuclear.
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Booney » Wed Apr 26, 2017 12:40 pm
Wedgie wrote:stan wrote:Dog_ger2 wrote:It seems only USA can have weapons of mass destruction.
Only USA has used nuclear weapons in war.
Atomic actually, not Nuclear.
An atomic bomb is a nuclear weapon mate.
by stan » Wed Apr 26, 2017 12:54 pm
Wedgie wrote:stan wrote:Dog_ger2 wrote:It seems only USA can have weapons of mass destruction.
Only USA has used nuclear weapons in war.
Atomic actually, not Nuclear.
An atomic bomb is a nuclear weapon mate.
by HH3 » Wed Apr 26, 2017 1:08 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |