What are the chances of a new Gulf of Tonkin incident?

a reply to: Zaphod58

But a false flag will have zero to do with either N or S K. They will never see anything, and have no say in anything.

a reply to: seasonal

Seriously?

It's only their country that'll be pretty well smashed into flinders, so no, no say whatsoever...

They're only third in regional power behind China and Japan.

South Korea and Japan both stand to get pretty well pounded if this stupidity goes hot, so yeah, no say.

Another hot war on the peninsula who do you suppose is going to be doing much of the fighting, and dying? Koreans would be my guess. So, yeah, no say.

a reply to: seasonal

It doesn't matter if they're involved or not. Supposedly the point is to start a war with North Korea. South Korea will know if North Korea is involved in whatever supposedly happened.

You think a ship is going to suddenly blow up, the US is going to claim the North did it, and South Korea is going to just go, "oh ok" and launch an attack to help us? They watch the North like a hawk and would know if they did anything that could have caused a US ship to get hit.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Too much like reality, man. Too much.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I am going with the false flag scenario from another post. If it were to happen, then SK would go and fight they would have no choice.

a reply to: seasonal

You can go with whatever, but to start a war with North Korea it would have to supposedly come from them. A false flag operation is supposed to be something that the opposition is capable of doing,and can't be proven to be someone else.

What do you think will happen if South Korea stands up and says they have zero intelligence that North Korea was involved, or worse, that there was no way they could have pulled it off? That blows the secrecy portion right out of the water and makes a lot of people high up stop and question what happened. That kills a lot of credibility for the US and will kill most of the support they'd get.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You assume it would be something that the NK would not be able to pull off. So the false flag would have to be believable, and of course it would be. But the key is no-one would know, just like the numerous FF's of the past.

That is the whole idea of a FF and yes if all the NK have are RPG's and 40 year old artillery, then the story will go the way of the Cole. If a FF is what is wanted, it will be.

a reply to: seasonal

Yes it has to be believable. That's the point. The South has every sensor they have and a lot of human sources in the North. About the only "attack" the North could pull of is a missile attack. It doesn't matter if it's believable if someone can show that they didn't do it. The South would be able to show that.

The South isn't going to get dragged kicking and screaming into a war. They have too much to lose.

Believe it or not, contrary to popular opinion on here, the MIC and US government aren't all powerful and capable to do anything they want to do, and have everyone just go along with it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

If the MIC wants a war, they will get one. Disagree?

a reply to: seasonal

Yes. They're not all powerful super beings that can do anything they want and make anything look realistic enough to get a war.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ahh that is where you and I part ways.

Given the history (that we know) they will do what they want, and it will work. Again the USS Cole comes to mind, that is all it would take.

a reply to: seasonal

It would take more than just damaging a cruiser or something along those lines. There was zero response to the Cole bombing, and despite the tensions with the Soviet Union, something like 50 Western aircraft were shot down by them, with no response.

You make it out that the MIC can do anything they want, and fool the entire world into playing their game. They're only human you know.

a reply to: seasonal

What response was there to the Cole bombing??

Neither Clinton, nor Bush made any appreciable response, other than press releases, to the Cole bombing. Seventeen sailors were killed, surely that'd been enough of a false flag for the omnipotent MIC...?

a reply to: Zaphod58
Gulf of Tonkin incident
en.wikipedia.org...

Again, we disagree.

The Gulf incident is similar to this in many ways, didn't take much to give LBJ some pretty "groovy" (hippie talk) leeway ( Gulf of Tonkin Resolution) to get them commies. All BS.

So in all actuality a for real conflict can start over nothing----FF.

a reply to: seagull

The thread is about the gulf of tonkin. It worked and made a whole lot of people a whole lot of $$$. Oh and killed a whole bunch of people. So there is a track record of success.

The response to the Cole is not the point. A Cole like incident is a possible way to escalate.

If the Cole came from from NK next week with Trump at the helm? Could be a total different outcome.

a reply to: seasonal

Which took place at a time when news could several hours to get to someone. Now we're looking at almost instantaneous news. Johnson could get away with that back then, because they were the only ones giving news out. Things are a lot different now.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Things are different. And we went onto Vietnam under false circumstances. Why because someone wanted it that way.

Let that sink in a moment.

I am not convinced it can't happen in this case.

a reply to: seasonal

Yes we did, but stop and think about it. We went into Vietnam because of news from the White House that there had been a second attack. Whether it was deliberate, or just an over reaction is irrelevant to my point.

The White House was the only source for news from Vietnam, and news was reported twice a day, at dinner and late at night. So even if they had more information it wouldn't have come out on the news until the next day.

We sat and watched 9/11 happen in real time, on every channel, and knew about the Cole within an hour or two at the most. We have sources of news from other countries, and the 24 hour news cycle.

Yes the media are idiots, but it's gotten a lot harder to pull off a true false flag on this scale. You can believe the MIC is utterly infallible and omniscient and gets whatever it wants, but the reality is a lot different than when the Gulf of Tonkin incident happened.

a reply to: Zaphod58

If another Gulf of T happened in NK, what would be different?

Are you saying the crew on the ships would tweet that the ship was not damaged, going against the "officail" story? Or would there be very tight info let out by the US military?

a reply to: seasonal

Apparently you haven't read a damn thing I've posted so far. Or you'll only believe US sources.

South Korea wouldn't just sit there and let themselves get dragged into a war. Apparently you think they're incompetent and would miss the fact that the South didn't notice anything happening. They would talk about it.