NationStates Jolt Archive

Just wanted to see your thoughts on North Korea. I feel that if Bush is reelected, an attack on North Korea is inevitable. And I couldn't be happier if that happened. It'd reunite the country, and as there is no major dividing issue left in East Asia, it'll create an Asian version of NATO, with China involved. In addition to maintaining the status quo in Taiwan, it'll advance common security goals, and stop terrorism in the region.

But alas, North Korea's open to talks.

I don't want a war w/another nuke nation - has George ever heard of MAD?

I don't want a war w/another nuke nation - has George ever heard of MAD?
The North Koreans have all of their artillery sites along the DMZ, only about a hundred miles long. Besides, they only have a few silos to launch missiles from.

I sincerely doubt that with the recent, and unending escalations in hostilities that there can be peace between north and south Korea. Of course, war with north Korea means war with China, as was proved in the Korean War. So basically, the world is doomed blah blah blah, now give me my cheesy-poofs!

I sincerely doubt that with the recent, and unending escalations in hostilities that there can be peace between north and south Korea. Of course, war with north Korea means war with China, as was proved in the Korean War. So basically, the world is doomed blah blah blah, now give me my cheesy-poofs!

No, China is also threatened by North Koreas nuclear capabilties, and would not likely defend them.

I sincerely doubt that with the recent, and unending escalations in hostilities that there can be peace between north and south Korea. Of course, war with north Korea means war with China, as was proved in the Korean War. So basically, the world is doomed blah blah blah, now give me my cheesy-poofs!
I don't believe that is the case. For one, the Chinese can't afford a war with the US, as it'd hurt their economy, and may even spark internal revolts. For another, the Chinese are just as angry at North Korea as we are. I wouldn't be surprised if they marched to P'yongyang and took Kim out themselves.

I voted nothing but in reality the civilian population of North Korea will continue to suffer in the same manner they have for decades and thats not really something that should be dismissed with a 'nothing'.

I voted nothing but in reality the civilian population of North Korea will continue to suffer in the same manner they have for decades and thats not really something that should be dismissed with a 'nothing'.
I agree. Intergration with South Korea's economy will be a great boon to the North Koreans. Even if it does tax the south heavily, I see it as a great investment oppritunity for them. When the North is intergrated, Korea's economy certainly won't be weaker, that's for sure.

May God help us all.

World War VI baby!

North Korea is of no threat to us. It is a threat to our allies in the region. If war breaks out, Dear Leader will launch an artillery barrage to level South Korea's capital. Our forces are spread too thin to wage an effective war on the Korean peninsula. Purly Euclid tried to candy coat this potential conflict. In reality, the war would be bloody and even more people would starve in north korea, U.S. troops would be poorly supported and facing a geurilla war, japan may be attacked with nuclear weapons, and south korea will lose thousands of civilians.

I only WISH the Pentagon would think to actually go in and unseat that whack-job. Unfortunately North Korea doesn't really have anything that our government wants. If they were really trying to:

- keep a tyrannical freak from producing WMD
- "liberate" a nation of people who have been subjected to horrendous brutality
- make this world a safer place
they would have taken North Korea BEFORE Iraq, because realistically, NK is more of a threat than Iraq.

My bet is on Iran. They are definitely next. You can see the attention being paid to Iran and it's nuclear program in the mainstream press. Also lots of stories about how terrorists are coming into Iraq across the Iranian border. It's being set up quite nicely.
Plus then they'll be in control of a pretty sizeable chunk of real estate. Imagine the pipeline Unocal will be able to build then!

North Korea, ppffft.

You're acting like a war with North Korea would be a cakewalk. Our forces are spread so thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, we couldn't hope to go on the offensive. They have their people so brainwashed there that our boy would face geurilla fighters and suicide bombers at every turn. It's not like we sign a paper, push a button, and then North Korea is fixed.

Maybe that's the reason that there's a compulsory service bill in the legislature?

Last time I checked, the draft wasn't reinstated, chief.

Ever since the two-term limit was implimented, a lot of presidents suffered from the lame-duck syndrome in their second term because since he won't be back and that undercuts his authority as the people under him create a going away party of a final term. Also, a lot of presidents have blundered badly in their second term ie. Iran/Contra Scandal and etc. So probably nothing.

I find it unlikely Bush would change his current tract and go after North Korea. Is the need there? Yes. Are the means there? No. Unless through some brilliant diplomatic work, unlikely looking at the track record of this administration, brought China and Japan with us against NK, we wouldn't have a chance. It would turn into, we bomb them, they blow up South Korean cities, we blow more of them up, their civilians start to get angry with us, they blow up more of South Korea, and so on and so forth.

I honestly see no chance of anything happening without a change in administration...but who knows? Maybe Bush wants to pull out of Europe and whatnot so that he can invade North Korea. *Rolls eyes*

North Korea is of no threat to us. It is a threat to our allies in the region. If war breaks out, Dear Leader will launch an artillery barrage to level South Korea's capital. Our forces are spread too thin to wage an effective war on the Korean peninsula. Purly Euclid tried to candy coat this potential conflict. In reality, the war would be bloody and even more people would starve in north korea, U.S. troops would be poorly supported and facing a geurilla war, japan may be attacked with nuclear weapons, and south korea will lose thousands of civilians.
Considering that the North Koreans are very poorly trained and equiped, this can largely be an air war. There are many, many planes available. Ground forces, both South Korean and US, would just be for mopping up. As for occupation, I think the South Koreans would prefer doing that themselves. Remember, this is ultimatly for reunification.
As for the North Koreans, yes, some will die. But many more will die under that nutcase.

Ever since the two-term limit was implimented, a lot of presidents suffered from the lame-duck syndrome in their second term because since he won't be back and that undercuts his authority as the people under him create a going away party of a final term. Also, a lot of presidents have blundered badly in their second term ie. Iran/Contra Scandal and etc. So probably nothing.
I think that if we have enough air resources there, we can knock out North Korea's artillery capabilities in hours, if not minutes. South Korean civilian casualties should be minimal. Remember, during the US invasion of Iraq, about a dozen missiles from Iraq were launched into Kuwait. Only one person, however, was injured, though that particular missile did hit a very high-end mall in Kuwait City.

Maybe that's the reason that there's a compulsory service bill in the legislature?

No, there's a bill to reinstitute the draft in congress because the Democrats put it there to scare people with. It has about as much chance of getting to the floor ( much less passed ) as the proverbial snowball in the alegorical hell!

Ever since the two-term limit was implimented, a lot of presidents suffered from the lame-duck syndrome in their second term because since he won't be back and that undercuts his authority as the people under him create a going away party of a final term. Also, a lot of presidents have blundered badly in their second term ie. Iran/Contra Scandal and etc. So probably nothing.
Still, he has nothing to loose, as he doesn't need reelection. The Iran-Contra affair didn't hurt Reagan politically, as he didn't need to run for reelection.

What on earth would we use for an invasion force?

In North and South Korea's constitutions, there is an actual sentance saying "We always must aim for re-unification." The only problem is, the North doesn't want to be capitalist, the South doesn't want to turn communist, so re-unification is, at the moment, incompatible. But the will is there, and you don't need bombs and wars to go in and force them to change to a capitalist system - the cold war is over, after all.

Go to the North Korean official webpage and look up the "Great Wall" separating it from South Korea. It's not true but at least it demonstrates their official desire to attain re-unification.

What on earth would we use for an invasion force?
There are plenty of South Korean troops on the ground, about 770,000 well trained, well equiped troops. However, they'd be needed only for cleanup. I think this would largely be an air war. And as the North Koreans are undertrained, underdisciplined, and underequiped, I expect that the North Korean army will either melt away, die off very quickly, or surrender en masses.

We're screwed.

There are plenty of South Korean troops on the ground, about 770,000 well trained, well equiped troops. However, they'd be needed only for cleanup. I think this would largely be an air war. And as the North Koreans are undertrained, underdisciplined, and underequiped, I expect that the North Korean army will either melt away, die off very quickly, or surrender en masses.You underestimate them, just like the neo-cons underestimated the will of the Iraqis to fight against what they perceive as an occupying force, and just like we understimated the north Vietnamese a generation ago.

You underestimate them, just like the neo-cons underestimated the will of the Iraqis to fight against what they perceive as an occupying force, and just like we understimated the north Vietnamese a generation ago.
That's only because of the occupation part. However, the South Koreans are more than willing to occupy North Korea should the oppritunity arise. The North Korean insurgency should end soon, as it is Koreans occupying Koreans. If there are fanatical pockets, then there are more than enough Korean forces occuppying a country no larger than Mississippi.
As for Iraq, the army was almost 350,000 strong under Hussein. The insurgency today can be no more than 25,000 insurgents. Does 350,000=25,000?

Besides, they only have a few silos to launch missiles from.

Yup. What possible damage can a single nuke do to a couple millions of neighbours? Pah!

Do us a favour girl, buy yourself a brain (or a history book, for that matter).

If Bush gets re-elected, the U.S WILL invade Iran.
Bet on it.

He will have absolutely no support from the rest of the world, and even less support from the American people, but you know what?

He doesnt care, and he will do it anyway.

People will die....innocent people.

So go ahead..vote for the bastard.

Whats a little more blood on your conservative hands?

If Bush gets re-elected, the U.S WILL invade Iran.
Bet on it.

He will have absolutely no support from the rest of the world, and even less support from the American people, but you know what?

He doesnt care, and he will do it anyway.

People will die....innocent people.

So go ahead..vote for the bastard.

Whats a little more blood on your conservative hands?
With what? A toothpick?

That's only because of the occupation part. However, the South Koreans are more than willing to occupy North Korea should the oppritunity arise. The North Korean insurgency should end soon, as it is Koreans occupying Koreans. If there are fanatical pockets, then there are more than enough Korean forces occuppying a country no larger than Mississippi.
As for Iraq, the army was almost 350,000 strong under Hussein. The insurgency today can be no more than 25,000 insurgents. Does 350,000=25,000?
And you really think the North Koreans are just going to roll over for their brothers from the south? Come on, man. Use your noggin. It'll be a replay of MASH all over again, only without the witty repartee.

Not to mention that you assume the South Koreans will go along with this whacky scheme and that the Congress will roll over for Bush again when he can't even get his shit straight in Iraq.

Yup. What possible damage can a single nuke do to a couple millions of neighbours? Pah!

Do us a favour girl, buy yourself a brain (or a history book, for that matter).
We know where all of these silos are, however. It'd be no more than thirty minutes into the war before they are destroyed.

With what? A toothpick?


Beg Pardon?

The North Koreans have all of their artillery sites along the DMZ, only about a hundred miles long. Besides, they only have a few silos to launch missiles from.
One order, a few salvos, and Seoul dies, every bit as thoroughly as if a nuke had hit it. Ask the South Koreans if liberating their northern neighbour is worth that price. I think you will find the real government policy there is essentially non-confrontational containment. OK, so a country is kept starving and repressed, but in terms of regional interests, it probably makes more sense.

And you really think the North Koreans are just going to roll over for their brothers from the south? Come on, man. Use your noggin. It'll be a replay of MASH all over again, only without the witty repartee.

Not to mention that you assume the South Koreans will go along with this whacky scheme and that the Congress will roll over for Bush again when he can't even get his shit straight in Iraq.
The South Korean government is extremely friendly with the US government. As for Congress, why should we expect that they won't support it? You know that in this election, it'll be impossible for the Democrats to regain control of Congress.

Beg Pardon?
What are we going to invade Iran with?

We know where all of these silos are, however. It'd be no more than thirty minutes into the war before they are destroyed.
And launched 20 minutes before that.

One order, a few salvos, and Seoul dies, every bit as thoroughly as if a nuke had hit it. Ask the South Koreans if liberating their northern neighbour is worth that price. I think you will find the real government policy there is essentially non-confrontational containment. OK, so a country is kept starving and repressed, but in terms of regional interests, it probably makes more sense.
There's just one little part about that that works in all of our favor: most of North Korea's artillery sites are located near the DMZ. There's no shortage of planes in either the US or South Korean military, so the war can open with a massive bombing of these artillery sites. If Seoul does get clobbered, then I don't see what's wrong with using a few low-yield nukes at the DMZ, but otherwise, conventional bombs should be more than sufficient.

The South Korean government is extremely friendly with the US government. As for Congress, why should we expect that they won't support it? You know that in this election, it'll be impossible for the Democrats to regain control of Congress.They ain't that friendly, and even a Republican Congress--and I'm betting for at least a split after this election--isn't going to give a green light to this boondoggle with our military in its current state. They like their seats too much.

And launched 20 minutes before that.
Even if that does happen, however, there is a chance that a Patriot missile may intercept it. In fact, out of all the Scuds launched by Iraq in 1991 to US forces, only one made it to its target, a barracks. Today, they are far more advanced, and are less likely to miss their target.

What are we going to invade Iran with?


Well, you do know that the U.S military has long since had the objective to sustain two major military conflicts at the same time.
Its been that way since Reagan.

How many troops do we have in Afganistan?
Less than 1200?
I wouldnt call that a major conflict.

When you realize the size and strength of the result of a bloated military budget, making many, many airstrikes against a third world nation or two
really isnt an issue.

They ain't that friendly, and even a Republican Congress--and I'm betting for at least a split after this election--isn't going to give a green light to this boondoggle with our military in its current state. They like their seats too much.
It is possible, however, that Congress doesn't even need to give consent. Sure, there's the War Powers act, but I can make the arguement that it strips the President of his Commander-in-Chief abilities, and is thus unconstitutional. If it can't be repealed, it can be locked up in a nice little legal battle as the South Korean flag is raised over P'yongyang.

They ain't that friendly, and even a Republican Congress--and I'm betting for at least a split after this election--isn't going to give a green light to this boondoggle with our military in its current state. They like their seats too much.


Friendly enough to know that the only thing that keeps them from becoming "South-North Korea", is The U.S.

Friendly enough to know that the only thing that keeps them from becoming "South-North Korea", is The U.S.But not friendly enough to be cannon fodder for the North Koreans while we blast away from the more-friendly skies over Pyongyang.

*Hums the "duck&cover" tune*

Let me ask you this: How much oil does North Korea have?

Let me ask you this: How much oil does North Korea have?
None. But if you want to know about resources, they are very resource rich. Perhaps it may be even enough to raise South Korea's very impressive trade surplus.

What kind of resources do they have?

What are we going to invade Iran with?

Well, I imagine we would use people.
After, of course, an absolutely ridiculously excessive bombing period in which several civilians would die.Because when attacking a bunch of people with outdated weapons, homemade dynamite and virtually no form of air defense, No Resource should be spared.

But that's just one of the prices of "liberating a nation" from evil.

Who knows, maybe we'll find Osama Bin Laden. He always seems to be hiding in places we just happened to be thinking of invading. Pure coincidence, of course.
Then the Right media would spin the story to make him seem on the verge of launching a massive attack against us, their neighbors, and the freedom of THE WORLD as a whole. If you should ever doubt your reasons for invading Iran, a video would conveniently appear showing Osama with eating lunch with the Shah and discussing killing us. Because he keeps these things on tape.
This will continue until we can put one of our own men in office and get a pipeline deal signed. Then Osama will move on to greener pastures

Bah.



We Are 138

Well, I imagine we would use people.
After, of course, an absolutely ridiculously excessive bombing period in which several civilians would die.Because when attacking a bunch of people with outdated weapons, homemade dynamite and virtually no form of air defense, No Resource should be spared.

But that's just one of the prices of "liberating a nation" from evil.

Who knows, maybe we'll find Osama Bin Laden. He always seems to be hiding in places we just happened to be thinking of invading. Pure coincidence, of course.
Then the Right media would spin the story to make him seem on the verge of launching a massive attack against us, their neighbors, and the freedom of THE WORLD as a whole. If you should ever doubt your reasons for invading Iran, a video would appear would conveniently appear showing Osama with eating lunch with the Shah and discussing killing us. Because he keeps these things on tape.
This will continue until we can put one of our own men in office and get a pipeline deal signed. Then Osama will move on to greener pastures

Bah.



We Are 138

I think I like this guy..

Is it time to be an android, not a man?

What kind of resources do they have?
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html#Geo
They have coal and iron ore, which will fuel South Korea's steel industry. They also have salt, hydropower, gold, all sorts of resources.

Nothing is going to happen.

The average american probably will not stomach the casualities that would come from the fighting.

A couple of my great-uncles fought there and they said they were a rather nasty bunch.

The are probably not going to assassinate Kim Jong as I heard from a former embassador that the guys behind him are nastier. We could kill a Hitler and will probably end up witha Stalin.

Kim Jong supposedly is making baby steps at "modernizing" as he is interested in what other countries do for certain things. He is supposed a voracias Internet News reader. He knows exactly what the news outlets in his country are saying and even contacts them about facts.

China wants to be an outsourcer so a war in that region would not look good....

So I vote nothing......

Iran and Syria? That's a different question. I think the Syrians would be the next target if I had to guess......

Nothing is going to happen.

The average american probably will not stomach the casualities that would come from the fighting.

A couple of my great-uncles fought there and they said they were a rather nasty bunch.

The are probably not going to assassinate Kim Jong as I heard from a former embassador that the guys behind him are nastier. We could kill a Hitler and will probably end up witha Stalin.

Kim Jong supposedly is making baby steps at "modernizing" as he is interested in what other countries do for certain things. He is supposed a voracias Internet News reader. He knows exactly what the news outlets in his country are saying and even contacts them about facts.

China wants to be an outsourcer so a war in that region would not look good....

So I vote nothing......

Iran and Syria? That's a different question. I think the Syrians would be the next target if I had to guess......
A little blog that I read has this to say, citing this article.

The mythical American aversion to casualties rears its ugly head
•“Polls Suggest War Isn't Hurting Bush: Mounting Deaths in Iraq Have Not Resulted in Major Backlash in Public Opinion,” by John F. Harris and Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post, 10 September, p. A10.
Old notion that has haunted Pentagon since Vietnam: U.S. public is severely averse to casualties (body bag syndrome). Most in military felt this phenom was given huge push by first Iraq war (the war with almost no casualties, they said, would mean Americans would expect all such wars to be like that). Then the so-called CNN Effect was demonstrated with "Black Hawk Down" in Somalia, and the sense of the unbreakable connection was all the more concrete in most leaders' minds. I don't know how many Pentagon briefs I've sat through where I've seen the bullet about "casualty-averse public."
So how come Bush is doing so well in the polls? When "these results challenge what some public opinion analysts had for years assumed was a reliable link--which some scholars argued operated with an almost mathematical precision--between combat deaths and erosion of support for military operations."

Good quote from always reliable Andrew Kohut of Pew Research Center: public support "does not so much track with number of casualties per se, but with the public's sense of whether things are degrading." Or, as I argued in my book (p. 204), what the public needs to see are: "(1) the goals are well defined; and (2) the cost seems worth the potential gain." In other words, does the op make sense to the pubic, and do they think we're succeeding, or at least not screwing it up too badly?

So you have to ask the question again: why is Bush doing so well? I don't think the Swift Boat Veterans' bullshit is doing this to Kerry. I think it reflects some bias too many voters may have against a Dem candidate. I mean, my God, the man is a decorated combat veteran who's killed the enemy and been wounded by live fire, and he's still trailing Bush 53 to 37 on who would handle Iraq better in the future! Right after the 1000th casualty is announced and following a week where Bush intimated that we could not win the GWOT and the Pentagon admitted we don't control a big chunk of Iraq (the toughest Sunni part).

So you really do have to wonder, Michael Moore's successful movie notwithstanding, whether or not a major chunk (now just half, but only down 20 percentage points from May 2003--when I would have expected a much bigger decline) of the population really do buy the man's attempts at explaining the bigger picture and goals of transforming the Middle East to end the scourge of transnational terrorism coming out of there.

Sorry to be like TRA in this sense, but I had to copy and paste. You'd never find it on your own. But if you wish to seek it, it is in the archives under Sept. 10th.
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives1/week_2004_09_05.html

There's just one little part about that that works in all of our favor: most of North Korea's artillery sites are located near the DMZ. There's no shortage of planes in either the US or South Korean military, so the war can open with a massive bombing of these artillery sites. If Seoul does get clobbered, then I don't see what's wrong with using a few low-yield nukes at the DMZ, but otherwise, conventional bombs should be more than sufficient.
You're talking about starting a nuclear war. Don't you realise, the rest of the world would have good reason to nuke the US for crossing the line? FFS, the whole idea is nuts. Nothing is going to happen to them. Containment isn't as glamorous as big manly explosions, but it's a hell of a lot more pragmatic.

If Bush gets re-elected, the U.S WILL invade Iran.
Bet on it.

He will have absolutely no support from the rest of the world, and even less support from the American people, but you know what?

He doesnt care, and he will do it anyway.

People will die....innocent people.

So go ahead..vote for the bastard.

Whats a little more blood on your conservative hands?

Can I buy a visa to your fantasy land?

I personally think we'll support an uprising in Iran, notice how we have Iran pretty much surrounded. ;)

Oh yay, a revolution and counter-revolution in a theocracy with a population of over 70m. That's going to look *really* pretty.

Can I buy a visa to your fantasy land?

I personally think we'll support an uprising in Iran, notice how we have Iran pretty much surrounded. ;)
It's not really fair to say we have Iran surrounded when our military is tied down in Iraq and couldn't move toward Iran if they wanted to and when we have a token force in Afghanistan.

I don't believe that is the case. For one, the Chinese can't afford a war with the US, as it'd hurt their economy, and may even spark internal revolts. For another, the Chinese are just as angry at North Korea as we are. I wouldn't be surprised if they marched to P'yongyang and took Kim out themselves.
It's more like the US can't afford a war with China. The US economy is in the process of being bought out by chinese investors. Our economy is dependent on theirs, not the other way around.
Maybe that's the reason that there's a compulsory service bill in the legislature?
It won't pass. Moderates don't want it, and that includes both republican and democratic moderates. Only those on the extreme ends of the political spectrum want it.

It's not really fair to say we have Iran surrounded when our military is tied down in Iraq and couldn't move toward Iran if they wanted to and when we have a token force in Afghanistan.

How are the terrorists going to stop our tanks from rolling to the border area? With their RPG's, ha, ha. The whole situation in Iraq should have been handled better (acting like we have a big ole pair of do-dads). We need to start killing these cowards, even if they hide in "religious" sites. Turn them into rubble. So your statement that we couldn't move forward is utter BS. It's because of weak-kneed, anti-war types (like SOME here) that we restrain ourselves.

You don't try to stab the snake, you put your foot on it's body and blow it's freaking head off.

How are the terrorists going to stop our tanks from rolling to the border area? With their RPG's, ha, ha. The whole situation in Iraq should have been handled better (acting like we have a big ole pair of do-dads). We need to start killing these cowards, even if they hide in "religious" sites. Turn them into rubble. So your statement that we couldn't move forward is utter BS. It's because of weak-kneed, anti-war types (like SOME here) that we restrain ourselves.

You don't try to stab the snake, you put your foot on it's body and blow it's freaking head off.
Well, they've got us hunkered down in the Green Zone in Baghdad, to the point where we can't guarantee the safe passage of anyone outside that area--and the Green Zone gets shelled daily, so you can't even walk down the street and be certain you'll get to where you need to go. And that's in fucking Baghdad! Forget about it in the places where the people are really up in arms.

And by the way--you want to call someone a weak-kneed anti-war type? Don't be a pussy. Man up and do it.

P.S. The people who are saying we're locked down in Iraq and are essentially screwed there? They include a Marine General, a former head of the NSA, and an instructor at the War College. (http://archive.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2004/09/16/iraq_war/)

Can I buy a visa to your fantasy land?

I personally think we'll support an uprising in Iran, notice how we have Iran pretty much surrounded. ;)


*Psssst* In the American Politics Dictionary, "supporting an uprising" translates to "launching an attack on a country that isn't crazy about its leadership." Cross-references include IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN. Of course Iran is surrounded by occupied countries; what type of power base is ONE developing nation? We are only a few "axis of evil" nations away from cornering the oil market.

You can't (by can't I mean you can it's just a really stupid idea to) just invade Iran, demolishing culture along the way for three, what I thought were obvious, reasons:

1)"These Cowards" aren't really hiding. They're in the same Iran they've always been in. If they seem to be avoiding a confrontation, it may have something to do with the fact that they have no reason to fight us yet and no real means to.
2)Demolishing religous sites would cause backlash both domestic and abroad. Calling people terrorist just so you can squash them is one thing. Insulting a group's religion has historically been a bad idea. (imagine every follower of Islam hating the US, not just the "radicals" or the splinter cells. WOW! that number is a lot bigger than the one we were looking at a second ago!)
3) There is no reason to invade Iran. There's not even a real target. Who are these people the weak-kneed liberals are stopping you from slaughtering. And Why is Self-Restraint so bad?


The pleasantries are gone.



We Are 138

A little blog that I read has this to say, citing this article.

Sorry to be like TRA in this sense, but I had to copy and paste. You'd never find it on your own. But if you wish to seek it, it is in the archives under Sept. 10th.
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives1/week_2004_09_05.html

Ahh but don't the two things go hand in hand?

If things are degrading then the causualty counts go up.....

How are the terrorists going to stop our tanks from rolling to the border area?
If you're talking about the Iranian border area, I would imagine those cunning evil terrorists would use the vast mountain range that's in the way. Fancy infantry warfare at altitude in shit weather for a couple of hundred kilometres before you even get to the outskirts of a population center? Or perhaps an amphibious attack on the country's southern coast, famed for its marshes? Then fighting in the cities, equal in size to the biggest American ones.

No, any war with Iran is going to be an infantry war, and the US will need a hell of a lot of infantry to bring a country with a population of over 70m to heel. Considering it has got nowhere in one with only 25m people, using armoured units, with most of its combat units committed or being rotated, you're simply not going to find the manpower.

It is useful to know the most basic facts about a country before calling for its invasion. The fact is, the US does not have the resources for a successful invasion of Iran, and never will. It is not strong enough. Now there's a concept you can get used to.

And by the way--you want to call someone a weak-kneed anti-war type? Don't be a pussy. Man up and do it.

P.S. The people who are saying we're locked down in Iraq and are essentially screwed there? They include a Marine General, a former head of the NSA, and an instructor at the War College. (http://archive.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2004/09/16/iraq_war/)

Ok you're a weak-kneed anti-war type. I guess I am what I eat. ;)

Nice of you to quote Salon. This retired General is not on the ground in Iraq, so how can he honestly know what exactly is going on? Name a few more generals who say we are losing. Please do so without quoting salon.

No, China is also threatened by North Koreas nuclear capabilties, and would not likely defend them.

That, and they do a lot of trade with America. They would stand to lose billons of dollars, and they're not willing to lose that over something as small as North Korea.

How are the terrorists going to stop our tanks from rolling to the border area? With their RPG's, ha, ha. The whole situation in Iraq should have been handled better (acting like we have a big ole pair of do-dads). We need to start killing these cowards, even if they hide in "religious" sites. Turn them into rubble. So your statement that we couldn't move forward is utter BS. It's because of weak-kneed, anti-war types (like SOME here) that we restrain ourselves.

You don't try to stab the snake, you put your foot on it's body and blow it's freaking head off.
O Sancta Simplicitas. As if the world functioned like a First Person SHooter, you would surely be president and end mankind in a global nuclear destruction. After all, would it not be easier to just nuke everything outside the US and be done with it? You conveniently ignore that other nations have something called sovereignty and people do not accept wars that have no valid justification such as humanitarian causes. And not everything qualifies as a humanitarian cause. The propaganda called "Global War On Terror" is not reason enough for the international community to support the US and further unilateral action by the US will have dire consequenes after what the world has seen in Iraq.

That, and they do a lot of trade with America. They would stand to lose billons of dollars, and they're not willing to lose that over something as small as North Korea.
and our prices for everything from happy meals to calculators would skyrocket...

If you're talking about the Iranian border area, I would imagine those cunning evil terrorists would use the vast mountain range that's in the way. Fancy infantry warfare at altitude in shit weather for a couple of hundred kilometres before you even get to the outskirts of a population center? Or perhaps an amphibious attack on the country's southern coast, famed for its marshes? Then fighting in the cities, equal in size to the biggest American ones.

No, any war with Iran is going to be an infantry war, and the US will need a hell of a lot of infantry to bring a country with a population of over 70m to heel. Considering it has got nowhere in one with only 25m people, using armoured units, with most of its combat units committed or being rotated, you're simply not going to find the manpower.

It is useful to know the most basic facts about a country before calling for its invasion. The fact is, the US does not have the resources for a successful invasion of Iran, and never will. It is not strong enough. Now there's a concept you can get used to.

I quess you are one of those people who said before GWI, that we were going to get slaughtered by the great "battle hardened Republican Guard". Didn't happen then and it wouldn't happen in Iran.

First of all we would have total air superiority over the country. When hostilities would commence, the Iranian Air Force would be utterly destroyed immediately. Ground forces would be decimated from carpet bombings along the border areas, WW's would patrol the sky, destroying any SAM sites that turn on their radar, clearing a path for the bombers.

As for manpower. We have over 100,000 troops in Europe who aren't needed there anymore. We have plenty of recruits still coming into the armed forces. We have no man-power shortage when it comes down to it. If we have to we can pull unneeded forces from around the world. The determination of the US soldier is phenominal, simply put we are the best military in the world. We excel at mountain and amphib warfare.

We do have the resources for a war with Iran if needed. It's anti-war types like you who always see the negatives, but want their country to lose to prove some stupid point. :gundge:

We wouldn't even have to invade. Just keep up the sorties over the borders and start a naval blockade. Nothing gets in or out. Then arm the people who want the leaders out and then give close air support to said insurgents. It isn't brain surgery. Heck we could even just let Isreal loose on the A-rab world and let them take care of business. :)

This retired General is not on the ground in Iraq, so how can he honestly know what exactly is going on? Name a few more generals who say we are losing. Please do so without quoting salon.

I guess you can call it perk of the job, but generals...generally...aren't put in the line of fire. Someone has to lay out the plans. The grunts and lower ranks are doing the fighting and dying. Why don't you find a few people who fit these qualifications and tell me if they say we are "winning" this struggle with an intangible object. Maybe you'll run across a guy who says "Yeah! People all around me are being taken out by civilians with truckfuls of homemade explosive, but boy are the people across the globe safer for it!"

Good Luck



We Are 138 and we are eliminating stupidity at the source.
:) :sniper:

I quess you are one of those people who said before GWI, that we were going to get slaughtered by the great "battle hardened Republican Guard". Didn't happen then and it wouldn't happen in Iran.

First of all we would have total air superiority over the country. When hostilities would commence, the Iranian Air Force would be utterly destroyed immediately. Ground forces would be decimated from carpet bombings along the border areas, WW's would patrol the sky, destroying any SAM sites that turn on their radar, clearing a path for the bombers.

As for manpower. We have over 100,000 troops in Europe who aren't needed there anymore. We have plenty of recruits still coming into the armed forces. We have no man-power shortage when it comes down to it. If we have to we can pull unneeded forces from around the world. The determination of the US soldier is phenominal, simply put we are the best military in the world. We excel at mountain and amphib warfare.

We do have the resources for a war with Iran if needed. It's anti-war types like you who always see the negatives, but want their country to lose to prove some stupid point. :gundge:

We wouldn't even have to invade. Just keep up the sorties over the borders and start a naval blockade. Nothing gets in or out. Then arm the people who want the leaders out and then give close air support to said insurgents. It isn't brain surgery. Heck we could even just let Isreal loose on the A-rab world and let them take care of business. :)
Lol and you wonder why terrorism exists.. hahahaha its ignorant war mongerers like you who give terrorists justification to do what theydo!

to all of those people saying north korea would roll over and die:

look back at the Korean War (i know, not technically a war but as far as im concerned it was one) and the Vietnam War (tell the 50,000+ men that died this wasnt a war). did we win these wars in a few days? weeks? months? they had undertrained soldiers and outdated equipment but its their home and they will defend it. also their use of guerilla warfare will still work. our guns cant shoot backwards. if some North Korean Soldiers pop up, out of tunnels, behind a division they could do some serious damage. and btw, who won in Vietnam? last i checked it sure as hell wasnt us. also where do people get their information from? how you do know what type of army North Korea has? what state their armies are in? and the quality of their training and weaponry? a lot of people seem to think they know all of this information i would like to know where they got it from.

to all of those people saying north korea would roll over and die:

look back at the Korean War (i know, not technically a war but as far as im concerned it was one) and the Vietnam War (tell the 50,000+ men that died this wasnt a war). did we win these wars in a few days? weeks? months? they had undertrained soldiers and outdated equipment but its their home and they will defend it. also their use of guerilla warfare will still work. our guns cant shoot backwards. if some North Korean Soldiers pop up, out of tunnels, behind a division they could do some serious damage. and btw, who won in Vietnam? last i checked it sure as hell wasnt us. also where do people get their information from? how you do know what type of army North Korea has? what state their armies are in? and the quality of their training and weaponry? a lot of people seem to think they know all of this information i would like to know where they got it from.
Oh did you not know that the entire world outside the US has been stuck in the stoneage by default?

Ok you're a weak-kneed anti-war type. I guess I am what I eat. ;)

Nice of you to quote Salon. This retired General is not on the ground in Iraq, so how can he honestly know what exactly is going on? Name a few more generals who say we are losing. Please do so without quoting salon.He was on the ground in Iraq. He was on the ground when the order came down to go into Fallujah, and he's directly quoted, not paraphrased. Read it, if you're not scared.

That, and they do a lot of trade with America. They would stand to lose billons of dollars, and they're not willing to lose that over something as small as North Korea.


Absolutely true.

China is the U.S 's fourth largest trading partner, there will never be any wars between us.

Of course..invading Taiwan might change things.

MoeHoward, what you wrote is all BS. Blockade of Iran = oil embargo = US dies as a world power in a month. And there really isn't anything the US would be able to do about it. Invading Iran with a few hundred thousand men is suicidal enough, simultaneously the rest of OPEC and Russia?

Tell you what. Make Iraq peaceful and stable, with a steady oil output in excess of pre-war levels. Then talk as if the US can do any of that s--- to a country with 3 times the population, many times more power, and numerous regional allies.

I'll say it again, the state of Iraq shows up your post as wishful thinking, pure fantasy. If you can't do it to the most weak, sanction-laden country in the world that's not an actual pacific island tribal society, you sure as hell aren't going to do that to a country like Iran.

Cut the posturing and prove you can do it in Iraq first. As things stand, it doesn't look as if the US can do s--- like you say.

First of all we would have total air superiority over the country. When hostilities would commence, the Iranian Air Force would be utterly destroyed immediately. Ground forces would be decimated from carpet bombings along the border areas, WW's would patrol the sky, destroying any SAM sites that turn on their radar, clearing a path for the bombers.

As for manpower. We have over 100,000 troops in Europe who aren't needed there anymore. We have plenty of recruits still coming into the armed forces. We have no man-power shortage when it comes down to it. If we have to we can pull unneeded forces from around the world. The determination of the US soldier is phenominal, simply put we are the best military in the world. We excel at mountain and amphib warfare.


One of the natural disadvantages of airstrikes in a mountainous area(and in areas dotted by caves) that we admitted to while attention was focused on Afghanistan was that nature pretty much made natural bomb shelters for anyone smart enough to hide in a cave when they see a bomber coming their way. Granted Iran as practically no air force, but for the area they are protecting they don't need one. Bombing mountains is stupid. I'm not sure what experience led you to believe we excel at Mountain warfare since we ae exposed to it a whole lot of never but it comes back to the general idea of launching an assault on a natural land barrier that Tactical Grace mentioned: It's a bad idea.



We are 138

I think we may generally agree that the people whose job it is to look at such possibilities have far better intelligence than we do. Certainly more intelligence than MoeHoward.

I have no clue what will happen. He probably won't do anything, he'll just drop his whole schtick.

There wont be another korean war until China is economically ready to knock off the united states.
When this time comes, probably in the midst of the baby-boom retirement, China will allowe kim jong il to invade the south.

10,000 americans will die in the first week, and the american government will be forced to invade.
This will require a draft and be a long, drawn-out war.

As our economy suffers, china will move to pick up the slack and exert control.

When the dust clears, china will be the world's dominant economy.

Nah, more likely that the Chinese economy will colapse sometime in the next ten years and take the US economy with it.

You'd be genuinely surprised to learn the extent of the infrastructure china has built and is building, i was positively shocked.

You'd be genuinely surprised to learn the extent of the infrastructure china has built and is building, i was positively shocked.
They're rapidly buying out our steel industry. And with that I mean the real industry. Entire factories are being dismantled and shipped to China from here. Like a sell out of steel-production factories...

You'd be genuinely surprised to learn the extent of the infrastructure china has built and is building, i was positively shocked.

Oh yea! They are going like gang busters on that.

A work mate is from the Guanchu(butchered spelling) area and he reported they have a manditory english studies now.

India is going to be hit hard when they come on line. Cheaper labor then them. We of course will get smacked hard and yet listen to how things are better! :rolleyes:

You're talking about starting a nuclear war. Don't you realise, the rest of the world would have good reason to nuke the US for crossing the line? FFS, the whole idea is nuts. Nothing is going to happen to them. Containment isn't as glamorous as big manly explosions, but it's a hell of a lot more pragmatic.
In a worse case scenario, only the areas around the DMZ would be bombed, but it is extremely unlikely. I just suggested this for if North Korea clobbers Seoul. Using nuclear weapons in support of our allies should be acceptable. It was the cornerstone of MAD, afterall.

It's more like the US can't afford a war with China. The US economy is in the process of being bought out by chinese investors. Our economy is dependent on theirs, not the other way around.
That would mean that China couldn't afford a war with us. In any case, they have the world's largest trade surplus with the US, the most lucrative market for any business on the planet. If war broke out, China's export sector would be destroyed, and millions of Chinese jobs would be lost.

They're rapidly buying out our steel industry. And with that I mean the real industry. Entire factories are being dismantled and shipped to China from here. Like a sell out of steel-production factories...
I'd think it'd be inevitable. When the Soviets occupied their half of Germany, while they did build up lots of industries, most of them aren't needed today. I'm sure there isn't a big building boom going on in Germany as there is in China. I heard that Shenzen, one of their largest ports and a large city by Western standards, was a mere fishing village not twenty-five years ago.

bump

I'd think it'd be inevitable. When the Soviets occupied their half of Germany, while they did build up lots of industries, most of them aren't needed today. I'm sure there isn't a big building boom going on in Germany as there is in China.
On the conterary. The Soviets dismantled huge parts of the East German industry after the war. They didn´t built anything up. The conterary is true.
And there was a building boom in East Germany in the 1990s because of that - also due to a lack of apartements (due to the "good" planning of the demand economy).
Though after the boom came the bust - and now they are overcapacities which need to be reduced.
China has still a growing population - and currently it has actually its period of industrilisation. That means that many people move from the countryside to the cities (not just the big cities but also the medium once). So, it is not surprisingly that there is a building boom.
Hardly possible in a country though were already more than 80% of the population is living in cities like in Germany.

Back to the topic. I don´t see a preventive strike against North Korea an option given that that could result in North Korea using a nuke against South Korea - or even more likely - against Japan.
Japan-Korean relations are still pretty bad due to historic reasons. That is a fact which is often ignored actually. In Korea and China Japan is still highly unpopular.
I don´t think anything like that is going to happen. But probably a see-blocade could be established against North Korea.
I don´t however see an outbreak of war. Since it would affect the second largest economy of the world (Japan) I don´t see anybody who seriously wants to risk that. I´ve no doubt that the regime would use the nukes if it is attacked and it is standing before its end.

On the conterary. The Soviets dismantled huge parts of the East German industry after the war. They didn´t built anything up. The conterary is true.
And there was a building boom in East Germany in the 1990s because of that - also due to a lack of apartements (due to the "good" planning of the demand economy).
Though after the boom came the bust - and now they are overcapacities which need to be reduced.
China has still a growing population - and currently it has actually its period of industrilisation. That means that many people move from the countryside to the cities (not just the big cities but also the medium once). So, it is not surprisingly that there is a building boom.
Hardly possible in a country though were already more than 80% of the population is living in cities like in Germany.
There definatly was a boom, as many of the buildings weren't even rebuilt from WWII. However, it is not on the scale of China. Besides, steel production has a tendancy to move to cheaper markets. The US learned that the hard way in the eighties, when much of our steel production moved to the cheaper labor markets of Asia. That actually coincided with a building boom in the US.
Back to the topic. I don´t see a preventive strike against North Korea an option given that that could result in North Korea using a nuke against South Korea - or even more likely - against Japan.
Japan-Korean relations are still pretty bad due to historic reasons. That is a fact which is often ignored actually. In Korea and China Japan is still highly unpopular.
I don´t think anything like that is going to happen. But probably a see-blocade could be established against North Korea.
I don´t however see an outbreak of war. Since it would affect the second largest economy of the world (Japan) I don´t see anybody who seriously wants to risk that. I´ve no doubt that the regime would use the nukes if it is attacked and it is standing before its end.
If Kim Jong-Il is blockaded, he said it'll result in war. This guy, unlike his father, is very mentally unstable. We've seen how little regard he has for his own people, even when offered outside help. In what regard does he hold his neighbors? Probably not much better. I find it likely that he'll try something some point before his death, even if it means he can't grasp onto power.
I also think that he may be a serious threat. We know he sells arms to anyone who pays. Could al-Qaeda be his next customer? He's even indicated that he may sell a nuke if someone is willing to buy it.
As for the neighboring countries, as I've said before, I think that if we move quickly, US warplanes can hit nearly all major artillery sites and silos in the opening minutes of the war. Towed artilllery will still be left around, but I doubt that can do much damage south of the border.
I also envision, as part of an attack, the III Marine Expeditionary Force in nearby Okinawa making a landing in North Korean territory, but I can't decide if they'd be better off landing near P'yongyang, and trying to capture that city, or closer to the DMZ, and battle the enemy from the rear. It'd obviously help stress the North Koreans.

Nothing will happen right away. North Korea is starving...and we will let them starve until they are on the verge of collapse or they attack the South for food. They will not use any nuclear weapons on the south as that will contaminate the food they so desperately need.

Nothing will happen right away. North Korea is starving...and we will let them starve until they are on the verge of collapse or they attack the South for food. They will not use any nuclear weapons on the south as that will contaminate the food they so desperately need.
Kim doesn't care about his people. If he does invade the South for that purpose, then it'll be for his military. But I don't think South Korea is self-sufficient in food. They are highly populated, and the only undeveloped land in the country is, believe it or not, in the DMZ. Only a few farming families are allowed to farm there.

bump. And btw, how does the Asia NATO sound? I'll get a lot of flak, I know, but it'll assert order in Asia. Taiwan doesn't need to be an issue for one to exist, especially with China as a member. China is content with the status quo, and so is the US. Part of this organization's job would be to maintain the status quo until all three parties can agree otherwise.
But this Asia NATO would serve other purposes. It'd foster military cooperation between China and the US, as opposed to future confrontation. It'd help maintain order and stability on the Eurasian landmass. And it'd help fight against terrorism in Southeast Asia, and possibly China. I am surprised the terrorists haven't tried a direct attack on China, save for those Turkic people in Xinjiang.

bump

I would definately NOT like an attack on North Korea. I think the United States already proved that they CAN attack another country for no valid reason at all and they can also destroy it, but lack the ability to rebuild it.

YES: North Korea is a potentially dangerous country that must be investigated

NO: The United States must not go to yet another foolish war, which in the end will only further decrease international safety

besides: North Korea having nuclear weapons is not an argument, because the United States still have more than all other countries together.
Maybe, it would've been a valid point, if they would not have stuck their heads in the sand and build even more nukes.

MAD is indeed the results of an attack...

The answer is simple...APEC. Bush knows not to go into NK due to MAD. Economically ruin North Korea by using APEC. Besides, NK is the doghouse of Asia. Everyone hates them. Even Burma has at least one nation on their side, North Korea has nothing.

So Bush will simply to continue to suffocate the nation more and more. Yes people will starve...but this is basic Sun Tzu.

bump. And btw, how does the Asia NATO sound? I'll get a lot of flak, I know, but it'll assert order in Asia. Taiwan doesn't need to be an issue for one to exist, especially with China as a member. China is content with the status quo, and so is the US. Part of this organization's job would be to maintain the status quo until all three parties can agree otherwise.
But this Asia NATO would serve other purposes. It'd foster military cooperation between China and the US, as opposed to future confrontation. It'd help maintain order and stability on the Eurasian landmass. And it'd help fight against terrorism in Southeast Asia, and possibly China. I am surprised the terrorists haven't tried a direct attack on China, save for those Turkic people in Xinjiang.

It's been around since 1954! Pity they disbanded it in 1977...
http://www.bartleby.com/65/st/SthEATO.html

I only WISH the Pentagon would think to actually go in and unseat that whack-job. Unfortunately North Korea doesn't really have anything that our government wants. If they were really trying to:

- keep a tyrannical freak from producing WMD
- "liberate" a nation of people who have been subjected to horrendous brutality
- make this world a safer place
they would have taken North Korea BEFORE Iraq, because realistically, NK is more of a threat than Iraq.

My bet is on Iran. They are definitely next. You can see the attention being paid to Iran and it's nuclear program in the mainstream press. Also lots of stories about how terrorists are coming into Iraq across the Iranian border. It's being set up quite nicely.
Plus then they'll be in control of a pretty sizeable chunk of real estate. Imagine the pipeline Unocal will be able to build then!

North Korea, ppffft.

:rolleyes:

MAYBE.... you Americans should STOP "making the world a safer place (for terrrorists yeah!)" and make a bloody mess within your OWN BORDERS.

Attacking another country DOESNT make the world a better place. Not Iraq, Not Iran, Not Palestina, Not North Korea, Not ANY Country.

In fact, attacking those country will only fuel international terrorism (which in effect is also a tool your own government uses against you).

Maybe, the number 1 country that is a threat to international safety is not Iran, North Korea or Iraq, but the United States itself!

I would definately NOT like an attack on North Korea. I think the United States already proved that they CAN attack another country for no valid reason at all and they can also destroy it, but lack the ability to rebuild it.

YES: North Korea is a potentially dangerous country that must be investigated

NO: The United States must not go to yet another foolish war, which in the end will only further decrease international safety

besides: North Korea having nuclear weapons is not an argument, because the United States still have more than all other countries together.
Maybe, it would've been a valid point, if they would not have stuck their heads in the sand and build even more nukes.
But the South is incredibally willing to help it. Besides, as they are in the same ethnic group, that should eliminate major hurdles. The US should focus on the best form of nation building, being the private sector's foreign direct investment.

It's been around since 1954! Pity they disbanded it in 1977...
http://www.bartleby.com/65/st/SthEATO.html
Well, it needs to be reconstituted. But it can't come about with North Korea around. They'll stop at nothing to destroy it, as it would be a major threat to their security.

But the South is incredibally willing to help it. Besides, as they are in the same ethnic group, that should eliminate major hurdles. The US should focus on the best form of nation building, being the private sector's foreign direct investment.

Maybe this time, America should find REAL reasons first, ask some good coalition partners, AND UN support. And only then take action.

America proved that it's just NOT able to create stability and safety in occupied countries, and rebuilding is even worse.

Maybe this time, America should find REAL reasons first, ask some good coalition partners, AND UN support. And only then take action.

America proved that it's just NOT able to create stability and safety in occupied countries, and rebuilding is even worse.
But that part is easy. We all know Kim Jong-Il is a nutcase. Bush can convince other nations that he isn't leaving for a while, and Kerry can have a fresh start at foreign policy. Whoever decides to attack North Korea can do it succcessfully, especially with the nice alliance between the US, Japanese, and South Korean governments.

they attack with there nukes and we decimate them with ours :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :D :cool:

Maybe this time, America should find REAL reasons first, ask some good coalition partners, AND UN support. And only then take action.

America proved that it's just NOT able to create stability and safety in occupied countries, and rebuilding is even worse.

We tried. The UN balked, since they were making money hand over fist with Saddam in power.
BTW, I take it you don't consider the UK and Poland to be partners?

Really. And the Cold War was over in 1948? We're barely three years into the War on Terror. This'll take another 10. Maybe more.

Well, it needs to be reconstituted. But it can't come about with North Korea around. They'll stop at nothing to destroy it, as it would be a major threat to their security.

I think it's a good idea.
As for NK, I wouldn't worry. We formed NATO with our European allies before there was a Warsaw Pact. What's NK going to do? Start an alliance with Vietnam, Cuba and Laos? ;)
(China wouldn't ever join in such an treaty. They're trying to democratize.)

I think it's a good idea.
As for NK, I wouldn't worry. We formed NATO with our European allies before there was a Warsaw Pact. What's NK going to do? Start an alliance with Vietnam, Cuba and Laos? ;)
(China wouldn't ever join in such an treaty. They're trying to democratize.)
No. The difference is Kim Jong-Il is paranoid. His only real "friend" is China, but their relationship can be best described as a babysitting job. China is the disinterested teen talking to her boyfriend, and North Korea is the psychotic two year old that requires spanking every now and then. Anyhow, Kim could lash out, or at least severly antagonize such an alliance. He has several tricks up his sleeve, from a possible nuclear attack to terrorist cells believed to be sleepers in South Korea. And not only that, but his elimination would aid in regional harmony.
BTW, would China not join an alliance with North Korea, or one involving the Pacific Rim?

No. The difference is Kim Jong-Il is paranoid. His only real "friend" is China, but their relationship can be best described as a babysitting job. China is the disinterested teen talking to her boyfriend, and North Korea is the psychotic two year old that requires spanking every now and then. Anyhow, Kim could lash out, or at least severly antagonize such an alliance. He has several tricks up his sleeve, from a possible nuclear attack to terrorist cells believed to be sleepers in South Korea. And not only that, but his elimination would aid in regional harmony.
BTW, would China not join an alliance with North Korea, or one involving the Pacific Rim?

I love that description, btw! :)
Kim hid for nearly 3 months (and by hiding, I mean he was out of sight even more than usual) when the US went into Iraq. You're right, I think he's paranoid, but I also suspect he is scared.

True, Kim has options, but he won't take them unless he will be driven from power and has time to act. Because he knows that if he does use them, he's removed from power. It's a Catch-22.

Back in the 50's, before the China/Soviet split and International Communism was still possible, China might join such alliances. These days, however, such alliances would not do anything for China, so they would not join.
In short, North Korea has nothing to offer them.

As for a reformed SEATO, I don't think China would join, at least, not for awhile. At this point, their society is too fragile.

I love that description, btw! :)
Kim hid for nearly 3 months (and by hiding, I mean he was out of sight even more than usual) when the US went into Iraq. You're right, I think he's paranoid, but I also suspect he is scared.

True, Kim has options, but he won't take them unless he will be driven from power and has time to act. Because he knows that if he does use them, he's removed from power. It's a Catch-22.

Back in the 50's, before the China/Soviet split and International Communism was still possible, China might join such alliances. These days, however, such alliances would not do anything for China, so they would not join.
In short, North Korea has nothing to offer them.
If anything, China would attack North Korea. They obviously have the resources to do it, and they are getting more and more irritated with them by the day.
As for a reformed SEATO, I don't think China would join, at least, not for awhile. At this point, their society is too fragile.
It's worth a try. China, the US, and basically all of the Asian nations have the same security goals.

Purly, your assessment of our military capabilities in the event of us attacking North Korea are hopelessly optimistic. You are aware that the terrain in which their artillery is positioned is rugged and mountainous, right? You are aware that using air strikes to take out hundreds and hundreds of artillery pieces in the mountains is extremely, EXTREMELY difficult, right? That doesn't even address the Scuds or No-dongs that North Korea possesses.

Your dependence on Patriots to "take out" all the missiles (some of which would almost definitely be nuclear) is shortsighted in the extreme. I've seen credible casualty estimates (assuming no nuclear weapon usage) that estimate over 1 million South Korean/US dead, thousands of which would be dead in an hour or two. North Korea could launch 500,000 artillery rounds PER HOUR with what they have positioned there. The staggeringly short-sighted and militarily irresponsible course of action you suggest would be one of the greatest calamities to occur this century.

One whiff of an attack and Kim Jong Il could easily attack preemptively (we've set the stage for that being legitimate, right?), as well. Which is just another of the possibilities you've ignored in your gung-ho, "our military is better, we could take 'em", ride 'em cowboy mentality.

Purly, your assessment of our military capabilities in the event of us attacking North Korea are hopelessly optimistic. You are aware that the terrain in which their artillery is positioned is rugged and mountainous, right? You are aware that using air strikes to take out hundreds and hundreds of artillery pieces in the mountains is extremely, EXTREMELY difficult, right? That doesn't even address the Scuds or No-dongs that North Korea possesses.

Your dependence on Patriots to "take out" all the missiles (some of which would almost definitely be nuclear) is shortsighted in the extreme. I've seen credible casualty estimates (assuming no nuclear weapon usage) that estimate over 1 million South Korean/US dead, thousands of which would be dead in an hour or two. North Korea could launch 500,000 artillery rounds PER HOUR with what they have positioned there. The staggeringly short-sighted and militarily irresponsible course of action you suggest would be one of the greatest calamities to occur this century.

One whiff of an attack and Kim Jong Il could easily attack preemptively (we've set the stage for that being legitimate, right?), as well. Which is just another of the possibilities you've ignored in your gung-ho, "our military is better, we could take 'em", ride 'em cowboy mentality.
The only part of the DMZ that is really mountainous is the east coast, where few people live. The area around Seoul is relatively flat.

The only part of the DMZ that is really mountainous is the east coast, where few people live. The area around Seoul is relatively flat.

You conceded all the other parts of my argument and hinged your rebuttal on the fact that the DMZ itself isn't very mountainous?

North Korea doesn't have its artillery pieces in the DMZ. That's why it's called the demilitarized zone. Additionally, the artillery itself is in the mountains...it's long range artillery. The best estimates indicate somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 to 13,000 artillery pieces are trained on South Korea. If we attack, I guarantee you beyond a shadow of a doubt that Seoul will be functionally reduced to rubble. Is this why you're excited about an attack on North Korea? Because you're blissfully unaware of the catastrophic effects an attack would have on the entire region and the world?

You conceded all the other parts of my argument and hinged your rebuttal on the fact that the DMZ itself isn't very mountainous?

North Korea doesn't have its artillery pieces in the DMZ. That's why it's called the demilitarized zone. Additionally, the artillery itself is in the mountains...it's long range artillery. The best estimates indicate somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 to 13,000 artillery pieces are trained on South Korea. If we attack, I guarantee you beyond a shadow of a doubt that Seoul will be functionally reduced to rubble. Is this why you're excited about an attack on North Korea? Because you're blissfully unaware of the catastrophic effects an attack would have on the entire region and the world?
The DMZ itself is but a two mile strip. The few miles outside it are very flat. As for bombing in the mountains, I think it is easier with the advent of "smart bombs". There are bombs that can make their way down chimneys, so a much larger artillery peice or cave opening shouldn't be too hard. Of course, this mostly hinges on the fact that we strike first. If they strike first, heaven help us.

The DMZ itself is but a two mile strip. The few miles outside it are very flat. As for bombing in the mountains, I think it is easier with the advent of "smart bombs". There are bombs that can make their way down chimneys, so a much larger artillery peice or cave opening shouldn't be too hard. Of course, this mostly hinges on the fact that we strike first. If they strike first, heaven help us.

Yes, I'm aware of what the DMZ is. From your post, it didn't seem like you were aware. The few miles outside of it are completely irrelevant to the placement of the artillery pieces as well.

Yes, we have smart bombs that can do some neato things. The problem is that the vast majority of the artillery pieces are in hardened mountain bunkers...thick concrete doors open, the artillery fires, the door closes while the artillery reloads. It's not like we can just launch smart bombs and have them hover in the air and wait for the doors to reopen. Additionally, when the doors are closed, you are again stuck not being able to identify where the artillery piece is, making location and destruction of these pieces even harder.

Even if we strike first, we won't know what to strike, since North Korea has a VAST complex of underground facilities. Hell, we don't even know what the subway system in Pyongyang is like, because they don't let foreigners in. Once again, please do your research before you advocate for a position that justifies the deaths of over a million people to "build an Asian NATO".

An attack on North Korea will happen, ending in nuclear war. And nobody will be able to blame the North Koreans - what have they EVER done to the US?

If anything, China would attack North Korea. They obviously have the resources to do it, and they are getting more and more irritated with them by the day.

It's worth a try. China, the US, and basically all of the Asian nations have the same security goals.

But I doubt it. That'd be like the US attacking France. Possible, but really against everyone's best interests.

Mostly. 80%, even. But not the same. China wouldn't mind having a "Hanoi Pact" in Asia, formed of Communist states (recall that 4 of the remaining 5 Communist nations are in Asia). South Korea, Japan and Russia would REALLY not want that. Etc.

I can't see why there would be a need for a war, especially with the Bush administration in for four more years. The only question is whether or not Bush is willing to make the hard choices to get the problem solved.

Kerry does not understand the problem. The problem is not with North Korea. North Korea is a small country that has big problems and wants to be the little nation that roared. It leader is technically dead and the person who everyone talks to is technically only acting in his dead father's behalf. The leader of North Korea is entombed nicely in some mountain where they worship him as an ancestor deity.

The problem is South Korea. Having gotten used to a condition of war at their borders they have grown resentful of the US forces at teh DMZ, but still haven't really gotten enough guts to want to solve the problem on their own. Even getting a simple railroad across the DMZ is like pulling teeth. The only response to get them scared is to give them what they want ... a troop reduction along the DMZ. This will get them involved in the multi-party talks.

The problem is China. China was the one who encouraged North Korea to invade into South Korea in the first place. China is now a massively growing economic power, and having an annoying little nuclear power next to them who has a dead person for a leader is a major problem for China. Especially when Japan gets nervous about North Korea's nuclear programs, and especially when Japan could be a major trading partner. Especially with having the exemption in the Kyoto treaty, China needs massive amounts of Oil in order to get their economic machine running at full power. China has a significant stake in a non nuclear Korea.

All of this would be thrown away by Kerry's bi-lateral talks. It's not a question between North Korea and US. It never has been. Making the issue a matter for the region is the correct approach to the situation, and this will happen under the Bush administration, because it is already happening under hte Bushadministration.

he'll emulate the Clinton position and give them further nuclear technology so they can bomb their neighbors.

I can't see why there would be a need for a war, especially with the Bush administration in for four more years. The only question is whether or not Bush is willing to make the hard choices to get the problem solved.

Kerry does not understand the problem. The problem is not with North Korea. North Korea is a small country that has big problems and wants to be the little nation that roared. It leader is technically dead and the person who everyone talks to is technically only acting in his dead father's behalf. The leader of North Korea is entombed nicely in some mountain where they worship him as an ancestor deity.

The problem is South Korea. Having gotten used to a condition of war at their borders they have grown resentful of the US forces at teh DMZ, but still haven't really gotten enough guts to want to solve the problem on their own. Even getting a simple railroad across the DMZ is like pulling teeth. The only response to get them scared is to give them what they want ... a troop reduction along the DMZ. This will get them involved in the multi-party talks.

The problem is China. China was the one who encouraged North Korea to invade into South Korea in the first place. China is now a massively growing economic power, and having an annoying little nuclear power next to them who has a dead person for a leader is a major problem for China. Especially when Japan gets nervous about North Korea's nuclear programs, and especially when Japan could be a major trading partner. Especially with having the exemption in the Kyoto treaty, China needs massive amounts of Oil in order to get their economic machine running at full power. China has a significant stake in a non nuclear Korea.

All of this would be thrown away by Kerry's bi-lateral talks. It's not a question between North Korea and US. It never has been. Making the issue a matter for the region is the correct approach to the situation, and this will happen under the Bush administration, because it is already happening under the Bush administration.

Nice post, except you ignore the fact that everyone involved wants the US to begin bi-lateral talks, no one wants to walk away from the multi-lateral talks...except for North Korea, who already has!

So, what color is the sky in Bushland? Is the rent cheap?

Mostly. 80%, even. But not the same. China wouldn't mind having a "Hanoi Pact" in Asia, formed of Communist states (recall that 4 of the remaining 5 Communist nations are in Asia). South Korea, Japan and Russia would REALLY not want that. Etc.
It'd be ineffective, however. China is undoubtedly the strongest of the Asian communist states.

Purly, you're ignoring my arguments...care to respond?

Purly, you're ignoring my arguments...care to respond?
I am not ignoring them. With our technology associated with bombs, anything can be bombed. The main problem will be getting enough bombers to Korea, but we do have enough. I'm also thinking that a quick Marine strike on P'yongyang in the opening hours of the war should distract the North Koreans from the DMZ, while simultaneously knocking out central command and control. They are one of our few enemies today that has such a highly centralized command system, and it works to our advantage.

I am not ignoring them. With our technology associated with bombs, anything can be bombed. The main problem will be getting enough bombers to Korea, but we do have enough. I'm also thinking that a quick Marine strike on P'yongyang in the opening hours of the war should distract the North Koreans from the DMZ, while simultaneously knocking out central command and control. They are one of our few enemies today that has such a highly centralized command system, and it works to our advantage.

Anything? You completely ignore the fact that our bombs can't hover and/or "seek and destroy", since gravity exists. Additionally, a quick Marine strike on Pyongyang is the silliest thing you've posted yet, since you don't address:

1. Insertion methods
2. How on earth a Marine strike would ever come close to disabling North Korea's CnC.
3. What North Korea's CnC is like

Remember when I mentioned how absurdly optimistic your evaluations of our military capabilities are? Well, they're back. Given how shoddy our intelligence about North Korea is (uh, we don't even know what the P'yongyang subway system is like...GG US intelligence), how ON EARTH could we ever think we could successfully take out all of N. Korea's command and control?

Why don't you just say that our super-duper, top secret magic ray gun would make all their weapons disappear right after we attacked? It would have about the same amount of credibility.

It'd be ineffective, however. China is undoubtedly the strongest of the Asian communist states.

Didn't stop the USSR from forming the Warsaw Pact. It's about having satellite buffers and show allies, not actually to be effective...

Didn't stop the USSR from forming the Warsaw Pact. It's about having satellite buffers and show allies, not actually to be effective...
That was a different world then, one of bandwagonning. It was based on the old axiom that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Technically, everyone is in China's boat, including the US. Remember, until the Warsaw Pact, no significant nation had their economy and security intergrated with the USSR. Now, security and the economy is linked to all but the most reclusive nations, North Korea being the most reclusive of them all.

Anything? You completely ignore the fact that our bombs can't hover and/or "seek and destroy", since gravity exists. Additionally, a quick Marine strike on Pyongyang is the silliest thing you've posted yet, since you don't address:

1. Insertion methods
2. How on earth a Marine strike would ever come close to disabling North Korea's CnC.
3. What North Korea's CnC is like

Remember when I mentioned how absurdly optimistic your evaluations of our military capabilities are? Well, they're back. Given how shoddy our intelligence about North Korea is (uh, we don't even know what the P'yongyang subway system is like...GG US intelligence), how ON EARTH could we ever think we could successfully take out all of N. Korea's command and control?

Why don't you just say that our super-duper, top secret magic ray gun would make all their weapons disappear right after we attacked? It would have about the same amount of credibility.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/041005-rok-us-attack.htm

If Bush is re-elected, then I am going to live in the Phillipines.

If Bush is re-elected, then I am going to live in the Phillipines.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass in the way out. Good luck in that guerilla infested country.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass in the way out. Good luck in that guerilla infested country.

You know, just because Bush saids its a gjuerilla infested country doesn't make it so. Its a beautiful country with beautiful sexy women. I would rather date a beautiful Filipina than an ugly American anyday.

You know, just because Bush saids its a gjuerilla infested country doesn't make it so. Its a beautiful country with beautiful sexy women. I would rather date a beautiful Filipina than an ugly American anyday.
Just don't go on Mindao.

You know, just because Bush saids its a gjuerilla infested country doesn't make it so. Its a beautiful country with beautiful sexy women. I would rather date a beautiful Filipina than an ugly American anyday.

How stereotypical. It's funny how you label EVERY single American ugly, and every single 'Filipina' beautiful. I bet if you took me to the Philipines, I could pick some ugly ones. And guerilla's do control most of the smaller islands.

North Korea will be held in check by China, The United States, South Korea and a collection of United Nations Members. Maybe the Pacific Rim countries will get involved??

It will place the world into another "Cold War", North Korea will rattle its Saber and speak tough. They will find out over a period of time (Years) that they actually do need to participate in world affairs to progress as a world nation and will drop it ME VERY VERY STRONG position.

The Real Question is what would happen if Kerry were elected. I think that with a weak handling of the matter they (North Korea) will be encouraged and advance on the world.

How stereotypical. It's funny how you label EVERY single American ugly, and every single 'Filipina' beautiful. I bet if you took me to the Philipines, I could pick some ugly ones. And guerilla's do control most of the smaller islands.

Dude, the AVERAGE Filipina looks like THIS:

https://w252.securedweb.net/je-je/wwwfp/101-200/151-200/164.jpg

If you don't think thats beautiful, then damn man!

Dude, the AVERAGE Filipina looks like THIS:

https://w252.securedweb.net/je-je/wwwfp/101-200/151-200/164.jpg

If you don't think thats beautiful, then damn man!

My school. I'm satisfied with America.

It's like begging for a WWIII dude...
north korea is advanced enough to fire nukes before US is anywhere close to destroying there nuclear silos (provided the fact US knows where they are hidden jus like he knows where WMDs are in Iraq)
basically we are looking at global nuclear war ppl...
please dun be a fool and elect Bush again n all the ppl who hv watched 9/11 will agree with me.

Don't think for a second that china will bak US...not in million years

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. "
- George W. Bush

http://www.insultmonger.com/assorted/george_w_bush_dumb_quotes.htm

My school. I'm satisfied with America.

ookkkk whatever. Have fun being screwed by Bush.

Sorry that link been disputed by Snopes.com

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/candidate.asp

It's like begging for a WWIII dude...
north korea is advanced enough to fire nukes before US is anywhere close to destroying there nuclear silos (provided the fact US knows where they are hidden jus like he knows where WMDs are in Iraq)
basically we are looking at global nuclear war ppl...
please dun be a fool and elect Bush again n all the ppl who hv watched 9/11 will agree with me.

Don't think for a second that china will bak US...not in million years

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. "
- George W. Bush

http://www.insultmonger.com/assorted/george_w_bush_dumb_quotes.htm
Ah, but is North Korea that advanced? A platoon leader in the South Korean or US army has as much autonomy as a general, and more hurtful to the enemy. We have nearly infinitely more military resources than they do. And as has happened before, the ROK and US sucessfuly prevented an invasion of the south. We would've won if it weren't for the Chinese. This time, however, I doubt they would even give moral support to North Korea.

My school. I'm satisfied with America.

I'm sorry, but...that girl...is really, really, really ugly.

Beyond ugly really. Fugly, in fact.

Oh, common now! I KNOW I'm not the only one who thinks that! She's just so...so...eeeeuuuugh.


She needs to PUT DOWN the makeup for two seconds, scrape the five fucking feet she has on her face, and try again.

bump

I prefer women who has natural beauty. None of that make-up crap.

I prefer women who has natural beauty. None of that make-up crap.
How did this turn into a discussion on women, again?

bump