North Korea

[Jason Tandro]

For some reason I just got the image of Kim Jong-Il in a pair of huggies ("i'm a big kid now!")

---end spam


But yeah, the one thing that Valerie pointed out is that North Korea is not an effective military force. Their only threat is a nuclear strike, which (let's face it) is probably not going to happen.

But we need to make damn sure it doesn't.

[Manibrandr System]

Jason Tandro wrote:

The Al-Qaida terrorists were operating out of Afghanistan. We made military actions against them. It's that simple.

Non sequitor, Al-Quaida is not Afghanistan.

Flamez : *I* would oppose it, as you have seen. The collateral of dropping a nuke on North Korea would mean that thousands of innocent civillians would die and millions more would suffer for the sake of satiating the blood thirst of the US Millitary. If they drop a nuke again on anywhere other than a millitary complex, then it would be little more than an act of state-sanctioned terrorism.

[Jason Tandro]

Valerie Valens wrote:

Jason Tandro wrote: The Al-Qaida terrorists were operating out of Afghanistan. We made military actions against them. It's that simple. Non sequitor, Al-Quaida is not Afghanistan.

Ahem... let's try this again.

"The Al-Qaida terrorists were operating out of Afghanistan.".

So no. Not a non-sequitor.

[inferiare]

Jason Tandro wrote:

Valerie Valens wrote: Jason Tandro wrote: The Al-Qaida terrorists were operating out of Afghanistan. We made military actions against them. It's that simple. Non sequitor, Al-Quaida is not Afghanistan. Ahem... let's try this again. "The Al-Qaida terrorists were operating out of Afghanistan.". So no. Not a non-sequitor.

But they're also in Pakistan and a few other locations. I think that's what Val's getting at. Primarily out of Afghanistan, but in a lot of other places too.

[Jason Tandro]

rainichan wrote:

Jason Tandro wrote: Valerie Valens wrote: Jason Tandro wrote: The Al-Qaida terrorists were operating out of Afghanistan. We made military actions against them. It's that simple. Non sequitor, Al-Quaida is not Afghanistan. Ahem... let's try this again. "The Al-Qaida terrorists were operating out of Afghanistan.". So no. Not a non-sequitor. But they're also in Pakistan and a few other locations. I think that's what Val's getting at. Primarily out of Afghanistan, but in a lot of other places too.

This stems back from an earlier argument she made saying out actions in Afghanistan were unjustified and that military action in North Korea would turn them into a terrorist state.

I am aware that Al-Qaida is widespread. I am simply saying that this was our justification.

[Manibrandr System]

Jason Tandro wrote:

This stems back from an earlier argument she made saying out actions in Afghanistan were unjustified and that military action in North Korea would turn them into a terrorist state. I am aware that Al-Qaida is widespread. I am simply saying that this was our justification.

I was talking about the Russia-Afghanistan War as well as the Gulf War, which was way before the attacks on 9/11. Of course any terrorist faction spawned from that era would have time to spread their influence across many countries.

This is why I asked for the just cause of the US' involvement in those wars, because I want to know if you think that it was worth it, and why.

[Jason Tandro]

Valerie Valens wrote:

Jason Tandro wrote: This stems back from an earlier argument she made saying out actions in Afghanistan were unjustified and that military action in North Korea would turn them into a terrorist state. I am aware that Al-Qaida is widespread. I am simply saying that this was our justification. I was talking about the Russia-Afghanistan War as well as the Gulf War, which was way before the attacks on 9/11. Of course any terrorist faction spawned from that era would have time to spread their influence across many countries. This is why I asked for the just cause of the US' involvement in those wars, because I want to know if you think that it was worth it, and why.

You might have clarified that.

Well while I can't speak much about the Russia-Afghanistan War, the First Gulf War was all about the invasion of Kuwait. And it wasn't just the big bad US doing it. This was a United Nations attack, with something like 30 participants.

I do believe it was justified and whether or not that resulted in the region becoming filled with crazy terrorists is arguable and honestly is a side-note when it comes to North Korea. We are already aware that North Korea has ties with existing terrorist groups so again, our military action will have little effect on this.

[Edit: As a side note, my dad was actually almost deployed to Desert Storm. He was 6 hours from departure when his unit was called back because the operation was over.]

[inferiare]

Valerie Valens wrote:

Jason Tandro wrote: This stems back from an earlier argument she made saying out actions in Afghanistan were unjustified and that military action in North Korea would turn them into a terrorist state. I am aware that Al-Qaida is widespread. I am simply saying that this was our justification. I was talking about the Russia-Afghanistan War as well as the Gulf War, which was way before the attacks on 9/11. Of course any terrorist faction spawned from that era would have time to spread their influence across many countries. This is why I asked for the just cause of the US' involvement in those wars, because I want to know if you think that it was worth it, and why.

I'm not exactly on the up and up on that part of our history, so I won't comment on that.

However, it was stated by America's forefathers that we shouldn't get involved with the affairs of other countries. I would agree with this (and it's why I think the UN is a crock of bullshit, but that's a different argument.)

Of course, I would think that this is null and void when another country either invades us or makes an attack on us - which is what happened on 9/11 (whether it was a conspiracy theory/non conspiracy theory, we were attacked) and for all intents and purposes of an argument, they were traced back to Afghanistan, rejoicing and partying hard over their successful attack on "the infidels". An attack like that is an act of war, and if that's what they wanted, it's what they got since we retaliated.

I would think we were justified in the ideal of "Fine, if you want a fight, you now have one since you have attacked us simply because you're fighting a jihad against us for absolutely no reason."

Then again, there is that argument about lol middle east oil, so if you're looking at it from that angle, not too justified, I know.

And I'll stop talking now, I'm too braindead to type more.

[Flamez]

Valerie Valens wrote:

Jason Tandro wrote: The Al-Qaida terrorists were operating out of Afghanistan. We made military actions against them. It's that simple. Non sequitor, Al-Quaida is not Afghanistan. Flamez : *I* would oppose it, as you have seen. The collateral of dropping a nuke on North Korea would mean that thousands of innocent civillians would die and millions more would suffer for the sake of satiating the blood thirst of the US Millitary. If they drop a nuke again on anywhere other than a millitary complex, then it would be little more than an act of state-sanctioned terrorism.

I never said America would retaliate with a nuclear attack; that would be political suicide and I only thing the biggest of Red Necks would ever condone such an idea.

My point was that if N.Korea ever did use a nuke themselves they would be invaded so fast the it would be Iraq in half the time, and this time the American Government would have a legit excuse, unlike iraq... "they have weapons of mass destruction *cough*"

[Jason Tandro]

Flamez wrote:

Valerie Valens wrote: Jason Tandro wrote: The Al-Qaida terrorists were operating out of Afghanistan. We made military actions against them. It's that simple. Non sequitor, Al-Quaida is not Afghanistan. Flamez : *I* would oppose it, as you have seen. The collateral of dropping a nuke on North Korea would mean that thousands of innocent civillians would die and millions more would suffer for the sake of satiating the blood thirst of the US Millitary. If they drop a nuke again on anywhere other than a millitary complex, then it would be little more than an act of state-sanctioned terrorism. I never said America would retaliate with a nuclear attack; that would be political suicide and I only thing the biggest of Red Necks would ever condone such an idea. My point was that if N.Korea ever did use a nuke themselves they would be invaded so fast the it would be Iraq in half the time, and this time the American Government would have a legit excuse, unlike iraq... "they have weapons of mass destruction *cough*"

Oh HELL no. You don't use nukes against North Korea.

First of all there's no need because the combined military of five countries would demolish them, plus we can shoot their nukes out of the sky, and secondly the civilian losses would be downright unacceptable.

(Plus if China is pissed that N. Korea is sending a nuke OUR way, can you imagine how thrilled they'll be when they see a nuke heading THEIR way)

[Flamez]

N korea would never be able to get a nuke to reach America anyway; it would have to first pass over Japan with the likely hood of it being destroyed by the Japanese before even reaching Japan, if by some miricle it gets past Japan, it would be destroyed of the northern Pacific ocean.

Reaching China on the other hand...

[inferiare]

There's speculation going on that what made the oil rig that exploded in the Gulf (and what is now spewing a metric ton of oil every second and polluting our oceans) was an underwater missile fired from North Korea.

Why go through the air when underwater is more effective and harder to stop?

[Flamez]

rainichan wrote:

There's speculation going on that what made the oil rig that exploded in the Gulf (and what is now spewing a metric ton of oil every second and polluting our oceans) was an underwater missile fired from North Korea. Why go through the air when underwater is more effective and harder to stop?

Underwater can only reach so much, the 'air' has alot more avaliable targets.

Though thats some interesting speculation, any news storys on it? wouldnt mind a read/watch

[Jason Tandro]

rainichan wrote:

There's speculation going on that what made the oil rig that exploded in the Gulf (and what is now spewing a metric ton of oil every second and polluting our oceans) was an underwater missile fired from North Korea. Why go through the air when underwater is more effective and harder to stop?

I would have to see a source on this one. That would mean that the North Koreans would have to have submarines near Cuba. There is no underwater ICBM.

[Manibrandr System]

Jason : I also think that the UN is a crock of shit.

rainichan wrote:

Of course, I would think that this is null and void when another country either invades us or makes an attack on us - which is what happened on 9/11 (whether it was a conspiracy theory/non conspiracy theory, we were attacked) and for all intents and purposes of an argument, they were traced back to Afghanistan, rejoicing and partying hard over their successful attack on "the infidels". An attack like that is an act of war, and if that's what they wanted, it's what they got since we retaliated. I would think we were justified in the ideal of "Fine, if you want a fight, you now have one since you have attacked us simply because you're fighting a jihad against us for absolutely no reason."

Unfortunately though, that was a very very weak argument for a just cause. If they were under any REAL threat, like the terrorists doing a mass buy/sell operation of the US Dollar, then they would be justified in going to war. As it stands, the retaliation, and the legislations passed to fuel this war did far more damage to the US, in terms of economy, international relations and body count, than the 9/11 attacks did. The total body count on the Afghan and Iraqi side of the war is almost ten times as much, and entire Iraqi/Afghan villages, cities and towns have been reduced into warzones consisting of nothing but shelled-out, bullet-ridden buildings and rubble. You just know that this will create new terrorist movements and fuel existing ones further. Mark my words, there will be a repeat of 9/11 in our lifetimes and it will be because of that Iraq war. An eye for an eye will only serve to make the world go blind.