North Korea

[Jason Tandro]

psychokind wrote:

Jason Tandro wrote: China has declared that they must be ready to win the inevitable war against the united states. Since the world is one great big appendage-waving contest, I highly question their motives. Actions speak louder than words... stop that that's why the americans always mess up in every war; iraq, afghanistan, vietnam....

War we lost and are losing politically. America has never lost a war militarily. You make a point about us jumping down people's throats, but Afghanistan at least was based on provocation. Ever hear of 9-11?

[psychokind]

Jason Tandro wrote:

psychokind wrote: Jason Tandro wrote: China has declared that they must be ready to win the inevitable war against the united states. Since the world is one great big appendage-waving contest, I highly question their motives. Actions speak louder than words... stop that that's why the americans always mess up in every war; iraq, afghanistan, vietnam.... War we lost and are losing politically. America has never lost a war militarily. You make a point about us jumping down people's throats, but Afghanistan at least was based on provocation. Ever hear of 9-11?

9-11 had nothing to with afghanistan -.- you really have to accept that oil, oil, oil.

and winning a war military is useless, because you pay for it and get no profit. and it's all about profit.

besides, you won 2nd world war politically! and if you could calculate how much profite both germany and the USA made because of each other and their cooperation, it would be awesome!

[Jason Tandro]

psychokind wrote:

Jason Tandro wrote: psychokind wrote: Jason Tandro wrote: China has declared that they must be ready to win the inevitable war against the united states. Since the world is one great big appendage-waving contest, I highly question their motives. Actions speak louder than words... stop that that's why the americans always mess up in every war; iraq, afghanistan, vietnam.... War we lost and are losing politically. America has never lost a war militarily. You make a point about us jumping down people's throats, but Afghanistan at least was based on provocation. Ever hear of 9-11? 9-11 had nothing to with afghanistan -.- you really have to accept that oil, oil, oil. and winning a war military is useless, because you pay for it and get no profit. and it's all about profit. besides, you won 2nd world war politically! and if you could calculate how much profite both germany and the USA made because of each other and their cooperation, it would be awesome!

Yes, which is exactly why the government "Staged an attack on our own people". I'm sorry but if you believe that then I have a mansion to sell you in Florida.

Also, about your little "oil" comment. Here's something interesting.

The US is number 14 on that list. Afghanistan is number 90. If we really wanted to snag oil, we should do a bum rush invasion of Canada (sorry Freedan!)

[Edit: And no, psychokind. We won because we (the Allied Forces) cornered the German's asses and their incompetent leader (Hitler) decided he'd rather commit suicide than accept surrender.

And on the eastern front we won because we had the bigger bombs. ]

[psychokind]

Jason Tandro wrote:

Yes, which is exactly why the government "Staged an attack on our own people". I'm sorry but if you believe that then I have a mansion to sell you in Florida.

naah, I don't wanted to state that but it was an excuse. there is no connection between engaging a war against a poor country because one believes some terrorists hide there. should we fight spain if the ETA would blow up sth in germany?^^

Quote:

Also, about your little "oil" comment. Here's something interesting. The US is number 14 on that list. Afghanistan is number 90. If we really wanted to snag oil, we should do a bum rush invasion of Canada (sorry Freedan!)

but iraq is nr. 4. and you set your foot there. of course it's only a common suggestion for the real reason behind this war, but I just can't think of anything else. even george w. wasn't THAT silly.

Quote:

[Edit: And no, psychokind. We won because we (the Allied Forces) cornered the German's asses and their incompetent leader (Hitler) decided he'd rather commit suicide than accept surrender. And on the eastern front we won because we had the bigger bombs. ]

yeah, that's a political victory. you helped making a bad country good, and it succeeded. we're all quiet, peacful and democrats down here.

[inferiare]

psychokind wrote:

but iraq is nr. 4. and you set your foot there. of course it's only a common suggestion for the real reason behind this war, but I just can't think of anything else. even george w. wasn't THAT silly.

The only good thing coming out of the war (that I'm against not because I'm a peace-loving hippie, but because it's stupid and for the stupidest reasons ever, including the whole OMG THEY HAVE WMDS THERE!!! when they really didn't) was that Hussein was brought out of power and tried for his crimes.

[Jason Tandro]

@ psychokind: No what I mean with losing a war politically is that we pull out because of political forces on our side.

Also I am not denying that oil was a reason, but just because other countries don't believe in hunting down terrorists WHEREVER they hide, doesn't mean that the USA won't.


@rainichan: I'll concede that. Hussein is dead and the country is getting back to normal. I don't think we should just do a total evacuation altogether, but it's time to start wrapping things up.

[psychokind]

Jason Tandro wrote:

@ psychokind: No what I mean with losing a war politically is that we pull out because of political forces on our side. Also I am not denying that oil was a reason, but just because other countries don't believe in hunting down terrorists WHEREVER they hide, doesn't mean that the USA won't.

ah alright, I thought losing a war politically is not beeing able to change anything through military victory, like vietnam, iraq, afghanistan...

that's because we other countries don't think of the USA as so conceited to really believe you can fight terrorism this way +

@raini: you're right, the thing is the USA put saddam hussein in charge before

[Jason Tandro]

psychokind wrote:

@raini: you're right, the thing is the USA put saddam hussein in charge before

LOL. That is actually true.

[Freedan]

So North Korea is back in the news.

A few days ago, a South Korean ship was torpedoed, and sank, killing 46 people (58 or so survived). After examining the weapon responsible for it, weapons experts have determined that it's a North Korean weapon (one that they have blueprints for).

The U.S. and South Korea are threatening to make North Korea pay for that.

N. Korea, for their part, denies the whole thing. They claim that the South fabricated the evidence to incriminate them, and have promised that any attempt to punish them for it will be met with "all-out war".

I question why this country still exists.

[Jason Tandro]

North Korea has declared that any sanctions made against them will result in them declaring war on S. Korea, the US and Japan.

According to what I've heard, China and Russia are now saying if North Korea launches any nuclear weapons they will declare war on North Korea and China said they could knock their missiles out of the sky.

Russia said they would too, but I don't think they have the technology to.

Kim Jong Il is just have a prick-waving moment. If this homicidal lunatic wants five nuclear weapons bearing countries on his ass, then yeah he'll press that button. But he'll never hit the US and Japan can block most of their weapons.

My biggest concern (which my friend pointed out) is the 22,000 US troops stationed in Seoul. That's a viable military target for N. Korea and as devastating as the military loss would be that would be nothing to the civilian casualties in the rest of Seoul.

No offense to my left-leaning friends, but Bush specifically warned us against North Korea. And Obama won't do shit until it's too late.

[Manibrandr System]

Here's what I think, schoolyard tactics such as giving the "bully" a bloody nose has no place in national politics, especially not in a situation as complex and delicate as this. Quite honestly, I am more inclined to use the analogy of a chihuahua snapping at the heels of a world-class heavyweight wrestler.

Also, the very LAST thing the US needs is another paper dragon to slay. So I very much strongly think that a direct millitary conflict is the WORST course of action in response to Kim Jong-Il's prick waving. This is exactly the kind of thing that would most likely turn nations into a breeding ground for terrorism. Might does NOT make right.

Espionage is most likely to be a far better course of action in this case, if they can work undercover towards preventing any possible outbreak of conflict then it would be the ultimate victory. Otherwise, it's just better to tighten defenses, block any incoming missiles, send in defensive support to South Korea and refuse NK the satisfaction of a fight they so willingly seek.

PS : Bin Laden was lauded as a hero and a freedom fighter during the war between Russia and Afghanistan, coincidence?

[Jason Tandro]

Valerie Valens wrote:

Also, the very LAST thing the US needs is another paper dragon to slay. So I very much strongly think that a direct millitary conflict is the WORST course of action in response to Kim Jong-Il's prick waving. This is exactly the kind of thing that would most likely turn nations into a breeding ground for terrorism. Might does NOT make right.

On what grounds do you base THIS statement? North Korea already has established ties with terrorist groups and whether or not America gets involved militarily will have very little effect on it.

Afghanistan attacked us before we invaded them. Coincidence?

And no, Valerie, for the record I think your statement about this being just "another paper dragon" is pretty ridiculous. Given that RUSSIA AND CHINA two of the US's biggest competitors on the world stage are threatening counter-attack should nudge you in the direction of "oh shit, maybe this isn't just another idle threat."

What I will concede is that espionage is probably the best course of action here rather than an open military attack. I'm not keen on pushing a loon like Kim Jong-Il to his breaking point. This is why I hope that the CIA just has done with it and assassinates the little prick.

However if North Korea makes a move, we would be fools not to counter.

[Manibrandr System]

Explain to me the just cause behind the invasion in Afghanistan, and the involvement in the Gulf War then. Who exactly attacked the US, and where did it attack? Were these people sanctioned by the Afghan government to attack the US? Terrorist groups do not pop up in a complete vacuum, and they do not band together to be terrorists because they "HAET 'MURRIKA" or because they have differently-coloured skins.

Also, China and Russia are the biggest reasons why I always said that the world can no longer afford to have a World War. However, when I said paper tigers, I am talking about nations of comparatively puny millitary strengths, like Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq and North Korea. The US is notorious for retaliating tenfold over comparatively tiny slights, and it's not reflecting very well on them politically.

[Jason Tandro]

Valerie Valens wrote:

Explain to me the just cause behind the invasion in Afghanistan, and the involvement in the Gulf War then. Who exactly attacked the US, and where did it attack? Were these people sanctioned by the Afghan government to attack the US? Terrorist groups do not pop up in a complete vacuum, and they do not band together to be terrorists because they "HAET 'MURRIKA" or because they have differently-coloured skins.

Wow, and I'm the person who over-simplifies arguments and makes appeals to emotions.

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

Quote:

Also, China and Russia are the biggest reasons why I always said that the world can no longer afford to have a World War. However, when I said paper tigers, I am talking about nations of comparatively puny millitary strengths, like Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq and North Korea. The US is notorious for retaliating tenfold over comparatively tiny slights, and it's not reflecting very well on them politically.

I actually have to agree with you here (except you used the term paper dragons, not paper tigers ). Things have not gone well for us politically when we invade these nations. It's like the old saying "dropping the bomb on luxembourg". However I think that we should stop them BEFORE they do something stupid and not after.

I am 100% for pre-emptive strikes.

[Flamez]

At the end of the day North Korea is trying to be part of the 'big boys club' by showing off their new 'toy'; this of course is pointless as they are still far to small to actually be a serious threat to anyone (for now anyway, given time they may develop into a real threat). North Korea will never fire a hostile nuke, as the full well know by doing so they will be the next Iraq, although military action would be swifter and far more effective. Just think of the war on Iraq, without political opposition. No American political party could seriosuly oppose war with North Korea if they had fired a nuke (even if the nuke was destoryed before detonation), the retaliation from America and Japan would be swift (for a country that dosent have a 'militay' Japan if awfully powerful) and possibly even China.