After Iraq, would you support a war on North Korea?

[HappyNic]

I would not support a war on North Korea, They are alot better equipted than the Iraqi, and their will is alot stronger. They'll probably push you off the cliff together just to kill you even if they need 3 guys to do it. We should just give them some more food and be over with.

When NK became a REAL Tread the US can probaby work out a deal with China to take out what's his name in NK, in exchange we give them some military equiptment. You know China don't like Attacking anything outside of their Country so we would have nothing to worry for the time beings of them use it on the US. Consider how trades and business are going we'll probably never go to war with China other than Taiwan.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: ub4me
And I think N. Korea will threaten us not by aiming their 13,000 artillery pieces toward S. Korea, but by aimng toward Japan, the world second largest economic country. (Maybe both)
Isn't it scarry? The great depression!!! :Q

Artillery will not come even close to reaching Japan. It's too far away.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: RanDum72

The government is not that stupid

They were stupid enough to loud mouth and beat their chests before the North Korenas. Now NK called their bluff. Its really a dangerous situation because the NK government is paranoid enough to overreact to any perceived threat.

Do some research and post again. You obviously haven't done your homework.

As a hint, North Korea began beating its chest FIRST after the US refused to sign a non-aggression pact with them.

Right now it's all hollow threats, that's why noone is taking them seriously. They're just trying to get us to the bargaining table, that's all. There is no immediate threat.

North Korea is not in the financial shape to be able to afford a war. That's why they wanted the US to sign the non-aggression treaty in the first place. They can't afford this military spending when their country needs other things first.

Personally I think the US should have signed a pact like that since it was all about peace, but I think we have no desire to help out a communist government. We want them to collapse.

The US has a plan for defeating its enemies. Some enemies they use force against, while others (like the USSR) we engage them in a spending war that they cannot afford.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: HappyNic

You know China don't like Attacking anything outside of their Country so we would have nothing to worry for the time beings of them use it on the US. Consider how trades and business are going we'll probably never go to war with China other than Taiwan.

I agree. China has been isolationist for hundreds (if not thousands) of years. They generally don't feel the need to impose their power somewhere else, they stick to themselves and just defend their own land. If you look at their nuke arsenal, they never bothered to amass a lot of weapons, they just made sure that they had enough to use as a deterrent, to protect themselves.

 

[seawolf21]

Originally posted by: HappyNic
I would not support a war on North Korea, They are alot better equipted than the Iraqi, and their will is alot stronger. They'll probably push you off the cliff together just to kill you even if they need 3 guys to do it. We should just give them some more food and be over with.

When NK became a REAL Tread the US can probaby work out a deal with China to take out what's his name in NK, in exchange we give them some military equiptment. You know China don't like Attacking anything outside of their Country so we would have nothing to worry for the time beings of them use it on the US. Consider how trades and business are going we'll probably never go to war with China other than Taiwan.

I have to disagree with the China part. China is probably number one on the list of long term strategic threats. The others on the list include India, Russia, the EU and everybody else in the nuclear club. As technology advances, nukes and other WMDs are only going to proliferate and any second/third world country can obtained them. We can slow WMD proliferation down, but it sure is difficult, if not impossible, to stop. Technical knowledge on how to build WMD is an idea. You can't kill an idea, especially in this day and age of instant communications.

 

[LocutusX]

Originally posted by: seawolf21

Originally posted by: HappyNic
I would not support a war on North Korea, They are alot better equipted than the Iraqi, and their will is alot stronger. They'll probably push you off the cliff together just to kill you even if they need 3 guys to do it. We should just give them some more food and be over with.

When NK became a REAL Tread the US can probaby work out a deal with China to take out what's his name in NK, in exchange we give them some military equiptment. You know China don't like Attacking anything outside of their Country so we would have nothing to worry for the time beings of them use it on the US. Consider how trades and business are going we'll probably never go to war with China other than Taiwan.

I have to disagree with the China part. China is probably number one on the list of long term strategic threats. The others on the list include India, Russia, the EU and everybody else in the nuclear club. As technology advances, nukes and other WMDs are only going to proliferate and any second/third world country can obtained them. We can slow WMD proliferation down, but it sure is difficult, if not impossible, to stop. Technical knowledge on how to build WMD is an idea. You can't kill an idea, especially in this day and age of instant communications.

So you think the UK is also a "long term strategic threat" as well?

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: seawolf21


I have to disagree with the China part. China is probably number one on the list of long term strategic threats.

Nope. You should read up a little and take a look at the layout of their forces. You'd quickly see that they are mainly defensive. Lots of troops, lots of short range jets, lots of small ships. All suited for protection of the mainland. They have hardly any long range bombers, since their military doctrine has been to stick to itself, and not attack distant countries. It also has hardly any other long range power projection tools like the US has such as aircraft carriers. It only has one.

Here's a writeup of their basic stance: "People's War denotes the most traditional vision and derives from Mao Tse-tung's doctrine. In this scenario, China would defend its own territory against a land invasion by exploiting its advantages in manpower and geography. Conventional strategy and weapons would eventually dominate in a long war of attrition. Though a mass ground assault on the mainland seems highly implausible, this construct still accounts for more military resources than the others.

The People's War doctrine, which was the result of lessons learned from the War of Resistance against Japan (1937-1945), emphasized the preparation of masses of foot soldiers and militia to engage in prolonged guerrilla warfare in China's vast interior. China postulated that a potential enemy could not rely exclusively on nuclear weapons in dealing with China because of China's vast territory, complicated terrain and huge numbers of people. Thus, their defense strategy provided for the possibility of a protracted war on Chinese soil, requiring large conventional forces. "

The US and Britain have always been expansionist throughout history, and China has been isolationist. They do not have the same philsophy that we have, they have always just wanted to keep invaders out (Great Wall of China comes to mind).

 

[RanDum72]

Do some research and post again. You obviously haven't done your homework

do your homework again. As a hint, who started labeling N. Korea as one of the 'Axis of evil'? That started the tone for everything.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: RanDum72

Do some research and post again. You obviously haven't done your homework

do your homework again.

Wow, that was original. You basically said the same thing I just said and tried to use it on me. That's as bad as "re-gifting" a christmas present and giving it to the person who gave it to you.

I haven't seen such originality since Pee Wee Herman unleashed "I know you are but what am I?"

I take it that you're Asian and you feel more loyalty to Asian countries than the country that you currently live in.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: RanDum72

Do some research and post again. You obviously haven't done your homework

do your homework again.

Wow, that was original. You basically said the same thing I just said and tried to use it on me. That's as bad as "re-gifting" a christmas present and giving it to the person who gave it to you.

I haven't seen such originality since Pee Wee Herman unleashed "I know you are but what am I?"

I take it that you're Asian and you feel more loyalty to Asian countries than the country that you currently live in.

Willing to give it, prepare to take it. Besides, he posted more than that.

 

[RanDum72]

I take it that you're Asian and you feel more loyalty to Asian countries than the country that you currently live in.

This is a stupid a** comment. I may be of Asian origin but I'm American ( as in American citizen). And being an American citizen means you have to be patriotic and question your government, not be a mindless robot. You must be one of those mindless rednecks. I think Timothy Mcveigh was a redneck too.

 

[OFFascist]

Yes but we have to do it on our own terms, when we are ready.

 

[HappyNic]

Originally posted by: seawolf21

Originally posted by: HappyNic
I would not support a war on North Korea, They are alot better equipted than the Iraqi, and their will is alot stronger. They'll probably push you off the cliff together just to kill you even if they need 3 guys to do it. We should just give them some more food and be over with.

When NK became a REAL Tread the US can probaby work out a deal with China to take out what's his name in NK, in exchange we give them some military equiptment. You know China don't like Attacking anything outside of their Country so we would have nothing to worry for the time beings of them use it on the US. Consider how trades and business are going we'll probably never go to war with China other than Taiwan.

I have to disagree with the China part. China is probably number one on the list of long term strategic threats. The others on the list include India, Russia, the EU and everybody else in the nuclear club. As technology advances, nukes and other WMDs are only going to proliferate and any second/third world country can obtained them. We can slow WMD proliferation down, but it sure is difficult, if not impossible, to stop. Technical knowledge on how to build WMD is an idea. You can't kill an idea, especially in this day and age of instant communications.

What's your point, pretty much everyone is on their list of long term strategic threats. It's normal that you wouldn't be love if you're too nosy. That's why theres a long list. By the Way if India is on their list, what the hell are the US doing selling them weapson, I guess were gonna use them before Liberating them.

 

[seawolf21]

History has shown allies turning into enemies and vice versa. We spend the better half of the 20th century staring down the USSR and now we are friends with Russia. France helped us in our independence against the English. Many of us are now anti-French. We previously supported Iraq and now we are bombing them. We nuked Japan and now they are our allies.

 

[joohang]

Originally posted by: seawolf21
History has shown allies turning into enemies and vice versa. We spend the better half of the 20th century staring down the USSR and now we are friends with Russia. France helped us in our independence against the English. Many of us are now anti-French. We previously supported Iraq and now we are bombing them. We nuked Japan and now they are our allies.

So in other words, history is more complex than people usually make it out to be?

 

[LocutusX]

Originally posted by: HappyNic

What's your point, pretty much everyone is on their list of long term strategic threats. It's normal that you wouldn't be love if you're too nosy. That's why theres a long list. By the Way if India is on their list, what the hell are the US doing selling them weapson, I guess were gonna use them before Liberating them.

The US is going to try to liberate India? Ha, now that would be a sight to see!

 

[LocutusX]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Willing to give it, prepare to take it. Besides, he posted more than that.

How dare you question a personal attack! Don't you know, an ATForum argument without flaming is no argument at all!

 

[HappyGamer2]

we better get a smarter pres before we really play with North Korea

 

[drewshin]

im not for this war against iraq, but i am for one with north korea. the two main reasons why bush says we are in iraq is because of:

1) to liberate its people

2) to destroy weapons of mass destruction

all apply to north korea. north korea's people have been in near starvation for nearly twice as long as iraq's people have suffered. north korea is nearing completion of the worst type of wmd, esp. if you consider it could be used against a heavily concentrated area like tokyo or seoul...iraq could try to use one, but their only real target would be israel.

bush will not attack north korea, which will show the hypocrisy of the reasons he has stated above.

 

[drewshin]

Originally posted by: LocutusX

Originally posted by: HappyNic

What's your point, pretty much everyone is on their list of long term strategic threats. It's normal that you wouldn't be love if you're too nosy. That's why theres a long list. By the Way if India is on their list, what the hell are the US doing selling them weapson, I guess were gonna use them before Liberating them.

The US is going to try to liberate India? Ha, now that would be a sight to see!

with all the h1s and indian programmers that i've heard of working for microsoft, they could shut us down in a heartbeat! yay! no more windows, move to linux! they'd be liberating us!

 

[Yax]

Originally posted by: joohang

Originally posted by: Apotherix

Originally posted by: joohang
I personally think that it will be deadly to attack North Korea.

If an attack is planned and launched against North Korea, would you support it? I sure hope not.

I personally think it would be more deadly to not attack North Korea.

How so?

Not that I have a better solution to offer. Just wanted to hear more about what you have in mind.

Why don't we just nuke them. Ofcourse that would be more deadly, for them.

After they're nuked, we can send aid to the neighboring countries since they'll probably need it due to the fallout. Also, if we nuke NK, I think China would just keep quiet to prevent a war with us. The best defense in America is a good offense. We're teaching Saddam that right now.

 

[Yax]

Originally posted by: HappyGamer2
we better get a smarter pres before we really play with North Korea

Applause!! I'm all for a better Pres. This President made me realized that democracy can fail, all it needs is stupid people in large numbers.

 

[Yax]

Originally posted by: HappyNic
I would not support a war on North Korea, They are alot better equipted than the Iraqi, and their will is alot stronger. They'll probably push you off the cliff together just to kill you even if they need 3 guys to do it. We should just give them some more food and be over with.

All the more reason to nuke them.

 

[JellyBaby]

bush will not attack north korea, which will show the hypocrisy of the reasons he has stated above.

Probably. The current war with Iraq is a war of opportunity and closure -- the U.S. has had Saddum's neck under its boot for a decade now. Might as well go for end-game while you have the chance, right? Too hard to pass up.

N.K. probably has a limited nuclear capability already and will have more soon. Look at China. China was on the U.S.'s "Death List" for a long time. Then China got nukes. Before you know it the threats stop, China gets Most Favored Nation status, supercomputers, nuclear design plans, the Lincoln bedroom and all kinds of perks.

N.K. wants that deal and they probably see nukes as the best route.

 

[smartt]

N Korea is monopolizing all of the cows and dirt. What the heck, we can live without that.