What to do about the Wars ?

[Tom]

1. Iraq. leave. We should have never gone, or we should have gotten rid of Saddam, then left. We're wasting our time staying there.

2. Afghanistan. leave. Make it clear that until the Taliban/Al Kaida surrenders, they can expect a cruise missile on their doorstep at anytime. If we have to, we'll go back, but with much more force, for much shorter time. Also make it easy for any woman, or child, who wants to come to America, to do so.

3. Libya. keep doing what we're doing. Arm the rebels.

4. North Korea. going to get unmanageable if we don't do something soon. I'd give them 10 days to shape up, if they don't, do the same thing we're doing in Libya. If China doesn't like it, trade embargo against all Chinese imports. Will hurt them more than us.

Just throwing them out there, not a lot of thought given. Welcome critiques or other proposals.

 

[nick1985]

1. Iraq. leave. We should have never gone, or we should gotten rid of Saddam, then left. We're wasting our time stating there.

I agree 100%

2. Afghanistan. leave. Make it clear that until the Taliban/Al Kaida surrenders, they can expect a cruise missile on their doorstep at anytime. If we have to, we'll go back, but with much more force, for much shorter time. Also make it easy for any woman, or child, who wants to come to America, to do so.

I agree up until you said bring all the women and children here. As nice as that sounds, it's really not feasable.

3. Libya. keep doing what we're doing.

I haven't decided how I feel about Libya

4. North Korea. going to get unmanageable if we don't do something soon. I'd give them 10 days to shape up, if they don't do the same thing we're doing in Libya. If China doesn't like it, trade embargo against all Chinese imports. Will hurt them more than us.

Insane idea. North Korea is run by a total fucking loon who has nuclear weapons. I wouldn't dare bomb them. And LOL @ embargo on chinese imports. You realize that's pretty much an embargo on the United States, right?

 

[Tom]

North Korea- that's how I'd deal with crazy, get crazy on them. IMO that dude like his porn too much to be willing to go up in a mushroom cloud, so I doubt nukes are going to be used.

China embargo. it wasn't my idea for American companies to move their operations to China. My reasoning is, we have leverage now, we are losing it though. So act now is my suggestion.

 

[airdata]

What about Mexico. The danger and proximity to our country makes it a much higher priority zone than places like Libya.

 

[thraashman]

Insane idea. North Korea is run by a total fucking loon who has nuclear weapons. I wouldn't dare bomb them.

Yeah, considering that the puppet version of Kim Jong Il from Team America is more normal than the actual man, I think we might wanna not provoke the nuclear armed despot. Kinda like how India and Pakistan hate eachother but don't break out in full war, they're both nuclear armed and aren't interested in destroying the world.

Pakistan's nuclear weaponry is a reason we can't really leave Afghanistan imo. Pakistan is already having trouble with Al Quaeda and Taliban sympathy due to our mishandling of the war. If we leave and they manage to spread in that region, the Taliban with nuclear weapons seems ... well like a fucking nightmare.

 

[Tom]

What about Mexico. The danger and proximity to our country makes it a much higher priority zone than places like Libya.

Mexico is a good ally of ours. We and they have a crime problem, fueled by American dope fiends and cheap ass factory owners.

The solution to that problem is our problem, not really Mexicos. I would make immigration from Mexico legal for any honest person, they'd have to cross at legal crossings. And shoot on sight anyone who crossed anywhere else.

Might be a good idea to spend the money we waste training Iraqi police and military, training Mexican police and military, if Mexico would accept it.

I'd advocate forming a federation with Mexico, or they could be a state, if they want to.

 

[Jaskalas]

Iraq, leave.
Afghanistan, leave.
Deploy the military on the border with Mexico.

Libya... either we're Rebels or we're not. Stop f'ing around and regime change or GTFO and don't touch anything.

North Korea... the pissant nukes don't bother me. It's their capacity to utterly vanquish Seoul before we could bat an eyelash. It's an utter mess since China feels that NK is theirs to protect. China decides what happens in that region, so.... whatever we intend to do needs to involve them. We have to offer them something big.

 

[airdata]

Dealing w\ mexico would require taking away the drug cartel's market share.

Would you rather have Johnny Hillbilly cooking meth in has bathtub or Antonio Zeta coming from mexico w\ his meth and killing people all over the place just as a natural way of conducting business?

 

[Tom]

Iraq, leave.
Afghanistan, leave.
Deploy the military on the border with Mexico.

Libya... either we're Rebels or we're not. Stop f'ing around and regime change or GTFO and don't touch anything.

North Korea... the pissant nukes don't bother me. It's their capacity to utterly vanquish Seoul before we could bat an eyelash. It's an utter mess since China feels that NK is theirs to protect. China decides what happens in that region, so.... whatever we intend to do needs to involve them. We have to offer them something big.

I don't think they could come close to damaging Seoul as much as Germany did to London. London's still there.

Here's what we offer China- they can sell goods to us.

 

[nick1985]

I don't think they could come close to damaging Seoul as much as Germany did to London. London's still there.

You are comparing a failed conventional air campaign by germany in WWII to nuclear weapons. I hope you realize that when saying it wouldn't be worse.

 

[Tom]

You are comparing a failed conventional air campaign by germany in WWII to nuclear weapons. I hope you realize that when saying it wouldn't be worse.

Like I said, he won't use nukes. There won't even be a war.

If he did use nukes, hows he going to deliver them ? Looking at damage estimates, I would expect at worst 100k casualties.

How many people have died in Iraq ? At least reuniting Korea would actually accomplish something.

A better competitor for China, good for us, not for China. Which is why China likes things the way they are. Why are we doing what's best for China ?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

5. Troll Harder

 

[matt0611]

I agree with 1-2.

3. I was against going in, now we're going to look like complete idiots if we just leave. I guess we should just keep bombing the libyan forces from the air as much as possible until we are assured a rebel victory and then GTFO.

 

[nick1985]

Like I said, he won't use nukes. There won't even be a war.

If he did use nukes, hows he going to deliver them ? Looking at damage estimates, I would expect at worst 100k casualties.

How many people have died in Iraq ? At least reuniting Korea would actually accomplish something.

A better competitor for China, good for us, not for China. Which is why China likes things the way they are. Why are we doing what's best for China ?

Tom, you just simply don't know what you are talking about.

How do you know he wont use them? He willingly sinks S Korean ships and shells islands. What makes you think if he starts to get nailed with tomohawks that he wont use nukes?

Damage estimates only 100k for nukes on Seoul? You don't know what you are talking about. Modern nukes hitting Seoul, with its population density, would take out way more than 100k. I'd really like to know how you arrive at that number...

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Like I said, he won't use nukes. There won't even be a war.

If he did use nukes, hows he going to deliver them ? Looking at damage estimates, I would expect at worst 100k casualties.

How many people have died in Iraq ? At least reuniting Korea would actually accomplish something.

A better competitor for China, good for us, not for China. Which is why China likes things the way they are. Why are we doing what's best for China ?

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Seoul is close enough to NK for NK to start shelling it with artillery instantly (there are constantly guns pointed there). And Kim Jong Il has missiles to deliver nukes with. He scared the Japanese by shooting missiles over them 10 years ago; why wouldn't he be able to shoot them a couple hundred miles into Seoul?

A nuke into Seoul would kill millions, not hundreds of thousands, by the way.

 

[Tom]

Tom, you just simply don't know what you are talking about.

How do you know he wont use them? He willingly sinks S Korean ships and shells islands. What makes you think if he starts to get nailed with tomohawks that he wont use nukes?

Damage estimates only 100k for nukes on Seoul? You don't know what you are talking about. Modern nukes hitting Seoul, with its population density, would take out way more than 100k. I'd really like to know how you arrive at that number...

You'd be right if they were our nukes, or Russian nukes. Fusion weapons.

Is that what N Korea has ? I dont think so. I doubt they have any means to deliver a sizable nuke with any accuracy. If they do try, they know they will die.

Like I said, I'm not saying I've thought this through. I guess the most salient point is I think we are in a better position now, than we will be in the future. And the other thing is I think the present situation is very stupid and not really acceptable.

 

[Genx87]

1. Iraq. leave. We should have never gone, or we should have gotten rid of Saddam, then left. We're wasting our time staying there.

2. Afghanistan. leave. Make it clear that until the Taliban/Al Kaida surrenders, they can expect a cruise missile on their doorstep at anytime. If we have to, we'll go back, but with much more force, for much shorter time. Also make it easy for any woman, or child, who wants to come to America, to do so.

3. Libya. keep doing what we're doing. Arm the rebels.

4. North Korea. going to get unmanageable if we don't do something soon. I'd give them 10 days to shape up, if they don't, do the same thing we're doing in Libya. If China doesn't like it, trade embargo against all Chinese imports. Will hurt them more than us.

Just throwing them out there, not a lot of thought given. Welcome critiques or other proposals.

1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Forget it, sounds like AQ is intermingling with the rebels and they are going to lose anyways. Just save money and face.
4. I would let them starve. And let the region powers worry about them(China, Japan, Russia, S. Korea).

 

[Tom]

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Seoul is close enough to NK for NK to start shelling it with artillery instantly (there are constantly guns pointed there). And Kim Jong Il has missiles to deliver nukes with. He scared the Japanese by shooting missiles over them 10 years ago; why wouldn't he be able to shoot them a couple hundred miles into Seoul?

A nuke into Seoul would kill millions, not hundreds of thousands, by the way.

According to this article it would be 600k to 1.2 million. I think this is wildly over stated, theres no evidence that N Korea has the technology to accomplish such a precision attack, and there's no evidence the dude is suicidal.

I said do what we're doing in Libya. Did anyone get that ? What are we doing in Libya ? Are we dropping nukes ? Are we head hunting ? Or are we thinning out that guys conventional forces ?

http://www.rjkoehler.com/2004/11/19...cenarios-seoul-strike-could-kill-125-million/

 

[Capt Caveman]

1. Iraq. leave. We should have never gone, or we should have gotten rid of Saddam, then left. We're wasting our time staying there.

2. Afghanistan. leave. Make it clear that until the Taliban/Al Kaida surrenders, they can expect a cruise missile on their doorstep at anytime. If we have to, we'll go back, but with much more force, for much shorter time. Also make it easy for any woman, or child, who wants to come to America, to do so.

3. Libya. keep doing what we're doing. Arm the rebels.

4. North Korea. going to get unmanageable if we don't do something soon. I'd give them 10 days to shape up, if they don't, do the same thing we're doing in Libya. If China doesn't like it, trade embargo against all Chinese imports. Will hurt them more than us.

Just throwing them out there, not a lot of thought given. Welcome critiques or other proposals.

LOL

 

[nick1985]

Is that what N Korea has ? I dont think so. I doubt they have any means to deliver a sizable nuke with any accuracy. If they do try, they know they will die.

Tom, once again, you show you are ignorant on this topic.

Remember those missiles that they launched over Japan? Yeah, I bet they would use those to deliver nuclear payloads...

 

[Schadenfroh]

1. Pull all forces out immediately
2. Pull all forces out immediately
3. Stop meddling, let France and Britain deal with it, halt all US military involvement, declare ourselves neutral
4. Ignore them

 

[manimal]

Korea much like Iran will take care of itself. I remember being hammered in this forum for stating last year that hardliners in the middle east will crumble on their own.

Its time to end the bullcrap interventioist strategies of the warhawks and end the military control of our purse strings..

Do we need such a big nuclear submarine fleet? Do we need 11 or so supercarriers?

Half the military budget over a decade.........

 

[Tom]

Tom, once again, you show you are ignorant on this topic.

Remember those missiles that they launched over Japan? Yeah, I bet they would use those to deliver nuclear payloads...

It doesn't take much accuracy to shoot a missile over Japan. The article I posted assumes the ability to deliver a nuke at a particular location and altitude.

If the drop a nuke in a plowed field it won't kill that many people. Besides, I'm not advcocating anyone use nukes.

If you think he'll use nukes, why isn't he using them now ?

 

[nick1985]

It doesn't take much accuracy to shoot a missile over Japan. The article I posted assumes the ability to deliver a nuke at a particular location and altitude.

If the drop a nuke in a plowed field it won't kill that many people. Besides, I'm not advcocating anyone use nukes.

If you think he'll use nukes, why isn't he using them now ?

Debating you on this is just sad...

So, you have no evidence to show they can't drop a nuke 100 miles onto Seoul, but you just "don't think they can"? You have to do better than that. Germany could hit london with V2's. Think about that. Seoul is a lot less distance than what Germany had to hit, and they have a lot better technology these days than V2 rockets. To sit there and wonder if they could hit Seoul is just laughable. Just come clean and admit you dont know fuck all about this topic, its OK nobody cares.


He isn't using them now because we arn't shelling NK with Tomohawks, like you are advocating.

 

[Tom]

Debating you on this is just sad...

So, you have no evidence to show they can't drop a nuke 100 miles onto Seoul, but you just "don't think they can"? You have to do better than that. Germany could hit london with V2's. Think about that. Seoul is a lot less distance than what Germany had to hit, and they have a lot better technology these days than V2 rockets. To sit there and wonder if they could hit Seoul is just laughable. Just come clean and admit you dont know fuck all about this topic, its OK nobody cares.


He isn't using them now because we arn't shelling NK with Tomohawks, like you are advocating.

No, Im talking about taking out some of his conventional weapons, like we did in Libya.

Like I said, it's just a thought, there might be some things I overlooked.

So the consensus is, it's smarter to let them continue to perfect and increase their stock of nuclear weapons and kill a few dozen S Koreans when he feels like it ?

That's the plan ?