They have the technology to build nukes, and unlike Iraq, they actually have weapons that can hit the US. Why don't we take them out like we did Iraq?
Why aren't we attacking North Korea again?
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
Because they ACTUALLY HAVE NUKES. Once they have them, it is a little more complicated to attack them. Would you like to see Seoul or Tokyo go up in a mushroom cloud?
1) No oil.
2) They have artillery trained on Seoul that could level it within a few minutes of our attacking.
3) They could probably count on the Chinese for help.
4) They've probably got around 1 million troops ready to fight if needed. We don't.
5) They probably have nuclear weapons and are crazy enough to use them.
Feel free to chime in if I missed something.
12 years of sanctions and inspections seemed to be quite inneffective. Meanwhile we are feeding NK and they are on the verge of economic collapse.
7) Because democrats rather the US pay them off then deal with the matter
Ignorance must be fun fwtong
North Korea has one of the lowest GDP per capita in the world thanks in part to our sanctions...Thats why it irritates me when we withold our grain shipments to force their hand on WMD.
That wont hurt them at all. Kim could careless about his people. He will spend what ever money he makes from weapons and drugs to his party and military.
All too correct unfortunately
Edit:
Very similar to the aid given to Iraq and Somolia which was diverted to the military in both cases
dahunan
Lifer
- Jan 10, 2002
- 18,191
- 3
- 0
I understand your irritation... but should we continue to feed his ARMY too? You know that he gives all the food to his military first and if anything is left over then maybe he feeds the people...???
The man is insane.. he has no care for the people of his country.. he only wants to create problems for the United States at any cost to his people-- I would be most concerned to know what he does with any radioactive wastes...
Originally posted by: AnImuS
7) Because democrats rather the US pay them off then deal with the matter
Ignorance must be fun fwtong
Speaking of ignorance, I'm not registered as any political party, so you're the ignorant one. I don't consider myself a Democrat or a Republican because I see poltics as a waste of time. It's just a blame game between the two parties. And why is the observation that the goal of every politiciain is re-election considered to be ignorant?
Originally posted by: AnImuS
7) Because democrats rather the US pay them off then deal with the matter
Ignorance must be fun fwtong
Oh? And when a million north korean troops pour across the border when we begin to attack and seoul gets turned into rubble, what are you going to do ya jackass?
Originally posted by: fwtong
Originally posted by: AnImuS
7) Because democrats rather the US pay them off then deal with the matter
Ignorance must be fun fwtong
Speaking of ignorance, I'm not registered as any political party, so you're the ignorant one. I don't consider myself a Democrat or a Republican because I see poltics as a waste of time. It's just a blame game between the two parties. And why is the observation that the goal of every politiciain is re-election considered to be ignorant?
You say politics is a waste of time yet your here posting in a politics forum. hmm
Second, because you imply that because its not time for bushes re-election that hes somehow going to war right now or he will in the feature. one or the other
Originally posted by: TheBoyBlunder
Originally posted by: AnImuS
7) Because democrats rather the US pay them off then deal with the matter
Ignorance must be fun fwtong
Oh? And when a million north korean troops pour across the border when we begin to attack and seoul gets turned into rubble, what are you going to do ya jackass?
Oh?
What about when we pay off NK and they develop more nukes this time 50+ or more over several more years. And they demand more money not to use them. then we dont next thing you know dozens of nuclear missiles fly over south korea,japan, and the US. and all that could of been prevented. And when that happens it wont be just seoul into rubble it will be the entire country of SK.
What then ya jackass?
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
We won't attack N. Korea because of our disdain for war! We value the lives of both peoples above the discomfort of living in the Shadow of Nuke threats. We showed this same restraint with the Soviet Union for over 30 years. We are but one nation among many. When the UN Security Counsel sees fit to engage the N. Koreans in diplomatic discourse with the objective being the peaceful elimination of WMD we will support these efforts with our affirmative vote. To unilaterally attack another sovereign nation without the appropriate Security Counsel Resolution is unthinkable, save, of course, to defend ourselves. To suggest we ought to attack N. Korea is a slap in the face to the hundreds of years of peaceful coexistence among the brotherhood of nations.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Originally posted by: AnImuS
Originally posted by: TheBoyBlunder
Originally posted by: AnImuS
7) Because democrats rather the US pay them off then deal with the matter
Ignorance must be fun fwtong
Oh? And when a million north korean troops pour across the border when we begin to attack and seoul gets turned into rubble, what are you going to do ya jackass?
Oh?
What about when we pay off NK and they develop more nukes this time 50+ or more over several more years. And they demand more money not to use them. then we dont next thing you know dozens of nuclear missiles fly over south korea,japan, and the US. and all that could of been prevented. And when that happens it wont be just seoul into rubble it will be the entire country of SK.
What then ya jackass?
So you're willing to trade one of the biggest land wars in appx. 30 years for taking out North Korea. You're willing to risk the nuclear destruction of Japan, South Korea and possibly Alaska and Hawaii in exchange for taking out North Korea. You're willing to risk the wrath of the world's largest standing army in exchange for taking out North Korea. You're willing to risk the collapse of the world's economy in exchange for taking out North Korea. Right?
Originally posted by: AnImuS
Originally posted by: fwtong
Originally posted by: AnImuS
7) Because democrats rather the US pay them off then deal with the matter
Ignorance must be fun fwtong
Speaking of ignorance, I'm not registered as any political party, so you're the ignorant one. I don't consider myself a Democrat or a Republican because I see poltics as a waste of time. It's just a blame game between the two parties. And why is the observation that the goal of every politiciain is re-election considered to be ignorant?
You say politics is a waste of time yet your here posting in a politics forum. hmm
Second, because you imply that because its not time for bushes re-election that hes somehow going to war right now or he will in the feature. one or the other
I think there is room for meaningful discussion regarding current events. Not to mention, every once in a while, I like to express how cynicism towards all the finger pointing. But what I hate about politics is when it inevitably degenerates into finger pointing and making blanket assumptions. And, what I am implying is that right now, Bush is positioning himself to start another eventual conflict so that just in case his popularity decreases, he can increase whenever he wants. Sort of like how Clinton would always flip a couple of Tomahawks into Iraq to raise his popularity.
Originally posted by: TheBoyBlunder
Originally posted by: AnImuS
Originally posted by: TheBoyBlunder
Originally posted by: AnImuS
7) Because democrats rather the US pay them off then deal with the matter
Ignorance must be fun fwtong
Oh? And when a million north korean troops pour across the border when we begin to attack and seoul gets turned into rubble, what are you going to do ya jackass?
Oh?
What about when we pay off NK and they develop more nukes this time 50+ or more over several more years. And they demand more money not to use them. then we dont next thing you know dozens of nuclear missiles fly over south korea,japan, and the US. and all that could of been prevented. And when that happens it wont be just seoul into rubble it will be the entire country of SK.
What then ya jackass?
So you're willing to trade one of the biggest land wars in appx. 30 years for taking out North Korea. You're willing to risk the nuclear destruction of Japan, South Korea and possibly Alaska and Hawaii in exchange for taking out North Korea. You're willing to risk the wrath of the world's largest standing army in exchange for taking out North Korea. You're willing to risk the collapse of the world's economy in exchange for taking out North Korea. Right?
jesus christ! you just posted the REASON why NK needs to be dealt with now. Theres an estimation NK has two or zero nukes and is bluffing. They CANNOT be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. There too unstable. ANd i dare you to ask any japanese and south koreans if they will tolerate a North Korea with Nuclear weapons. and militarily right now Nk cannot sustain a long war by itself if it was just the US and NK. I think you forget the US is the only superpower right NOW.
Your just digging your self into a bigger hole...
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Hay,
quote:
Once true, but now since one cheek has been slapped, the other will need to be turned
*************
Sadly, we are predisposed to being the slap-er even when the likelihood of being the slap-ee is remote. The world would be a nice place to live if there existed a central authority that all subscribe to and a rogue nation would be shunned economically and every other way. The underlying premise being mutual accord - An all for one and one for all concept. Why can't this be?
quote:
Once true, but now since one cheek has been slapped, the other will need to be turned
*************
Sadly, we are predisposed to being the slap-er even when the likelihood of being the slap-ee is remote. The world would be a nice place to live if there existed a central authority that all subscribe to and a rogue nation would be shunned economically and every other way. The underlying premise being mutual accord - An all for one and one for all concept. Why can't this be?
Originally posted by: AnImuS
Originally posted by: TheBoyBlunder
Originally posted by: AnImuS
Originally posted by: TheBoyBlunder
Originally posted by: AnImuS
7) Because democrats rather the US pay them off then deal with the matter
Ignorance must be fun fwtong
Oh? And when a million north korean troops pour across the border when we begin to attack and seoul gets turned into rubble, what are you going to do ya jackass?
Oh?
What about when we pay off NK and they develop more nukes this time 50+ or more over several more years. And they demand more money not to use them. then we dont next thing you know dozens of nuclear missiles fly over south korea,japan, and the US. and all that could of been prevented. And when that happens it wont be just seoul into rubble it will be the entire country of SK.
What then ya jackass?
So you're willing to trade one of the biggest land wars in appx. 30 years for taking out North Korea. You're willing to risk the nuclear destruction of Japan, South Korea and possibly Alaska and Hawaii in exchange for taking out North Korea. You're willing to risk the wrath of the world's largest standing army in exchange for taking out North Korea. You're willing to risk the collapse of the world's economy in exchange for taking out North Korea. Right?
jesus christ! you just posted the REASON why NK needs to be dealt with now. Theres an estimation NK has two or zero nukes and is bluffing. They CANNOT be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. There too unstable. ANd i dare you to ask any japanese and south koreans if they will tolerate a North Korea with Nuclear weapons. and militarily right now Nk cannot sustain a long war by itself if it was just the US and NK. I think you forget the US is the only superpower right NOW.
Your just digging your self into a bigger hole...
You're probably right. If it were just the US and NK, we'd probably win. It'd be a long and very bloody fight (the NKs are probably not pushovers), but we'd probably win. Further, I'm not trying to deny that North Korea should be stopped. Their leadership is insane and they're probably the last country (outside of India and Pakistan because that's always a powder keg) who should have nuclear weapons.
But, before you say ?victory!?, I have a few fears that make say we shouldn?t attack unless we use overwhelming force AND we have a damn good exit plan.
1) China. Would they just sit back and let a communist ally and a heck of a buffer against the West get crushed, or would they turn the world?s largest airforce and army against whatever forces the West sent against NK?
2) You say NK has nukes. What would they do with them if we attacked? Would they just sit on their thumbs and use conventional weapons against any Western forces, or would they try to go out in a blaze of glory, nuking an attacking army or a western target?
3) The North Korean army. They?ve been brainwashed to a very sharp degree to have faith in communism and the NK government. They?ve had very little outside contact and afaik most of them would support Kim Jong Il regardless. They may not be very well trained or armed, but I bet they?re very highly motivated and have huge numbers. Would they surrender en masse? I doubt it. I think that they?d rather fight and give themselves for the motherland.
4) The North Korean people. They have had 50 years of living with the communist system. They?ve had nothing but ?the west is evil? for years and many are probably not going to greet Western troops with garlands of flowers and happy faces. I?m willing to bet it will be AK-74?s and RPGs more than anything.
Now, prove to me that I've got nothing to fear. Prove to me NK would be easy like Iraq was. If you can do those things beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'll agree we should attack asap and stop trying diplomacy.
we would be losing too many lifes, plus the lifes of people in other countries.
and all of the above reasons.
Kim will not collapse, will stay in power till death, then whom knows what will happen.
one things for sure there is a good cahnce we will be at war at election time with somebody.
and all of the above reasons.
Kim will not collapse, will stay in power till death, then whom knows what will happen.
one things for sure there is a good cahnce we will be at war at election time with somebody.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter