Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@BrotherStynier

It is naive to only look at those nations currently in Iraq especially since the conventional and major warfare push has long ended. Thousands of troops from several countries not there now have served http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq

BrotherStynier wrote:Sue me for forgetting to mention Spain, Germany and the others. Not to mention I said thank you to any one. Get off you high horse mister, marine or not you should have known what I was implying.

The way that JD user posted and by you agreeing with what he said, it implied to me that you guys only think GB/US/AUS are their only allies to eachother. Far from the case. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted but by agreeing with JD it seemed like you and him thought the only allies GB/US/AUS has are GB/US/AUS and it implied that they were the only ones to serve and support eachother. Far, far from the case.

If I recall correctly we entered the war against Hitler officially after he declared war on us, also the enemy back then posed an actual threat, where as if you are to believe most of what is said about Iraq there was no real threat.

After WW1 just like prior to WW1 the USA was in isolationist mode. It took Pearl Harbor for the USA to get really involved and with incidents like Henry Ford and his Dearborn Independent; anti-semitism was pretty common and the US didn't want to engage in "someone else's business".

My opinion has changed on whether or not we should bother with defending other countries because of the bad rep we get for it. Oh god the US is doing something in that country bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch.

Or there is its sister the US isn't doing anything about whats going on in that country, and the bitching starts once more.

So to hell with the other countries, the US in particular has things that need to be dealt with before it goes around trying to fix everyone's problems and they are pretty damn schizophrenic about whether they want us to do that anyway.

Most people, Im not saying me, do think the Iraq Conflict is a waste. Sure saving people can be used as an excuse, so can getting Oil, but oh god doing both people don't think thats possible. Iraq is an example of how people will react if we intervene in the Korean War again.

I'd argue that Iraq would be a poor example since they have no WMD's whereas NK is a country thats only around due to their WMD threats. However like most of the world has figured out, NK will soon not be able to do much of anything other than eventually having to change their ways due to their lack of economy and allies. A military conflict is simply not necessary in this case until they actually fire against an ally.

According to what you have been saying about defending everyone, we should already have removed Iran, Syria, N. Korea, Laos, Cambodia and Zimbabwe? I don't see you mentioning anything about riding in and saving them from their situations. Come to think of it, I don't see very many countries quick to jump in and save them. Hmm I wonder why that may be? Because humanity only cares about number one? Because the world doesn't care about much out side their country? Or is it because the politicians would rather get re-elected rather than send their troops to countries most people don't care about or have never herd about to save them from their plights?

Ethically we should defend our allies and people wrongly oppressed. However given the lens of reality this is far from a black and white issue and engaging in war is an incredibly complicated affair. I'd also argue that we do in many ways try to help those in need and a lot of the times its done covertly - the amount of spec ops the USA and its allies are involved in will probably never be disclosed to the world. Situations like WW1 and 2, Vietnam, the Korean War, the 2 Iraq Wars, etc have shown that we do care about our allies and welfare of humans but that doesn't mean we can do it all the time or that we don't stand to benefit from other factors in the conflict.

However your argument of reverting back to isolationism simply will not work in the modern world. I'm not sure why anyone would want us to be isolationist again especially after the likes of WW2 and the Holocaust and the fact that such genocide still occurs today.

Also before you go questioning the service of people you might wanna think the same can be applied to you. Combat job or not Mr. HighandMighty serving is serving, and from what I have herd from my dad and friend both of whom served, though I bet you'll questioning the truth of that, dad in the 3/116 Armored Cav and my friend in the 1st Cav, have seen non-combat jobs go past the wire because the military doesn't care.

I'll openly admit my job in the Marines isn't a combat MOS however those who actually are in combat specialties are the ones who deserve the most respect since they're the ones actually risking their lives. There's a big difference to me in enlisting to be a dental assitant back in an Air Force Base than an infantry grunt. Many people in the military are not at much of a risk at all to the enemy.

Oh the list of Countries serving in Iraq at present are;

US
GB
Aus
Turkey
Iraqi Defense Forces
And of course the Contractors
Romania
Looks like the two of us forgot only a couple countries, not the "Lots more" you would have everyone else believe there are.

Again, its naive to compare those currently in Iraq since that dismisses the sacrifices and services provided by a host of allied nations.


US/GB/AUS has several allies and the very nature of the word "ally" implies that you help eachother. The US and GB, especially the US, has a world peacekeeping force especially when you factor in the amount of bases we have worldwide in countries that wouldn't really be able to defend themselves due to a lack of military infrastrcture. Countries like Saudi Arabia don't need to build aircraft carriers and nukes as long as they're an ally to the US and poltitically we wouldn't want them to either.

Frazzled wrote:
No you sign up to defend your country. Your country, not the rest of the *&(&^ world.

The conception of 'country' changes significantly when you live in an empire.

Not really.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
No you sign up to defend your country. Your country, not the rest of the *&(&^ world.

The conception of 'country' changes significantly when you live in an empire.

Agreed. The US and its allies have bases and responsibilities all across the world and we're expected to defend them when necessary. Been true ever since WW2. Anything less would be despicable. It took the US far too long to get involved in WW2 and who knows what atrocities could have been prevented if we weren't bent on being isolationist.

As for what a person signs up for when they join the military; sure defending one's country is a noble reason indeed but generally not really the major or driving force behind enlisting - in fact its usually just one of many reasons (excellent benefits, job security, doing something to be proud of, seeing the world, didn't really have much anyway to begin with, etc). Not to mention its very naive to think one will actually be defending on their own soil - how quickly do we forget Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Solution:
Close the bases except for 2-3 strategic power projection bases.

Japan, Europe, SK, etc etc etc can stand on their own.

Frazzled wrote:Solution:
Close the bases except for 2-3 strategic power projection bases.

Japan, Europe, SK, etc etc etc can stand on their own.

I believe the current number of foreign deployments is excessive, but what you're talking about is insane. In order to obtain economic security you must have commensurate military security. And, despite the incredible mobility of our forces, the majority of our equipment is still difficult to transport by air. Something rendered impossible without a friendly, nearby base.

Why insane. Are you saying the rest of the world with exception of the UK is insane? I'm just saying do like every other nation on earth. If you disagree with that, I suggest you check the sanity fo your own argument.

Frazzled wrote:Not really.

Tell that to the British, the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese, and every other Imperial power throughout history. The land you're fighting for is irrelevant outside of its use as a resource base, which is itself only pertinent insofar as it improves the quality of life inside the empire. Our soldiers may have signed up to defend the US, and only the US, but that's because our entire nation has been complicit in the lie that we do not constitute an empire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Why insane. Are you saying the rest of the world with exception of the UK is insane? I'm just saying do like every other nation on earth. If you disagree with that, I suggest you check the sanity fo your own argument.

Rest of the world? What are you talking about? Every developed nation in the world has foreign military deployments. We have more because our interests are broader due to the fact that we are the dominant Imperial power. Pretending otherwise is simply delusional.

Insane delusional, very nice.

How many bases does France have outside of France.
Germany
Russia
China
Japan
Turkey
Brazil
Argentina
Peru
Canada (eh?)
Spain
South Africa

How many?

You keep on about the US being an empire.
1. We're not.
2. Even if we were the sun is setting. The time for empire is over. When empires recede their force projection recedes.

I'm going to stay out of this rage inducing puke of a topic... Well except for this.

If you think signing up for the U.S. military means you get to hide in our borders and not make the world a better place then your a coward and a xenophobe. Simply because Iraq was Cheneys idiotic torturewar doesn't mean Afghanistan wouldn't have greatly benefited from our military aid, and in doing so helped to become an allied and stable nation within the greater realm of the middle east.

It is the job of the free and the just to intervene in injust situations. When good men do nothing that is evil.

The fact that we have not intervened in North Korea before simply shows the U.S. populace (it's government only represents it) as an uncaring and cowardly lot, too obsessed with gays and mexicans to do anything productive for the world anymore.





You can go back to your arguing about crappy anecdotal history and the meanings of words that are in the god damn dictionary.

ShumaGorath wrote:It is the job of the free and the just to intervene in injust situations. When good men do nothing that is evil.

Amen.

Look, guys, we managed to turn another normal news story into a degenerate slang festival! Hoorah!!

sA

Funny I see you typing on the intranets and not doing anything. You must be uncaring and cowardly. I don't see you joining some jihad to fight the evil oppressor in a myriad of countries around the world. Why is that? How come you're not trading fire with the bad guys in Sudan, Zimbabwe, or the aforementioned North Korea?

Weren't you against the war in Iraq? That took out a dictator. But wait we're still the bad guy right?

How about Desert Storm. Were we evil then?

How about Iran? Do you support an invasion of Iran?

You may recollect but we actually HAD a war in North Korea already. Been there done that, got a belt buckle.

Frazzled wrote:Funny I see you typing on the intranets and not doing anything. You must be uncaring and cowardly. I don't see you joining some jihad to fight the evil oppressor in a myriad of countries around the world. Why is that? How come you're not trading fire with the bad guys in Sudan, Zimbabwe, or the aforementioned North Korea?

Weren't you against the war in Iraq? That took out a dictator. But wait we're still the bad guy right?

How about Desert Storm. Were we evil then?

How about Iran? Do you support an invasion of Iran?

You may recollect but we actually HAD a war in North Korea already. Been there done that, got a belt buckle.

I'm not doing all that because I serve in a civilian capacity, taking part in local government, and advocating change. I don't get to tell the military where to go and I would lose a good number of my civilian rights to government and protest if I joined. I have every bit of respect for the decision to serve, and I feel ashamed when people in the service tell me they think we should just "stay out of it". I would be in the military right now if we didn't invade Iraq for no reason (we didn't do it to liberate them, we didn't do it for oil, and they didn't have any intel on WMDs that they didn't have a hand in making). I didn't trust the bush administration not to ruin the righteousness of the American military, and I was right.

I think the real question is why you care so little about the lives of those who you aren't on a first name basis with?

Weren't you against the war in Iraq? That took out a dictator. But wait we're still the bad guy right?

Over a million have died in Iraq due to our idiotic mishandling of an entire nations future. America isn't the bad guy, neo conservatism flexing its might and throwing its brain away is.

How about Desert Storm. Were we evil then?

No.

How about Iran? Do you support an invasion of Iran?

No, there are a dozen nations with far worse human rights abuses than Iran. You just want to attack Iran because they are politically "annoying".

You may recollect but we actually HAD a war in North Korea already. Been there done that, got a belt buckle.

Yeah, we went to war in there over bunk political ideology and anti communist scare mongering. The dominos didn't stop, and communism sputtered out and died on its own. Decades of inaction since has turned North Korea into the worlds largest cannibal concentration camp run by one of the worlds most obvious madmen. Who now has nukes. It's great that a million had to die in Iraq to avenge Bushes daddy while North Korea worked up it's nuclear arsenal and the rest of the planet lost all respect for us.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Funny I see you typing on the intranets and not doing anything. You must be uncaring and cowardly. I don't see you joining some jihad to fight the evil oppressor in a myriad of countries around the world. Why is that? How come you're not trading fire with the bad guys in Sudan, Zimbabwe, or the aforementioned North Korea?

Weren't you against the war in Iraq? That took out a dictator. But wait we're still the bad guy right?

How about Desert Storm. Were we evil then?

How about Iran? Do you support an invasion of Iran?

You may recollect but we actually HAD a war in North Korea already. Been there done that, got a belt buckle.

I'm not doing all that because I serve in a civilian capacity, taking part in local government, and advocating change. I don't get to tell the military where to go and I would lose a good number of my civilian rights to government and protest if I joined. I have every bit of respect for the decision to serve, and I feel ashamed when people in the service tell me they think we should just "stay out of it". I would be in the military right now if we didn't invade Iraq for no reason (we didn't do it to liberate them, we didn't do it for oil, and they didn't have any intel on WMDs that they didn't have a hand in making). I didn't trust the bush administration not to ruin the righteousness of the American military, and I was right.

I think the real question is why you care so little about the lives of those who you aren't on a first name basis with?

Translation: You're an armchair general who wants to put other people in harm's way to feel good about yourself, but won't due it yourself. Typical.
Of course if the US did like you said the US would still be evil and full of coardly shameful people as you put it. We did oust a dictator in Iraq yet you're against it. You're a hypocrite as well.

Yet you attack me when I am advocating NOT putting the "lives of people I don't know on a first name basis" in jeopardy. I am not the one advocating going to war with the majority of the world. You are, if your standard is to fight the good for people who are oppressed. Again-nonsense.

Are you for the invasion of most of the Middle East, NK, 7/8s of Africa, 1/2 of Latin America, and the majority of Asia? Thats what you're saying.

Translation: You're an armchair general who wants to put other people in harm's way to feel good about yourself, but won't due it yourself. Typical.

As opposed to the armchair general who couldn't care less about the suffering of people who live outside his nations borders. At least I care.

Of course if the US did like you said the US would still be evil and full of coardly shameful people as you put it.

Incorrect. If we did it it would show that the nation is full of more than just cowardly shameful people who would rather clap their hands over their ears and hum than actually go outside and clean up some grafiti. We didn't go into Iraq because we cared about their plight, we did it because Colin powel told us they had 18 wheelers with chemical weapons factories on the back. We did it because we were afraid.

We did oust a dictator in Iraq yet you're against it. You're a hypocrite as well.

Yeah, and in doing so we demolished the infrastructure of a nation and ensured the deaths of over a million people. Had we gone into Iraq, deposed sadaam, and actually done our nationbuilding job well rather than feth it up in a partisan storm that showed how far the right wing had fallen down its own ass then I would have gladly sung bushes praises and joined up. I've wanted to fly my entire life, but I'll never bring myself to do it until I believe that the bombs I'll be dropping will drop for the right reasons.

No reason is not a god damn reason. Especially when the aftermath just makes it all worse for the people who we were supposed to be helping.

Yet you attack me when I am advocating NOT putting the "lives of people I don't know on a first name basis" in jeopardy. I am not the one advocating going to war with the majority of the world. You are, if your standard is to fight the good for people who are oppressed. Again-nonsense.

Your unwilling to put the lives of those that chose to serve and aid this nation and this world at risk. People who sign up because they believe that the good they do will be worth the risk. Your unwilling to risk their lives to save the lives of innocents whose only crime is living and who have no choice in the matter.

I think the choice is clear. You don't coddle and protect the U.S. military. They aren't there to be safe. They are there to get the job done.

Are you for the invasion of most of the Middle East, NK, 7/8s of Africa, 1/2 of Latin America, and the majority of Asia? Thats what you're saying.

One nation at a time. From the worst and up handling it all well, and handling it all justly. Taking our blows, punishing those of our own who falter, and always being transparent about it.
Yes. That is what I'm saying. The world isn't going to fix itself, and if jimmys crack habit is going to fund dictators in latin america, africa, asia, and the middle east, then my tax dollars can go to killing them.






If this species is going to survive then thats the least we can do. We don't have a lot of time left.

Yes. That is what I'm saying. The world isn't going to fix itself, and if jimmys crack habit is going to fun dictators in latin america, africa, asia, and the middle east, then my tax dollars can go to killing them.

That is not a coherent argument. You argue we're bad in Iraq because we did damage? WTF do you think a war is? To quote the sergeant in Aliens "What do you want us to use? Harsh language?"

Newsflash China has nukes. How does global thermonuclear war sound to you on the damage front?
Iran will have nukes presently. Pakistan has nukes. The rest of the Middle East will have nukes within 5 years. Your idea would kill millions of people and leave entires swaths of the world unlivable.

If your standard is that the US is evil because of a few broken buildings, we'll be the great walloper of all time with several million dead no?

That is not a coherent argument. You argue we're bad in Iraq because we did damage? WTF do you think a war is? To quote the sergeant in Aliens "What do you want us to use? Harsh language?"

War isn't "fire your best people and put in straight out of college conservative kids with no experience into their positions". Nor is it "Blow up the power grid, deny them fresh water for five years, and throw all of our money on no bid contracts for halliburton so that they can steal our fething cash and then relocate their headquarters outside of America".

Thats incredible corruption and idiocy. We use bombs. We kill people. But we're supposed to fix the crap we blew up after, thats the entire point of nationbuilding and regime change. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO MAKE IT BETTER THEN IT WAS BEFORE, NOT JUST ARGUE, THROW MONEY AWAY, AND CALL ANYONE THAT POINTS OUT THE IDIOCY UNAMERICAN. It makes me sick that most people in America don't even pay attention to the war any more.

Newsflash China has nukes. How does global thermonuclear war sound to you on the damage front?
Iran will have nukes presently. Pakistan has nukes. The rest of the Middle East will have nukes within 5 years. Your idea would kill millions of people and leave entires swaths of the world unlivable.

Invade North Korea. China will back off. They will put everything they have on high alert and after we keep on punching the korean military in the face they will back off. China doesn't give a damn about Korea. They only care about national sovereignty, and even then not enough to do anything about it. The moment they isolate themselves from their only economic market their own populace will burn their country down.

Iran will have nukes presently. Pakistan has nukes. The rest of the Middle East will have nukes within 5 years. Your idea would kill millions of people and leave entires swaths of the world unlivable.

Iran has nukes because of weak willed idiots in washington patting bush on the back. Pakistan is a serious problem. However their human rights situation is far from dire, and they have enough restraint not to use them. Having nukes doesn't mean you need to be invaded. The only country on the list of "needs to be invaded" with nukes is north korea, and thats because you all waited too god damn long.

No nation will go to nuclear war over Sudan or Darfur. No nation will go to war over Korea. No nation will go to war over Iran, and none did for Iraq. The big bad reds in china don't care as long as we keep buying and I'm happy to buy as long as economic revitalization keeps on making them a better country.

If your standard is that the US is evil because of a few broken buildings, we'll be the great walloper of all time with several million dead no?

As I have said in ever post, one million in Iraq have died. I'm sorry that you think so little of brown people that you will keep on saying things like "A few buildings fell down" and ignoring the reality.




Anyway, I'm done with this topic. It's just going to get more heated as you start trolling me more and more. Just like ever other time we have ever argued. I'm out.



And while it may seem like I'm angry, at least you have the decency to defend your thoughts. I'm appreciative of that much.

Shuma stop right here. You are so fething off base on the whole infrastructure bit of Iraq its not even funny.

I was there for OIF 1&2.. We went out of our way to try to NOT kill the god damned infrastructure cause we knew we would have to fix it. That doesnt mean that stuff wasnt hit, cause it was... it couldnt be avoided.

We have spent billions trying to keep what little intact infrastructure was in the country running and tried to establish/fix the rest.

We didnt fething fail.... its kinda hard to keep power going when people are afraid to work in the power plants cause insurgents come through and kill everyones families that works at the plant... or water running to a village cause they constantly blow up the pipeline. (yes alot of it is above ground pipes)

Nobody denied the fething ungrateful population food, water, power ect ect. Also news flash... The same amount of people if not more would die every year in Iraq if the Us wasnt involved.

Also China doesnt care about North Korea? Are you kidding me? China is N Koreas main ally for feths sake.

My question is: how did an article on North Korea declaring war, in effect, become a diatribe about Iraq?

Let's look at the facts: North Korea may be technically China's ally, but they're on very rocky ground with them at the moment. China lost a lot of face when NK walked out of the six party talks. Kim Jong-il is not very stable, and sees both China and Japan as threats, considering they both conspired to have his grandchildren kidnapped out of Disney Japan a while back to pressure him back to the six-party talks as I recall. No one wants North Korea as a nuclear power while Kim is still in power, he's too unstable. While current nukes they have are not reliable, it's only a matter of time now.

North Korea has just declared a resumption of it's War with the United States and South Korea by tossing out the Armistice.

Possible outcomes of this action:

In the event North Korea crosses the DMZ...

China will go with what is in the best interests of the People (in theory) which would be to turn away from Korea. Continued prosperity is much more valuable to it's leaders then the fate of North Korea, and the severance of relations with the US again would be crippling to both economies. China will probably make a public statement to the effect that by allowing this they will be able to develop closer ties to the Korea people who have suffered terribly at the hands of a madman. Russia will in all likelihood follow suit for a variety of reasons.

Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and probably Mongolia will offer substantial military support, even if militarily China remains neutral.

Combined US, South Korean, and Japanese forces will fight a delaying action south of the DMZ while a more substantial force is brought to the region.

Combined US and Japanese SDF ships will reduce shoreline defenses within the first 24 hours while a series of surgical strikes disable key rail lines and bridges, as well as targeting their command and control systems. B-52 raids out of US bases in Japan will target dug in positions in the interior while close air support engages their bridgehead in the DMZ.

In all likelihood, someone over at the Pentagon will come up with a plan substantially similar to the Inchon Encirclement. Geography of the peninsula dictates this to be the best strategy. There is a 10% probability that the Wisconsin and New Jersey will be brought out of mothballs for close fire support.

The North Korean army will probably preform passably, though they will in all likelihood be outmatched.

In my estimation there is a 68% likelihood that Kim Jung Il would order his officers to nuke Pyongyang themselves rather then allow it to fall, based on what is known about his personality, and the cultural mythology he had orchestrated around himself. Whether they would follow such an order, who knows?

The odds of North Korea using nukes increases with Chinese involvement militarily. Last I had heard, China still maintains a sizable force near the Korean boarder.

An insurgency would probably be part of North Korea's overall strategic plan, as the history has shown it's a highly viable tactic in Asia.






And, on a personal note: as a member of a people still being victimized by American Imperialism, and quite possibly one of the longest suffering groups subjugated by it...

You don't know how bad it really can be until they seize your property, round you up in camps, send your children to be re-educated, force you into poverty, and expose you to biological and radiological warfare.

And then bitch when you manage to survive and even find ways to prosper despite them.

I'm gonna try and address a couple of points that have been made on this thread top the best of my ability, which is not all that good.


I joined to protect my country, not the world.
Wake up! The country hasn't had a legitimate attack by another country in how many years? Yes, there have been terrorist attacks, but those are from jihad morons who are easily manipulated by charismatic individual's who prey on siad morons lack of perspective. If you wanted to protect only your country, you should have joined the National Guard.

The U.S is an Uncaring Bastard.
Get used to it. The United States will do what it feels is right, when it feels it is right. Yes, we've caused deaths around the world that could have been avoided, but how many more would have died if we didn't do what we did?

The U.S causes wanton destruction and doesn'tdo anything to fix it.
You gotta be gaking me. Really? How many billions have been given out around the world to help with research, disaster and disease relief efforts, and economic aid?

I'd join the military, but I have to know it's for the right reasons.
The right reasons are whatever gets the politician re-elected. Also, grass is green, sky is blue, and getting kicked in the balls hurts.

And a very sincere Thank You to anyone who's served in the military, combat or desk job, even if it was the Navy.

Also: America discriminates pretty much every minority group at one time or another, and then tries, not always successfully, to make amends.

Golden Eyed Scout wrote: And a very sincere Thank You to anyone who's served in the military, combat or desk job, even if it was the Navy.

There's nothing wrong with the Navy that discharging half the officers and sinking the USS Zumwalt as an artificial reef won't fix. Well, and bringing the Big J out of mothballs. I hear the Corps would dance with glee at having ship based heavy close fire support again, and the idea of Marine Corp generals doing the Macarana has an odd sort of appeal...

Cane wrote:@BrotherStynier

It is naive to only look at those nations currently in Iraq especially since the conventional and major warfare push has long ended. Thousands of troops from several countries not there now have served http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq

Yeah I know, but most of them cut and run when it became something other then WMDs, last I check friends usually try to stick together.

The way that JD user posted and by you agreeing with what he said, it implied to me that you guys only think GB/US/AUS are their only allies to eachother. Far from the case. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted but by agreeing with JD it seemed like you and him thought the only allies GB/US/AUS has are GB/US/AUS and it implied that they were the only ones to serve and support eachother. Far, far from the case.

Now that I have cooled off I see how that can make sense. And I know US/GB?Aus aren't in it alone

After WW1 just like prior to WW1 the USA was in isolationist mode. It took Pearl Harbor for the USA to get really involved and with incidents like Henry Ford and his Dearborn Independent; anti-semitism was pretty common and the US didn't want to engage in "someone else's business".

Yes we were independent, but when you look back we only fully entered the war with Germany after Hitler declared war on us, which was after we declared war on Japan. Sending the supplies and volunteers to GB was something FDR wanted, and was gonna be a pretty good way to get money after the war, but us entering changed things a little.

I'd argue that Iraq would be a poor example since they have no WMD's whereas NK is a country thats only around due to their WMD threats. However like most of the world has figured out, NK will soon not be able to do much of anything other than eventually having to change their ways due to their lack of economy and allies. A military conflict is simply not necessary in this case until they actually fire against an ally.

Then why bother trying to advocate sending troops in now to try and solve the problem?

Ethically we should defend our allies and people wrongly oppressed. However given the lens of reality this is far from a black and white issue and engaging in war is an incredibly complicated affair. I'd also argue that we do in many ways try to help those in need and a lot of the times its done covertly - the amount of spec ops the USA and its allies are involved in will probably never be disclosed to the world. Situations like WW1 and 2, Vietnam, the Korean War, the 2 Iraq Wars, etc have shown that we do care about our allies and welfare of humans but that doesn't mean we can do it all the time or that we don't stand to benefit from other factors in the conflict.

However your argument of reverting back to isolationism simply will not work in the modern world. I'm not sure why anyone would want us to be isolationist again especially after the likes of WW2 and the Holocaust and the fact that such genocide still occurs today.

If people want to send covert teams into help the people, I have no problem with that, those teams can train the people to fight against their oppressors, which is what the Green Berets where originally created to due. The only problem with that is what they do after they don't need our help any more, they could easily slip into being just as bad as the guys they took down, for example Iran or pre Afghan War Afghanistan. The only way we can properly see to it that these countries don't revert back to their ways is by staying there, in control of everything, while they rebuild. That is what the world doesn't want us to do, and that is what we won't do for those reasons. Which is why I say stay out, whats the point in taking out the Dictator only to have him get replaced by another you have to go in and take down when people cry foul?

I'll openly admit my job in the Marines isn't a combat MOS however those who actually are in combat specialties are the ones who deserve the most respect since they're the ones actually risking their lives. There's a big difference to me in enlisting to be a dental assitant back in an Air Force Base than an infantry grunt. Many people in the military are not at much of a risk at all to the enemy.

Well what I hear is that they don't care whether you are a DA or an Infantrymen they will still send you out, that may just be the Army and not the marines though.

Again, its naive to compare those currently in Iraq since that dismisses the sacrifices and services provided by a host of allied nations.


US/GB/AUS has several allies and the very nature of the word "ally" implies that you help eachother. The US and GB, especially the US, has a world peacekeeping force especially when you factor in the amount of bases we have worldwide in countries that wouldn't really be able to defend themselves due to a lack of military infrastrcture. Countries like Saudi Arabia don't need to build aircraft carriers and nukes as long as they're an ally to the US and poltitically we wouldn't want them to either.

Yes we do have a number of allies, but very few that are in the Middle East right now, many cut and ran. But I can see what you are getting at.


I'm not saying that I wouldn't be willing to go fight in these conflicts as a Soldier or Marine, I'm just saying I don't see the point when most of the time the work you go there to do just gets subverted in the next few years by yet another dictator.

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:I'm gonna try and address a couple of points that have been made on this thread top the best of my ability, which is not all that good.


I joined to protect my country, not the world.
Wake up! The country hasn't had a legitimate attack by another country in how many years? Yes, there have been terrorist attacks, but those are from jihad morons who are easily manipulated by charismatic individual's who prey on siad morons lack of perspective. If you wanted to protect only your country, you should have joined the National Guard.

Stop right there, just stop do you even pay attention to the news or what people say? The National Guard has been in Iraq since day one fighting along side the Regular Army and the Marines. I know for a fact that they have been because the 3/116 my dad's unit was deployed there. So your join the National Guard argument doesn't work

The U.S is an Uncaring Bastard.
Get used to it. The United States will do what it feels is right, when it feels it is right. Yes, we've caused deaths around the world that could have been avoided, but how many more would have died if we didn't do what we did?

No comment...

The U.S causes wanton destruction and doesn'tdo anything to fix it.
You gotta be gaking me. Really? How many billions have been given out around the world to help with research, disaster and disease relief efforts, and economic aid?

See above's lack of comment

BaronIveagh wrote:
In the event North Korea crosses the DMZ...

China will go with what is in the best interests of the People (in theory) which would be to turn away from Korea. Continued prosperity is much more valuable to it's leaders then the fate of North Korea, and the severance of relations with the US again would be crippling to both economies. China will probably make a public statement to the effect that by allowing this they will be able to develop closer ties to the Korea people who have suffered terribly at the hands of a madman. Russia will in all likelihood follow suit for a variety of reasons.

Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and probably Mongolia will offer substantial military support, even if militarily China remains neutral.

Combined US, South Korean, and Japanese forces will fight a delaying action south of the DMZ while a more substantial force is brought to the region.

Combined US and Japanese SDF ships will reduce shoreline defenses within the first 24 hours while a series of surgical strikes disable key rail lines and bridges, as well as targeting their command and control systems. B-52 raids out of US bases in Japan will target dug in positions in the interior while close air support engages their bridgehead in the DMZ.

Scratch Japan from your plans, Japan will not and can not join in a strike against NK unless attacked. For starters an offensive war, and NK going at SK again counts as one, goes against article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, already deploying 2 ships to stop pirates almost brought a government crisis, so shelling the neighbourghs is verbotten. Item plus even one Japanese soldier setting foot on NK soil would be enough to make the Chinese do a 180 turn. Following the Chinese official and quite manipulated media leaves you with the feeling that 60+ years from the war Japan is still waiting for the chance to finish China and the Koreas.

At most in a Korean War redux Japan will allow the US military to use the bases as usual but can´t go further lest hell be loose upon Asia.

M.

I think that its up in the air, with NK, if it starts though, I think they will start it

China wouldn't pull any debt move on the US in case of war, since our economies are so tightly connected it would also kill their economy

If it happens, it might start up the draft in the US, glad I'm getting my ROTC application in this summer

Frazzled wrote:
How many bases does France have outside of France.
*** Well, they just opened one in the UAE 3 days ago. But not including that one, 8.
Germany
*** None, but given their proximity to their economically critical interests they aren't necessary.
Russia
*** 11, not including the one closed in 2007
China
*** One, if you include the deployment to Tibet.
Japan
*** None, though they aren't technically permitted to have any.
Turkey
*** Cyprus, so 1.
Brazil
*** None, but not a developed nation.
Argentina
*** None, as Brazil.
Peru
***Is a developed nation now?
Canada (eh?)
*** None, unless you include NATO deployments.
Spain
*** None, unless you include NATO deployments.
South Africa
***Again, SA become part of the developed world when?

Did you just decide to list some random countries?

Frazzled wrote:
You keep on about the US being an empire.
1. We're not.

The 900 odd foreign military deployments we maintain, in conjunction with our massive political influence, beg to differ. Let's also not forget economic hegemony, and our status as the world's chief importer. We're an empire in everything but name. The term SOFA may as well be read Sened.

Frazzled wrote:
2. Even if we were the sun is setting. The time for empire is over. When empires recede their force projection recedes.

Yes, slowly. Not from 900 to 3. Even if we had a vested interest in contracting our global power base to such an extent the process would take decades. You don't just pick up a few million tons of military materiel and drop it back state-side.

em⋅pire  [em-pahyuhr; for 8–10 also om-peer] Show IPA
–noun
1. a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.
2. a government under an emperor or empress.
3. (often initial capital letter) the historical period during which a nation is under such a government: a history of the second French empire.
4. supreme power in governing; imperial power; sovereignty: Austria's failure of empire in central Europe.
5. supreme control; absolute sway: passion's empire over the mind.
6. a powerful and important enterprise or holding of large scope that is controlled by a single person, family, or group of associates: The family's shipping empire was founded 50 years ago.
7. (initial capital letter) a variety of apple somewhat resembling the McIntosh.
–adjective
8. (initial capital letter) characteristic of or developed during the first French Empire, 1804–15.
9. (usually initial capital letter) (of women's attire and coiffures) of the style that prevailed during the first French Empire, in clothing being characterized esp. by décolletage and a high waistline, coming just below the bust, from which the skirt hangs straight and loose.
10. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to the style of architecture, furnishings, and decoration prevailing in France and imitated to a greater or lesser extent in various other countries, c1800–30: characterized by the use of delicate but elaborate ornamentation imitated from Greek and Roman examples or containing classical allusions, as animal forms for the legs of furniture, bas-reliefs of classical figures, motifs of wreaths, torches, caryatids, lyres, and urns and by the occasional use of military and Egyptian motifs and, under the Napoleonic Empire itself, of symbols alluding to Napoleon I, as bees or the letter N.
Origin:
1250–1300; ME < AF, OF < L imperium; see empery

Synonyms:
4. dominion, rule, supremacy.

All hail Emperor Obama.

Okay, A few points.
#1: No, I didn't read every word of the hatefest that this thread has degenerated into, and I'm not going to, because it has gone from an interesting exchange into a bad imitation of an episode of the Jerry Springer show.
#2: Yes, the USA is a de facto empire. We pretend that we're not, but that's a legacy of the cold war. We should either completely pull out or be straight up and start running their countries for them. Trying to have it both ways like we are now isn't working.
#3: The reputation of organizations like the Seals, Rangers and Green Berets is why their are movies made about them. It's the lack of testicles in our leadership that keeps us from using them for what they are best at. Flame on.

Miguelsan wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:
In the event North Korea crosses the DMZ...

China will go with what is in the best interests of the People (in theory) which would be to turn away from Korea. Continued prosperity is much more valuable to it's leaders then the fate of North Korea, and the severance of relations with the US again would be crippling to both economies. China will probably make a public statement to the effect that by allowing this they will be able to develop closer ties to the Korea people who have suffered terribly at the hands of a madman. Russia will in all likelihood follow suit for a variety of reasons.

Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and probably Mongolia will offer substantial military support, even if militarily China remains neutral.

Combined US, South Korean, and Japanese forces will fight a delaying action south of the DMZ while a more substantial force is brought to the region.

Combined US and Japanese SDF ships will reduce shoreline defenses within the first 24 hours while a series of surgical strikes disable key rail lines and bridges, as well as targeting their command and control systems. B-52 raids out of US bases in Japan will target dug in positions in the interior while close air support engages their bridgehead in the DMZ.

Scratch Japan from your plans, Japan will not and can not join in a strike against NK unless attacked. For starters an offensive war, and NK going at SK again counts as one, goes against article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, already deploying 2 ships to stop pirates almost brought a government crisis, so shelling the neighbourghs is verbotten. Item plus even one Japanese soldier setting foot on NK soil would be enough to make the Chinese do a 180 turn. Following the Chinese official and quite manipulated media leaves you with the feeling that 60+ years from the war Japan is still waiting for the chance to finish China and the Koreas.

At most in a Korean War redux Japan will allow the US military to use the bases as usual but can´t go further lest hell be loose upon Asia.

M.

The depth of misunderstanding and knowledge about Kim Jung-il and North Korea kinda matches what most 'Media Experts" know, and that's scary if politicians depend on their knowledge from the news agencies so here is a little clarification. Its long, but bear with it.

OK, first my qualifications and where my knowledge comes from:

I did 22 years as a reconnaissance operator in various organizations , several tours in Korea, speak Hangul (Korean) and married to a Korean. I have taken several vacations there since I retired and have a pretty good idea of the current military situations of South Korea, the American 8th Army and the DPRK's military (North Korea). I see most of the missionary videos that are smuggled out (missionaries are the ONLY outsiders allowed into North Korea other than to the propaganda city and the Sunshine factories since the 1990's). Missionaries are allowed in because they give the North Korean government massive amounts of rice to keep most of the population from starving to death and have no governmental agenda as far as Kim Jung-il is concerned. Read "The Tears of my Soul" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tears_of_My_Soul for what North Korea is like.

Key Figures-

Kim Jung-il (Great Leader) - Applying the insane adjective to him is foolish, implies he has lost his sensibilities, he never had any. - He has no morals either , never taught them, his word is life or death, no questions. Any who even suggest he is anything other than a god or the "Mother" of his nation will be killed or put in the camps to starve to death for 3 generations of their families, no kidding. He points out the window as his car goes by, the 6 year old girl he spotted is taken to his nearest mansion and if she services him in a happy enough way her and her family will not die the next day. I am not kidding here. There have been articles claiming the raping and killing of little girls is not true, trust me they are... A practice his father started and he continued until his last stroke. He had killed everyone involved in the last two coup attempts to include their families (1992(Soviet inspired), 1995(Not Soviet, not North Korean or Chinese))There have been no attempts since... and never a general uprising.

Kim Jung Woon - His third son and the heir apparent. He is 26 but the North Korean media has been giving his age as 33 for the last several months. Recently promoted to General. some education In Switzerland and has several heath issues but the one most like his father in temperament and ruthlessness. His mother(Ko Yong Hee) died several years ago but has gotten a lot of play in NK propaganda lately as The Most (fill in the blank with good adjectives) of all of Kim Jung-il's known wives and consorts.

Armies-

American - We have between 20 to 25 thousand troops waaaayy south of the DMZ. There used to be more and they were up in the Corridor where they would be the first killed and we would then NUKE North Korea in response because at that time North Korea could not respond in kind. The troops were a trigger. They are too far South now for that.

South Korea- Used to have a pretty good army that was equipped to die in place(preplanned bunkers, fortified obstacles, NO equipment to withdrawal from their bases). They were to buy time for the civilians to evacuate the political leadership in Seoul. Major reductions since their economy went down the drain, everyone figured the NUKE trigger would keep NK in place...

North Korea - 1/8th to 1/12th of their population is in the military, 4th largest army in the world. They have the largest group of Special Forces in the world as well, 100 to 120 thousand, 23 brigades, yes brigades. I have been in the teams and I doubt any one there will disagree that for hand to hand the NKSF are some of the deadliest on the planet. The NK military has over 8000 artillery systems along the DMZ, most can hit Seoul, the capital of Korea from where they are now. If they did the suspected load would be either nerve gas for the civilians and chlorine gas for the military bases, so what if you got into MOPP 4, still dead. Did I mention the 2000 tanks?

Life in North Korea - Starving to death is a bad way to go. In the 1990s 2 million North Koreans starved to death, there are many many reliable reports of mass cannibalism from missionaries. Six and half million probable deaths this year. The only parts of North Korea that get decent food is the government and the military. That is why governments like ours, Japan and South Korea stopping food shipments over disagreements with the NK leadership is SSOOOO STUPID. NK is the far side of the moon as far as information goes. Most NK's think that the race riots from the 1960's never stopped and that America is a burnt out wasteland, no kidding here, they really do. Withholding food does not make the average NK civilian think bad things about their leadership. When their children die the NK government has no problem showing part of a clip showing a western broadcaster talking about withholding food...

When the Fearless leader can no longer feed his army he will either:

1. Order them to attack and they will go... and we will not NUKE them because he will threaten to take out Japan or one of our port cities. We will then get pushed into the sea at Pusan and then he will go for a political compromise.
2. Tell the army to suck it up and sooner or later a general will kill him and his family and we are back to number 1. There are no moderate NK generals, all dead....
3. Flee with his family to a friendly country.... whoops no one will take him so I guess that is out....Besides whomever takes over will go to 4 or 1.
4. Get hard currency to buy food by selling nuclear materials to terrorists and warn the world if anyone interferes then back to option 1, everyone notice the weapons grade nuclear plants had their fuel rods put back in and were started back up this week?

If it goes to number 1.....

Their army equipment is old but serviceable. The NK air force can hit Seoul 1 minute after crossing the DMZ, then the NK airforce will all die in the next two weeks. Their 8000 tanks are no match for ours, all 80 or 90 of them, but our crews would be dead in their motor pools from chlorine gas so....that's a fight that won't happen. Those 8000 tanks will have to be killed by aircraft out of Japan assuming Japan allows our forces to operate from there after NK threatens them. In any case one hell of a lot of Americans and South Koreans will die.

What I think NK is doing is trying to warn us off stopping them from selling nuclear materials to raise cash. At the same time the Fearless Leader is trying to ensure his number 3 son will succeed him.

This is a country that held on to POW's (South Korean and American) from the Korean War because they could, they do not hold the rest of the world as their equals and a civilian population starving to death has no affect on the leadership. It would really be good if our politicians understood that. If any are interested the last South Korean to escape was in 2004, he was the 34th to escape from 1988 to 2004. All escapes went by way of North Korea - China - Japan - South Korea as the DMZ is too closely guarded, a route Americans can not use as they can not pose as North Koreans or Chinese.

The last Americans, well .....""ON OCTOBER 1979, MR. OPRICA, A FORMER ROMANIAN, NOW A NATURALIZED U.S. CITIZEN, ALONG WITH ROMANIANS EMPLOYED AT A NORTH KOREAN FACTORY IN PYANGYANG WAS ON A NORTH KOREAN GOVERNMENT SPONSORED SIGHT SEEING TRIP. DURING THIS BUS TRIP, THE BUS DRIVER APPEARED TO BE DISORIENTED AND DROVE THE BUS THROUGH A COLLECTIVE FARM. DURING THE TRIP, HE OBSERVED 7 - 10 CAUCASIANS, INCLUDING ONE INDIVIDUAL WITH BLUE EYES, WORKING IN THE FIELDS. THE WORKERS APPEARED TO BE IN THEIR 50'S. MR. OPRICA WAS TOLD BY A FEMALE PASSENGER THAT THE CAUCASIAN FARMERS WERE AMERICAN PRISONERS OF WAR....."

THE SAME REPORT STATES "ON 24 NOV. 95, ANOTHER PASSENGER ON THE BUS, MR. FLORIN TOMESCU, WAS FINALLY LOCATED IN ROMAINA AND INTERVIEWED. HE CONFIRMED SEEING CAUCASIANS WORKING ON A FARM AND THE LOCATION OF THE COLLECTIVE FARM TO BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN PYONGYANG AND THE CITY OF NAMPO.""

I suspect all are dead now.

Hope these facts help with understanding just how serious this is when the best solution is to let a country sell nuclear stuff to terrorists....the Japanese and Koreans are really worried and may take action on their own if the US and/or UN can not do something. I don't think the American media understands that.

Hope these facts help with understanding just how serious this is when the best solution is to let a country sell nuclear stuff to terrorists....the Japanese and Koreans are really worried and may take action on their own if the US and/or UN can not do something. I don't think the American media understands that.

Wouldn't the best solution be a massive bombing campaign against all of north koreas border forces? It wouldn't be particularly hard to orchestrate, though it would quietly. The concept of a preemptive strike may be "distasteful" after Iraq, but I can think of no better time or place for such a tactic. North Koreas military is great at one thing, and thats rolling over Major South Korean population centers and attempting to disable the American presence there. Satellites can see north korea as well as any other part of the world, and you can bet that there have been "choice targets" for decades. The north could never defend itself against a coordinated strike by the U.S., China, or the U.N. They are simply too outdated and under-equipped. Crippling the Norths ability to deliver a nuclear weapon and removing the border forces capability of delivering chemical agents would turn them into a paper tiger.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Wouldn't the best solution be a massive bombing campaign against all of north koreas border forces? It wouldn't be particularly hard to orchestrate, though it would quietly. The concept of a preemptive strike may be "distasteful" after Iraq, but I can think of no better time or place for such a tactic. North Koreas military is great at one thing, and thats rolling over Major South Korean population centers and attempting to disable the American presence there. Satellites can see north korea as well as any other part of the world, and you can bet that there have been "choice targets" for decades. The north could never defend itself against a coordinated strike by the U.S., China, or the U.N. They are simply too outdated and under-equipped. Crippling the Norths ability to deliver a nuclear weapon and removing the border forces capability of delivering chemical agents would turn them into a paper tiger.

Sure, pick which American or Japanese city goes away a week after the bombing runs..... The North Koreans have very good mini subs with highly dedicated crews who have committed suicide on capture every time. They would without hesitation take a nuke and employ it at arms length, and both the American and Japanese and South Korean governments know it.