Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/27/2582359.htm?section=world

North Korea is threatening to use military force against the South, saying it is no longer bound by the terms of the 1953 armistice between the two Koreas.

Pyongyang has confirmed that it considers South Korea's decision to join a US-led naval blockade as tantamount to a declaration of war.

Seoul has joined the US-led initiative to check vessels suspected of carrying equipment for weapons of mass destruction.

The North is facing international sanction for this week's nuclear test, which brought about global condemnation.

A North Korean army spokesman also said the country was no longer bound by the armistice signed at the end of the 1950-53 Korean War because Washington had ignored its responsibility as a signatory by drawing South Korea into its naval initiative.

The threat comes after South Korean media reported earlier that Pyongyang had restarted a plant that makes weapons-grade plutonium.

"Any hostile act against our peaceful vessels including search and seizure will be considered an unpardonable infringement on our sovereignty and we will immediately respond with a powerful military strike," the spokesman for the North's army was quoted as saying by the official KCNA news agency.

South Korea announced yesterday it was joining the naval exercise, called the Proliferation Security Initiative.

Pyongyang also appeared to have fired a third short-range missile late on Tuesday after it added to tensions with a launch of two others earlier in the day, the South's Yonhap news agency quoted a unnamed government source as saying.

US President Barack Obama is working to form a united response to Monday's nuclear test, widely denounced as a major threat to stability that violates UN resolutions and brings the reclusive North closer to having a reliable nuclear bomb.

The secretive state appears to have made good on a threat issued in April of restarting a facility at its Yongbyon nuclear plant that extracts plutonium, South Korea's largest newspaper, Chosun Ilbo, reported.

"There are various indications that reprocessing facilities in Yongbyon resumed operation [and] have been detected by [a] US surveillance satellite, and these including steam coming out of the facility," it quoted an unnamed government source as saying.

This might seem scary, but North Korea has a population of about 22-23 million. No bigger than Australia. Yes, they have a pretty big military, but they don't have the manpower to support a full scale war. If they take military action, let's be honest, they won't stand a chance. But that's not the biggest concern. The biggest concern is that they might target civilian population centers with nukes and bombs, resulting in Hiroshima and Nagasaki all over again, only with many more casualties.

Thoughts on this? Is North Korea a serious threat, or has Kim Yong-il lost his marbles?

My understanding is that both China and Russia support the actions against North Korea. This is either sabre rattling or the work of a true madman.

And if China and Russia, both countries who had similar mindsets to North Korea for a long time, are supporting actions against them, this really shows how much of the world stands against them. I'm hoping some of the Korean top brass see sense and out Kim Jong-il, but that seems unlikely unless they are truly convinced that Kim is mad or they have no chance.

The man in charge has suffered from a stroke if sources are to be believed, so he has most likely lost his marbles.

If he really does push his nation into war, he doesn't deserve any mercy, because he's condemning thousands of innocent people without any sensible reason.

I'm not sure of Kim Yong-il's history though. Is he like Robert Mugabe, a hero who became a mad dictator?

Cheese Elemental wrote:If he really does push his nation into war, he doesn't deserve any mercy, because he's condemning thousands of innocent people without any sensible reason.

I'm not sure of Kim Yong-il's history though. Is he like Robert Mugabe, a hero who became a mad dictator?

Far as I know, Kim Jong hasn't had his military rape, mutilate, and kill innocent women and little girls to ensure his power. He's still fething nuts, and one of his generals is gonna see this and out one between those outrageous sunglasses of his.

Kim kidnapped a famous South Korean movie director and an actress so he could make movies with them.

This might seem scary, but North Korea has a population of about 22-23 million. No bigger than Australia. Yes, they have a pretty big military, but they don't have the manpower to support a full scale war. If they take military action, let's be honest, they won't stand a chance.

Its not North Korea that they are afraid of, its China. China would probably support North Korea in a war so as not to lose face for not supporting an ally. And when push comes to shove they can call in their debts from America, you think the current economic crisis is bad? China owns a huge amount of American debt, if they call that in it will make the current recession into a depression.

Considering that NK's only ally in the world is China and even they aren't standing beside them NK would be insane to go to war.

Did you read that, Ratbarf? China is siding with the UN against NK. They're not going to be providing any support.

North Korea doesn't even have ICBMs, the furthest they can reach with a nuke would be Japan, and they don't have the quantity China, Russia or other Nuclear powers do. If NK went to war, it would only end badly.

I've always said that N.Korea should have been our target if we han't blown our military on a useless Iraq. but do not worry. the usa has been dung into south korea for a long time. If N Korea armed a nuke to fire thier capital would be flattened before it launched, and this time there would be no moral questions there would be a cuop before Kim did something so stupid. trust me

sexiest_hero wrote:I've always said that N.Korea should have been our target if we han't blown our military on a useless Iraq. but do not worry. the usa has been dung into south korea for a long time. If N Korea armed a nuke to fire thier capital would be flattened before it launched, and this time there would be no moral questions there would be a cuop before Kim did something so stupid. trust me

Well like people have been saying , if kimchi are worth as much as oil , N.Korea would be gone in 2 weeks.

They have incredibly limited strike capability and a large well monitored no fly zone around their borders. Their actual ability to deliver a nuclear payload is highly suspect, especially given the missile defenses likely sitting in the region specifically to stop such an event. Thats not to say they aren't dangerous, but they have neither the military strength to prosecute a war against the south nor the technological base or reach to deliver their warheads effectively and safely.

Unless Kim actually has gone insane (quite possible given his health) I doubt this is much more than saber rattling to test the new American administration. Perhaps Iran will take the next few months to heart.

I don't think this is sabre-rattling. Declaring that they're not bound by the armistice is a huge thing. Think about it; they might have limited strike capabilities, but South Korea is pretty close for some bizarre reason. Close enough to take a hit from a nuke.

This is just more sabre-rattlng; this is the only way they can get money and resources with their current leadership.

I also don't believe NK will escalate especially after the inevitable death of their emperor-god of a man, Kim Jung Il but in the case that it did occur; the NK military is by no means a force to underestimate. If the Korean War were to start again they could definitely overwhelm a lot of allied forces and decimate Seoul within the first few minuters of artillery barrages. Much of the USA"s forces are spread out as well so a war in Korea would strain their personnel. But NK definitely wouldn't be able to do a sustained conflict without the help of China...then it'd be WW3.

As for nukes; they could always send it via boat in cargo crate delivered to a major port city if they want to send a message.

Cane wrote:This is just more sabre-rattlng; this is the only way they can get money and resources with their current leadership.

I also don't believe NK will escalate especially after the inevitable death of their emperor-god of a man, Kim Jung Il but in the case that it did occur; the NK military is by no means a force to underestimate. If the Korean War were to start again they could definitely overwhelm a lot of allied forces and decimate Seoul within the first few minuters of artillery barrages. Much of the USA"s forces are spread out as well so a war in Korea would strain their personnel. But NK definitely wouldn't be able to do a sustained conflict without the help of China...then it'd be WW3.

As for nukes; they could always send it via boat in cargo crate delivered to a major port city if they want to send a message.

Comparatively no. The North Korean military is neither large nor impressive. It's better than many nations, but then again much of the planet has moved beyond the concept of militaristic force. Compared to Russia, China, America, hell even the Japanese Defense Force they are fairly pathetic. Any aggression would be ended within hours of any action taken by the UN and the security council nations.

Guys ... Kim Jong is just suffering from going into
WD phase. Right now he is a red giant , he want to make a mark in korean history while he still can.

Kim Jong's going to become overpriced and filled with ads?

People pointing out that N Korea would get stomped in a war are missing the point. Yes, they would most certainly get stomped. They would get stomped if they were fighting just S Korea.

But there are more than 1,000 conventional artillery pieces in place right now that can hit Seoul. While any military engagement would be outrageously one-sided, the civilian casualties among the S Koreans could be enormous.

ShumaGorath wrote:Comparatively no. The North Korean military is neither large nor impressive. It's better than many nations, but then again much of the planet has moved beyond the concept of militaristic force. Compared to Russia, China, America, hell even the Japanese Defense Force they are fairly pathetic. Any aggression would be ended within hours of any action taken by the UN and the security council nations.

No, their military is pathetic. While it represents a large portion of their GDP, the N Korean GDP is pathetic in a way that only totalitarian states run by lunatics can be. S Korea by themselves have somewhere in realm of ten times the military capability of the N Koreans.

And that’s before you consider the relative qualities of individual troops. Around five years ago N Korea reduced the height requirements of their soldiers to five foot, necessary because malnutrition is so common.

The whole thing would be laughable except, of course, for all those artillery pieces pointing at Seoul.

Did you read that, Ratbarf? China is siding with the UN against NK. They're not going to be providing any support.

I think that if it broke out into open war the Chinese would support North Korea. They seem to be big on the whole not losing face thing and not supporting your allies is a big no no if you want to look good. China doesn't really need America to function, America however seems to need China to function. If push came to shove the economic warfare that China could throw at the US is huge. It would probably bankrupt the country. As of 2008 China is the second largest holder of US debt.

China wouldn't even try it. They wouldn't support a war started by a mad tyrant (yes, they have one too, but he's less mad).

Ratbarf wrote:I think that if it broke out into open war the Chinese would support North Korea. They seem to be big on the whole not losing face thing and not supporting your allies is a big no no if you want to look good. China doesn't really need America to function, America however seems to need China to function. If push came to shove the economic warfare that China could throw at the US is huge. It would probably bankrupt the country. As of 2008 China is the second largest holder of US debt.

Nonsense. The Chinese economy is built around exports to the West, especially to the US. The economic downturn has resulted in more than 40 million newly nemployed in China, resulting in no small amount of rioting. If the Chinese want to maintain their economy, they cannot reject such an important trading partner as the US.

Meanwhile, I suspect China would continue to aim towards its core goal of regional dominance, and that would likely mean pressuring both sides into a ceasefire and eventual treaty.

So what happens when/if Kim Yong-il is overthrown? Will Korea become one nation again, or will China take the land, or what?

Cheese Elemental wrote:Is North Korea a serious threat, or has Kim Yong-il lost his marbles?

It is a well known fact that Kim Jong-Il lacks his marbles. His response to this is his theory that the South took his marbles while he wasn't looking and claims that they continue to deny the fact that they are thieves. Pissed beyond belief, and aware that marbles are an extremely valuable commodity, Kim Jong-Il has drawn a huge angry face on South Korea and has been known to refer any South Korean he sees as "A Big Fat Meanie."

Under the impression that the South would never return his marbles, Kim Jong-Il decided to make attempts to steal marbles from other people. This is why China and Russia have drawn angry faces on him.

Now, being so angry that his face is redder than a Coca-Cola can, he remembers that he has an army with uber killy weapons, and decides that he might take action.


Kim Jong-Il;
He will return his marbles, or die trying.

Is this when you break out the photoshop retardation?

As sebster stated, there are conventional artillery pieces that can easily hit Seoul, which he is entirely capable of doing if he wishes, and it still would take minutes for fighters from Osan Air Base or other anti artillery elements to eliminate their artillery. The devastation would be large, especially if he timed it when schools were getting out and the streets are filled. I lived in South Korea in 99 (and my parents for 4 years after that), and we were told this was more of the threat than any 'nukes' that would have been sent our way.

As more of an observation, not a discriminatory comment (I have lived in far 'worse' places than South Korea) when I was over there, the local South Korean news was routinely filled with stories of bridges collapsing, fires in schools that killed dozens of children, and 5 story shopping centers (basically how they make their 'malls' is each department is on a different floor) where the engineers decided to make a pool on the roof, but did not ensure enough structural strength for the additional weight of the water, and the building collapses. Let's just say that even if after the shelling started, and civilians took shelter in their more modern buildings, alot of them are not 'up to code' and would provide scant protection.

It isn't the fact that North Korea would be destroyed, that's not really the issue, it is how much damage he decides to inflict on the South Korea civilian population for a brief period when he finally loses it.

yup... he is a few fries short of a happy meal.


but honestly, i think the largest threat dose not come from NK actualy getting nukes... it comes from them SELLING those nukes to Iran (unless they get them on thier own), Hamas, Al Qaeda, ect, ect...

Yes, Seoul would be flattened, and North Korea would most likely be so messed up that it would look even more like that show "Life after people" than it does now, but it's looking more and more like it's gonna happen. We need to get a couple of carrier battle groups and some cruise missile ships and some drone control teams over there. We could launch a preemptive high-tech strike from hell on them that would leave them wondering if they ever had a military in the first place.

All of this Saber Rattling is about two things, The Succession and Concessions.

Kim Jong "Mentally" Ill is in poor health and is probable dying. He has yet to name a successor. This 150 Day War his military has cooked up is to build up National Unity in order to make way for a smooth change in power.

North Korea lost a lot of support when the Ole USSR collapsed. China has also recently cut-back there sponsorship of NK. Also since South Korea has recently elected an "Conservative*" Government, They have gone from reconciliation and generous handout to feth you, you are not getting gak.

NK is hoping to get the everyone to cave into there demands by way of nuclear blackmail. It this turns into a shooting war it is going to start at sea. There have already been two naval engagements in the Yellow Sea, the last one in 2002.




* Korean Conservative = Strong Anti-North Sentiment

warpcrafter wrote:Yes, Seoul would be flattened, and North Korea would most likely be so messed up that it would look even more like that show "Life after people" than it does now, but it's looking more and more like it's gonna happen. We need to get a couple of carrier battle groups and some cruise missile ships and some drone control teams over there. We could launch a preemptive high-tech strike from hell on them that would leave them wondering if they ever had a military in the first place.

Or we could not initiate a war that'd kill a million people. Yes, this is a serious situation but right now all we have is a threatening statement, and every possible to step to avoid war should be taken.

nvm I should read the thread.

sebster wrote:
But there are more than 1,000 conventional artillery pieces in place right now that can hit Seoul. While any military engagement would be outrageously one-sided, the civilian casualties among the S Koreans could be enormous.

And that doesn't even factor in the likely use of artillery rockets loaded with chemical or biological warheads. In the event of North/South hostilities Seoul would effectively cease to exist.

I hope the South Korean government has the foresight to set up an evacuation plan and anti-air defences.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I hope the South Korean government has the foresight to set up an evacuation plan and anti-air defences.

I'm not certain, but I don't think it matters. To meaningfully evacuate a city you're looking in terms of days. If war is declared by N Korea and a coalition force (NATO or something representing most of its members) responds, the destruction of the conventional forces around Seoul would be measured in hours. So I think you could remove the threat far quicker than you could evacuate the city, it's just that by then you'd looking at immense destruction.

Getting people into safe points in the city is probably a lot better than getting them out of the city.

Isn't Seoul like 30 something miles away from the DMZ?

Does NoKo even have conventional arty that can hit that far?

*edit*

Huh, found this article: http://www.redorbit.com/news/international/551403/north_korean_guns_clear_and_present_danger_to_south/index.html

The 170 mms have a range of 60 km, so barely. Apparently the US has a counter-barrage plan.

I wonder how the world is going to be in about 10-15 years, when the last of the old world crazy ass dictators has bit the dust.

How many we got left anyways?

Dreadwinter wrote:I wonder how the world is going to be in about 10-15 years, when the last of the old world crazy ass dictators has bit the dust.

How many we got left anyways?

One too many.

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:If he really does push his nation into war, he doesn't deserve any mercy, because he's condemning thousands of innocent people without any sensible reason.

I'm not sure of Kim Yong-il's history though. Is he like Robert Mugabe, a hero who became a mad dictator?

Far as I know, Kim Jong hasn't had his military rape, mutilate, and kill innocent women and little girls to ensure his power. He's still fething nuts, and one of his generals is gonna see this and out one between those outrageous sunglasses of his.

Your lack of education is frightening in its depth. North Korea has the world's largest concentration camp. North Korean policy is that your family suffers for THREE generations for any perceived crimes. Thats right grandparents and children in the camps.

Next time before you type something it would be good if you actually did a little research before spewing forth nonsense.
http://indianchristians.in/news/content/view/680/45/

Kim Young-soon said North Korea was "a place that should disappear from the earth". She estimated that six or seven out of every 100 people died in Yodok Political Prison Camp Number 15 in one year. She herself spent eight years at the camp.



Kim Tae-jin suffered various tortures in the same prison, including being beaten with burning wood and being forced to sit on burning quicklime. "I realised pain can be more dreadful than death," he said. Kim said lack of food at the camp was a continual ordeal.



"One meal consists of a handful of corn kernels and they mix it with some edible tree leaves and they add some salt." He said he caught and ate rats, snakes and frogs to supplement his rations.

http://www.newser.com/story/45015/23-years-in-a-north-korean-prison-camp.html

Shin describes the daily horrors of life inside Kim Jong-Il's gulags, from fire torture to mutilation. He committed no crime—he was born in the camp—and is struggling to adjust to life in the South 3 years after his escape.

Guards cut off the tip of Shin's middle finger for accidentally dropping a sewing machine at the factory where he performed slave labor. Later, he was dangled over a fire and pierced with a steel hook to force him to confess to an escape plot he knew nothing of. He spent 7 months in an underground cell, to be released only to watch his mother hanged and brother shot to death

http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/north-korea/page.do?id=1011213

Yeah NK has been a horror story for a long time now.

Still when you're as good at golf as the Beloved Leader is you can do that sort of thing I suppose.

The most extreme claim came from the North Korean Ministry of Information, which reported that dictator Kim Jong-Il had 11 holes in one in his first attempt at golf.

Take that Tiger Woods!

He would have had twelve, but he had to kidnap some Japanese and send some spies south between the 9th and 10th holes.

He's a good sport like that.

After all, no one likes a show off.

Exactly. He doesn't like to be a showoff.

As long as the Chinese don't back them the North Koreans have nothing. The only reason that miserable country exists is because of China.

Great, another war threat.
Rather not go out to korea -_-
cant we just bomb em and tell them to fething be quiet?

Don't worry JD1290, we've been at war with North Korea since 1951 (it never ended). NK reminds us about once a month by re-declaring war. Its like a 3 year old-they throw a tanrum if we ignore them. We should ignore them now. As stated I'm all for pulling evrything out of there. There's no reason we should be defending South Korea.

But if they even blink funny at us directly, nuke every square inch of North Korea.

I say we airdrop weapons all across the North Korean countryside and let the North Koreans deal with Kim Jong.

Now thats thinking outside the box.

Having said that, I'm still up for the invasion of Switzerland, Brazil, and Tahiti. The reasons are obvious

It's the same thing we should have done with Iraq. Just airdrop weapons. If you give a person something for 'free' (in Iraq's case, it's allegedly democracy), they don't want it. ("Saddam was an awful man, but at least we had electricity for 8 hours a day." aka, "Mussolini made the trains run on time.") If they have to earn it, they value it. If the dictator is really so hated and opressive, arm the populace, and they'll topple him, and form the government that they want. If in 20 years, it's another tin-can dictator running the country, repeat. Let the population determine their own fate.

Do you really think that the factions in Iraq want to be a single country, and wouldn't rather be separate countries? Turkey will never allow the Kurds to seceed, because then all their Kurds will want to.

Frazzled wrote:
Your lack of education is frightening in its depth. North Korea has the world's largest concentration camp. North Korean policy is that your family suffers for THREE generations for any perceived crimes. Thats right grandparents and children in the camps.
Kim Tae-jin suffered various tortures in the same prison, including being beaten with burning wood and being forced to sit on burning quicklime. "I realised pain can be more dreadful than death," he said. Kim said lack of food at the camp was a continual ordeal.
"One meal consists of a handful of corn kernels and they mix it with some edible tree leaves and they add some salt." He said he caught and ate rats, snakes and frogs to supplement his rations.

Shin describes the daily horrors of life inside Kim Jong-Il's gulags, from fire torture to mutilation. He committed no crime—he was born in the camp—and is struggling to adjust to life in the South 3 years after his escape.

Guards cut off the tip of Shin's middle finger for accidentally dropping a sewing machine at the factory where he performed slave labor. Later, he was dangled over a fire and pierced with a steel hook to force him to confess to an escape plot he knew nothing of. He spent 7 months in an underground cell, to be released only to watch his mother hanged and brother shot to death

this will sounds evil and very cruel (like most of my posts)

but i think we should just keep out of it.
it has no effect on us (i know, cruel) but why keep getting dragged into everyone elses problems?
our country is falling apart and what do we do? spend what money we do have helping out another country.


Failing that, send out a small tac unit of SAS and get rid of the prick with a single bullet.

Simply put, it's far more complex than simply sticking up for human rights or trying to control oil, international affairs are obscenely complicated. This shouldn't be pinned solely on Mr. Bush, there are other countries in the UN after all. If people would stop looking to America to be the World Police, maybe we would stop acting like it.

this will sounds evil and very cruel (like most of my posts)

but i think we should just keep out of it.
it has no effect on us (i know, cruel) but why keep getting dragged into everyone elses problems?
our country is falling apart and what do we do? spend what money we do have helping out another country.

Simply put, it's far more complex than simply sticking up for human rights or trying to control oil, international affairs are obscenely complicated. This shouldn't be pinned solely on Mr. Bush, there are other countries in the UN after all. If people would stop looking to America to be the World Police, maybe we would stop acting like it.

Agreed and agreed. The US and UN (in its one shining moment of glory) already fought one war there. Our interest is to keep them from spreading nukes, but that’s its. South Korea is a big boy now. Time to let them take care of themselves.

This is why i do admire some of hitlers views (dont panic, im not a genocidal maniac)
he believed he could control the world through sheer violence, force of will and fear.
in retospect that is the only way you can control the world (and still not 100% effective)

we cannot control a country, helping them out would simply lose our own troops in a battle which isnt ours.
if we decide to fight, then we should be taking the country from them, not helping them.

either we leave them, or we take over 100%





and having the experience of being thown into the battlefield im pleased to say im pissed off with fighting for no fething reason atall, why would i want to risk my life for something that is none of my buisness?

JD21290 wrote:
and having the experience of being thown into the battlefield im pleased to say im pissed off with fighting for no fething reason atall, why would i want to risk my life for something that is none of my buisness?

clearly it became your business then.

clearly it became your business then.

Well since i had no say in it then yes, it did become my buisness, but not by choice.

JD21290 wrote:This is why i do admire some of hitlers views (dont panic, im not a genocidal maniac)
he believed he could control the world through sheer violence, force of will and fear.
in retospect that is the only way you can control the world (and still not 100% effective)

we cannot control a country, helping them out would simply lose our own troops in a battle which isnt ours.
if we decide to fight, then we should be taking the country from them, not helping them.

either we leave them, or we take over 100%





and having the experience of being thown into the battlefield im pleased to say im pissed off with fighting for no fething reason atall, why would i want to risk my life for something that is none of my buisness?

Because if NK takes SK, they're going to attack somebody else.

And honestly, how can you have such views? So what, if your allied countries are under attack, you'd march in there and take it all for yourself? What good will that do? It will only incite more violence and a guerilla war would start.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JD21290 wrote:

clearly it became your business then.

Well since i had no say in it then yes, it did become my buisness, but not by choice.

You were the one who joined the army. What were you expecting, a part-time job which consists of shining your boots and parading around every few weeks? No siree, you join the army, you're expected to fight.

JD21290 wrote:

clearly it became your business then.

Well since i had no say in it then yes, it did become my buisness, but not by choice.

That sucks. But hey, in the words of the famous Major Payne "Killing is my business and business is good"

Because if NK takes SK, they're going to attack somebody else.

You have proof of this how?
and if they do attack us then we have a reason to fight back.

And honestly, how can you have such views? So what, if your allied countries are under attack, you'd march in there and take it all for yourself? What good will that do? It will only incite more violence and a guerilla war would start.

Well, seems every country we "free" from thier problems either turns on us, or feths it up again, they lose out, and we lose our ladies and lads that helped out in the 1st place.

and i have my views simply because thats how i think, watch a good friend of yours laying on the slab and then tell me it wasnt pointless.

You were the one who joined the army. What were you expecting, a part-time job which consists of shining your boots and parading around every few weeks? No siree, you join the army, you're expected to fight.

Of course i knew i was going to fight, to defend this country.
Not some other country simply because they are having problems and some tosser in a suit thinks we should help.
there is something i didnt expect when i joined the army though, and that was some loud mouthed bastard voicing his political views at me over a computer when i couldnt really give a feth what he has to say.
hows that for indirect fire?

That sucks. But hey, in the words of the famous Major Payne "Killing is my business and business is good"

Killing is no buisness, its just something that needs to be done.
child with a gun? if he open fire on your unit you open fire back, child or not he is putting your lives in danger.
not as easy as it sounds, but if you dont then your 6 feet under for having emotions.

Because if NK takes SK, they're going to attack somebody else.

If they attack SK, then SK will kick their teeth in. The populace of NK is starving-they can't compete. But if they win they win. Sucks to be SK but they should have quit lazing about and built a bigger military.

If they attack someone else again-why do I care?
*China. I'm totally down with that watching China obliterate them in 4.7 seconds.
*Japan. I'm totally down with that watching Japan obliterate them 7.4 seconds.

Who else? They have no ability to project power and they are in a neighborhood of industrial powerhouses that should have equally strong militaries. Iuf they don't its because they were nationwide welfare moochers mooching off the protection of the US.

I want men like JD12120 to do their job and what they signed up-to protect the US and its citizens. Not the citizens of every country in the world. After all, haven't you heard? We're the great Satan, if only the US weren't illegally assaulting countries the world would be a paradise and there would be no wars ever again, as there weren't before the US unilaterally started WWII. Thats what I keep being told.

dietrich wrote:It's the same thing we should have done with Iraq. Just airdrop weapons. If you give a person something for 'free' (in Iraq's case, it's allegedly democracy), they don't want it. ("Saddam was an awful man, but at least we had electricity for 8 hours a day." aka, "Mussolini made the trains run on time.") If they have to earn it, they value it. If the dictator is really so hated and opressive, arm the populace, and they'll topple him, and form the government that they want. If in 20 years, it's another tin-can dictator running the country, repeat. Let the population determine their own fate.

It's a terrible misunderstanding of history to think revolutions don't occur because the people lack guns. It hasn't ever worked that way. It certainly isn't the issue in N Korea right now.

N Korea has an almost complete shut down of communication with the outside world. They don't know things are better out here. If there was this underlying revolution waiting to happen, people would get their hands on the weapons needed. We're clever like that.

What's needed is to open up N Korea to the rest of the world. Expose the populace to how things work elsewhere, and how their own country can be different. It is, of course, a very difficult thing to achieve and miles away from the current situation (where thinking should be entirely about not letting things get worse).

JD21290 wrote:
Killing is no buisness, its just something that needs to be done.
child with a gun? if he open fire on your unit you open fire back, child or not he is putting your lives in danger.
not as easy as it sounds, but if you dont then your 6 feet under for having emotions.

Quote from an American comedy. I believe the my joke was lost crossing the the great waters over to your computer. I completely empathize with dashed delusions of grandeur in the armed forces.

I know youngblood.
got the point of the joke
was just saying that killing isnt really a buisness as such, more of a lose/lose situation.

Unless its killing time waiting for Friday!!!!

Then its win/win!

Frazzled wrote:Unless its killing time waiting for Friday!!!!

Then its win/win!

True that. Double true.

Yes killing people is a lose/lose.

not for me frazz lol, tomorrow im working a morning and night shift
so im waiting on the weekend

We're all waiting for the weekend baby.

for what? so we can go out and spend everything we earned that week? lol
i think ive allready done that this week

may have to have a cheap weekend with a few drinks and taking the missus out.

Frazzled wrote:We're all waiting for the weekend baby.

now wait a tick, I thought everybody was working for the weekend.

Waiting working its all pre-weekend.

Not if you're Loverboy.

Frazzled wrote:[After all, haven't you heard? We're the great Satan, if only the US weren't illegally assaulting countries the world would be a paradise and there would be no wars ever again, as there weren't before the US unilaterally started WWII. Thats what I keep being told.

You have it all wrong. The US is responsible for everything back to (and including) the First Crusade. Even though the US wasn't founded until about 700 years later. Somehow, the US was still responsible.

We might have killed Jesus and Mohamed as the same time.

sebster wrote:It's a terrible misunderstanding of history to think revolutions don't occur because the people lack guns. It hasn't ever worked that way. It certainly isn't the issue in N Korea right now.

Without the right to bear arms, an oppressive military regime has little opposition. While people won't like it, and may plot and scheme, at some point, the answer is that they need access to weapons. Whether it's AK-47s or C-4 explosives, it doesn't matter. Having weapons doesn't result in a revolution. Not having weapons can stall a revolution.

I do agree with you. Part of the problem is that the population doesn't know that the grass really is greener on the other side of the DMZ. Of course, how do they find out, if they can't topple the government?

South Korea could go ahead and start getting everybody out of the immediate vicinity of the DMZ right now and let the little maniac know we're doing it. That might impress on him that his temper tantrum may have consequences above and beyond what they are willing to deal with. No guarantees, however, that's what it's like dealing with crazy people who have their own country. The US does have plenty of experience in that, after all.

The problem for NK is Seoul is right on the border. SHould have moved Seoul south right after the war.

dietrich wrote:

sebster wrote:It's a terrible misunderstanding of history to think revolutions don't occur because the people lack guns. It hasn't ever worked that way. It certainly isn't the issue in N Korea right now.

Without the right to bear arms, an oppressive military regime has little opposition. While people won't like it, and may plot and scheme, at some point, the answer is that they need access to weapons. Whether it's AK-47s or C-4 explosives, it doesn't matter. Having weapons doesn't result in a revolution. Not having weapons can stall a revolution.

I do agree with you. Part of the problem is that the population doesn't know that the grass really is greener on the other side of the DMZ. Of course, how do they find out, if they can't topple the government?

The NK government keeps absolute control of the media and tries to prevent interaction between their population and neighbours even including their relatives in the south.

A lot of the population probably believe the outside world is a grey wasteland.

dietrich wrote:Without the right to bear arms, an oppressive military regime has little opposition. While people won't like it, and may plot and scheme, at some point, the answer is that they need access to weapons. Whether it's AK-47s or C-4 explosives, it doesn't matter. Having weapons doesn't result in a revolution. Not having weapons can stall a revolution.

Nah, when unarmed populations have moved to revolution, the guns are the easiest part.

I do agree with you. Part of the problem is that the population doesn't know that the grass really is greener on the other side of the DMZ. Of course, how do they find out, if they can't topple the government?

There's an interesting idea called the j-curve. It argues that while absolutely free governments are the most stable, it doesn't follow that completely isolated governments are the least stable. Instead the least stable govts are the partially open countries, with completely closed societies generally lasting a long time. But yeah, actually getting N Korea to open the gates is tricky one, and something for the long term once things have stabilised somewhat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JD21290 wrote:we cannot control a country, helping them out would simply lose our own troops in a battle which isnt ours.
if we decide to fight, then we should be taking the country from them, not helping them.

That's seriously bonkers.

and having the experience of being thown into the battlefield im pleased to say im pissed off with fighting for no fething reason atall, why would i want to risk my life for something that is none of my buisness?

It is your business, and that literally 'business'. There are vast amounts of US capital invested in S Korea, and if you signed up thinking you wouldn't be exposed to danger to protect the business holdings of the rich, you haven't been paying attention to the last 200 years of history.

Economists like to do the 'guns vs butter' debate (domestic spending vs military spending). Someone once commented, it was really economics that brought down the Berlin Wall and the end of the USSR. Because the Russian populance realized that the US not only had guns and butter, but they also had washing machines, cars, and aircraft carriers too.

sebster wrote:N Korea has an almost complete shut down of communication with the outside world. They don't know things are better out here. If there was this underlying revolution waiting to happen, people would get their hands on the weapons needed. We're clever like that.

What's needed is to open up N Korea to the rest of the world. Expose the populace to how things work elsewhere, and how their own country can be different. It is, of course, a very difficult thing to achieve and miles away from the current situation (where thinking should be entirely about not letting things get worse).

When reunification happens (and it will someday because they're still one people), the UN's going to have to get involved in a major way. I can't imagine how much delicate lifting it's going to take to get the north up to speed, but at the right rate.

Although I will add that there's perhaps more knowledge of the outside world there than we realize. People do get smuggled out, which would indicate they're aware things are different in the south.

sebster wrote:There's an interesting idea called the j-curve. It argues that while absolutely free governments are the most stable, it doesn't follow that completely isolated governments are the least stable. Instead the least stable govts are the partially open countries, with completely closed societies generally lasting a long time. But yeah, actually getting N Korea to open the gates is tricky one, and something for the long term once things have stabilised somewhat.

I've heard this before too, although as more of an adage about how as you gain freedoms, the more dissatisfied you become. The USSR is a great example.

dietrich wrote:
Without the right to bear arms, an oppressive military regime has little opposition. While people won't like it, and may plot and scheme, at some point, the answer is that they need access to weapons. Whether it's AK-47s or C-4 explosives, it doesn't matter. Having weapons doesn't result in a revolution. Not having weapons can stall a revolution.

With the right to bear arms an oppressive military regime has little opposition, at least in the contemporary environment. Of course you're also presuming the revolutions actually exist in the classical sense. History shows that they tend to be periods of violence followed by business as usual, regardless of who comes out on top.

Either way, if the desire for revolution was strong the NK people would have weapons. All those soldiers serving Kim are hardly automatons.

dietrich wrote:
I do agree with you. Part of the problem is that the population doesn't know that the grass really is greener on the other side of the DMZ. Of course, how do they find out, if they can't topple the government?

Why bother toppling the government if you don't know the grass is greener? Its hardly worth the violence to enter into a social system that you believe to be necessarily the same.

Kilkrazy wrote:
The NK government keeps absolute control of the media and tries to prevent interaction between their population and neighbours even including their relatives in the south.

A lot of the population probably believe the outside world is a grey wasteland.

A while ago there was photo journalist who got into NK and took a bunch of pictures. I think it was published in Foreign Policy. Crazy stuff. According to him the only available media sources were the 3 TV networks that filled the air with propaganda about Kim; including discussions of how his birth was foretold by a sparrow, and his ability to manipulate time.

Frazzled wrote:
I want men like JD12120 to do their job and what they signed up-to protect the US and its citizens. Not the citizens of every country in the world.

Just to clarify : when did it become the British armies job to " to protect the US and its citizens. Not the citizens of every country in the world" ?

I know our armed forces have a much higher success rate of actually winning wars than yours do and you are big fans of subcontracting out but...jeez...

He's not in the British army reds8n. He forwarded something about "See the world, join Cobra Command,' but I just trashed the ad after realizing the free vacation getaway required a meeting first.

reds8n wrote:I know our armed forces have a much higher success rate of actually winning wars than yours do and you are big fans of subcontracting out but...jeez...

I noe, write?

You say that, but.... you never see Lizzie and Cobra Commander together do you eh ? Eh ?

Look at Destro.. now look at Philip... ....

Now consider : Both seemingly have limitless funds without actually, you know, doing any actual work. Extremely loyal-- to the point of fanaticism fans.

Plus the whole wacky schemes to rule the world thing too.
The murder of Diana was merely the first step in creating Serpentor MK II : The Uber Royal. A being of such breeding and genetic superiority that all who see him/her will have an overwhelming compulsion to bow or curtsy.

Diana-- killed in a CAR.

Cobra Commander-- built a brainwashing CARwash.. see? See ?

...errrr....... or was that Ratbat and the other later arrivals from Cybertron ? After they'd built the Space bridge-- which actually incorporated Blasters friend Spanner as part of it ? And Lord Straxus got blown to bits, before trying to possess Megatron later ? Yeah.. I think it was.. I think he hypnotised GB Rockwell perhaps ? This was all well after Circuit Breaker had tried to.. continues ad nauseum...

Run! The Monster is unleashed!

You jest..but look




See the scales ? Scales.... snakes.... see !

have you read David Icke's stunning revelations ? They're terrifying.

At the heart of Icke's theories is the view that the world is ruled by a secret group called the "Global Elite" or "Illuminati," which he has linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic hoax.[3][4] In 1999, he published The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie.[3][5]

Well Kris Kristofferson I could believe, but the Queen? Never! Thats like saying Willie Nelson is a reptilian. He's not. He's just stoned.

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I want men like JD12120 to do their job and what they signed up-to protect the US and its citizens. Not the citizens of every country in the world.

Just to clarify : when did it become the British armies job to " to protect the US and its citizens. Not the citizens of every country in the world" ?

I know our armed forces have a much higher success rate of actually winning wars than yours do and you are big fans of subcontracting out but...jeez...

When TBlair decided we should help invade Iraq and Afghanistan, as far as I can tell.

ba dump-tish!

We're here all week, you've been a lovely audience.

or perhaps this would be more apt ?

Is britain not pulling out in like 3 months or something?

i support 2nd and 1/2 amendment...




send some of those into NK and see what happens

That's seriously bonkers.

So what, you dont value the lives of our troops? your happy to see them being killed for a fight that isnt ours?
how about you sign up in the army, go out and see what its like for yourself?
why the feth should we lose our own troops to protect a country thats having problems? feth em, its thier problems, not ours.
if people didnt keep getting involved in everything then maybe we could cut back on wars.

its ok for you to blurt on about how things should be done, but at the end of the day the closest you have ever come to something like this is pushing a few model over a board, and following game rules.
and im guessing the worsed situation you have ever been in was possibly being bullied, not shot at.

maybe you should start thinking about it from a few different points of view before you open your mouth and sound like a fething ungreatfull bastard.
this is something that does annoy me, im risking my life for pricks like you who seem to think we are fething disposable, "they done thier job and thought, throw em away now"
that your kind of fething gakky attitude?
if so then how about you feth off to a different country or sign up and see how that goes.
fething prick.


sorry for the somewhat bad language used here, just making sure he gets my point loud and clear.
and im sure ill be hearing from a MOD soon ish.

JD21290 wrote:

That's seriously bonkers.

So what, you dont value the lives of our troops? your happy to see them being killed for a fight that isnt ours?
how about you sign up in the army, go out and see what its like for yourself?
why the feth should we lose our own troops to protect a country thats having problems? feth em, its thier problems, not ours.
if people didnt keep getting involved in everything then maybe we could cut back on wars.

its ok for you to blurt on about how things should be done, but at the end of the day the closest you have ever come to something like this is pushing a few model over a board, and following game rules.
and im guessing the worsed situation you have ever been in was possibly being bullied, not shot at.

maybe you should start thinking about it from a few different points of view before you open your mouth and sound like a fething ungreatfull bastard.
this is something that does annoy me, im risking my life for pricks like you who seem to think we are fething disposable, "they done thier job and thought, throw em away now"
that your kind of fething gakky attitude?
if so then how about you feth off to a different country or sign up and see how that goes.
fething prick.


sorry for the somewhat bad language used here, just making sure he gets my point loud and clear.
and im sure ill be hearing from a MOD soon ish.

So you don't think the lives of foreign civilians living in harsh conditions are valuble?
You think countries like NK and China can sort their own problems out?
They're been trying for a long time. It hasn't worked, has it? If you joined the military, you are expected to defend the world, not your country, which hasn't had a military attack for a very long time.
Who's to say the lives of soldiers aren't valuble? It's their choice to sign up, and they should understand the risks involved in military service.

Your argument is centered around yourself. What makes you so sure of the other soldier's mindsets? You aren't them, are you?

im risking my life

But only due to you choosing to take the job in the first place.

if people didnt keep getting involved in everything then maybe we could cut back on wars.

Yes. And if no one signed up to the armies then....

maybe you should start thinking about it from a few different points of view before you open your mouth

Quite.

I see the British army is now also seemingly responsible for protecting Australia as well. Good grief, we are a busy little nation. It's like the Empire never ended.

Your argument is centered around yourself. What makes you so sure of the other soldier's mindsets? You aren't them, are you?

Why should i fight to save another country?
i joined the BRITISH military to protect my OWN country.
not every fething country that has a problem.
Hence the idea of the military, to protect and serve.
im happy to risk my life for england, america and aus, simply because of the loyalty in return and you would all do the same.
to be honest, i would quite happily let you get taken and tourtured, why the feth should i risk my life and others in my unit to save someone who doesent really give a feth?

Yes, i know the risks of the job when i joined, i had no problems with that, i have problems with everyone deciding to get involved in everyone elses problems, causing more and more troops to die for a cause thats not thier own.

and im sure thats easy enough for you to say all that since your sat in a nice comfy chair, no problems atall, maybe you should actually think from the point of view of a soldier stuck out in the gak.


Another problem im starting to have is now usually caused by fat little bastards that seem to think they know how the world works, they seem to think they know everything.
if your so fething sure of your views then try life in the army, see how that changes for you.

after 6 months sat on here about the worsed you have is a few sores on your ass.
after 6 months in iraq you tend to get a good fething grasp on things, and also know what it fething feels like to lose good friends that lost thier lives trying to serve.
now, once you can try to work out how that would feel maybe your somewhat closer to knowing how it works.

and as for pricks that say "your in the army, its your job"
yea, its also my fething life aswell.
how about you learn to respect the people who put thier fething necks on the line to save some ungreatfull little dick like you.

So join the army today and broaden YOUR perspective on life..

I repeat; It's their choice to sign up, and they should understand the risks involved in military service. Including you.

I understand that you might have lost friends and comrades-in-arms in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that the top brass don't know what they're doing. All wars have casualties. Even in decisive victories, there are going to be casualties on your side. You could easily have not signed up and avoided the horrors of war.

Must have been a kick in the balls when you discovered it's not all fun and games over there.

after 6 months in iraq you tend to get a good fething grasp on things,

Clearly.

Still, literature's' loss is the armed forces gain.

So what cheese, i should reduce myself to a pale wreck sat on a computer chair all day pissing everyone off like you do?
i rather do something with my life.
and its people like you that do fething get to me.
you have nothing to do with any of this, your just a child thats hyped up on political ideas and seems to think the world if a perfect place.
if you seem to think that we signed up to die then maybe you dont quite get it atall.
i signed up to actually do something with my life, but now i can see that im actually protecting dickheads like you then that tends to make me think why bother with it.
whats the point in putting my life and others on the line just to be counted as a statistic by people like you?

and to end on a slightly better note, im taking a break from dakka for a while before i get myself banned due to dickheads like you.
i rather go for a few months and cool down than stay here arguing with someone that has no idea whats involved in a war.

Why the feth would i think its all fun and games?
hey, atleast i could get kicked in the balls, from what ive seen that seems to be something your actually missing.
maybe go out once in a while, see the world, do something with your life?


and now im off before i get banned.
i apologise for my language, but fear not, its all been directed at cheese, not anyone else (so yes, it is a personal attack, mods do what you want here)

and see you later (at some point i guess) to the people on dakka who are actually people, rather than a waste of fething good space.

And what gives you the right to insult my personal life when you know nothing whatsoever about it?

I don't think the world is a perfect place. I've read about the horrible wars, I've been to the German concentration camp museums, I know what kind of horrors occur in war. I've seen my own father bleed out and die on the floor, and you think I'm ignorant to what the world is like?

I'm not going to argue with you, because now you're going to rage some more about your twisted perception of the world. You could have avoided all of this, so don't blame me.

Did you know that until I became a Mod, I didn't even know the Off Topic forum existed?

True story!

More on point, PLEASE watch your language AND STOP the personal attacks, OK?

(Politics, religion, RAW, TLOS...)

How could you miss it? It was right there all the time. It's the most active forum on the damn board!

JD21290 wrote:

Your argument is centered around yourself. What makes you so sure of the other soldier's mindsets? You aren't them, are you?

Why should i fight to save another country?
i joined the BRITISH military to protect my OWN country.
not every fething country that has a problem.
Hence the idea of the military, to protect and serve.
im happy to risk my life for england, america and aus, simply because of the loyalty in return and you would all do the same.
to be honest, i would quite happily let you get taken and tourtured, why the feth should i risk my life and others in my unit to save someone who doesent really give a feth?

The reason why the USA and GB have the militaries that they do is so that we provide protection for our allies including South Korea. If an ally nation calls for aid then what the heck kind of an ally would deny it? The British military's allies are far more than just USA and AUS.

In the case of South Korea they routinely have deployed support forces to Iraq and the Republic of Korea Marines are some of the toughest SOB's around especially during Vietnam.

JD21290 wrote:So what, you dont value the lives of our troops? your happy to see them being killed for a fight that isnt ours?
how about you sign up in the army, go out and see what its like for yourself?
why the feth should we lose our own troops to protect a country thats having problems? feth em, its thier problems, not ours.
if people didnt keep getting involved in everything then maybe we could cut back on wars.

This has nothing to do with the quoted section I commented on. There you talked about either occupying a country entirely or letting it be. This flies in the face of basic bodycount maths (occupying foreign territory has gotten a lot more people killed in the last hundred years than peacekeeping has). It flies in the face of understanding the source of the wealth of nations comes from trade, and it is only with that wealth that countries can afford a modern military capable of defending the country.

its ok for you to blurt on about how things should be done, but at the end of the day the closest you have ever come to something like this is pushing a few model over a board, and following game rules.
and im guessing the worsed situation you have ever been in was possibly being bullied, not shot at.

Don't pull that rubbish 'I've served so I get to spout whatever I want and no-one gets to point that it makes no sense. No-one is doubting your courage or work ethic in serving. I'm doubting your understanding of how the world works. And yes, your idea that you either occupy a country or let it do whatever it wants is non-sensical. It fails to understand how interconnected the modern world is. It fails to understand how difficult military occupation is.

this is something that does annoy me, im risking my life for pricks like you who seem to think we are fething disposable, "they done thier job and thought, throw em away now"
that your kind of fething gakky attitude?
if so then how about you feth off to a different country or sign up and see how that goes.
fething prick.

You're not really talking to me anymore, are you? I haven't ever treated a soldier a disposable, and doubt I'll ever be in a position to do so. I've opposed most wars on the very explicit grounds that our soldiers are not disposable.

Meanwhile you've signed up to fight for your country, somehow thinking the only wars you'll fight will be ones to defend your own cities. It's a seriously naive view.

youngblood wrote:Simply put, it's far more complex than simply sticking up for human rights or trying to control oil, international affairs are obscenely complicated. This shouldn't be pinned solely on Mr. Bush, there are other countries in the UN after all. If people would stop looking to America to be the World Police, maybe we would stop acting like it.

But if we stop being world police we wouldn't be able to taser other contries into submission. And where's the fun in that?

Cheese Elemental wrote:Is this when you break out the photoshop retardation?

Damn, and I was sitting here thinking you were reasonable.

Frazzled wrote:

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:If he really does push his nation into war, he doesn't deserve any mercy, because he's condemning thousands of innocent people without any sensible reason.

I'm not sure of Kim Yong-il's history though. Is he like Robert Mugabe, a hero who became a mad dictator?

Far as I know, Kim Jong hasn't had his military rape, mutilate, and kill innocent women and little girls to ensure his power. He's still fething nuts, and one of his generals is gonna see this and out one between those outrageous sunglasses of his.

Your lack of education is frightening in its depth. North Korea has the world's largest concentration camp. North Korean policy is that your family suffers for THREE generations for any perceived crimes. Thats right grandparents and children in the camps.

Next time before you type something it would be good if you actually did a little research before spewing forth nonsense.
http://indianchristians.in/news/content/view/680/45/

Kim Young-soon said North Korea was "a place that should disappear from the earth". She estimated that six or seven out of every 100 people died in Yodok Political Prison Camp Number 15 in one year. She herself spent eight years at the camp.



Kim Tae-jin suffered various tortures in the same prison, including being beaten with burning wood and being forced to sit on burning quicklime. "I realised pain can be more dreadful than death," he said. Kim said lack of food at the camp was a continual ordeal.



"One meal consists of a handful of corn kernels and they mix it with some edible tree leaves and they add some salt." He said he caught and ate rats, snakes and frogs to supplement his rations.

http://www.newser.com/story/45015/23-years-in-a-north-korean-prison-camp.html

Shin describes the daily horrors of life inside Kim Jong-Il's gulags, from fire torture to mutilation. He committed no crime—he was born in the camp—and is struggling to adjust to life in the South 3 years after his escape.

Guards cut off the tip of Shin's middle finger for accidentally dropping a sewing machine at the factory where he performed slave labor. Later, he was dangled over a fire and pierced with a steel hook to force him to confess to an escape plot he knew nothing of. He spent 7 months in an underground cell, to be released only to watch his mother hanged and brother shot to death

http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/north-korea/page.do?id=1011213

I was refering to Mugabe, who started off cool an stuff, and is now a fething nutty bastard, but Kim Jong was pretty much always crazy. I say we insert a few green berets into NK and just let them wreck utter havoc till Il gets the idea we are serious, at which point we unleash some angry Army Rangers on him, and let the country desolve into anarchy and infighting afterwards. But that's just me.

**Point Taken**

In before lock! (I've started drinking after a six year hiatus that I really can't explain. Something about wasting monies on the little toy soldiers. Bah Humbug!) By the way JD21290, you also knew that merry old England was allied with the big, bad USA, didn't you? We had a squirrelly slow cowboy who was trying to outdo daddy as president, surely trouble was in the air?

@Cheese:

You know, I had something really witty to say to you... then I remembered that you are a 15 year old self admitted lier and decided it wasnt worth my time.

What could I possibly have to lie about on this issue? Come on, out with it.

So you don't think the lives of foreign civilians living in harsh conditions are valuble?
***If they are shooting at our troops or threatening our nation, not at all.

You think countries like NK and China can sort their own problems out?
***Yes indeedy. Its funny how history shows that, before the Great Satan that is the US, the rest of the world managed to sort itself out year after year.

They're been trying for a long time. It hasn't worked, has it? If you joined the military, you are expected to defend the world, not your country, which hasn't had a military attack for a very long time.
***No you sign up to defend your country. Your country, not the rest of the *&(&^ world.

Who's to say the lives of soldiers aren't valuble? It's their choice to sign up, and they should understand the risks involved in military service.
***Is a fireman less valuable because he chooses to go into burning buildings? Is a cop’s less valuable because he chooses to keep order and defend us from the wolves. A soldier does the same. He defends us from the wolves that are other countries.

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:I say we insert a few green berets into NK and just let them wreck utter havoc till Il gets the idea we are serious, at which point we unleash some angry Army Rangers on him, and let the country desolve into anarchy and infighting afterwards. But that's just me.

I like when someone says something like this.
Real World calling Golden! Real World calling Golden! Stop watching Hollywood movies. This kind of open move doesn´t work outside the movies because if you are successful you can bet that Russia and China will take note so next time they do the same they can hit the US with the fact that they were the firsts to drop the ball and if it misses you are in a worse situation because now NK have a bunch of US troops and no matter how many servicemen bills you have or how you want to dress it you are the one that started the war and that is not going to sit well with you allies.

M.

I find the lack of support for soldiers here upsetting. I know that in the US at least the oath you take when you enlist mentions protecting and defending the Constitution and the Country, not the entire world. I'm willing to bet that Great Britain's oath of enlistment, Canada's, and the French Foreign Legions oaths are all somewhat similar in that you take the oath to defend your country and it's territories not the entire world.


At this time I would like to thank JD21290 for his service, despite the fact that he is a Tommy not a Yank, as he has pointed out he has no problem defending Australia, GB or the US due to the loyalties between them. So thank you in a way you are responsible not only for country's security as well as mine. You know what, I'd like to thank all members of dakkadakka who have served in the Military, you keep us(your country's) safe and you shouldn't have to go out and fight in places that it not our business being. It is my hope that the I will be able one day to get back in the military and serve along side you all. Thank you once more.


I'll get off my soap box now.

JD21290 wrote:why the feth should we lose our own troops to protect a country thats having problems? feth em, its thier problems, not ours.

Where were you in 2003? I needed you then.

JD21290 wrote:Why should i fight to save another country?
i joined the BRITISH military to protect my OWN country.

The military exists to defend British interests, not just the rock that sticks up out of the sea above France. You seem to have joined the military for slightly naive reasons; you didn’t join the home guard.

As a public servants we’re happy to take the publics money in exchange for doing as those appointed by the public demand, if you’re unhappy with that I suggest you leave the armed forces.

< Injured US Marine who knows what its like to lose someone in Iraq

BrotherStynier wrote:I find the lack of support for soldiers here upsetting. I know that in the US at least the oath you take when you enlist mentions protecting and defending the Constitution and the Country, not the entire world. I'm willing to bet that Great Britain's oath of enlistment, Canada's, and the French Foreign Legions oaths are all somewhat similar in that you take the oath to defend your country and it's territories not the entire world.


At this time I would like to thank JD21290 for his service, despite the fact that he is a Tommy not a Yank, as he has pointed out he has no problem defending Australia, GB or the US due to the loyalties between them.

Wow, so the thousands of other allied nations that support and served with the USA and GB don't get a mention or aren't worth defending?

I really don't understand where this misconception stems from where the only nations that are worth defending or are loyal to eachother are USA, GB, and AUS (especially the latter) - but it makes more sense when one considers those are the most common flags seen on these boards than say South Korea.

And all those generalize and say things like: "Well country X isn't worth fighting for because their own citizens don't even want us there!" Well, thats a broad generalization and I'd like to know how you think an entire group of people is represented by a vocal minority. Especially since you'll find such vocal minorities in countries like the USA, GB, and AUS who go out of their way to demean and insult service men and women...by the former logic your own country isn't worth defending since a lot of its citizens rather you not exist.

Seriously, with some of the arguments here it'd be justified to let Hitler keep burning Jews and dominate Europe and just let the USA handle Japan especially since we weren't anywhere near as strong of an ally to European countries back then. After all its "their problem". Personally I believe we should spend our resources to help rid of tyrants and genocide like Hitler and say what you will about the Iraq War (however if you basically say Iraq was worthless and the like you're spitting on the sacrifices thousands of military men and women have and will make) it got rid of an oppressive regime which is something to be proud of.

EDIT: As for the JD guy I question if he's even in combat job or if he's even served because the way he talks about the US, GB, and AUS it doesn't seem like he's been exposed to real combat operations (ie Iraq) since there's a lot more countries whose brave men and women are serving alongside them.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.


@ TheMods, if you don't like what I have to say ban my ass.

reds8n wrote:

At the heart of Icke's theories is the view that the world is ruled by a secret group called the "Global Elite" or "Illuminati," which he has linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic hoax.[3][4] In 1999, he published The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie.[3][5]

When did Boxcar Willie become 'a prominent figure'? I mean, everyone knows the name, but how many people could pick him out of a lineup?

That's what they want you to think !


...I'd never heard of him until drunkenly stumbling on David Icke's "theories" one night.

@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.