Sometimes one cannot talk peace, other people who live different lifestyles don't understand our freedoms and rights and they are continuously loathing us for them. Their hatred builds then and then its completely inevitable to avoid either terrorist or military actions. They don't understand us as much as we don't understand them and their ways of life. the political values of these different governments are extremely different.

Communism beliefs tends to trend towards "if we cannot have complete control over every aspect of our people lives, then how will they obey us, and also, If we keep everyone on an equal level there will be no Envy between citizens aside from the rich are all rich and the very poor are all very poor." Religion also plays factor in these situations a lot.

Our political beliefs re so different that war is almost unavoidable unfortunate to say...

Isn't it funny that only thing NK want to give up its nuke plan is a nonaggression treaty between US and NK which US don't accept now. Isn't it obvious that US want to attack NK for some other reaon? I believe that US will attack NK even though NK drop its nuke plan all of sudden in order for US to take a control of Asia in general. NK is just next to China. If you believe that the only country US cannot threat with their force is China, what you want to do? There are so many reasons other than humane ones the current US leaders want to attack NK, I think. For your reference, I am a Korean and I live in S. Korea.

Agree with you. NK's military is very outdated. A lot of T-72 and even older model series Soviet era tanks.

I'm betting on no war though nor do I want one.

That's so admirable of a mighty country: burn demoralized and underarmed ghost of an army...
They were those that was an "iminent threat " to the US.

America must be proud!

"admirable"...seen to many "war" movies haven't you?

warning for NK..they going to give 110% in a war..

:2 cents:

ok you got me...


the first issue up there is agreeably laughable... 'principled actions in world politics' is a eutopian dream...

and in the end it does boil down to costs/benefits...


and yes, Afganistan and China are not the same nor should be treated the same in many regards....


...however we must admit to being big hypocritical pussies to some extent if we are to force this premptive strike policy on little weak countries that we can defeat with relative ease...which includes like almost everyone...

Russia is too disorganized atm therefore China is really the only remaining threat/superpower with significant numbers and tools that would and could wear us out a bit...


they should be handled different but it's just an admission of 'we only beat down little fucks that we can get away with beating down..."

that is the point I'm getting at....


do I think it's wrong? ok, that's another discussion....








Question:

...if Hitler's Nazi Germany was as big as China would it be ok to not 'push the issue' with them because they were too large & powerful???

Not as many as you... :thumbsup

English is NOT my mothertongue, so this type of error can slip in... but the general meaning remains very clear.

I think we should have waxed North Korea first then hit Saddam...

It seemed only logical, but the Oil men got greedy...

Or

Maybe they realised we need to take out Iraq first to get oil then move to Korea with our equipment fueled by Iraqi Oil...

CHina wont give a shit, they need a better trade partner and N Korea aint putting out good trade with China anyways.

Either way mark my words.

Americans will die in Korea II. USA will be going to Korea next. The scenerio of 30-60 days to take out Joung is prolly on an over estimate it is more likely to be less time.

Fuck North Korea. They need a hefty dose of liberation:thumbsup

Hitler was saying the same of Europe ....

Hitler got nothing on Bush.

Bush is worse cuz he is stupid.

Military engagements are mission oriented...can the mission be accomplished and at what cost. Adjectives are not a part of the equation...or debate.

does US still have enough fire power to make it to war?

That statement shows that, no matter how stupid Bush is, there's always at least one person out there who is even less intelligent.

SpaceAce

thanks for the schooling ;-)

:thumbsup


PS: who runs the military? that dog doesn't bark unless it's owner lets it off the leash...the owner is the one dealing with 'adjectives'

yes?

"does US still have enough fire power to make it to war?"

Of course, The US war machine has not even broke a sweat yet.

Will they break a sweat in N. Korea.

No.

"no matter how stupid Bush is, there's always at least one person out there who is even less intelligent."

Thats absolutly true, your living proof.

Give you odds it's more than 1/2.:Graucho

Oh shit, I am gonna be voting Republican!

Its Arnold time:thumbsup

OK...lets go a little deeper.

Lets say that country A presents a percived problem...then the mission oriented decision making comes into play...can the problem be successfully corrected by military force...at what cost/benefit? The cost/benefit factor may be considered to be not viable. Country B presents a percieved problem and the same mission oriented decision making comes into play and in this case it is decided that the problem can be corrected by military force and the cost/benefit factor is considered to be viable. Bottomline...viable or not viable.

China is not currently a threat to the US and currently cannot project its military into our hemisphere other than via nukes and their leadership is not into committing suicide. China is not a superpower and is probably 40-50 years away from being a superpower...if it has that goal.


Once again the answer to all of the questions posed...viable or not viable.

I think everyone is missing the big picture here, WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR A WAR WITH NORTH KOREA. We are looking at a 450 billion dollar deficit for this year. We are spending an estimated 3.9 billion dollars a MONTH in iraq with no end in sight, and an additional 900 million per month in afghanistan. Wars don't pay for themselves.


Enchantress

It only looks easy. How many people were predicting multiple thousands of US deaths in bloody urban combat? It's not easy to project power. It's not easy fight wars half way around the globe on foreign soil. The predictions of horrific urban combat were very popular both on this board and in the press.

Just a few decades ago, the US was having a horrible go at it in Vietnam. The Russians couldn't defeat the Afghans a short while ago and that wasn't even far from home.

beating up a little kid = only fighting fights we know we can win....


viable? sure

cost/benefit .... sure if we want their bag of candy enough....

that is Soooooooo true, it's amazing how many little details of even deploying a small (under 100 people) reconnaissance squadron can be...let alone conduct a full multi-force & coalition operation

Where WAS the predicted urban combat anyway? Lack of will of the Iraqi people?

I think you mean "That's", "absolutely" and "you're".

SpaceAce

these guys are so full of shit.

in iraq the US air force had been continually bombing iraqi air defenses since 1991.

north korea has high quality anti-aircraft weapons in such quantity that they export them to other countries.

when the war first started there was a site called iraqwar.ru that was run by russian intelligence agencies on how a war would be fought if the US attacked russia.

one of the points they made was that the US air superiorority in iraq was the most important factor in the war, but in a forested and mountainous country the US would not have the same capability as in the desert.

north korea's geography is not iraq's.

Only along the border of the "no fly zone".

There has never been, and there currently is not, an anti-aircraft system that can deter airpower.

Your point is not really applicable...Air Power will seal their strategic fate...Naval Forces makes invasion accessible for boots on the ground virtually at any point along the Penisula and outdated military hardware (that is not replaceable)..makes the outcome inevitable and 60 days is probably the outside limit.

i think you're talking out your ass, just like the people quoted in that article.

just where are these "boots on the ground" gonna come from when half the military is in afghanistan or iraq?

i don't think it matters anyway. this is just a bunch of lameasses in washington trying to deflect criticism from the current events in afghanistan and iraq.

the US is no more going to invade north korea than i am.

I've got my money on Putin.

North Korea won't be attacked by USA. The reason is simple. The North Koreans would completely pummel the USA. that country has spent decades building it's military and in fact, their military is so large and advanced that it's the cause of their famines and so on. If they don't use this army, they've completly screwed their country.

If they use it, they will damn sure win.

Haha. "large and advanced"? 70's era Soviet tanks and old MiGs are all the rage. ;-)

You know this for a fact, do you? Does US intelligence know ANYTHING of what's going on behind the iron panties of North Korea? I don't think so...

I will respectfully disagree with you on this one ;)

:1orglaugh


I agree they will cause a lot of blood loss, but inevitably they will be squashed....unless China jumped in...that would mix shit up a bit...

We just print more money like we always have.

:)

OK, sure. Remember we have over 10,000 nukes to their couple if they even have that.

If things get out of hand we always have the nuclear card in our back pocket to play, and play Georgie Boy will I'm sure if it came down to that decision.

You are sadly right... and even documented:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...015278,00.html

Sounds familiar... mmmmmmm.... Iraq?

Would you trust dealing with the US ...

EXCELLENT ITS ABOUT TIME!

AFTER THEM WE GO TO IRAN UNLESS THE COUNTRY DOES IT THEMSELVES FIRST

:feels-hot NUKE EM
:ak47: SHOOT EM
:BangBang: SHOOT EM ONCE MORE
:thefinger LEAVE EM TO DIE!

... and then the French and then the Germans and then .. Canada and Mexico ..

You're a MORON!

NK's military hardware is ancient. Sure they spend 15% of their GDP on military. That's only about $4billion per year or so though. The US spends 70x that. I mean, come on, General Motors makes more money than the entire country of North Korea - about 8x as much.

No one is even close.
http://www.aneki.com/military.html

The US spends almost as much on it's military as the total Russian Federation GDP.

Bump for boneprone. :1orglaugh

Unsure if anyone answered or not as i haven't finished reading this thread, but if I recall, it is legal to have them if you previously owned them, but illegal to now create and/or purchase.

I'm sure the United States have been spying on them with satelites and have every strategy planned out theyre just not revealing it, obviously.

I think it's time to call up Starship Troopers
http://www.affichescinema.com/insc_s...ip_trooper.jpg

From that article:

"Less than four months after the end of the Iraq war, "

Yep I guess thats why we hear about attacks on a daily basis and Bagdad is considered the city with the worst quality of life in the world :error

If this idiot is going to do this, he had better send in no less than 1million soldiers.

hooooooray for really old fucking threads

fucking old thread