Printable View
This slipped by me. Headline news claims North Koreans are ralling for a holy war agaisnt the US, and the country intends to continue long range missile tests and nuclear weapon development.
Err why? Does this have to do with the UN inspectors being removed from the country?
*-neo
Oh great.
*buys a bomb shelter*
North Korea is a country that is struggling under enormous debt, a stupid leader, and a starving populace that isn't too fond of the management of their government. Communism didn't work out for them.
What is going on is that they are gonna act like a bunch of babies and show the world exactly how not to react in a national crisis by lashing out at any nation that could possibly help them out of their hole.
As for North Korea being any sort of threat. They're about as threatening as a kitten. Its all talk from a panicked nation that is probably going to have a big civil war any day now. I'd say within the next few years, there won't be a North Korea any more. And it won't be the US that will destroy it. Its destroying itself from within.
Bush in his State of the Union called North Korea part of an "axis of evil". I think it was uncalled for, because, to my knowledge, North Korea wasn't doing anything wrong at the time. But anyway... recently North Korea decided to reopen a nuclear facility that it closed down after a treaty with the USA. They also turned off all the different UN surveillance monitors, and everything else.
Recently the USA said that North Korea has been developing nuclear weapons for a while now secretly.
While this is all bad news, and makes the world even more fucked up... I dont think North Korea is the same situation as Iraq. North Korea is not run by a crazed dictator that uses weapons on his own people (to my knowledge). I actually think the country is doing all this to make sure the USA doesnt... blow it up (like is gonna happen with Iraq). This type of posturing is similar to what happened a few years ago with India and Pakistan.
Does N. Korea even have a means of delivering nuclear warheads to the US anyway besides boats? (And of coarse planes, that would be shot down)
I don't know why the US feels that other countries can't have nuclear weapons when we have more than any other nation on earth. Exactly how we can tell other nations they can't have any is beyond my understanding. I guess our government says we'll nuke you if you build any nukes.
no delivery method yet.
i think they fed ex them to their enemies...
bad joke yeah but shuttap! :lol:
Its to protect the world from unstable and or communist countries.Quote:
Originally posted by ginaman
I don't know why the US feels that other countries can't have nuclear weapons when we have more than any other nation on earth. Exactly how we can tell other nations they can't have any is beyond my understanding. I guess our government says we'll nuke you if you build any nukes.
The USA or other such countries arent going to start pressing buttons because of mass hate for a certain group...
Tactically, if they are smart, they invade the south when the US is in the ME. Could work, maybe.
Quote:
Its to protect the world from unstable and or communist countries.
The USA or other such countries arent going to start pressing buttons because of mass hate for a certain group...
I understand that. But it seems as thought the US acts as a worldwide police force.
I just think of China's nuclear program that has gone on for decades now. China is quite the war-like country. Always threatening Taiwan with missile launch "tests" near their country. Not to mention how badly they treat their own civilian populace. Yet they weren't mentioned as part of any axis of evil. Even though they have far more nuclear capability than any other nation beyond the US. The russian countries still have more nukes, but I would think they are more divided and very unlikely to even be able to use them in any manner now.
Our reaction towards North Korea for having nukes just seems like some big double standard of economic ties and other money/resources to other countries who are an even bigger potential threat. IMO, it just makes the US look bad to treat one threatening nation one way, and look the other way for other threatening nations we do business with.
Of course, I feel the same way about how we love to ignore Saudi Arabia's incredible anti-US attitude.
You are correct..
Welcome to politics, it sucks....
I'm surprised they haven't invaded the south years ago, but I do expect an invasion within the next few years. Then we can all be fucked as the US gets all pissy that they lost some 30,000 soldiers defending a foreign country.Quote:
Originally posted by mattvanstone
Tactically, if they are smart, they invade the south when the US is in the ME. Could work, maybe.
exactly like the police.. protect the Haves.. the US, and other capatalist countries.. and opress the Have nots, N.Korea, Iraq etc.. any other countires the US, and allies have investments in..Quote:
Originally posted by ginaman
I understand that. But it seems as thought the US acts as a worldwide police force.
N.Korea would never invade the south.. Hell.. i would see the South help the N.korea. Their is a large anti-american army fealings over there.. They dont want the US their..
That's what a lot of countries say, but it's bullshit.Quote:
Originally posted by maruchan
N.Korea would never invade the south.. Hell.. i would see the South help the N.korea. Their is a large anti-american army fealings over there.. They dont want the US their..
Japan paying to have the US on Okinawa, is cheaper than them doing it themselves, though, that constitution won't let them make weapons of war.
As much as S. Korea complains, that millitant few, who would they call when those 7 millions soldiers come running South? The United States.
Let's not forget, that Korea has been dicking around and playing games for a long time (such as lobbing missiles for 'tests' over Japan and the incident last year where the Japanese Navy shot up that boat with N. Korean spys on it), but, I'm not saying we need to go to war, far from it. Only if they take agressive action towards the south, ie: invasion, should we.
Thing is, I don't know if the US can actually fight 2 sustained land wars at the same time. This isn't WW2 where the Military Industrial Complex is making 50% or more of the US's GNP.
Frankly, I would not be surprised to see China invade Taiwan or N. Korea invade S. Korea when the US goes to war with Iraq.
Good thinking. That didn't work so well when the Russians were on their side. It sure as hell won't work now.Quote:
Originally posted by mattvanstone
Tactically, if they are smart, they invade the south when the US is in the ME. Could work, maybe.
History lesson. The last "war" with Iraq lasted 100 hours. That's not a big window for an invasion.Quote:
Originally posted by mattvanstone
Frankly, I would not be surprised to see China invade Taiwan or N. Korea invade S. Korea when the US goes to war with Iraq.
Fighting two wars, one in Iraq, and one in North Korea, wouldn't pose much of a threat to our military resources. These operations tend to end very quickly, and we've got more than enough power to throw around, from what I understand.
I think the Us should launch all of this nuclear weapons at stratgic points around the world.. including hundreds of them in the north and south pole.. I think its time to start over..
My uncle is the C.O. of the jungle training facility in Okinawa. He says it's pretty tense over there right now because one of the people at the school attempted to rape a local woman. He was handed over to the Japanese.Quote:
Originally posted by mattvanstone
Japan paying to have the US on Okinawa, is cheaper than them doing it themselves, though, that constitution won't let them make weapons of war.
Can't we just wait until 3rd Impact? I mean it's so much cooler, it involves seas of blood and giant robots.Quote:
I think the Us should launch all of this nuclear weapons at stratgic points around the world.. including hundreds of them in the north and south pole.. I think its time to start over..
no i cant wait 12 more years...Quote:
Originally posted by Mr-K
Can't we just wait until 3rd Impact? I mean it's so much cooler, it involves seas of blood and giant robots.
No. We just threaten sanctions, which would basically starve any small country to death.Quote:
Originally posted by ginaman
I don't know why the US feels that other countries can't have nuclear weapons when we have more than any other nation on earth. Exactly how we can tell other nations they can't have any is beyond my understanding. I guess our government says we'll nuke you if you build any nukes.
Surrendering weapons of war was the best thing that happened to Japan post-WWII. It freed up all of Japan's resource for use in civilian markets.Quote:
Originally posted by mattvanstone
That's what a lot of countries say, but it's bullshit.
Japan paying to have the US on Okinawa, is cheaper than them doing it themselves, though, that constitution won't let them make weapons of war.
As much as S. Korea complains, that millitant few, who would they call when those 7 millions soldiers come running South? The United States.
Let's not forget, that Korea has been dicking around and playing games for a long time (such as lobbing missiles for 'tests' over Japan and the incident last year where the Japanese Navy shot up that boat with N. Korean spys on it), but, I'm not saying we need to go to war, far from it. Only if they take agressive action towards the south, ie: invasion, should we.
Thing is, I don't know if the US can actually fight 2 sustained land wars at the same time. This isn't WW2 where the Military Industrial Complex is making 50% or more of the US's GNP.
Frankly, I would not be surprised to see China invade Taiwan or N. Korea invade S. Korea when the US goes to war with Iraq.
Quite frankly...I would not be surprised to see a Chinese invasion of Japan in 20 years time.
Iraq didn't defend its position in Kuwait. Saddam knew he couldn't, so he threw down a token resistance and assembled the real forces in Baghdad. Had we invaded Iraq proper, the war would have been much more drawn out.Quote:
Originally posted by Yoshi
History lesson. The last "war" with Iraq lasted 100 hours. That's not a big window for an invasion.
Yeah, that wouldn't completely fuck up any global ecology, or whatever.Quote:
Originally posted by maruchan
I think the Us should launch all of this nuclear weapons at stratgic points around the world.. including hundreds of them in the north and south pole.. I think its time to start over..
That's what he wants. He's trying to be funny, but it's not... even in the slightest.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
Yeah, that wouldn't completely fuck up any global ecology, or whatever.
Gon
The same thing will happen again. Saddam has very little support in the country. Once a majr dent is put in his guard, the less loyal troops will either surrender or run. It won't be 100 hours, but it shouldn't be more than a week either, unless we really take our time.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
Iraq didn't defend its position in Kuwait. Saddam knew he couldn't, so he threw down a token resistance and assembled the real forces in Baghdad. Had we invaded Iraq proper, the war would have been much more drawn out.