PDA

View Full Version : N. Korea says it will defeat USA in nuke war


peter2002
Feb 17, 2003, 11:28 AM
NPRK threatened Tuesday to abandon the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War, accusing the United States of plotting an attack on the communist state. The NPRK also claim today they will defeat the USA in a nuclear war. (Wishful thinking)

Well lets see, the NPRK has maybe 2 nukes. None can reach the USA in the next 6 months unless they ship them in the back of a Hyundai.

The USA has 6,000+ strategic nukes. All can hit N. Korea. The 24 at a time that be launched from our subs can hit in less than 3 minutes.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=01415GZ3HZJA4CRBAEZSFFA?type=worldNews&storyID=2238692

______________

All I got to say is that you got to hand it to that mad portly N. Korean leader Kim Whatever. He is the only guy worse at diplomacy than Bush.

Pete :)

dermeister
Feb 17, 2003, 11:53 AM
Yeah problem is that if America ever does something pre-emptive to protect itself, the whole fscking world always starts spewing **** against it.

I say wait until they start arming up, declare war, use [small] nukes on every military faction in NK:D (You can make small nukes, as long as the uranium is at sufficent concentration to reach critical mass)... Add that to the fact that all of their millitary factions will be inhabitable for X years, and they will pretty much be shot to the ground.

(naive senario, but sounds cool to me)

Kid Red
Feb 17, 2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by peter2002
NPRK claims they will defeat the USA in a nuke war.

Well lets see, they maybe have 2 nukes. None can reach the USA in the next 6 months unless they ship them in the back of a Hyundai.

The USA has 6,000+ strategic nukes. All can hit N. Korea. The 24 at a time that be launched from our subs can hit in less than 3 minutes.

We need to show those punks what a "Freedom" fry feels like when it hits the deep fryer.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=01415GZ3HZJA4CRBAEZSFFA?type=worldNews&storyID=2238692

Yea, someone is a few pistons short an engine. They also don' even have a missle that can reach the US yet, lol.

They are just blackmailing nations to give them aid. "Hey, I will come back next week and throw rocks thru your windows unless you give me a cookie". *******s, they are really going about 'aide' the wrong way. They'll get what they deserve in the end.

idkew
Feb 17, 2003, 12:44 PM
when will people learn that threating someone will not get you help?

n korea has a neighbor down south of them that is doing just fine. maybe they could stop being so damn stubborn and model themselves after s korea.

jelloshotsrule
Feb 17, 2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by dermeister
(naive senario, but sounds cool to me)

sounds "cool"? how so?

nuclear war? cool?

phgreer
Feb 17, 2003, 12:54 PM
Don't worry about it. I sold them casings full of used pinball machine parts.

MacFan25
Feb 17, 2003, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by idkew
n korea has a neighbor down south of them that is doing just fine. maybe they could stop being so damn stubborn and model themselves after s korea.

Yeah, really. I would hate to see a nuclear war going on. It would be very scary. :(

gotohamish
Feb 17, 2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by MacFan25
Yeah, really. I would hate to see a nuclear war going on. It would be very scary. :(

Oh really? I think that's a slight understatment. :(

If all of America had the complacency that a lot of you have, it would be very easy for North Korea.

Who is really to say that they don't have missiles that could reach US soil? You have to take every threat with the utmost of seriousness.

They have Japan in range, and an attack their could cripple the US economy, maybe not as bad as the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, but as far as an attack goes, equally strong.

The Us have to tread carefully, and stop thinking that everyone looks up to them as an amazing power.

We in the UK may fear that the French and Germans are right about Iraq just because of aged relations, but I think we all hope they are in the end. We don't want to instigate a war with anyone, and it looks like North Korea is a far more immediate threat than Iraq.

3rdpath
Feb 17, 2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by idkew
when will people learn that threating someone will not get you help?


if people and countries didn't respond to threats...they would cease to be effective.

maybe the lone superpower, the champion of morals, ethics and all things good and wholesome should set an example...

monkey see, monkey do.

job
Feb 17, 2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath
if people and countries didn't respond to threats...

hmmm...

then let me ask you this..

if someone was standing in front of you with a drawn gun and threatened to kill you, would you respond? if you didn't know whether or not he actually had any rounds in the weapon, would you act?

i do not believe that any country can simply brush off threats of nuclear war. if we do so, it shows the world that we will not take a stand against tyranny and danger. thus as a result, dictators become emboldened. this is tantamount to appeasement.

we never really responded to the embassy bombings in africa, or the attack on the uss cole. look where that got us.

3rdpath
Feb 17, 2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by hitman
hmmm...

then let me ask you this..

if someone was standing in front of you with a drawn gun and threatened to kill you, would you respond? if you didn't know whether or not he actually had any rounds in the weapon, would you act?

i do not believe that any country can simply brush off threats of nuclear war. if we do so, it shows the world that we will not take a stand against tyranny and danger. thus as a result, dictators become emboldened. this is tantamount to appeasement.

we never really responded to the embassy bombings in africa, or the attack on the uss cole. look where that got us.

your analogy is not applicable.
1) we're dealing within the political arena where a threat is used for bargaining or blackmail... the process is lengthy and the true intent of the threat may not be easily identified.

2) both parties are armed...though the "person" in your example has made the mistake of " bringing a knife to a gunfight".

3) there are many ways to stand up to dictators and /or threats...remember the cold war? the threats from russia? if n. korea was ignored what do you think they would do? use a nuke and shortly become the largest man-made crater in existence? i doubt it. they might try a more civilized approach.

and as far as the cole/embassy events... i don't remember any threats being made. correct me if i'm wrong.

Thanatoast
Feb 17, 2003, 03:06 PM
A true story of two friends, who I will call Joe and Bob, that occurred on Saturday.

Joe and Bob got into a HUGE argument earlier in the day. MUCH drama ensued. Joe is now sitting in his recliner, wondering what to do about Bob, because he knows that Bob is very angry. Bob enters the room (I'm in the room as well at this point). Bob is livid. Bob screams at the top of his lungs that Joe will not ignore him. He screams that he is in control of the situation. He screams that he is going to teach Joe a lesson, and take him down a couple of notches. He screams that he will kick Bob's ass. Bob at one point even threatened Joe's life. Bob orders [Sam] and I out of the room. We leave, and the rest of the account comes second hand.

Bob screams more of the same stuff. "Get out of your chair! Come fight me!" Joe refuses. Bob picks up Joe's bass guitar and says "If you don't get out of that chair, I will put this guitar through your tv!" "Fine," replies Joe. "Do it. You will electrocute yourself, and then you will buy me a new tv. But I will not get out of this chair."

Bob yells, "Joe, get out of that chair or I will smash this guitar against your flat panel computer screen!" "Fine," replies Joe. "Do it, but you will be buying me a new computer screen. And I will not get out of this chair."

Bob screams in frustration and yells "Get out of that chair and fight me or I will hit you where you sit!" "If you must hit me where I sit, then do it. I will not move to stop you. But know that my response will not be measured or sympathetic. You will not remain standing if if you hit me." (Joe is much larger than Bob).

Bob screams once more "I hate you!" and leaves the room. Joe has not even lowered the foot rest on his recliner.

The moral of the story should be obvious. Joe throughout remained calm, and refused to make any agressive move to give Bob an excuse to act. Bob knew that if he acted, he would be in bigger trouble than he could handle. The story is true, though the words are paraphrased. I think we should follow Joe's example in North Korea and Iraq. Pacifism can work, if we give it a chance. If Iraq attacks us, then we defend ourselves with extreme prejudice. Same with North Korea. If, however, we attack first, we justify their response and hostility.

Let's learn from our mistakes instead of repeating them. Remember that WWII (which so many in here are fond of pointing to as justification for the invasion of Iraq) was really just revenge for the hardships put on the German people at the end of WWI. And here we are following the same pattern of violence, except this time we're "stopping" Iraq's "Hitler" before he can act. Did Germany do better when they were under crippling sanctions and paying huge reparations or when we helped them rebuild their nation and didn't give them a reason to resent us?

Open your eyes. Pull your head out of your ass. THINK DIFFERENT!

Thanatoast

job
Feb 17, 2003, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath
we're dealing within the political arena where a threat is used for bargaining or blackmail... the process is lengthy and the true intent of the threat may not be easily identified.

however, it is a threat nontheless. until proven otherwise, a country cannot discount any threat as blackmail. we did not aggressively seek out the attention of north korea, nor did we act in any way that might have called for blackmail. besides, wouldn't a peaceful message be far more affective for bargaining?

if you look at the recent diplomatic meetings that have been occurring in the region, it seems that someone high up in washington thinks the same way you do. we have yet to respond to even the slightest rhetoric from north korea. in comparison to the issue with iraq, washington has been strangly silent on the north korea crisis.

both parties are armed...though the "person" in your example has made the mistake of " bringing a knife to a gunfight".

however, only one person is actually crazy enough to strike first. i highly doubt that the united states would launch nukes first.

there are many ways to stand up to dictators and /or threats...remember the cold war? the threats from russia?

and in response to those threats the united states made sure that the soviets knew exactly what would happen if those threats were carried out.

if n. korea was ignored what do you think they would do? use a nuke and shortly become the largest man-made crater in existence? i doubt it. they might try a more civilized approach.

we are talking about a country here whose economy rests solely on the production and export of vast amounts of military hardware. two million north koreans died of starvation last year while Kim Chong-il files in caviar and champaign for himself. they are far past the point of "civilized."

and as far as the cole/embassy events... i don't remember any threats being made. correct me if i'm wrong.

specific threats against those two targest were not made.

however:

Earlier, an hour-long interview with bin Laden shot by CNN was played for the jury. The government offered the March 20, 1997 interview -- his first TV interview with Western media -- which was prompted by bin Laden's August 1996 fatwah, or religious decree, to kill U.S. military personnel.

Last week prosecutors read aloud in court bin Laden's fatwah as evidence of his intent to kill Americans.

"We declared jihad against the U.S. government, because the U.S. government is unjust, criminal, and tyrannical," bin Laden told interviewer Peter Arnett, a former CNN correspondent.

a threat against us military personnel was made.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/02/21/embassy.bombing.02/index.html

the threat was ignored. again, inaction and/or a hard stance against a possible threat resulted in more american deaths.

i'm not saying that the united states ought to launch a pre-emptive strike against north korea. i am merely stating that instead of ignoring a possible threat, we need to state that we will respond in kind if attacked with nuclear weapons.

[edited for spelling]

Jaykay
Feb 17, 2003, 03:57 PM
Thats an interesting story Thanatoast, but who is sam?

Anyways, I agree with you, almost, there can always be a peacefull solution (unless in an extraordinary situation a la WWII). I think the last thing N. Korea either do or think they can do is beat the US in nuclear war. There is no such thing as anybody winning a nuclear war, not to mention the fact that if the US did obliterate N. Korea it would have a dire affect on them anyways.

Do you think that China would stand idly by and watch one of the only surviving communist regimes in the world which they are quite friendly with and is on their border, be taken out by a barrage of nuclear weapons i doubt it (they probably wouldnt attack the US but it would put them up **** creek with the the UN (not NATO because they are NATO or pretty much own it) and the rest of the world unless N. Korea did something on a major scale first. And that would have to be something like using nuclear weapons against the US directly.

And to do with invasion, N.Korea is a whole different kettle of fish than either Iraq or Afghanistan, the US might get burned if they play with too much fire.


Just to note : Im not anti-american(i like all the ameicans i know - except one but not the point :) and ye make macs so hey i love ye guys).I just believe that there are serious consequences for trying to take on the whole world (and from what i can see im not a big of GW)........

ChicagoMac
Feb 17, 2003, 03:59 PM
According to what I heard on the news, North Korea does have a missle that can reach the West Coast of the United States. They couldn't defeat us, but they could certainly do some major damage. A war with N. Korea could also bring some other major players into the war.

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 17, 2003, 04:00 PM
Remember these are ravings from a closed society thats run by a crazy lunatic with dilusions of godhood and they believe whatever the Crazy Korean may tell them. To bad he isnt interested in feeding them.

job
Feb 17, 2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
The moral of the story should be obvious. Joe throughout remained calm, and refused to make any agressive move to give Bob an excuse to act.

fine. "bob" gets even more pissed off and beats the ****** out of joes little sister. (i.e. south korea).

"bob" does not need an excuse to attack. these people are not about to justify their actions for the entire world.

you speak of north korea as if they were a logical, rational country. surely you don't believe that!?

If Iraq attacks us, then we defend ourselves with extreme prejudice. Same with North Korea.

i'll drink to that.

If, however, we attack first, we justify their response and hostility.

i'm not saying that we should pre-emptively attack north korea. (see previous post.)

Did Germany do better when they were under crippling sanctions and paying huge reparations or when we helped them rebuild their nation and didn't give them a reason to resent us?

except hitler was not sitting on trillions of barrels of oil. if sanctions are removed, saddam will be free reign to buy whatever military technology he wants. what's to stop him from trading oil for weapons with the currently freezing (read: no fossil fuel, no heating) north korea?

THINK DIFFERENT!

i am.

job
Feb 17, 2003, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Jaykay
Do you think that China would stand idly by and watch one of the only surviving communist regimes in the world which they are quite friendly with and is on their border, be taken out by a barrage of nuclear weapons

actually, china would much rather see a non-nuclear capable north korea.

as we speak thousands of north korean refugees are fleeing towards the chinese border. those who are caught are sent to forced labor camps. the chinese do not want a mass migration of north koreans.

china would rather have a stabilized, unified peninsula. can you imagine the economic consequences if a unified, capitalist korean peninsula began trading with china? china would love it.

the UN (not NATO because they are NATO or pretty much own it)

hahahahah...oh, you were trying to be serious.

Ifeelbloated
Feb 17, 2003, 04:46 PM
If there ever is a conflict with North Korea, I hope that they do use tactical nukes on them. Blow some sense into their thick-headed skulls for a change. God almighty, I don't think there are more stubborn people on Earth than Koreans. Believe me, I know. I'm one of them!

Thanatoast
Feb 17, 2003, 04:46 PM
[Sam] is another friend who was in the room whose named has been changed.

"fine. "bob" gets even more pissed off and beats the ****** out of joes little sister. (i.e. south korea). "

Then comes the "you will not remain standing" part. The whole time Bob was ranting, he knew that if he actually took any action he would be in deeper **** than he could handle. Same with North Korea. If they attack the South, the US would intervene with "exetreme prejudice". But NOT make the first move.

""bob" does not need an excuse to attack. these people are not about to justify their actions for the entire world."

Bob never justified anything. That's part of the reason he never attacked, because he knew that it would turn *everyone* against him. If you like the realism theory of international relations, think about it in terms of North Korea's self interest. Attacking gets them destroyed, utterly and without mercy. Playing nice gets them international stature and a healthier economy (assuming we don't ruin it with sanctions).

"you speak of north korea as if they were a logical, rational country. surely you don't believe that!?"

I believe they know that attacking the US or their neighbors means their instant annihilation.

"i'm not saying that we should pre-emptively attack north korea. (see previous post.)"

Good. Let's not threaten them either. Only say what we mean to do IF they attack. No posturing, no rhetoric, no pre-emptive excuses. Let's do this in Iraq as well.

"what's to stop him from trading oil for weapons"

Nothing. But he knows if he *uses* them he will cease to exist except as a nuclear shadow on the wall of his concrete bunker. The US and USSR built thousands of nuclear bombs. We never *used* them because we knew what the consequences would be.

In the case of Iraq, you're thinking the same way everyone has thought since the beginning of the nation-state. Hit them before they can hit us.

In the case of North Korea, you're probably thinking "Don't hit them because the can hit us back." Correct me if I'm wrong. It's still fear-based thought.

job
Feb 17, 2003, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
Playing nice gets them international stature and a healthier economy (assuming we don't ruin it with sanctions).

That would be the logical course of action. However, North Korea's recent actions (i.e. kicking out UN overseers, restarting their nuclear power plants, and moving nuclear fuel rods) don't seem to be very diplomatic.

Why then, such aggressive seeming actions and rhetoric? You yourself noted that any attack with nuclear weapons would result in the complete destruction of North Korea. Currently it would be more logical not to aggravate the situation and keep a calm, normal composure, yet the North Koreans have become more aggressive.

Simply put, I just don't understand why North Korea has this sudden urge to invoke another cold war. As we both know, any direct action with nuclear weapons will get North Korea nowhere. Yet they continue to spout hostile rhetoric.

Good. Let's not threaten them either. Only say what we mean to do IF they attack.

However, isn't that still an indirect threat? By detailing to the world what we would do if attacked don't we in turn threaten those who threaten us?

In the case of North Korea, you're probably thinking "Don't hit them because the can hit us back." Correct me if I'm wrong. It's still fear-based thought.

Not really. I'll state for the record that the North Koreans are loony enough, to the extent that if we do threaten them with anything, including sanctions, that they would a) invade South Korea or b) attack the United States in some way shape or form. Therefore the United States really cannot do much about the North Korean crisis right now.

Our course of action so far has been appropriate. We have made it known to the world that the North Koreans are possibly restarting their efforts to develop a nuclear bomb.

I think that this situation is far more delicate and serious than the Iraq issue.

macfan
Feb 17, 2003, 05:39 PM
Thanotoast,
Remember that WWII (which so many in here are fond of pointing to as justification for the invasion of Iraq) was really just revenge for the hardships put on the German people at the end of WWI.

One might consider it to be a half truth. You seem to have totally forgotten the entire role played by Japan in WWII. In any event, had Versailles been enforced, it would never have happened, and, had there not been all the issues associated with it, that is no guarantee that Hitler wouldn't have come to power on the strength of a world wide depression anyway.

MrMacMan
Feb 17, 2003, 06:56 PM
Actually there nukes have the ability to reach the U.S they have the ability to reach Alaska and their furthest can reach Hawaii... this brings be to the Article from the best news source ever.
The Onion: ;) :D :rolleyes:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3905/north_korea.html


Please.

Thanatoast
Feb 17, 2003, 07:56 PM
"Yet they continue to spout hostile rhetoric."

Which is fine. They can spout all the rhetoric they want in my opinion. It's when they start throwing bombs that something needs to be done.

"By detailing to the world what we would do if attacked don't we in turn threaten those who threaten us?"

We let then know what would happen if they attack us. If they continue to threaten but not act, then the situation is moot.

Japan saw an opportunity for Pacific dominance during WWII, so they decided to pre-emptively strike the US navy. Before Pearl Harbor, the US didn't even want to get into the war. Japan unwittingly stirred up a hornet's nest in the US, to its regret later on.

Had Versailles never occurred in the first place, and instead Wilson's 14 points followed, I think there would have been a lot less death between '38-'45.

macfan
Feb 17, 2003, 08:40 PM
Had Versailles never occurred in the first place, and instead Wilson's 14 points followed, I think there would have been a lot less death between '38-'45.


I agree.

The French should have should have followed the lead of the United States.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

springscansing
Feb 17, 2003, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Kid Red
Yea, someone is a few pistons short an engine. They also don' even have a missle that can reach the US yet, lol.

Yes they do. They can hit the west coast. This was declassified last week.

Kethoticus
Feb 17, 2003, 09:30 PM
I think that this situation is far more delicate and serious than the Iraq issue.

And it is no coincidence to me that NK decides to start acting up the moment we start threatening Iraq. Axis Of Evil? Very possible. There may well be some kind of alliance there that the Bush Admin can not reveal due to classified info. But that's mere speclation.

As for Iraq, I believe that an attack is justified for several reasons:

a) Iraq broke a number of UN resolutions which were SUPPOSED to be responded to with military force. Only the UN didn't have the stomach to do anything after each breach--except to make more resolutions. You want UN justification? It's only been given about 17 times.

b) If Iraq should ever fulfill the doomsday predictions of smuggling a chemical or nuclear weapon to the US via a friend of al Qaeda or Islamic Jihad, everyone will be asking why the US didn't do anything to prevent it.

c) There should be moral outrage on a global scale towards Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people. Using over a million of them as guinea pigs in chemical weapons testing, and killing another half a million at least by denying his people food in lieue of the sanctions against his country. But what does the world do? Criticize the US for planning to change all that. Talk about misdirected moral outrage.

d) I fear that NK, however, will start some real crap if we go forward against Saddam. I believe there's a connection there, but even if there ain't, Kim Jong Il (or whatever his name is) will take advantage. There's also a possibility that China would finally try to take Taiwan by force.

Kethoticus
Feb 17, 2003, 09:34 PM
Yes they do. They can hit the west coast. This was declassified last week.

Hearing this actually cost me several hours of sleep last week.

job
Feb 17, 2003, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
Which is fine. They can spout all the rhetoric they want in my opinion. It's when they start throwing bombs that something needs to be done.

Then what about their actions?

1. Dismissal of UN inspectors
2. Movement of nuclear fuel rods
3. Renewed efforts to continue their nuclear weapons program
4. Withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
5. Restarting a nuclear reactor

These actions, although not as severe as their rhetoric nevertheless represent a more aggressive North Korea.

job
Feb 17, 2003, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Kethoticus
c) There should be moral outrage on a global scale towards Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people. Criticize the US for planning to change all that. Talk about misdirected moral outrage.

It's the typical anti-American double standard. No surprise there. ;)

There's also a possibility that China would finally try to take Taiwan by force.

And then were ********.

Nice post btw. Almost everything you said coincides with my own opinions.

G4scott
Feb 17, 2003, 09:40 PM
I thought they found that N Korea did have a missile that could reach the US...

Anyways, there are 2 reasons why a country flaunts their nuclear missiles. 1- they want somebody to leave them alone, or 2- they want to be recognized as a powerful nation. N Korea is going for #2...

They think that showing their guns to the US will make us cower in fear and accecpt them as a major player in the arms industry. Unfortunately, the cold war is over, and we're trying to get rid of the nukes...

If N Korea wanted to attack the US, or anybody else for that matter, they wouldn't advertise their weapons.

Their leader is just a psychopath who craves attention, and gets pissed when he doesn't get it. We won't have to worry about North Korea for now, but if they ever do anything stupid, the US won't hold back from unloading a couple of cases of uranium-concentrated whoop-@$$ on them...

Personally, I wouldn't mind if Iraq or North Korea had nukes as long as...
- They had stable governments
- There wasn't a psychopath in charge of the country
- They had complete control over their military, and would only use their nukes to protect themselves...

There's a reason the US is a superpower, with the ability to destroy any country on the globe. It's not because we don't like some people and wish to get rid of them. It's to intimidate the crazy people, and keep them from getting big heads and trying to take down the US or any other country for that matter. I fear that until the world lives in peace and harmony, and everybody loves each other, that the US will keep it's nukes and it's weapons, and oppose anybody who threatens humanity...

I won't go on here, because it doesn't belong in this thread...

job
Feb 17, 2003, 09:51 PM
North Korea is threatening to abandon the 1950s era armistice.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78824,00.html

"The situation on the Korean Peninsula is getting extremely tense" because the United States is planning to send reinforcements in a standoff over the North's nuclear activities, said a spokesman for the North Korean army.

North Korea "will be left with no option but to take a decisive step to abandon its commitment to implement the Armistice Agreement ... and free itself from the binding force of all its provisions," said the official.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see where they are getting the information on the "reinforcements" from.

Are these people delusional?

The North, however, has insisted on direct talks first with the United States, from which it wants a nonaggression treaty.

Hmm...

Let's consider something for a moment:

We sign a nonaggression treaty. North Korea then rolls through South Korea.

This is nuclear blackmail.

rice_web
Feb 17, 2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
Pacifism can work, if we give it a chance. If Iraq attacks us, then we defend ourselves with extreme prejudice. Same with North Korea. If, however, we attack first, we justify their response and hostility.

Let's learn from our mistakes instead of repeating them. Remember that WWII (which so many in here are fond of pointing to as justification for the invasion of Iraq) was really just revenge for the hardships put on the German people at the end of WWI. And here we are following the same pattern of violence, except this time we're "stopping" Iraq's "Hitler" before he can act. Did Germany do better when they were under crippling sanctions and paying huge reparations or when we helped them rebuild their nation and didn't give them a reason to resent us?

Open your eyes. Pull your head out of your ass. THINK DIFFERENT!

Thanatoast [/B]

Did you know that France nearly attacked Germany during the 20s as a "preventive" war? The U.S. has the same situation with Iraq. The Gulf War was an easy victory for the U.S., and now the Iraqis hate us. They would attack us if they were powerful enough.

Pacifism will not work here, we need the "preventive" war. A preventive war will keep the Iraqis from doing something crazy ten or twenty years down the road.

Granted, we don't need a large war, we just need to remove the regime. I hope that civilian casualties are limited, but I do not want to wake up ten years from now with Iraq on the news, invading Iran and Saudi Arabia, with the U.S. facing a bloody war.

EDIT: Now back to the N. Korea discussion....

LethalWolfe
Feb 18, 2003, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
Let's learn from our mistakes instead of repeating them. Remember that WWII (which so many in here are fond of pointing to as justification for the invasion of Iraq) was really just revenge for the hardships put on the German people at the end of WWI. And here we are following the same pattern of violence, except this time we're "stopping" Iraq's "Hitler" before he can act. Did Germany do better when they were under crippling sanctions and paying huge reparations or when we helped them rebuild their nation and didn't give them a reason to resent us?

Open your eyes. Pull your head out of your ass. THINK DIFFERENT!

Thanatoast

You are correct. Germany did much better after they were rolled over by the allies and an allied friendly government was put into place (well, all w/the exception of East Germany which had the misfortune of being run by the USSR). Anyway...

Any thought of rewarding Saddam's contempt of, and noncompliance with, the UN is chilling. Do you really want the world to send the message that defying the UN is an acceptable behavior and that countries will be rewarded for it?


Lethal

Kethoticus
Feb 18, 2003, 02:06 AM
Any thought of rewarding Saddam's contempt of, and noncompliance with, the UN is chilling. Do you really want the world to send the message that defying the UN is an acceptable behavior and that countries will be rewarded for it?

They're already doing that. They've been doing it for 12 years. They did it to Israel when they hit Iraq's nuclear plant in 1980. But wisdom is known by her children. And the children of liberal pacifism, to the best of my limited knowledge, are shown wanting. Their way has never worked, because sometimes, all a human being understands is force. WWII, JFK's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Bush's attack on Iraq in 1991, etc., all show that a strong stand is sometimes the only way to right a wrong. I think of wolf packs and how humans are sometimes like them. They need to be "bitten" in order to be taught their place.

But I agree with the voices here who express concern for the innocent Iraqis. Unfortunately, war may be necessary to deal with Saddam, and in war there are always undesirable casualties. This is exasperated by a satanic dictator who uses his own people as shields.

As for nuking NK, I don't want to see it come to that. I sincerely hope it doesn't. If we do have to send a couple of ICBMs over there, I hope we focus on military targets. Those people over there have already suffered enough.

Thanatoast
Feb 18, 2003, 03:26 AM
"Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose."

Cute. ;)

There's no such thing as a "preventive" war. It's just a euphemism to make people feel better about it.

"We sign a nonaggression treaty. North Korea then rolls through South Korea. "

Well, that would constitute a breaking of the treaty then, wouldn't it? Which would then justify our response.

"Pacifism will not work here, we need the "preventive" war."

No one ever "needs" war. IF we were attacked we could easily rout just about any nation on the face of the planet. That fact that we're routing before we're attacked seems ass-backwards to me.

"Do you really want the world to send the message that defying the UN is an acceptable behavior and that countries will be rewarded for it?"

Are you talking about Iraq or the US? :confused: :eek: :D

The reason the Cuban Missle Crisis went as well as it did is because JFK decided NOT to use force. Instead of sending airstrikes he blockaded Cuba, and WWIII was avoided. Sometimes overwhelming force isn't the right answer.

LethalWolfe
Feb 18, 2003, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
Are you talking about Iraq or the US? :confused: :eek: :D

The reason the Cuban Missle Crisis went as well as it did is because JFK decided NOT to use force. Instead of sending airstrikes he blockaded Cuba, and WWIII was avoided. Sometimes overwhelming force isn't the right answer.


Iraq, and I'm still waiting for yer answer. ;)

The Cuban Missle Crisis is about as relevant to the current situation w/Iraq as Larry Bird is to Tony Hawk.


Lethal

job
Feb 18, 2003, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
The reason the Cuban Missle Crisis went as well as it did is because JFK decided NOT to use force. Instead of sending airstrikes he blockaded Cuba, and WWIII was avoided. Sometimes overwhelming force isn't the right answer.

Actually, in "normal" situations (i.e. no threat of nuclear war) a naval blockade is an act of war.

Force was used. The fact that nothing was shot to pieces does not mean that the navy stood idly by. The blockade was aggressive enough and forced the USSR to back down.

Such a hard-line stance is sometimes the only possible choice in similar situations.

Thanatoast
Feb 24, 2003, 10:20 PM
Lethal-
"Iraq, and I'm still waiting for yer answer."

I guess I can only answer yes. Since the US is intent on flouting the will of the UN, I'm not going to deny the Iraqis the same privilige.

I'll drop my Cuban Missile Crisis comparison if others (in other threads) stop with the WWII comparisons.

Hitman-
"Actually, in "normal" situations (i.e. no threat of nuclear war) a naval blockade is an act of war.

Force was used."

Sorry, I should have said "overwhelming force." Forcing Saddam to accept inspections is one thing. An all-out invasion is something else entirely.

LethalWolfe
Feb 25, 2003, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
Lethal-
"Iraq, and I'm still waiting for yer answer."

I guess I can only answer yes. Since the US is intent on flouting the will of the UN, I'm not going to deny the Iraqis the same privilige.

I'll drop my Cuban Missile Crisis comparison if others (in other threads) stop with the WWII comparisons.

Hitman-
"Actually, in "normal" situations (i.e. no threat of nuclear war) a naval blockade is an act of war.

Force was used."

Sorry, I should have said "overwhelming force." Forcing Saddam to accept inspections is one thing. An all-out invasion is something else entirely.

Threatening to "flout the will of the UN" is different than actually doing it for over a decade.

I guess you can keep yer Cuban Missile Crisis sense I doubt use of WWII will stop. ;)

How do you "force" Saddam to accept inspections?


Lethal

Backtothemac
Feb 25, 2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
No one ever "needs" war. IF we were attacked we could easily rout just about any nation on the face of the planet. That fact that we're routing before we're attacked seems ass-backwards to me.


Quick question here. If you knew that some guy living on the next street over was going to try to kill your entire family in the next couple of years, but you did not know when. Would you being twice his size and strength wait for him to do something? Remember he may show up with an AK47 and you don't even own a gun. So, are you going to wait for him to come attack your family? Or are you going to take care of the problem ahead of time?


War is justified in certain cases. Don't doubt that. Why potentially let hundreds of thousands of Americans die just to then launch a counter attack. Protect life here first. That is the duty of our government. Protect its citizens.

GeneR
Feb 27, 2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Ifeelbloated
If there ever is a conflict with North Korea, I hope that they do use tactical nukes on them. Blow some sense into their thick-headed skulls for a change. God almighty, I don't think there are more stubborn people on Earth than Koreans. Believe me, I know. I'm one of them!

Koreans "the most stubborn people on Earth"... not quite.
Personally being in contact with Koreans and other ethnicities throughout my life I may have agreed about twenty years ago with that assessment. However, I'm finding that to be so stubborn simply isn't a Korean "thang". I have known quite a few people whom are rather stubborn who are Korean, and plenty who aren't who are just as stubborn. It's part of the human condition.

However, I also know that the psychology of many Koreans as well as many people from other ethnicities have been molded into fiercely nationalistic points of view as a response to victimization. A lot of older generations of Koreans still hold onto this very rigid thinking-patterns/survival psychology that was due to being children of war in WWII and the Korean War. This does not make it right. This survival psychology doesn't even make it inherently Korean. However, for the current generations that must struggle with those who ARE so stubborn, I would say, yes, it does seem that Koreans are extremely stubborn. However, I believe that this too shall pass.

N. Koreans should be nuked?
Do I believe N. Korea should be nuked if they attack?
No.
Why?

Because I don't believe it's really about them attacking. This is all part of the political posturing that goes on between nations.
Think more in terms of a chessboard and you may see that:

1.) U.S. withdrew support to N. Korea and S. Korea's efforts to help bridge economic support once George W. got into office. This IS a violation of earlier peace-steps between N. Korea, S. Korea, and the U.S.

2.) U.S. did call N. Korea part of the "Axis of Evil". Now, let's think about this. If someone called you "Evil" and then attacked other people whom they labeled evil (whether warranted or not) how would you feel? You're going to feel insecure. Defensive. Well, gee whiz, what're you going to do? This is a bully match now. Who's going to scream louder?

3.) The nuclear reactor business. Come on. If they really wanted to start developing radioactive materials they would simply build another facility away from U.N. observation, not take out the U.N.'s cameras. That was blatant dropping of the gauntlet in response to #1 and #2.

4.) The Million Man army. Another posture -- another piece on the chessboard. Remember, in negotiations, it's helpful to have things to swap when coming to the table. #3 and #4 are all about this.

5.) Saving face. Okay, U.S. calls N. Korea "Evil", now the leaders need to save face. How? Well, N. Korea has always called S. Korea a puppet regime of the U.S. Is it? Who cares. However, N. Korea has to save face for being called, "Evil" and for being threatened by the U.S. So, what do they do? Well, the U.S. has technically played "chicken" with N. Korea, and unfortunately, the U.S. flinched. Now it's time for parting shots as the two combatants leave the table.

The threat of nuclear war was simply that: a threat. But if you examine what N. Korea really has at stake, it knows it has only one or two cards to play: 1.) the nuclear agenda, or 2.) the military presence on the peninsula.

Other than that, N. Korea really a sitting duck. For more information, consult your libraries, or seek assistance with Universities that would have a more thorough understanding of such matters.

Am I pro-N. Korea? Not in the least. Am I pro-S.Korea? Nope. Am I pro-U.S. Yes, (fiercely so) but not of our current administration.

But understanding the players in the game is part of being a citizen of this place called Earth.

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 27, 2003, 02:44 PM
You forgot to mention one little item in your post. The U.S. withdrew only after N Korea had admitted to not adhering to the earlier agreement. You know the little one about nuclear bombs? So we have an agreement, N Korea breaks it and its are fault? All they had to do is stop making bombs? they didnt