Is this the start of World War III?

Nice post msfe... I have consistently maintained that we should have bombed North Korea as a more important target than the evil Iraqis (although bombing Iraq was a good thing too)...

My reasoning is that the North Koreans have nukes... the evil North Koreans are a threat to our national security... we should nuke those mudda fukkers...
 
How many soldiers does NK have? Is it 2,000,000? Don't they spend all the money they have on advanced weapons?

Damn, I hope we can avoid THAT situation.
 
I hope too that we can avoid conflict with a nation that has nukes too....we will end up with another Hiroshima and Nagasaki....and it could be Washington and New York City this time that gets Big Berthas......:( :(
 
North Korea is a bellicose, unafraid power backed by it's close neighbor and ally China. Unlike Iraq which we knew would be a relative cakewalk as we have been patrolling and bombing them for 12 years (no matter how much our media trys to "build up" the so-called vaunted, elite Republican Guard) , North Korea is an entire society and economy dedicated to militarism. A huge standing army. Modern air force. Nuclear weapons probably. This one has nasty implications and I hope Bush doesn't match their belligerence with good ole American belligerence.
 
The fight yet to come
-
Meanwhile, the Americans lay their plans regardless, with some controversial names emerging for the postwar government. Woolsey is a controversial figure, principally for his proximity to those who harbour fervent ideological commitment to unchallenged US power in the region and the world.

Speaking to a group of college students in Los Angeles on Wednesday, Woolsey described the war in Iraq as the onset of the 'Fourth World War' (the third being the Cold War), saying: 'This Fourth World War, I think, will last considerably longer than either World Wars I or II did for us.'

He claimed the new war faces three enemies: the religious rulers of Iran, the 'fascists' of Iraq and Syria, and Islamic extremists such as al-Qaeda.

'As we move toward a new Middle East,' he said, 'over the years and, I think, over the decades to come...we will make a lot of people very nervous. Our response should be, "Good! We want you nervous. We want you to realise now, for the fourth time in 100 years, this country and its allies are on the march."'

Woolsey was a member of the Project for the New American Century, a forum that laid out plans for global, unchallenged American power. He now sits on the powerful Defence Policy Board, a hawkish semi-official ideological body that advises the Pentagon.

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,930769,00.html

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
 
Quote from Magna:

North Korea is a bellicose, unafraid power backed by it's close neighbor and ally China. Unlike Iraq which we knew would be a relative cakewalk as we have been patrolling and bombing them for 12 years (no matter how much our media trys to "build up" the so-called vaunted, elite Republican Guard) , North Korea is an entire society and economy dedicated to militarism. A huge standing army. Modern air force. Nuclear weapons probably. This one has nasty implications and I hope Bush doesn't match their belligerence with good ole American belligerence.
More...

Air force isn't very modern at all. Older MIGs, few spare parts, pilots get little training/flight time. Problem is that the planes they do have are parked in hangers dug into the sides of mountains. The air war wouldn't be a cake walk but the US would definitely achieve air superiority. (This from an Air Force pilot neighbor who has served there).

Major problem, aside from nukes, is proximity to Seoul and terrain. It seems losing Seoul in the initial fighting is almost a given.

Will definitely be a much harder nut to crack.

FWIW, Korean acquaintances I've talked about this to say China is not as closely tied to the North as the western media portrays it to be.

At the end of the day, there will be a military confrontation. No other way to resolve this. I take no joy in that, just stating the obvious.
 
Yes, you are very confused. There is no 'dealing' w/ NK. NK only attempts to blackmail the US with the lives of its own people. (Only Clinton would call such blackmail a 'deal.' ) If the US were to talk w/ NK directly this is how the conversation would go:

NK: "Give us food. Give us food and oil now. If you need us to sign some worthless agreement or make some verbal concessions for show we can oblige, but you must give us food and oil now. Otherwise, we cannot pay the staff of our concentration camps, our armed forces or beaurocracy and then well, uuh, who knows what they might do."

US: "No."


We've had that conversation before. There's no point.
 
Quote from BlueHorseshoe:



Yes, you are very confused. There is no 'dealing' w/ NK. NK only attempts to blackmail the US with the lives of its own people. (Only Clinton would call such blackmail a 'deal.' ) If the US were to talk w/ NK directly this is how the conversation would go:

NK: "Give us food. Give us food and oil now. If you need us to sign some worthless agreement or make some verbal concessions for show we can oblige, but you must give us food and oil now. Otherwise, we cannot pay the staff of our concentration camps, our armed forces or beaurocracy and then well, uuh, who knows what they might do."

US: "No."


We've had that conversation before. There's no point.
More...


Refreshing.

Someone here finally hit this one on the head.

Jay
 
Quote from BlueHorseshoe:

Yes, you are very confused.
More...
Well if there's no dealing with North Korea directly, then what's the point of saying we will only negotiate with them via the U.N.??? Especially given our total distain for the U.N. Unless, of course, we have no intention of any real attempt at a peaceful settlement to the problem and this is all a thinly veiled prelude to the next war. Please BlueHorseshoe, since you believe you have a clear-cut understanding of that particular global issue, be so kind as to un-confuse me o' wise one.... :D
 
Quote from Magna:

Well if there's no dealing with North Korea directly, then what's the point of saying we will only negotiate with them via the U.N.??? Especially given our total distain for the U.N. Unless, of course, we have no intention of any real attempt at a peaceful settlement to the problem and this is all a thinly veiled prelude to the next war. Please BlueHorseshoe, since you believe you have a clear-cut understanding of that particular global issue, be so kind as to un-confuse me o' wise one.... :D
More...


Magna, where did you get the idea that US policy is "only with the UN." My strong impression is that it's not "only with the UN," but "only multilaterally." One consideration is that, after all, Korea is firstly a potential problem for the other regional powers - which include some rich and powerful, and potentiallly very rich and powerful countries. I believe the main hope is that if NK is presented with a united front that includes NK's main sponsor in the world, China, and if those powers share responsibility for whatever negotiations and agreements, then there might be a chance that, this time, the NKs would give in and abide by them. China has supposedly been somewhat helpful in a low-profile way lately, by the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top