Iraq or N. Korea

[KoldFusion]

Who in your opinion poses the biggest threat?

I'm all for the disarming of Saddam but, I feel that N.Korea is far more of a high stakes affair. I believe that situation needs to be resolved first. Look at it this way....

The world is divided on the Iraqi issue. I think it would go a long way to help heal some of the rifts made during this Iraq debate if the world was unified with dealing with N. Korea. By having a unified security council dealing with the matter diplomatically or forcefully I think will give everyone a much needed break from being at each others throat. Dealing with N. Korea could give the inspection regime more time which would appease the french, german, and russian spineless cowards. (even though i believe they have had enough and pussy countries like russia, france, and germany have no balls when it comes to enforcing resolutions... I remind you that they voted in favor of resolution 1441 which stated "serious consequences" if Iraq did not comply... noone thought that meant... hey man lets draft another resolution and continue inspecting under the false idea that Iraq is complying. Bottom line is Germany, Russia, and France have a biased intrest in Iraq... if they stop us from attacking or prevent the UN from disarming Saddam then they should be next on the list because then they are just as guilty as Saddam.)
So anyway.... your thoughts? Are we in the right part of the world right now? Should N. Korea be dealt with first? If it were up to you..... what kind of diplomatic approach would you take to N. korea or the Iraq situation? could your idea solve the problem? please share.
Remember.... Keep it civil please.... name calling and flaming need not apply. you may quote someone to refute their point by stating WELL THOUGHT OUT opinion or plan fact via news reports.

[Confectrix]

Fusion:

Here's my opinion [note to all you who think everything I say is fact]; I honestly believe that though NK is a bigger threat as you say, Iraq is equally so. Not because of their military status, or economic status as some would say, but more so by their position with regards to the UN. The UN have been after these people since 1991. Twelve years. Still no complete compliance. Now better than ever; yes. Still, he is hiding. NK will wait. They don't want to start any confrontation with the US, because they know the US would take them on and defeat them. Many causualties; yes. We would win however.

I would handle the situation as it is being handled now. One situation at a time. This way the world's attention is not even more divided. I do think, however, that our attention after this Iraqi business should be turned immediatly to NK.

They are a huge threat to the US and to the world in general.

My two cents,

[Mtx]

Originally posted by Confectrix
NK will wait. They don't want to start any confrontation with the US, because they know the US would take them on and defeat them. Many causualties; yes. We would win however.

I do think, however, that our attention after this Iraqi business should be turned immediatly to NK.


NK would beat our ass right into the ocean. It's one thing to invade a desert... it's an entirely different thing to invade a jungle. Lets not forget that this is their home as well. They know the land and how to hide in it. NVGs will do you no good when someone is hiding underground. They also have extremely deadly soldiers. Their female soldiers are more deadly than their males. These women are experts in hand to hand combat and could easily takeout a normal soldier.

What about Armor? You think an abram can move through the jungle? Apaches aren't really going to do you much good either. So we would be without the advantage of our main battle tank and gunship. People engage a lot closer in jungle warfare as well. In the desert you can see your enemy coming for miles. In the jungle you could walk right up on them before you spotted them.

The difference between Iraq and NK is the difference between day and night. Also do you think China is going to enjoy having American forces so close to their home? They have the largest air force in the world. If they attacked us while we were attacking NK we would lose everything we have in that area. You ready to send thousands to their deaths? Better yet.. you ready to be drafted and go die for your beliefs?

[ABRAXAAS]

simple north korea poses a real immenent threat,Iraq poses a long term threat;)

[mistled]

Originally posted by Mtx
NK would beat our ass right into the ocean. I know I'll get ripped for flaming by saying this, but... I'm not even going to comment on the ignorance of that statement.

[Mtx]

What's ignorant is making a statement but giving no arguement to support it.

Sounds like a Bush tactic.

[Yogi]

NK is not a threat.

They engineered this "crisis" because they want to borrow from the World Bank because their economy is in the shitter and are afraid the US would slam the door on them.

They think they can get away with it because we are so focussed on Iraq. Otherwise it wouldn't have happened.

[mistled]

I'm still not going to get into this with you since you obviously don't like the US. But.....

You do realize of course that China wouldn't attack us in Korea while we were fighting there, right?? Who do you think is in the greatest danger from N Korea (besdies S Korea of course). It's China. Korea can't get a nuke to the US. They have a much easier target in China (think they are friends all you want, but China understands the danger of a dictator with nukes sitting at its doorstep). China, Japan, and Russia have all said that they are keeping an eye on Korea, and that they will attack Korea themselves if Korea step out of line.

You also assume that the US would invade Korea, which I'm telling you that it wouldn't. Unlike Iraq, Korea is a very specific threat in that they are starting their nuclear plants back up. If the US attacks Korea, they will simply bomb those plants. The US will not try and overthrow the government as needs to be done in Iraq, they will simply be stopping the Korean nuclear plants. Bombing Korea would be enough to accomplish this without a ground invasion.

You put entirely too much confidence in a country that is simply doing all of this because they want food aid.

[Lexington_Steele]

I am fairly certain that the US would wipe the floor with NK if it was necessary. I fail to believe that NK women soldiers are better trained than US soldiers.

I don't see the idea of the US military being able to defeat the NK military as an ignorant idea.

NK would provide a much tougher adversary in a war because we know they do have nukes and we can not easily strong arm NK's neighbors the way we can with Iraq.

There are tons of reasons to invade both, however there are two big reasons to invade Iraq over NK.

1) Iraq is easier to defeat than North Korea. (Iraq is going to roll over)

2) The US will recieve an immediate economic boost following a war with Iraq. The US would not feel an economic boost following a war with NK.

[Mtx]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
I'm still not going to get into this with you since you obviously don't like the US. But.....



Yeah, I obviously don't like the US. Anyone who thinks the US could actually lose a war obviously doesn't like the US.

:rolleyes:

[mistled]

When you start talking about how a country on the other side of the world with a tenth of the population that the US has will easily defeat the US, it's hard not to draw conclusions about your stance.

[Bighoss]

Originally posted by Mtx
NK would beat our ass right into the ocean. It's one thing to invade a desert... it's an entirely different thing to invade a jungle. Lets not forget that this is their home as well. They know the land and how to hide in it. NVGs will do you no good when someone is hiding underground. They also have extremely deadly soldiers. Their female soldiers are more deadly than their males. These women are experts in hand to hand combat and could easily takeout a normal soldier.

What about Armor? You think an abram can move through the jungle? Apaches aren't really going to do you much good either. So we would be without the advantage of our main battle tank and gunship. People engage a lot closer in jungle warfare as well. In the desert you can see your enemy coming for miles. In the jungle you could walk right up on them before you spotted them.

The difference between Iraq and NK is the difference between day and night. Also do you think China is going to enjoy having American forces so close to their home? They have the largest air force in the world. If they attacked us while we were attacking NK we would lose everything we have in that area. You ready to send thousands to their deaths? Better yet.. you ready to be drafted and go die for your beliefs?

why does no one have faith in the American military? It seems like everyone thinks that american can't do anything even though our military is by far the most funded in the world. In fact we spend more money on our military then the rest of the world combined. MTX we have forces that specialize for Jungal Combat we would win this war not easily though it would be a hard fight. NATO we defiently help us out on a this war too.

We didn't loose The Korean War it was more a draw. We were going to win until the Chinese started threatening. If China hadn't gotten invloved we would have won. We must also remeber South Korea is no push over either with an army of 700,000 active forces who would also be will to fight on our side. We should give North Korea 1 month to end everything and then bomb the absolute shit out of it so that South Korea becomes on island.

Edit: worry didn't see the post about you still having faith in the US:D

[mistled]

Originally posted by Bighoss
Edit: worry didn't see the post about you still having faith in the US:D You didn't see it because it's not there. ;)

Don't be so certain that NATO would help the US. Other countries have a knack for stating their support for the US and then withdrawing it later.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
Don't be so certain that NATO would help the US. Other countries have a knack for stating their support for the US and then withdrawing it later.

That doesn't make sence to me? What would members of NATO have to gain by suppoorting and then backing out of an attack?

It is usually the other way around. They do not support the US and at the last second the hop on the band wagon.

For example, France will eventually be on the war with Iraq Bandwagon because they do not want to be left out of the post war restructuring of Iraq, and they want to make sure that Iraq's debts to France get paid.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
What would members of NATO have to gain by suppoorting and then backing out of an attack? That's an excellent question. The most recent obvious example of France screwing up is obvious. The security council passed the resolution against Iraq unanimously as you know. All involved knew that would require the use of military force if Iraq did not comply. They have not and now France, Germany, and Russia are rooting for Iraq.

I've no clue what they have to gain. I wish someone would tell me.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
I've no clue what they have to gain. I wish someone would tell me.

They could lose the money that they have invested in Iraq. They could lose the post-sactions-era oil deals they have been promised. They might lose the construction projects that they have in Iraq.

They will hold out support until the last second. They have nothing to gain by changing their support before the last possible second.

BTW, I don't think that Russia is in NATO. (I believe that Russia's cooperation with NATO is through the NATO-Russia Council established in 2002 (sparked by the tragic occurance on 9/11 ))

[Bighoss]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
You didn't see it because it's not there. ;)

Don't be so certain that NATO would help the US. Other countries have a knack for stating their support for the US and then withdrawing it later.

That's very cute mistled but I was talking to MTX.

and yes the EU would not like a Hostile Nuclear Power. They would want to get rid of it and if they don't even support us in that war screw NATO there useless lets go start a useful alliance with China and Russia. Least those are good future investment:D

[Mtx]

Everyone always talks about bombing them. How are you going to bomb these troops who hide in underground tunnels? How are you going to know where they are? We bombed the crap out of NK the first time around but it didn't change anything. They were one force and they took on SK and America. We were fighting the battle of our life and when China got involved we started losing our advantage.

They killed the shit out of our troops. That's why we left. People got tired of getting letters from the military saying their children were dying.

I know of soldiers who spent years in training only to be shot and crippled for the rest of their lives by someone who had no training at all. Bullets don't care how "special" you are. All of you want to jump up and scream war but none of you want to go.

You can call me whatever you want but I don't believe in sending soldiers to their death just because some country starts talking trash.

[mistled]

The reason this is different is because of why the war would be fought. The Korean War was fought because NKorea invaded. We aren't talking about invasion here. As long as NK stays in NK, there won't be any need for ground troops. This is all about NK starting their reactors back up. Someone blows up the reactors, the immediate problem of nukes is gone.


*edit* And I'm not saying that the US should go to war with NK. I'm not for sending people to die either because someone wants to talk smack. At this point I think that's all NK is doing and am against any military reaction towards them. I'm only posting as it concerns the scenario of if the US attacked NK because of the current situation getting out of hand.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Bighoss
That's very cute mistled but I was talking to MTX. I know you were talking to mtx. :)

He said, "Yeah, I obviously don't like the US. Anyone who thinks the US could actually lose a war obviously doesn't like the US."

That doesn't say anything about having faith in the US, it just rips me for saying that he doesn't. :)

[Destroyeron]

Just bomb both of em.

[Lexington_Steele]

For NK you just need a slower approach. It would take alot longer.

First you run lots of intelligence, trying to discover where the important military facilities (espcially aircraft and anti aircraft) are and where WMDs are. I am sure that the US is doing as we speak.

We don't really need to worry about their ground troops at all. The only card that NK holds in a military conflict is the threat to use nukes.

So what if their troops can hide, we just need to esablish air superiority.

[Arshune]

Mtx-it'd be really nice to be able to solve everything with words, but the harsh reality is that war is just a far more efficient way to solve these issues. If people sat and talked things like this out, nothing would ever get done. My only beef with the system is that the people who make the decision to send people out to fight and die never put themselves in any danger.

Besides, modern military tactics don't use big armies to take and hold territory, with today's high-payload weapons being so widespread and easily available, a concentration of troops that's anywhere near the range of the enemy is little more than a liability. That's why your examples of military conflicts like Korea or Vietnam don't really relate, they're both small peninsular countries that required a more up close and personal strategy, Iraq is landlocked and wide open. Also, Korea was getting the living crap beat out of them until China started backing them, a bomb exploding over a subterranean hidey-hole just makes it drop on your head instead of blowing you up, so you're dead either way.

Not to mention technology. Iraq's anti-aircraft weapons just can't reach our planes. They can fly higher than their guns can shoot and still deliver their payloads. That's why everyone always talks about bombing them.

...and most of our combat fatalities these days are from friendly fire...

Edit: WOAH this post took a lot longer to type than I thought. :doh:

[Bighoss]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
I know you were talking to mtx. :)

He said, "Yeah, I obviously don't like the US. Anyone who thinks the US could actually lose a war obviously doesn't like the US."

That doesn't say anything about having faith in the US, it just rips me for saying that he doesn't. :)

DAMNIT YOUR RIGHT:mad:

[Headrattle]

For the record, china intervened by sending thousands and thousands of trooups across the yellow river.

And China isn't going to be threatened by NK, though they don'twant NK to have nukes. Japan and South Korea is.

China really won't have a problem with us because they like money too much. Lookon everylittle plastic nicknack and I'll bet that it says "made in china."

I see Iraq and NK as equel threats. Invading Iraq will start outall good, untill we hit Bagdad and do some building to building fighting. Untill they decide to gas their own people killing millions of civilians. Untill their death throws shoot missiles at Iran and Isreal.

And sadly, the people of the world will blame us.

[Mtx]

I like the way every civilian wants to tell me how the military works. As if their knowledge from CNN is somehow superior to my real life experience in the military. How could I possibly know what I'm talking about? I only have a few active duty friends, an entire family of military, and live right beside the largest Army base in the world.

I like the way you put that Headrattle. "If we attack Iraq and they retaliate... sadly the world will blame us."

LMAO.. who else would they fuckin blame?

If I were in Saddams position and I had BC weapons I would point them right at Turkey and when I was attacked I would lob that shit at every American thing I saw. I mean fuck it... you're gonna die anyway. You may as well take every fucker in the world with you.

Anyone ever stop and think that the entire Arab world is against America taking this action? Should that mean something? The saddest part is that so many of you rally for this war and you have no proof of anything.

[Headrattle]

Well, Mtx, the best way to find those Weapons of Mass Destruction is to attack him.

If he has nukes he will use them.
On the US.
On Isreal.
Every US friendly area he can find.

If he has Chemical weapons, he will use them the second we walk in a large city.
If he has biological weapons, he will use them when he realises that Bagdad is taken.

If he doesn't use any of these things. Well, that means that he didn't have it in the first place.

Why do I say this? Because the man is, as Bushy like to say, Evil. What does he have to lose? We know he doesn't care for the citizens of Iraq. We know he hates Isreal. We know that he hates America (for what he sees as a betrayl when he invaded Kuwait). We know that if he does nuke or gas Isreal the fundimentalist Islamics will see him as a martyr or saint.

The innocent are going to suffer if we attack Iraq. It is that simple. That is what I am scared of. Not because we are stopping his tyranny. But because we are dealing with a man that doesn't play by the rules. Because our actions are going to create more suffering for the people of iraq, and create more suffering for people in the Middle East in general.

And no matter what happens. Those people of Islam that weren't against us now, will be. Those people that thought that the fundimentalists are out of hand. Will join them. Everyone in the world that dislikes us but doesn't really know why, will have a reason to out and out hate us.

In other words, War, unless in retaliation to a direct deed or as a last resort does not help matters.
Reguardless what you might think, 9-11 gave us an excuse to invadeAfganistan. In the opinion of the world, we got our revenge.

[mikkyT]

When you start talking about how a country on the other side of the world with a tenth of the population that the US has will easily defeat the US, it's hard not to draw conclusions about your stance.



haha thats BS. I like the US, but at the same time I know that a country 10th of the populations can easily defeat teh US. Can you say Vietnam

[KoldFusion]

The vietmanese had their backs against the wall and had nothing to lose. They had been fighting for 1,000's of years repelling attempted invasion after attempted invasion. It is not hard to see why we coudln't beat them. The way we fought was all wrong. Any of you who know about vietnam knows about operation rolling thunder. It was a 3 phase bombing op over three years. Each year we upped the bomb size and frequency. The kicker is that we would stop bombing intermitently to see if the north had enough.... this gave them time to repair and move things. It was and is possible to beat them IMO if it is fought the right way. '
MTX,
I'm not screaming war like someone who has not thought the cost of a war through... and I will be going to war if i'm called while in the military. I know the score and so does my family. That being said... there are those on both sides of the issue that are not informed and are making irrational claims. To them i recommend doing so research. In defense of MTX his military background should make most of us pause and think about what he says wether we agree or not.... you are still able to make your opinion just as I have..... and in this case I don't agree with MTX but i have in the past. I just ask that everyone considers all view points and issues at had.
I believe that N. Korea will lose b/c of world pressure (wether is be diplomatic or not) not b/c the US and S.Korea attack. In addition (i may be mistaken about this) but Russia, China, and Japan have said that they will deal with N. Korea if they get out of line..... does that mean the US won't offer help? no. What it does mean other nations if they feel threatened will answer the call. That releaves me as far as N.Korea goes b/c I believe we are spread to thin and it won't hurt us to take a back seat in a conflict.

[Mtx]

Originally posted by Headrattle
Well, Mtx, the best way to find those Weapons of Mass Destruction is to attack him.


Yeah but that's finding out the hard way. :ugh:

[KoldFusion]

EDIT: Originally posted by Mtx
Yeah but that's finding out the hard way. :ugh:

:stupid: unfortunatley it may be the only way :(

[Arshune]

Originally posted by Mtx
I like the way every civilian wants to tell me how the military works. As if their knowledge from CNN is somehow superior to my real life experience in the military. How could I possibly know what I'm talking about? I only have a few active duty friends, an entire family of military, and live right beside the largest Army base in the world. Tell me, does your real life experience include being a general? Did you write history?

If not, then don't assume you automatically know more about world politics and strategy than someone just because they aren't in the military. Enlisting doesn't in any way affect a person's ability to read a history book or do research.

[Mtx]

Well I'm glad all my "insider" knowledge is dismissed so easily because I didn't write a book. Where's Tom Clancy when you need him? :rolleyes:

[Unregistered]

Give it up MTX. It's hard to find any inteligence here.

[Arshune]

Originally posted by Mtx
Well I'm glad all my "insider" knowledge is dismissed so easily because I didn't write a book. Where's Tom Clancy when you need him? :rolleyes: You mentioned a lot about Korea and Vietnam, but your profile lists you as being 24. That's not "insider" knowledge because you weren't there yourself, the best you could get is an account from a friend/relative or an account from a book. Both of which anyone else could get. That's what I was referring to when I said "don't assume you automatically know more."