Iraq or N. Korea - Page 2

Lexington_Steele · 2003-03-06, 04:27 PM

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 · 2003-03-06, 04:42 PM

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

Mtx · 2003-03-06, 04:43 PM

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 · 2003-03-06, 04:50 PM

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 · 2003-03-06, 04:52 PM

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 · 2003-03-06, 04:56 PM

Just bomb both of em.

Lexington_Steele · 2003-03-06, 04:56 PM

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 · 2003-03-06, 05:03 PM

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.

Bighoss · 2003-03-06, 06:42 PM

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

Headrattle · 2003-03-06, 07:21 PM

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 · 2003-03-07, 01:05 AM

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 · 2003-03-07, 01:51 AM

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 · 2003-03-07, 06:16 AM

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 · 2003-03-07, 07:39 AM

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 · 2003-03-07, 10:19 AM

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.