Iraq or N. Korea

KoldFusion · 2003-03-06, 06:36 AM

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 · 2003-03-06, 06:55 AM

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 · 2003-03-06, 11:54 AM

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 · 2003-03-06, 12:33 PM

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

mistled · 2003-03-06, 01:49 PM

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 · 2003-03-06, 02:23 PM

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

Sounds like a Bush tactic.

Yogi · 2003-03-06, 02:27 PM

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 · 2003-03-06, 02:34 PM

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 · 2003-03-06, 02:39 PM

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 · 2003-03-06, 02:44 PM

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.

mistled · 2003-03-06, 03:12 PM

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 · 2003-03-06, 03:38 PM

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

mistled · 2003-03-06, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Bighoss
Edit: worry didn't see the post about you still having faith in the US

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 · 2003-03-06, 04:07 PM

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 · 2003-03-06, 04:15 PM

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.