Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
There is quite a bit of talk regarding Kim Jong Il (the dictator of North Korea), and that he should be considered the bigger threat than Saddam Hussein. After all, while the question of Saddam Hussein and his posession of WMD is somewhat trivial (no definitive proof), but in the case of Kim Jong Il, it is somewhat more definitive, with real evidence that he may be trying to acquire nuclear weapons. However, the hawkish attitude that is being levelled at Iraq does not appear to apply to North Korea. Opinions?
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
We would attack North Korea were it not for our pre-occupation with Iraq and the fact that North Korea could nuke the surrounding nations if attacked and also kick our butt with it's army of 1 million people. Yes. North Korea is a bigger threat. Their leader is quite insane and unstable. I believe they consider us deploying more bombers to the region an act of war, and didn't we say that that would be happening soon?
posted
I thought "Die Another Day" had changed public opinion. Everyone must see "Die Another Day" at least once! Get those commie gooks, especially the faggy Oxford graduate ones.
No, my stance regarding "BOND XVIIXMII-SPQR" is the same regarding this topic. I don't think the general audience knows enough (read: anything) about the Korea situation for the movie plot to work properly, and in the same fashion I don't think the same aggressive steps taken against Iraq these last months would work on Korea. I mean, the world have heard about Saddam now for the past twelve years and still we can't contain the allied support or get a unanimous vote for action, with Korea we would have anti-war demonstrations on the White House lawn.
So for the mob to get up to date re: Korea, (if indeed it is the smarter move) we need to have more "Die Sometime Next Tuesday" films. And I don't like those tactics, in fact I hate war propaganda, reminds me of "Wag the Dog".
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
I believe that North Korea is a bigger threat. While there is no concrete proof that Iraq has no WMD. It IS known that North Korea does.
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Hmm... offhand theory: might we be waiting to attack North Korea until we have a reliable theatre missile defense system?
And as for their million-man army, we'd still own the sky and seas. Their army wouldn't stand a chance.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in one package. How efficient!
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Omega fails to realize that to defeat North Korea, we'd still have to send in troops. And the North Koreans won't exactly fold as easily as, say, the typical Iraqi soldier did 12 years ago.
Omega: here's some basic military knowledge for you -- control of the air is fine, control of the sea is great, but you need to control the ground to WIN.
BTW: in Vietnam, the US controlled the air and the sea. Hardly an easy victory. Oh, wait, it wasn't a victory at all.
posted
Yes, but that was more because the war was run by morons than anything. "Send in the troops and have them... do something!"
Secondly, just what do you think would happen to a million man army with no effective air cover under unfriendly skies? Either it scatters, which given the terrain and our current level of technology wouldn't be nearly as effective as in Vietnam, or it dies that much faster. Yeah, if our objectives required ground troops to go in, they might face some opposition, but given the choice between 4:1 odds in on sides favor, and overwhelming arial and technological superiority in the other, I'd say the tech wins out, no?
And under any circumstances, whether you need ground troops also depends on your definition of "win". If your objective is simply to remove their nukes and long-range missiles, you can do that with air strikes just fine, for the most part, even if you have to use tactical nukes to do it.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I just hope that our military leaders with combat experience, and a knowledge of history, remember that the North Koreans won't give in as easily as you apparently think they will.
posted
Oh great. Not satisfied at randomly launching Tomahawk missiles at the current threat of the day, you're going to start nuking them? Oh yeah, this is going to lead to world stability...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
North Korea may be the bigger threat because they have the nukes -- but personally, I think that those missiles are more likely to spontaneously combust than actually hit anything, even now.
Not that I'm willing to risk anything on that assessment, of course...
Part of the problem is that East Asian politics is a lot different in some ways, because of the cultural differences. Kim Jong Il won't back down now unless he has a way to save face publicly... and he's set things up so he can't do that since the conflict is defined about keeping or disposing of those nukes. It's an all-or-nothing situation.
I think that despite the words of the "geniuses" we're "lucky" to call leaders in the Bush administration, they don't really want to fight two wars at once -- not the least reason because of the public opinion nightmare that would develop.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
But still the threat remains. If the U.S. is going all gung-ho over Iraq, why don't we give North Korea the same treatment? Or even worse? North Korea is violating its terms of whatever UN treaty they signed many years ago. Blatantly and in plain view too. So, why the double standard? Why the lack of consistency?
Or is it about oil, like many opponents say it is? North Korea doesn't have anything that the U.S. wants, does it?
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It's because we can win in Iraq without too much of a problem, although who knows what the aftermath will be.
Attacking North Korea would be a major and difficult operation, despite what General Omega says.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Do you go after the psycho you beat up before or the new nut that's had some karate classes? Hmmm....let me think about that one.....
How we handle Saddam and the threat of Bio-weapons will determine weither Lil' Kim backs the fuck down. He's kooky so don't bet on it.
...plus occupation of Iraq means never having to bribe pissant presidents of Turkey ever again. Can these guys hold out for more cash or what?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
