PDA

View Full Version : Will The US go to war with North Korea?



The Overlord Returns
10-18-2002, 01:15 PM
What are your thoughts on the admission of hidden nuclear weapons in North Korea, and the defiance of agreements made?

It's going to be interesting to see where Bush goes with this.

LTBasker
10-18-2002, 01:52 PM
I dunno, at least we'd know the territory a little better since we've already been there plus we have way better technology now. We're definitely in deep if they decided to take action against us and all of China was on their side.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
10-18-2002, 02:27 PM
I don't see why North Korea having nuclear weapons is such a revelation. Hey, who doesn't have nuclear capabilities now a days? We've had nuclear weapons for decades and they've just now got them. Let me welcome them to the 21st century.

The Overlord Returns
10-18-2002, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Jedi_Master_Guyute
I don't see why North Korea having nuclear weapons is such a revelation. Hey, who doesn't have nuclear capabilities now a days? We've had nuclear weapons for decades and they've just now got them. Let me welcome them to the 21st century.

because they violated a sanction similar to the one with iraq.

If it's no big thing that N.K. has nukes........why is it so dire that Iraq "may" have nukes?

Jedi_Master_Guyute
10-18-2002, 03:29 PM
Eh, true they might've violated sanctions that we imposed on them, but who hasn't? the US government thinks it has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do. Where do we get this right? Lately, it just seems that we're the bullies on the playground, pushing everybody around. I don't even watch the news anymore cause we never know what Bush is going to get us into next.

JON9000
10-18-2002, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
If it's no big thing that N.K. has nukes........why is it so dire that Iraq "may" have nukes?

EXACTLY! The answer for everything from the Bush administration is that Saddam is a brutal dictator who has shown a willingness to gas his own people.

I seem to remember students getting run down by the Chinese in Tiannamen Square- no change there, but we don't embargo them. Of course under Nixon students at Kent State were shot by the national guard for protesting the Vietnam War- no mention of that either.

And Saddam was just as brutal when he was was a buddy of ours fighting Iran.

Don Rumsfeld is the new Robert McNamara. What really freaks me out is that the military is seriously against the operation when they were gung ho for Vietnam. Colin Powell, the only military man in Bush's circle has obviously been muzzled.

We will not fight North Korea because we won't get support from the allies and because we would rather not risk nuclear war with China. :stupid:

QLD
10-18-2002, 04:26 PM
I think they are hoping that China can keep them under control.

sith_killer_99
10-18-2002, 07:47 PM
I agree, things were so much more simple under the Clinton Administration. Back in the good old days. Remember:

Selling Nuclear secrets to China.

Allowing Bin Laden to get away with murdering innocent people as long as it was far from home, or at least on US Embassy soil. NEVER forget the USS COLE!!!

The ATF, Ruby Ridge, Waco Texas, Oklahoma City.

Selling Presidential pardons.

A President who can get away with purgery (that's LYING under oath). The REAL reason Clinton was Impeached, it just so happens he was lying about his extra marital affairs. The point is he LIED under oath and obstructed JUSTICE, a crime which others are serving HARD time for I might add. This from a man with a license to practice LAW!!! Or at least he HAD one. Did they ever re-instate it?

Lately we, as a nation have been a bit on edge, that may have something to do with the fact that we just suffered the single WORST terrorist attack in the history of the world. WE lost more American (White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, Muslim, Jew, Christian, Man, Woman, CHILDREN!!!) lives than in Pearl Harbor.

Sadam Hussain proved his character and his intentions when he invaded Kuwait. It is unfortunate that he was allowed to remain in power, he should have been tried for WAR CRIMES by the UN. Had they had the scroat to do the right thing we wouldn't have this problem today.

Had Slick Willie ever served in the military, maybe he would have hunted down Bin Laden after the USS Cole was hit. But he was too concerned about playing politics.

FACT:

Tony Blair agrees that Sadam is a danger.

The UN placed those sanctions on Iraq.

Patton was right, we should have pushed those commies back all the way home.

I have been to South Korea. I have seen young Students protest our presense there, threatening to kidnap US soldiers.

I have also had 70 year old Koreans come up to me and shake my hand with tears in their eyes. They REMEMBER!!!

If we were to pull out of S. Korea N. Korea would take over in less than a month!!! Bringing Communist China with them. Then Japan would be in trouble and we'd all be screw@d.

That's why it's such a big deal for N. Korea to have Nukes! How would they react if we just happened to bring over a few nukes of our own to set up on bases in S. Korea???

Of course that will never happen, but you get the idea. Our troops are in real danger with N. Korea having nuclear capabilities they don't even have to have long range missiles to hit US targets.

Bullies? Was Kennedy a bully when he told Cuba to get rid of their nukes?

The problem with all these little countries getting nukes is two fold. First, these guys have less to lose and would be much more tempted to USE them. Second and MOST importantly is SECURITY. If just one psycho like Lid Lala got his grubby hands on a good nuke you could multiply 9/11 by about 1000X! And next time it might not be the United States that gets hit.

At the same time the United States has done some underhanded things, noone is blameless in the quest for power.

I also do not think that the US can fight a 2 front war. Despite what some experts might say. Two front wars have been the downfall of mighty armies who dared to think themselves soo superior.

Uh, just my 2 cents. Yes, I did rant and rave and well, what can I say irt just seemed like the thing to do.

Exhaust Port
10-18-2002, 08:16 PM
Will we go to war with N. Korea?

No, we're smarter than that.

thespar
10-18-2002, 11:18 PM
as it is we are gettign speard pretty thin. we are in afgin rigth now. then their is talks of going into iraq. know their is talk of n korea. we need fishins the are first two parts of the headache before we look at a third. but heck we might win this time in korea if we let the soliders do their jobs and keep the polictes out of it.

QLD
10-18-2002, 11:27 PM
DO WHAAAAA?????? :confused:

Errr....anyway......

WAR.....HUNH!.....>What is it good for......absolutely nothing, SAY IT AGAIN!

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
10-19-2002, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by sith_killer_99
[B]I agree, things were so much more simple under the Clinton Administration. Back in the good old days. Remember:

Selling Nuclear secrets to China.

Allowing Bin Laden to get away with murdering innocent people as long as it was far from home, or at least on US Embassy soil. NEVER forget the USS COLE!!!

The ATF, Ruby Ridge, Waco Texas, Oklahoma City.

Selling Presidential pardons.

A President who can get away with purgery (that's LYING under oath). The REAL reason Clinton was Impeached, it just so happens he was lying about his extra marital affairs. The point is he LIED under oath and obstructed JUSTICE, a crime which others are serving HARD time for I might add. This from a man with a license to practice LAW!!! Or at least he HAD one. Did they ever re-instate it?

In my opinion, Clinton was an overrated president. He had a pretty successful domestic agenda but made some poor foreign policy decisions and even worse immoral judgments. It was pretty crude though for his enemies who were investigating him, after not finding any definitve thing to nail him on, turn their attention to his sexual life in attempt to corner and embarass him. Was that worthy of an impeachment? I'm not going to answer since there is no need to turn this to an impeachment debate.


Lately we, as a nation have been a bit on edge, that may have something to do with the fact that we just suffered the single WORST terrorist attack in the history of the world. WE lost more American (White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, Muslim, Jew, Christian, Man, Woman, CHILDREN!!!) lives than in Pearl Harbor.

I agree, but I already see that a lot of us have returned to our 'normal' lives. It's not that we have forgotten the September 11 tragedies, but since it has been over a year since the attacks, we Americans are being lulled into a false sense of security, at a time when numerous warnings have been put out about Al Qaieda regrouping, and the attacks in Bali and the Phillipines.


Sadam Hussain proved his character and his intentions when he invaded Kuwait. It is unfortunate that he was allowed to remain in power, he should have been tried for WAR CRIMES by the UN. Had they had the scroat to do the right thing we wouldn't have this problem today.

That's why I think the ball is in the U.N.'s court. Let's see how they react post 9-11. If they can't show the necessary leadership, condemn the abandon of Hussein's actions of shutting out the inspectors and starting back their weapons program, and enforce the preexisting conditions on Iraq it is then, I think, the U.S. and it's ally (or allies) can justifiably react.


Had Slick Willie ever served in the military, maybe he would have hunted down Bin Laden after the USS Cole was hit. But he was too concerned about playing politics.

I don't agree this. You can blame Clinton all you want but the GOP controlled the House and Senate at the time, and since they have the power to declare war, they didn't because maybe they didn't feel the urgency react a la 9-11. Remember when the Marine barracks in Beirut were bombed in the 80's under Reagan? Did he declare war on Lebanon or mount a serious effort to stop terrorism in the Middle East?


Bullies? Was Kennedy a bully when he told Cuba to get rid of their nukes?

If he had listened to the military and rushed in with attack, we probably would have had a firing of nuclear arms. Today on C-SPAN, to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, they played the tapes of Kennedy meeting with his Cabinet and administration.

Gen. Maxwell Taylor and Curtis LeMay, his military advisors, basically told Kennedy that the only option was a quick military strike against Cuba. If we had done so, we could have provoked an attack by Russia, or by Cuba if we had missed only a few missles.

What Kennedy did though was to be tough, but without war. He deliberatley decided on a 'quarantine' not a blockade. He also agreed through negotiation to disarm missles in Turkey. And we averted a nuclear disaster by taking this course.


The problem with all these little countries getting nukes is two fold. First, these guys have less to lose and would be much more tempted to USE them. Second and MOST importantly is SECURITY. If just one psycho like Lid Lala got his grubby hands on a good nuke you could multiply 9/11 by about 1000X! And next time it might not be the United States that gets hit.

Does that include Iraq? They might not have nuclear capabilities but most agree that they have weapons of mass destruction. Who is to say that a psycho like Hussein won't unleash them if provoked with an attack? After all, he would have 'less to lose?'

Tycho
10-19-2002, 09:08 AM
This won't take either side in the argument, but it is an important fact: If we have nuclear weapons, we must be prepared to use them.

Nukes are a supposed deterrant against attacks, and an all-out last resort to stop a nation and force its surrender (versus committing mass genocide).

If Japan had not surrendered after we dropped the bombs, would we have dropped more bombs? How many more? When would they have given up?

If they already had nukes, would they have used them to retaliate for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

In the reverse, if Sadam has nukes right now, and can target Israel or Washington, D.C., would he use them?

Israel would probably launch back. Would we? Nuclear strikes at:

Jurusalem - would blast most of Israel away.

Washington, D.C. would leave New York, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, etc. all untouched.

Bagdad - would be more comparatively as damaging to all Iraq as a strike towards Jerusalem would be to Israel.

Geography and the distance between a nation's borders greatly affects the situation.

Granted, a religious nut might believe he's going to Heaven for launching nukes at us, even if we retaliate and nuke him back to hell. For that reason, we might not want to take our chances.

The same applies to a mentally unstable fanatic, unafraid to sacrafice his own country and its people in an all-out exchange he cannot hope to win against the United States (we can launch from submarines if our land-based nukes are ambushed).

But we must be prepared to use our own if we are hit.

However, most leaders keep control by preaching religious dogma they themselves only pretend to believe. Is it actually better for them to die and not know if they ascend to some heaven, or if they will be held accountable for their poor actions some time beyond the grave? Or is it better for them to retain power over their present nation and control its resources? You'd think the latter.

But who's to really know if these petty dictators really believe their holy mandates or not?

I think that logically, in the interest of security, we were right to get atomic weapons first, and then force arms control on all the developing nations, secondly. It seems the only practical course.

Yes? No? Why? or Why Not?

hango fett
10-19-2002, 09:38 AM
i hope we don't go to war with them...our economy is bad enough now.....
h

derek
10-19-2002, 10:16 AM
i hope we don't go to war with them...our economy is bad enough now

history has actually shown war is good for the economy, just ask FDR.:)

we're in a depression!
diagnosis, bad babysitting, i mean start a war.

hango fett
10-19-2002, 01:32 PM
oh,...i had it backwards...sorry! but i still hope this leads to war...it's sounding to much like what ol' palpy says "master yoda? do you really think this will lead to war?"
:eek:
h