It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush's Next War - North Korea: A War Scenario

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
No offense, but anyone who believes taking out North Korea is easy is a fool. Reguardless of who attacks first, or why it happens... If it does, millions will die. LOL at anyone who thinks it will be easy.


War is never easy, and I do find the North Koreans loyalty (unlike the Iraqis) to be worrisome. However, the millions that die would NOT be Americans. They would be Koreans on both sides.



Look how long it took us to finish off Iraq. 3 years for one of the poorest countries in the world.


Actually it was 3 weeks before we had their country under occupation. Nice try though. Once North Korea was held, we would give it to the South and reunite the country. Once the North sees how bad their life under Kim was and sees how good it is in the south, they will stop fighting. It will actually take less time then Iraq.


We were in Nam for what? 7 years? And they're not even close to North Korea's military strength.


Actually they were a superior force to the North Koreans. They had Russia and China both backing them. NK doesn't get any free help from any of those countries.


On another note, the fact that this thread is still going on is just sad. It is a joke, a bad one at that, and anyone with any kind of unbiased view can see that. Just read the first post.




posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Let me get a crack at this topic.

First, why would anyone even bother invading North Korea?
It has nothing of value!

The whole unification issue is one that south korea doesn't want to deal with, they rather be seprate from north Korea as they are right now. Who wants 20 million unskilled brainwashed north koreans working in one of the largest economcies on the planet.

Would U.S. citizens want an to receive in one year an extra 20 million illegal mexicans in their country working low paying jobs, pay for illegal chidlren to go to schools, pay for their healthcare, pay more taxes so that illegal immigrants can get more benefits? Probably not -- then why the hell would the south koreans want north korea become part of a greater Korea.

Look what happened with west and east germany, the west germans want to put back the wall because its costing them huge in trying to modernize east germany, got to love that high unemployement.

So before anyone starts arguing how the U.S is going to get their "ass kicked" in a war with North Korea. One should first ask why the hell would the U.S. President want to wake up one morning 'drive to another city, go to a school yard and kick a little fat North Korean bully in balls for'?



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Oil? It's rumoured that Korea has 8-10 billion tons of oil that it doesn't mine and a lot of the land has never been checked for oil. It'll either fall into the hands of China or America in the long run and we know America needs the oil as does every other Nation.

Would they risk it, is the real question?

www.kimsoft.com...



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Ohh yeah, almost forgot!

North Korea would get there ass kicked in war with South Korea and the U.S.!

Ohh, What's up with Japan getting involved with a invasion of North Korea, who ever wrote this piece had to smoke the funkiest crack on the planet. I don't know if they heard of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, it's rather a big deal in Japan.

Honestly Liquid, why did you even bother putting this "article" on this website?

a small piece out of the article that the whole arguement started out of...


Originally posted by LiquidationOfDiscrepancy
A dozen or so suicide terrorists were responsible for the 9.11 that killed 3,000 or so people...


Simple look on the net, that's all he had to do, 12 or so suicide terrorists, I guess he meant 19, and 3,000 or so people, I guess he meant 2,752 dead
Wow, honestly, if someone handed this as an essay, they would get and F and kicked out of the college/university that they go to, or in this case the rather lack of post-secondary education. Anyone with $20 bucks and a creditcard can get a website. I can right now, call it www.NKinvasion.com, and write about BS in North Korea.

Hey Liquid, can you tell me your age? I just wanna know the educational level you received, I won't judge you harshly if you still in highschool, or grade school!



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Zife, I really do hope you get a warning for those comments.

Just because you disagree with something, there is no need to 'Poke fun' at the level of Education he has. At the end of the day, in certain cases the constitution in Nations gets broken. Over time it changes; there is also a movement in Japan to move to a more offencive Military with China, etc.

If you wish to comment, post something that debunks what he says. North Korea was put on the Axis of Evil for a reason and Japan is part of the America coalition against Terrorism, but don't be rude - it only makes you look like the 'child'.

After all, anyone with real intellect knows Age and Education have no meaning on that a piece of paper shows nothing. Otherwise my little piece of paper from Oxford, would make me better than a lot of other people - which I'm not.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Oil? It's rumoured that Korea has 8-10 billion tons of oil that it doesn't mine and a lot of the land has never been checked for oil. It'll either fall into the hands of China or America in the long run and we know America needs the oil as does every other Nation.

Would they risk it, is the real question?

www.kimsoft.com...


"""""Over the past several months, news organizations and experts have regularly cited Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Information Administration (EIA) figures claiming that the territory of Iraq contains over 112 billion barrels (bbl) of proven reserves—oil that has been definitively discovered and is expected to be economically producible. In addition, since Iraq is the least explored of the oil-rich countries, there have been numerous claims of huge undiscovered reserves there as well—oil thought to exist, and expected to become economically recoverable—to the tune of hundreds of billions of barrels. The respected Petroleum Economist Magazine estimates that there may be as many as 200 bbl of oil in Iraq; the Federation of American Scientists estimates 215 bbl; a study by the Council on Foreign Relations and the James A. Baker III Institute at Rice University claimed that Iraq has 220 bbl of undiscovered oil; and another study by the Center for Global Energy Studies and Petrolog & Associates offered an even more optimistic estimate of 300 bbl—a number that would give Iraq reserves greater even than those of Saudi Arabia. In a Guardian interview before the war, Taha Hmud Moussa, Saddam's deputy oil minister, said that all of Iraq's oil reserves "will exceed 300bbl when all Iraq's regions are explored."""""

www.brookings.edu...

As you can see, Iraq has enough oil to keep the U.S happy.


Would they risk it, is the real question?

No, because a war on the korea will hurt the sourth korean and Japanese economies. If as Liquid states that North korea would nuke or gas Tokyo, than simple destructive act would be bad for all the economies on the planet.

Would the U.S risk, hell no, not for oil tha would have to be first found and then have billions of dollars put into building off-shore refineries and that would take a couple of years, a pretty crappy return-on-investment for the U.S for disturbing the world economy. Plus having oil at $50 a barrel and probably hitting a $100 in within a decade
www.gulf-daily-news.com...
www.thenewstribune.com...

Having oil at such a price, the U.S would open more domestic oil resources, such as in Alasaka, plenty of oil up there, or go to Alberta with an unproven 1.6 - 2.4 trillion barrels of oil from the tar sands, thats a pretty big estimate.
www.syncrude.com...

Now what would be a better risk go invade North Korea over a possible 50-70 billion barrels or invest some of that "invasion money" into the already booming Alberta oil economy minus the death and destruction
www.metronews.ca...



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:48 AM
link   
I'd not be so sure. The fact is, we know there's not enough oil to last and now we have six large Nations needing it:

The E.U.
Russia.
America.
China.
Brazil (Up and coming Nation)
India.

India has recently been working towards making a better partnership with China.
Russia has a good partnership with China and India.
Brazil has oil and an unchartered amount of it, within the Amazon.

Now, if Korea does have even say 80billion barrels or 8billion (who knows) this could be worth the risk. Think of it like this:

A) America would have control of a large portion of land next to China, to do with as it pleases.
B)It would be taking oil away from China, Russia and India.
C) More oil to sell, more money to boost the economy.

Iraq does have a lot of oil as does the Middle East, but if North Korea are pushed and presured to make a strike (which is possible) and America to counter that could give them the opertunity and the reward is enough.

Big business does not care for the lives of a soldier. Also it could show America getting one of the "Axis Of Evil" destroyed and back to "Good ol' Democracy" and the Public have a worse view of North Korea then they do or did Iraq. Especially with their view on Japan.

I think they'd risk it, but only after forcing North Korea to make the first strike. It's the same with Iran. I see them pushing them into a corner, till they strike first and then they invade.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Just because you disagree with something, there is no need to 'Poke fun' at the level of Education he has.



First of, I was poking fun of the author of the article which is not Liquid.

Secondly, I wanted to know Liquid's age because it would tell me how he judges readings, whether he is more critical of a reading or not. Is it unfair to ask for someones age? If we all were in one room, face to face, I could get a sense of who the person is. I don't want to be in room of full of 12 year old kids debating over a issue such sex, and I think neither would you. So I apologize if I hurt your feelings Odium, and and I apologize Liquid, it was no offense towards you, just the article.




Originally posted by Odium
If you wish to comment, post something that debunks what he says. North Korea was put on the Axis of Evil for a reason and Japan is part of the America coalition against Terrorism, but don't be rude - it only makes you look like the 'child'.


I'm debunking his article that he posted from that website!


Originally posted by Odium
in certain cases the constitution in Nations gets broken.


Which constitutions got broken of what Nations?
By broken I hope you mean amended! The Japanese constitution has never been amended!


Originally posted by Odium
there is also a movement in Japan to move to a more offencive Military with China, etc.


Are saying that they want to attack Japan??? Or do you mean they want a more agressive political posture with a already highly advanced and trained Japanese military that only lacks number???



Originally posted by Odium
After all, anyone with real intellect knows Age and Education have no meaning on that a piece of paper shows nothing.


Huh???? You should rephrase that!
Age and Education have no meaning? Piece of paper shows nothing?
If Education has no meaning to you, than why did spent money and 4 years of your life of undergraduate work to get that piece of paper, if it meant nothing to you?

Originally posted by Odium
Otherwise my little piece of paper from Oxford, would make me better than a lot of other people - which I'm not.


As a human, of course not! But that interviewer that you go to, to get that job you want, will surely care that you have a piece of paper, otherwise the other guy with his piece of paper from some other school would get the job!



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
I'd not be so sure. The fact is, we know there's not enough oil to last and now we have six large Nations needing it:

The E.U.
Russia.
America.
China.
Brazil (Up and coming Nation)
India.

India has recently been working towards making a better partnership with China.
Russia has a good partnership with China and India.
Brazil has oil and an unchartered amount of it, within the Amazon.

Now, if Korea does have even say 80billion barrels or 8billion (who knows) this could be worth the risk. Think of it like this:

A) America would have control of a large portion of land next to China, to do with as it pleases.
B)It would be taking oil away from China, Russia and India.
C) More oil to sell, more money to boost the economy.

Iraq does have a lot of oil as does the Middle East, but if North Korea are pushed and presured to make a strike (which is possible) and America to counter that could give them the opertunity and the reward is enough.

Big business does not care for the lives of a soldier. Also it could show America getting one of the "Axis Of Evil" destroyed and back to "Good ol' Democracy" and the Public have a worse view of North Korea then they do or did Iraq. Especially with their view on Japan.

I think they'd risk it, but only after forcing North Korea to make the first strike. It's the same with Iran. I see them pushing them into a corner, till they strike first and then they invade.


Answering arguement (A)America would have control of a large portion of land next to China, to do with as it pleases.

The first thing your mistaken is that the U.S will control North Korea, if it got invaded, It would be south korean troops that would be in north korea. Why would the U.S want to spend money and send troops to North Korea when there is already a 600,000+ highly "American trained" army in south korea to occupy north korea.

Answering arguement (B)It would be taking oil away from China, Russia and India.

No it would not, A sovereign nation can sell oil to who ever it wants too. Such as Canada is doing now, selling some to China and most to the U.S. And why would North Korea not sell to China, it would be a huge boom for their economy, it would cost them less to ship to China then the U.S.

Answering arguement C) More oil to sell, more money to boost the economy.

You answered question B with your own question C.

American troops are not needed to invade North Korea, the south Koreans can do it themselves. All the south Koreans really need is the American air force.

Of course, if North Korea attacks south Korea, they are gonna get there asses kicked by whoever wants free goodwill publicity, aka U.S.A. The states are out of their free-to-invade-any-country-you-want cards, and need to look good in the public eye. They don't want to another Iraq pre-emp invasion, it would just look bad, but coming to the defense of south korea when north korea attacks will get the whole U.N. behind them, because as you know the U.N and North Korea are still techincally still at war, they just had declared a rather long 52 year old truce,rather than a peace treaty.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Just because you disagree with something, there is no need to 'Poke fun' at the level of Education he has.

Originally posted by Zife
First of, I was poking fun of the author of the article which is not Liquid.

Secondly, I wanted to know Liquid's age because it would tell me how he judges readings, whether he is more critical of a reading or not. Is it unfair to ask for someones age? If we all were in one room, face to face, I could get a sense of who the person is. I don't want to be in room of full of 12 year old kids debating over a issue such sex, and I think neither would you. So I apologize if I hurt your feelings Odium, and and I apologize Liquid, it was no offense towards you, just the article.

To me it looks very offencive towards him. It wasn't aimed at just you but everyone who makes comments based on age, nationality, etc.


Originally posted by Odium
If you wish to comment, post something that debunks what he says. North Korea was put on the Axis of Evil for a reason and Japan is part of the America coalition against Terrorism, but don't be rude - it only makes you look like the 'child'.


Originally posted by Zife

I'm debunking his article that he posted from that website!


As I said above, the way you come across, with remarks like "lack of post-secondary education" makes the statement rather rude to him/as he posted the article and must have a belief in it.


Originally posted by Odium
in certain cases the constitution in Nations gets broken.

Originally posted by Zife
Which constitutions got broken of what Nations?
By broken I hope you mean amended! The Japanese constitution has never been amended!

Papua New Guinea
The U.K. does
The U.S. did/still does.
Turkey.
List goes on, if the right circumstances appear then they do brake them it is just rare.


Originally posted by Odium
there is also a movement in Japan to move to a more offencive Military with China, etc.


Originally posted by Zife
Are saying that they want to attack Japan??? Or do you mean they want a more agressive political posture with a already highly advanced and trained Japanese military that only lacks number???


To move their Military to a more offensive stance, so that they can train to attack and have the option to if the need arises. I can't find the direct link, to it but it was on ATS about a week ago. Basically, because of China and North Korea, they have realised now they need to make sure they have better control and ability for their Armed Forces and move away from America 'protecting' them.


Originally posted by Odium
After all, anyone with real intellect knows Age and Education have no meaning on that a piece of paper shows nothing.

Originally posted by Zife
Huh???? You should rephrase that!
Age and Education have no meaning? Piece of paper shows nothing?
If Education has no meaning to you, than why did spent money and 4 years of your life of undergraduate work to get that piece of paper, if it meant nothing to you?

After all, anyone with real intellect knows Age and Education have no meaning on that a piece of paper shows nothing. - Was meant to read:
After all, anyone with real intellect knows Age and Education have no meaning on what someone knows and that a piece of paper shows nothing. (This is what a day without sleep does to me. lol)



Originally posted by Odium
Otherwise my little piece of paper from Oxford, would make me better than a lot of other people - which I'm not.


Originally posted by Zife
As a human, of course not! But that interviewer that you go to, to get that job you want, will surely care that you have a piece of paper, otherwise the other guy with his piece of paper from some other school would get the job!


And another 5 from now, till I'll be a barrister as I'm going back. I only do it because I know I need to have the 'Piece of Paper' to get into law, politics and then try to make a difference.

It's hard to change things from the outside.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Actually to answer someone's response earlier that South Korea wouldn't want to reunite anyways, that is a bunch of garbage.

I live iin South Korea now, their government is very actively seeking reconcilliation and a strong movement towards reunification. They have a whole branch of their government, i guess i woulld call it a department, that is devoted to this end. They spend millions every year in aid and money to the North, and the welcome defectors all the time.

They want a peacable solution to this problem and don't kid yourselves, with so much manpower locked down in the middle east, the united states wants a peacable end to this as well. I don't think one should disregard the north korean army, it would be quite a bloody affair, korea is fairly mountainous and has many forests, it would be alot harder than Iraq.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jawapunk
Actually to answer someone's response earlier that South Korea wouldn't want to reunite anyways, that is a bunch of garbage.

I live iin South Korea now, their government is very actively seeking reconcilliation and a strong movement towards reunification. They have a whole branch of their government, i guess i woulld call it a department, that is devoted to this end. They spend millions every year in aid and money to the North, and the welcome defectors all the time.

They want a peacable solution to this problem and don't kid yourselves, with so much manpower locked down in the middle east, the united states wants a peacable end to this as well. I don't think one should disregard the north korean army, it would be quite a bloody affair, korea is fairly mountainous and has many forests, it would be alot harder than Iraq.


Ohh, don't get me wrong, South Korea wants to reunite 100% with North Korea under a democratic nation, no doubt about it. But they don't want to be destroying their economy in the process. They would take down the DMZ, and start investing, send out a democratic party into north korea, but would not just start spending billions on modernizing north korea, a couple of million of dollars is nothing to be spending tens of billions of dollars to modernize north korea. Just look at Germany right now, high unemployement in the east, because of communist doctrine. Imagine a nation for 60 years under a Stalinist regime, Russia only lived under a Stalinist regime for almost 30 years. Imagine what 60 years of stalin does to a nations mentality, the south would not just open their border to millions of people that it doesn't know. They would have limited immigration into the south, and send plenty of teachers to re-educated the northerns, and plenty of companies to start opening up factories to produce 'inferior items', stuff like toys,etc and sell the U.S. Over a few years, after a few years of education and investments, south korea might unify into one nation, when it won't cost nation alot. Plus I bet Japan will be sending couple of billions of dollars of aid and billions more in investments into north korea after the communist regime falls, and don't forget about the U.S, Canada, U.K, France, Germany, Italy, China, Taiwan, Austrilia, etc, all those nations would be sending a few bucks.

And a war would be bloody for both sides, North Korean's would get slaughtered, the south Koreans would get a most of the casualties from the allied side, and depending how many soldiers the Americans send, they have what around 25,000 there now, probably 1000 dead out of those in the war, most of those soldiers are logistics and support personal. How long will the war be a, one to two months, the U.S would be mostly be pounding North Korea with its Airforce, and send probably a few tens of thousands of troops, nothing drastic, just enough to get in the fight. Most of those arriving troops might not even fight, depending on how the war goes, who knows there might a coup de'tat within the first few days within the north korean government and the war might end quickly.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 04:12 AM
link   
I totally agree with your assessment, they already have plans for when the DMZ opens up, and yes they mean to curb a huge population influx from the north. They are spending hundreds of millions every year though, not chump change, and trust me that is a great start. I am confident that within 20 years korea will reunify, there is just to much ecnomic pressure to modernize both its infrastructure and its industry for the north to ignore. They are playing this nuke game to see what they can ge out of it, but i am confident that they have no intentions of using these weapons, UNLESS attacked.


Orginally posted by Zife
The whole unification issue is one that south korea doesn't want to deal with, they rather be seprate from north Korea as they are right now. Who wants 20 million unskilled brainwashed north koreans working in one of the largest economcies on the planet.


I was answering this part of your response earlier, which is it? Do they want to reunify or don't they? I am just being argumentative, i agree with you in essence, but you should make a stand on one side or another.
[edit on 14-4-2005 by jawapunk]

[edit on 14-4-2005 by jawapunk]

[edit on 14-4-2005 by jawapunk]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Yet another post saturated with ignorance, arrogance, and outright irrationality.

Neither side has made a strong case about anything. This is just another pointless thread that needs to be closed down.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
On another note, the fact that this thread is still going on is just sad. It is a joke, a bad one at that, and anyone with any kind of unbiased view can see that. Just read the first post.


And yet it's people like yourself that perpetuate and fan the flames of ignorance and the "joke."

Unbiased view? Are YOU actually saying that?



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
If America invaded North Korea from the South, with Japan, etc, in my view and from my studies a number of things would happen:
If America tried to capture the Yule River, China would get involved. (Korean War).

China didn't have nearly as great an economic stake in peace with America in 1951. Although it's possible, I really think that China would do all they could to get America to compromise and America would be happy to oblige.


Thsi could be the chance for Russia to regain dominance, as a large military loss for America would be a major set back.

Russias military dominance for the forseeable future hinges on four crucial factors, listed below in order of importance.
1. The decline of American power.
2. Good relations with China.
3. The continued complacency of European militaries
4. The loyalty of Iran, especially once Iran obtains nukes and gradually begins to acquire more modern weaponry.

Russia would have to be at the top of their game to have a chance against America in most conflcts.
If China decides they want Russia's Eastern coast (and a lot more) they can have it on a whim unless Russia goes nuclear on them.
Europe, although not particularly favored by geography, does have the economic ability to support a major militarization that would threaten Russian security and demand that they not overextend themselves militarily.
I know this is out there, but I honestly believe that Iran plans to stab Russia in the back in the future. It is not inconcievable that Iran could end up in control of half the Caspian Sea and maybe even Turkey (and therefore the Black Sea) in the distant future IF they both play their cards PERFECTLY and have sufficient ambition.

China would now be able to invade Taiwan.
China would now be able to do a large scale attack on Japan to get 'revenge' after WW2.


I strongly doubt it. China would not come out of a major war with America with any significant naval or air power. Their chances of launching a successful amphibious opertaion of any kind would be slim to none. Plus they'll have a major insurgency on their hands if they try to occupy the Koreas after the war. Those are proud people- you don't stay independent for all this time on a tiny peninsula between China and Japan without acquiring a certain ingrained toughness.


If China joined in, the large land attack would reverse. America is teh technological superior, but China will soon have a 1000 unit fleet, for its Navy, roughly 2500 (I think) for its Air Force and 2.5million men. They would throw everything they have at crippling the American attack, just through fear of America putting a large base in N.K. and on their border.

I'm not even going to arge over who would win that war. I have suspicions that America is capable of winning, but only if we really took the gloves off, ie: mounted a risky raid of the North-Eastern mainland, to cut their supply lines and left nothing but scorched earth behind us.
I think the big issue here is that the war would be entirely too costly for either nation to fight, and Korea simply isn't a sufficient reason to go to the mat.


Also a lot of the E.U. Nations would not join in. Soon Britain will be earning 2-3% of its GDP from China alone, in 'teaching', so they can't afford to loose it.

And how much money does China make from America, and vice versa? Like I said at the beginning, I think that China would be willing to sell Korea out on certain terms, and I think America would be happy to meet whatever terms were necessary. As I've said many times, I think that there is a better chance of China invading Korea than there is of America having to. I wouldn't be surprised if China was planning for such contingencies- maybe even gaining intelligence access to their nuclear facilities in order to neurtalize any potential threat.


As the Kroean War showed, just beacause you have better technology doesn't mean you can win the war. After all, some Chinese soldiers were using swords against armed forces and swarming the Americans.

In all fairness, the Korean war was fought poorly, in part because of the technology of the day. Today moving a large force onto that peninsula opens up a major danger of the enemy cutting you off and denying you access to your supply lines. It's anybody's fight, and not easy for either side. Good thing it's so unlikely to happen.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   


Actually it was 3 weeks before we had their country under occupation. Nice try though. Once North Korea was held, we would give it to the South and reunite the country. Once the North sees how bad their life under Kim was and sees how good it is in the south, they will stop fighting. It will actually take less time then Iraq.


Yes and it was completely peaceful after that, right? That's crap and you know it. 3 weeks for the initial invasion sure. You as well as anyone knows the real war didn't start until after that.


We were in Nam for what? 7 years? And they're not even close to North Korea's military strength.
Actually they were a superior force to the North Koreans. They had Russia and China both backing them. NK doesn't get any free help from any of those countries.


You have a point, but I was comparing North Korea's military strength and technology to Vietnam's, where they pale in comparison.

You say millions of Koreans will die only? Give me a break. All they have to do is hit a button and we get hit as well as many other places in range. Yes they have the technology to hit our west coast. Yes they could nuke japan. Yes millions will die, of all nationalities.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 06:28 AM
link   
I love how some guy comes in a slams everyone on either side of hiimself, contributes absolutely nothing to the thread and then ask for it to be closed down. If you have nothing constructive to say about this, then don't post, it's simple.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Ok who cares if these should i say kids here underastemate North Korea,the pentagon does not if they did they would attack.Why didnt they attack iraq in the first gulf war they knew if they did they would pay a huge price so they started up that evil cowardly way of fighting the sanctions and waited for ten years so that iraq would fall apart from the inside.
The pentagon learned the hard way not to listen to their born in big ego or (american arrogance that everyone hates them for) in vietnam were they got their a.. kicked heavly.They are affraid to attack iran with land forces that is nothing compared to North korea in military numbers or technology.
But I cant agree with that NK special forces Would attack US mainland first of all how would they get there-second swat teams in Us cities are armed with military weapons and motivated so that kind of attack wouldnt have any effect the only effect would be to scare the allready scared americans who are affraid of everyone blacks,jews,muslims,latinos.... and so on but to waste so many soldiers to attack US cities is stupid and they are not stupid.

And if it would come to full scale war with Nk I have to say that the US Army is better and would probably win.The US would use their air supremacy because on the land i dont think they have much of an advantage.
Let me say this the US Army is without any doubt The best army in the world,most advanced etc.but the problem with the US Army is that it can become very rapidly the worst army-why??
US officials are in to this problem adn searching the solution for it the problem is this MORALE.The US soldiers are use to best tretmant best uniforms,best boots,air support,burger king,Mcdonalds,beast meals,showers,air condition tents,computers, calls home by computers or phone and so on and on so what happens when a full scale war happens with a strong enemy like NK and all the benefits and spoils are cut because they cant be provided the morale drops so the pentagon is facing the problem of their troops being spoiled.
But they will probably find the solution to this and they know as long as they can keep the US ARMY this way they are an VERY WELL ORGANISED,DISCIPLINED AND TRAINED KILLING MACHINE.

[edit on 15-4-2005 by Pretorian03]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jawapunk
I love how some guy comes in a slams everyone on either side of hiimself, contributes absolutely nothing to the thread and then ask for it to be closed down. If you have nothing constructive to say about this, then don't post, it's simple.



I was fairly constructive, thank you ver much.


[edit on 15-4-2005 by sweatmonicaIdo]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join