Next invasion: N.Korea or Iran?

[Edited on 21-7-2003 by Freeman]

Gee, that is depressing. It used to be we could fight a war for a few years, kick back, have a cold beverage and then think about killing some more folks who screw with us. Now, it's all so different- war without end-

I think that if NK continues the bravado, they may slip a little farther than they want and we may have our hand forced....heaven forbid.....NK is pissed that we are not playing their game of extortion- we will not appease them.

Iran is going to implode in a democratic way hopefully-their own brand ofcourse, yet still not a true Theocracy
like what they endure now.
The youthfulness of their population, and this groups kinship with western ideas, has fueled the protests for larger freedoms- I for one am amazed.
If hard liners feel too much heat from within, crackdowns may follow and worse, it seems we now have proof-intellegince!?- that Iran has indeed been producing weapons grade Uranium from soil samples.

The youth of Iran may be our best weapon against another war in this region involving America.

I didn't vote freeman, because I think your leaving some "if" and "ands" out but your have posted a rather interesting 'dilemma' to say the least.

I don't know if an "invasion", per se', is the appropriate term, unless, of coarse, your trying to give an underlying meaning. I think the situation with both countries is a 'touchy' one at best, and with respects to N.Korea, certainly a "hot potatoe."

N.Korea would have alot of my 'attention' verses Iran. I think Iran is going through some internal changes that seem a bit small but I do think will gain momentum and become a force of change in Iran later on. N.Korea, on the other hand, is being run by what many refer Bush to being.....a freakin lunitic, crazy man, "fruitcake", etc.

In short, I think the future, as it always has been, is uncertain and time will only tell.

regards
seekerof

i think north korea will be next, let me first discuss why iran won't be next.

iran is currently facing a student revolution, the people, there, have decided that democracy would work better for their needs than would theocracy, which has screwed them over since the iraq-iran war way back when. the students, the leaders of tomorrows world, are taking the steps to make that war, and if democracy is the cause, than that is what the US is going to back. like it or not, we will not likely fight a major war in iran, most likely force the current regime to stand down, or arm and train the insurgency.

north korea on the other hand, is a different matter. firefights between the north and south on the DMZ are becoming more frequent, and if anything else, is only a sign of things to come. north korea is a matter for the US to immediately address, we mustn't allow this to grow into something more or less like vietnam. like i stated above, this is a war of sequels, the second gulf war went a little bit worse than the first, considering it is yet to be over. if the north korean crisis follows the same path, and is a little bit worse than either the first koorean conflict, or even vietnam, then there will be hell to pay. with no truely promising leaders occuring in the upcoming election, or, no leader who has given a solution for the current military situation, we are, to put it bluntly, f*cked. korean unity must be solved between the two koreas, and if war breaks out, let us at least divert the nuclear possibility. the last thing you and i need to hear about is a nuclear blast in the heart of seoul.

The NK's have been playing the game for years.....

NORTH KOREA -- The government of the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea has not yet responded to the U.S.-Republic of Korea proposal for four-way peace talks between North and South Korea, the United States and China. There is no deadline for a North Korean response, Burns said. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Winston Lord is not scheduled to meet with North Korean officials during his upcoming trip to Asia.
1996....

[Edited on 19-7-2003 by Tyriffic]

[Edited on 19-7-2003 by Tyriffic]

any american citisen or citisen of the DPRK or South Korea who wish to NOT DIE, i suggest you get the hell outta there as soon as possible. i think that it's only a matter or time, before something BAD happens to ignite a war.

it's like when hitler invaded poland, dresed up some of his dudes as polish soldiers to shoot at his dudes then gave him a reason to invade, it'd be so easy for a few bad men to dress up as americans, infiltrate the NK side of the DMZ, blow something up and give the north a reason to invade before any more such attacks could occur, the US wouldn't have time to conduct an investigation, the North simply wouldn't, and we'd be in a world of hurt. just a tasty scenario.

I don't think US has the b**ls to invade North Korea, and there are no legal reasons to invade Iran. It will be very very difficult for the US to justify any more preemptive militairy action around the globe. They still don't have Bin Laden, and Saddam, so what are they doing ?



[Edited on 19-7-2003 by TigeriS]

Originally posted by TigeriS
I don't think US has the balls to invade North Korea, and there are no legal reasons to invade Iran. It will be very very difficult for the US to justify any more preemptive militairy action around the globe without a new shocking terrorist attack.

I don't think its a matter of balls TigeriS. Seriously, I don't. I think its more a 'calculation' matter. The US most probably waiting for N.Korea to simply seriously mess up. Even then, I think it will be a 'calculated' response, especially if you add in that the region is mainly in the sphere of control of China and Russia....diffently a matter of 'calculations' then lack of balls.
It is an opinion and I respect yours. I just felt the need to clarify the "lack of balls" comment is all.

regards
seekerof

How about a few more options on the poll
3.Coalition forces will get killed in mass numbers in North Korea and Nations Involved will suffer as a result as well.
4.Coalition forces Will not get killed as much if Coalition forces invade iran. And less of a chance of retaliation from iran.
5.It doesnt matter were all going to die with where we are headed now.

[Edited on 19-7-2003 by falcon]

Well lets see,

The US does not have enough of an Army left to invade anyone. We may not even have enough to risk sending a force to Liberia. Rumsfeld plan was to have at least half the force in Iraq freed up by now and resistance to be lower and have Iraqi' in charge by now with reconstruction underway.
I do not even think they have any oil going out yet, that is why the price of oil is rising. Where the plan was for it to rapidly fall.
If there was an intelligence failure it was a political one in the belief we would be welcome.
I also believe North Korea will invade before we take any action against them. They can roll over our troops before the first wave of aircraft arrive. Then we will be bombing SK!
I may be entirely wrong

tut

Originally posted by tututkamen
Well lets see,

The US does not have enough of an Army left to invade anyone. We may not even have enough to risk sending a force to Liberia. Rumsfeld plan was to have at least half the force in Iraq freed up by now and resistance to be lower and have Iraqi' in charge by now with reconstruction underway.
I do not even think they have any oil going out yet, that is why the price of oil is rising. Where the plan was for it to rapidly fall.
If there was an intelligence failure it was a political one in the belief we would be welcome.
I also believe North Korea will invade before we take any action against them. They can roll over our troops before the first wave of aircraft arrive. Then we will be bombing SK!
I may be entirely wrong

tut

I partially agree. It is not that we have overextended our troops, but that we have blown off too many munitions. We need some time to build more bombs. Neither an invasion of North Korea nor of Iran are imminent. In regards to Iran, I think America wants to find out how their current unrest is going to play out. In regards to North Korea, it all depends on Kim Jong-Il. If he is reasonable and logical, he will back off of South Korea. But of course he is neither reasonable nor logical. He is a nut job.

We established pre-emptive strike if there is an immeadiate threat to security. NK will use the same reasoning to invade SK. And our only recourse would be to stand-by and watch or nuke the north.
When I was a boy my mother told me Son, it's not going to get any better than this so enjoy what you got while you got it.

tut tut

I doubt we'll invade North Korea. They have nukes and they don't give a #. We don't know how to deal with countries that won't role over. It would lead to a nuclear war. Bush and Blair are gonna have to try the untested diplomacy route.

I think North Korea would be next because there's not really that much of a case built up at all for Iran, and North Korea is becoming more and more of a niusance, more people are noticing it and are building their own personal case against NK and will be for attacking them first. I also think that NK will slip and do a stunt TOO big and will get SK and U.S. to attack.....

www.globalsecurity.org...


Korea Demilitarized Zone Incidents
# Incident List




At 6:10 AM July 17, 2003 North and South Korean soldiers echanged machine-gun fire near Yonchon, 35 miles north of Seoul. The North Koreans fired four 14.6mm rounds from a distance of 1,100 meters at ROKA soldiers who responded with 17 shots from a K-3. Warning announcements were made on the ROKA loudspeaker. ROKA soldiers along the DMZ were put on alert. Three of the four DPRK rounds struck a ROKA guard post. No ROKA casualties were reported.
======================================

sure seems like a military probe to me

Song: Celtas Cortos - Haz turismo

�ATENCI�N, SOLDADOS!
�A FORMAR!
�QUE NOS VAMOS
DE TURISMO!

Son turistas en viaje de luto
recorriendo todos los continentes
van con todo el careto tapado
de pintura pa ser m�s valientes.
Son los Rambos que todos los ni�os
quieren ser cuando sean mayores.
Son marines haciendo turismo
ten cuidao que no son objetores.

Haz turismo invadiendo un pa�s
t� ser�s el rey del noticiario
te ver� tu mam� orgullosa
disparando a alg�n pobre muchacho.
Haz turismo invadiendo un pa�s
es barato y te pagan la estancia.
Haz turismo invadiendo un pa�s.
Panam�, Nicaragua o Pucela.

Solucionan todos los problemas
invadiendo el lugar se�alado
por la CIA o por el presidente
unos tiros y ya est� arreglado
con su pinta de s�per-cabrones
su paquete rompiendo los moldes
son tan listos, no tienen problemas
en matarse entre ellos a golpes.

Haz turismo invadiendo un pa�s
Haz turismo pedazo de nabo.
Haz turismo invadiendo un pa�s
te traer�s a tu casa regalos.
Haz turismo invadiendo un pa�s
es barato y te pagan la estancia.
Haz turismo invadiendo un pa�s
Panam�, Nicaragua o Pucela.

Haz turismo.
Haz turismo.
Haz turismo.
Haz turismo.

------------------------------------------------------
In short: Make tourism invading a country.

[Edited on 2003-7-21 by MakodFilu]

�In North Korean hospitals, there is nothing. There is no running water, no heating system, there is no soap. There is no medicine,� says Vollertsen. �That's the reality in North Korea. And nobody knows about that.�
www.cbsnews.com...

=========================================

historically, one of the prime movers of warfare is starvation.
and realities such as this, cause me to wonder why exactly did we not start the GREAT BUSH REFORMATION HERE???????

TUT

I'm going to say Iran.
After all, more money for Bush, he owns, or is a 'close associate' with just about every major oil and gas company.

N. Korea isn't a threat, we could intercept their missles and decimate them within minutes.

Tassadar

I am betting North Korea.

I reckon it will be both of them knowing Dubya .