N Korea prepares for war against US

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   
"If you are truly Chinese, you would realise that North Korea is just as big a threat to China, Japan and the whole South East Asian peninsula than it is to the US. "

Yes, I am Chinese and am proud to be a Chinese.

US is the biggest threat in North East Asia by assisting Taiwan against China, and disrupt efforts for reapproachment between North Korea and South Korea. Just because of the threat, the North Korea can not devote their resources for economical development.




posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng
"North Koreas military is poised to do one thing and one thing only: Invade the South. "

FredT, you do not even know the new Bush policy?

Premptive Strike!

That is why US invaded Iraq.

Let's just wait and see whether US will attack North Korea first.





Well, it seems that you can't handle a logical explanation. Instead you have to go on an anti-US tirade and I'm afraid that is pathetic and does nothing for your argument. Maybe your views on Taiwan are clouding your judgement of other issues?
The US didn't invade Iraq because Bush had a pre-emptive policy. The policy made no difference whatsoever. The US was going in whatever.

If the pre-emptive policy was as dangerous to North Korea as you state, war would have broken out years ago. The US could easily goad North Korea into taking military action which would justify retaliation.

Would you like to explain to me why the US would want to occupy North Korea?

By the way. The US has nothing to do with North Korea originally having a poor economy. Study Kim's agricultural and industrial policies and you will find that it was he who screwed up North Korea. His regime couldn't run a bath - let alone a country.







[edit on 10-7-2004 by Leveller]



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng
FredT, you do not even know the new Bush policy?


You are becoming quite a load Why would the US need to invade? Premtive strike? That was in regards to terrorism. The Bush administration is trying to use diplomatic means to resolve the nuclear issue. There is a profound need for regime change, but Bush is waiting. Why wait? First, NK is litteraly starving to death. The will eventualy The restarting of thier nuclear program is just a desperate means of extorting money out of us.

China created the megolmaniac that is Kim you are also resposable for his nuc's. Maybe its time you took care of he problem you created


[edit on 10-7-2004 by FredT]



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
For years, the US has been paying him off to keep the peninsula relatively quiet, but even then Kim reneged on the deals that were made, so they pay no more.


Do you ever read the agreement? You only accept what you media told you.

It is the US that overthrew the agreement. It was agreed that US, Japan and South Korea should construct 2 light nuclear power plant completed by 2001, while the North Korea should cease its program on nuclear weapons.

Tell me what's the progress on the power plants? That is why North Korea resume their program. US simply will not comply with their agreement under the Bush misadministration. Get the facts, not one sided facts.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng
Do you ever read the agreement? You only accept what you media told you.
Tell me what's the progress on the power plants? That is why North Korea resume their program. US simply will not comply with their agreement under the Bush misadministration. Get the facts, not one sided facts.


North Korea resumed thier program to use as blackamil plain and simple. We do not accept the media blindly. However we have free press. YOU have your Propaganda Department. They must be so proud of you. You spout off the rhetoric like one of your central party leadership. Are you sure there is'nt a guy with a gun to your head forcing you to type all this crap? I mean really. You cannot be this diluded can you?



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng


Do you ever read the agreement? You only accept what you media told you.



Touche. It seems to me that you are the one swallowing rhetoric. As I've already stated: the US pulled out of the agreements because the North Korean regime was admittedly reneging on the deal. That's no secret. No media hype. This news came from Kim himself.

Now. As I've already asked you once, maybe you would have the decency to answer my question this second time -

What possible desire would the US have in possessing North Korean territory?



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Please keep the disscussions civil guys



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
The US didn't invade Iraq because Bush had a pre-emptive policy. The policy made no difference whatsoever. The US was going in whatever.


So would please tell me why US invaded Iraq?



If the pre-emptive policy was as dangerous to North Korea as you state, war would have broken out years ago. The US could easily goad North Korea into taking military action which would justify retaliation.


US has to pick the feeble one first. Iraq is apparently the first choice.


Would you like to explain to me why the US would want to occupy North Korea?


Ask Bush, why should US even stay in South Korea?



By the way. The US has nothing to do with North Korea originally having a poor economy. Study Kim's agricultural and industrial policies and you will find that it was he who screwed up North Korea. His regime couldn't run a bath - let alone a country.


Kim has to first defend North Korea from US aggression, that is why he put most resources into defense. Now Kim is slowly adopting the reforms in China. In a few years, NK will have a much better economy.

Think Why most people in the world loathe US foreign policy?



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 10:49 AM
link   
You're not actually answering the question.
Iraq hasn't any bearing on this subject. The reasons for intervention there are not pertinent to this scenario.

So for a third time. What does the US have to gain by attacking North Korea?


As to "loathing US foreign policy"? I don't believe that the majority do. It's probably even less than 40/60, but those who despise the US government are very vocal and get heard. But at least they get heard. Where are those North Koreans who despise North Korean policies or those Chinese who despise China's policies? Tiananmen Square anybody?



[edit on 10-7-2004 by Leveller]



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
So for a third time. What does the US have to gain by attacking North Korea?



I have said: Ask Bush, Cheney cabal.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng

North Korea as a nation has every right to defend herself, and retaliate with any means possible. It is so funny that you morons think that US and only US has the right to attack other country, while those defend their country are called sable rattling.


A murderous dicatator has no right to rule. He has forfiet that right by his immoral and heinous actions. In Iraq we went in to complete the war declaired in 1992 because the terms of the cease fire had been broken and flaunted. If NK does the same we will do the same to them eventually and NK will be all the better in the long run. You people who defend sick madmen should think about what you are signing on to. Kim Il sicko is a nasty vile man and he has raped the NK people for years. When the day of reackoning comes it will be justice served and people freed just as in Iraq. I am proud of what America has done to keep the world free and I will defend our right as protector of freedom. We have spilt blood for our enemies people to prosper. What other nation has ever done that? What other nation returns soverignty to conquered territories willingly, even anxiously. What other nation holds itself accountable for its mistakes and wrongs doing all that is possible to correct them? Yet people in despotic totalitarian freedom denying nations are duped into defending this kind of tyranny by propaganda and foolish theoretical arguments that have no basis in reality but only stand up in a sociology classroom.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
So for a third time. What does the US have to gain by attacking North Korea?


Its a lost cause with this guy. His propaganda manual does not have answeres to your questions SO he is stalling till someone can bring him one that does



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng


I have said: Ask Bush, Cheney cabal.



So basically, you are avoiding the question or incapable of answering it.

In that case I believe that all of your comments can be disregarded as nothing more than ignorant propaganda.


[edit on 10-7-2004 by Leveller]



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Really preemptive strike? We gave Iraq at least 3 months to get ready you call that preemptive strike preemptive is a pearl harbor type of attack and the US will not do that we didn't even do that with Cuba in the 60's you think we are going to do it to N.K nope we wont.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   
One interesting thing to come out of this thread is the point that you can see perfectly how North Korea's propaganda actually does work on those outside of the West.

It should be remembered that the message in the media story at the beginning of this thread is not aimed primarily for Western consumption. It is directed to those who oppose the US for whatever reason and for home propaganda within North Korea itself.

As you can see by our Chinese friend's response, it does not ask for reasoned logical analysis. It's only purpose is to further the North Korean regime's interest. North Korea has been playing this game for a long time and it's pretty good at it. Expect more from Kim and his pals in the future.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Remember, just becouse u are paranoid, doen't mean they are NOT out to get u! If I were N.Korea and realizing I have badly overplayed my had with the nuclear issue and realized that 7 US battle groups were within striking range of me, I would be afraid too.
This is a far more interesting issue than first realised. We can use missles and distroy all above ground facilities-underground? We should be able to control the sky's with 350 fighters from the battle groups-but-they do have lots of SAMS and this will be an issue. I don't know if we have enough "wild weasles" to get to them all.
Then there is the ground war-he has about a million men and lots of tanks and big guns.
Then there is the issue, will he divide his forces and take S.Korea-they would just roll through-if not they can distroy cities within 40 miles of the boarder, they can damage cities farther with missles.
Then we risk China supporting or fully joining their historical friend N.Korea.
While we are intrenched with all this, Iran will make moves, arabs will make moves on Isreal....



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Hey FredT......

"Sure would ruin my weekend. Putin is not crazy, nor is Bush. Kim on the otehr hand is a total megelo maniac madman. You never know what he will do."

Do you have any proof that Bush is not nuts?



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
A soldier capable of beating a 100 enemy soldiers
You think they would try for something alittle more realistic. Even the spartans back in the day were only as good as 10 men. They should try alittle harder with the propaganda


It's just propaganda, but it's possible. Sgt. Alvin York cleared a series of machine gun nests, took several prisoners, then an officer, and made the officer order more Germans to surrender. I think he ended up with over 100. that was WWI. Several CMH recipients, specifically machine gunners, have been credited with over 100 kills. I believe Gunnery Sergeant John Bassilone is among them. Bassilone's section of 2 crew served weapons and 4 men (if memory serves) killed several hundred japanese defending the airstrip, I think on Guadalcanal, but my memory is fuzzy, it might have specifically been at Edson's Ridge on Guadalcanal- i hope thats not wrong.

In manuever warfare, you don't have to kill the enemy to defeat them either. 1 man can destroy a bridge, or laser-designate a fuel depot, and keep 1000 men from entering the fight in time. Read Rifleman Dodd: a single English soldier set out to stop an entire army in its tracks, and actually did it, except that by the time he had succeeded his army had already won without him.

In my home town, just a couple of men could probably crush an army. bomb the aquaduct and the largest wells, then sabotage the railroad tracks, set hide out by the freeway, in the pass coming into the valley, where you could destroy an incoming shipment of water. Men who haven't been drinking water would be easy to bribe into neglecting their duties or handing over information too. You could probably get a clean shot at a general just by waving gatorade in some poor grunt's face.

So for what it's worth, it's doable. You can't disrespect the enemy- you always have to expect the fight of your life, because sooner or later, somebody just might give it to you.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I think that NK has every intention of defending itself, I also think that The US will have no problem with a preemptive strike. My worry comes from, if the intelligence is true, NK does have nuclear capability of reaching Alaska, I realize the key words are "if intelligence is right".



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
North Korea resumed thier program to use as blackamil plain and simple. We do not accept the media blindly. However we have free press. YOU have your Propaganda Department. They must be so proud of you. You spout off the rhetoric like one of your central party leadership. Are you sure there is'nt a guy with a gun to your head forcing you to type all this crap? I mean really. You cannot be this diluded can you?


Tell me when was the power plant agreed to finish.
What is the progress now? It was clear to North Korea that US has no intention whatsoever to honor their agreement. Why should be abided by the agreement? As I said, get the facts, and work out the sequence of development. Otherwise you assertion is plain Sdupid.

I just joined the Kerry and Edwards rally this afternoon, and got his signature. Vote for your more sensible Kerry. Do you know how many people attended the rally from your proud Propaganda Department? They will tell you nothing!





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join