U.S. destroyers deploying off N. Korea

Yes, this has been probably discussed already and I get flamed for posting this but this time I used the search function, went trough threads etc. so here it goes:

Ships are first phase in Bush plan for 'missile shield'
The Associated Press
Updated: 1:44 p.m. ET Sept. 24, 2004

ABOARD THE USS CORONADO , In the first step toward erecting a multibillion-dollar shield to protect the United States from foreign missiles, the U.S. Navy will begin deploying state-of-the-art destroyers to patrol the waters off North Korea as early as next week.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

I expect North Korea wont be too happy about this.

[edit on 25-9-2004 by Samiralfey]

i'm not fullly aware of the n. korea situation, but what will be the benefit of us patrolling there? Suppose it has to do with the recent bomb test there?

Originally posted by Strigoi
i'm not fullly aware of the n. korea situation, but what will be the benefit of us patrolling there? Suppose it has to do with the recent bomb test there?

I thought it wasn't a bomb

I heard the explosion was the large scale use of standard explosives to remove part of a mountain side for development

well,

N Korea keeps saying it can hit with missles-nuclear- Japan,S Korea....US-what do u think the US will do.
ALso, when it comes to fast ballistic missles, the sooner u know about it,, the easier it is to do something about it.
I wonder if we have similar ships near Iran-not for balistic missles, but for missles that could hir our forces there or in Isreal.

I bet Kim Jong Il will be jumping up and down screaming "Your bustin' mah balls, your bustin' mah balls," in Korean about this.

Don't forget that NK has shown signs of a missile test, maybe they are keeping an eye on things too. The SPY radars on these ships are pretty trick and could spot launches then cue the larger X-Band Radars near Alaska.

So who's going to be the next attacked one? N. Korea or Iran?
Why won't the Democrats protest? Why there won't be more protests against George Bush?
Ha the Democrats say a lot of bad words against Bush but in fact they do nothing

I'm new here, first post, so bear with me haha...

AtheiX, i believe Iran will be the next axis of evil country attacked. As has been discussed on numerous other threads, Isreal just bought 5000 smart bombs from the USA, 500 of which are bunker-busting bombs, which will allegedly be used to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Obviously, with 150k troops in iraq, it'd just be more "convenient" to get iran next. I believe, with Bush's newly announced troop movements (moving troops out of cold war bases to more strategic locations to fight the war on terror), we will send more forces to the middle east. If a war w/ iran does occur, our present troops in iraq wouldn't be ready to fight b/c i'm sure their morale isn't real high. Plus if we pull out of iraq now, the country will become even more unstable than it already is. So i think we'll relocate hundreds of thousands of troops to iraq, wait for Isreal to light the match, and if needed (WHEN needed, shall i say), help isreal defeat Iran. It'd obviously be a more prolonged war than iraq, and god forbid iran would successfully get a nuclear bomb to Isreal.

North Korea is a whole 'nother monster. I wrote an essay on the Nuclear tension w/ NK last year, and it's most certain that they have at least 10-15 nukes (and could be pumping out 8-10 more a year). Kim Jong-Il is a crazy crazy man, and NK is an impoverished nation. He doesn't care about his people, and that's a crying shame. If we attacked NK, we'd have to make sure we had ample intelligence to take out EVERY SINGLE nuclear facility they have. And i don't think we know enough about the whereabouts of these facilities. NK CLAIMS they could hit the west coast of the US with nukes, but keep in mind it could just be Kim Jong-Il blowing smoke out of his butt (and most likely is). North Korea is the wild card in the stability of the world, IMO (even moreso than the US haha).

This is a very touchy situation with Iran and NK. If Iran decides to further develop their nuclear arsenal then Israel will have no choice but to strike them. This WILL unite the Arab countries against us and Israel. The key to the whole situation is France. If they join with Iran then we could have a mess. France has too many financial ties to Iran to just sit back and do nothing. We would have to form a large coalition to decimate the Arab threat but that will also open us up for and attack against NK. NK would like nothing more than to resume the Korean War and reclaim Seoul. With a vast majority of our forces in the Middle East fighting Iran and their allies it would be hard to fight a war on two fronts without proper backup. I know we did it in WWII but our military was MUCH larger back then. We could strike them with our superior technology but I dont know how far that will get us. If you thought there were a lot of casulties in OIF then you have not seen nothing. NK has approximitly 3000 artillary guns pointed at Seoul with a 1-4 Chemical-Biological tip ratio on all amunition. We will have to strike back with Nuclear weapons, which will not please China due to the proximity of NK to China. We are looking at a potential WWIII. Can we win? Definitly! We just need to be smart about all actions with this.

So, the answer is to just invade Iran?

Don't forget, in WWII, we had the backing of the majority of the planet. Heck, the Us didn't get involved in it until we were attacked on our own soil.

The war on terrorism is not a war in the conventional sense, as there is no enemy state, but, rather, idealologists that do not agree with the Western world, who hide out in remote locations. War is not the answer, at least not war with a country. A new type of war should be our focus, something which the current people in charge do not seem to realize.

So, the answer is to just invade Iran?

Don't forget, in WWII, we had the backing of the majority of the planet. Heck, the Us didn't get involved in it until we were attacked on our own soil.

The war on terrorism is not a war in the conventional sense, as there is no enemy state, but, rather, idealologists that do not agree with the Western world, who hide out in remote locations. War is not the answer, at least not war with a country. A new type of war should be our focus, something which the current people in charge do not seem to realize.

I totally agree, this war has started in the same fashion WWII started. We were attacked on Sept. 11 and now we are slowly but surly destroying the "Axis of Evil" We are fighting idealolgists which makes this war harder than anyone we have ever fought. These people are bent on the destruction of our beliefs and country which is why we can not relent. War is the answer. You can not negotiate with terrorists and ideaologists. Any country that harbors or supports terrorists are no better than terrorists themselves. The man in charge does understand this and he is taking the necessary steps to win. Iran is the center of the terrorist empire. We will never defeat "All" terrorists but if we destroy the countries who fund them and support them, there will be no money coming in to fund their organizations. I dont think we should invade Iran right now but if they get closer to developing Nukes then we must invade for our own safety. They would have no problem giving a nuke to a terrorist faction to eliminate their mortal enemies. If they do get a nuke then I think the majority of the world would be behind us. This is to include Russia. Iran supports many of the terrorists in Chechnya, who are the nemesis of the Russian people. There would be a coalition to combat them and we WILL win.

There's no denying that there are factions within some countries that do support terrorism, but the point is it's never the entire country. There are many who live in these countries who do not suport terrorism, the "common man".

However, running over these countries with the world's mightiest armes services will lead to some accidental killing of innocents. Do you think that the families of these people will just say "OH, that was a mistake, it's OK."? Wouldn't you feel a sense of hatred towards those responsible for killing your loved ones? Isn't that what has happened to the western world?

Blindly going into a country to impose a government that we, as outsiders, determine that they should have isn't a well thought-out concept. The Us has already done this, and I fear we'll do it again.

Originally posted by Susquehanna
There's no denying that there are factions within some countries that do support terrorism, but the point is it's never the entire country. There are many who live in these countries who do not suport terrorism, the "common man".

However, running over these countries with the world's mightiest armes services will lead to some accidental killing of innocents. Do you think that the families of these people will just say "OH, that was a mistake, it's OK."? Wouldn't you feel a sense of hatred towards those responsible for killing your loved ones? Isn't that what has happened to the western world?

Blindly going into a country to impose a government that we, as outsiders, determine that they should have isn't a well thought-out concept. The Us has already done this, and I fear we'll do it again.

Although i do somewhat agree with what you've said, i do think that we should do WHATEVER possible to protect the security of the US. We're trying to rid the world of terrorism, and the Iranian government is a proven harborer of terrorism. Yes, with any war there will be civilian casualties, there's no doubt about that, and the familes of these people will be angry. Democracy is an eagle that will inevitabley spread her wings over the entire world (unless the NWO does haha). I think that the middle east is a complete and utter disaster waiting to happen. Just too many rogue nations (including Isreal). Today's world is one where every situation is a lose/lose situation--damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I think we should have a new form of warfare, not the traditional blow everything up attitude that we have now. Reliance on operatives and special forces to eradicate those who support terrorism.

I have a friend who is currently a marine, who said that there were special ops guys who supposedly had guns trained on Saddam from his bedroom before the war began. This is what should be done, if, in fact, that story was true. Take them out and leave, before anyone knows what has happened. And they would kno wwho it was...

This is all my opinion which has been formed from reading and talking to a couple of people "in the know". None of this can be found anywhere, for most is just a formed opinon.

To my understanding, with people I have spoke to, Iran was actually suppose to be the Next target after Afghanistan. Iraq had already been defeated once, with great ease. Saddam did not pose the greatest threat to the world, most of all the US. It seems to me that he was 'contained', that really at any given point in time he could have been ousted as easily as he was in this war. Now if this were to hold true, why did we skip over Iran? The easiest, and most simple answer I could provide is, a staging ground.

The Axis of Evil Bush refers to is mostly in the Middle East. We basically have access to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Qatar, Kuwait etc etc. So taking over Iraq would put the US in a pivotal situation. The US is now essentially between Israel and Iran. Israel has been threating Iran, the US just sold them a ton of missles. But what more to inferiorate the Middle East would be siding with Israel on attacking another country in the region, specifically Iran. How does the US get around this? God Forbid there is another attack on US Soil, or anywhere else for that matter, it Will be tracked back to Iran being a major contributor to those involved. Maybe not being behind the attacks, but money trails, harboring terrorist cells, supplying them with intelligence and weapons, ya get the idea. So the US attacks Iran in defense, with reasons already stated would be in my opinion justafiablly so.

Who does Iran attack first?? Just Like Saddam did in Gulf War I, Israel. So now you have Israel and the US involved in a war with Iran. Now it becomes intresting.

Don't forget about Pyongyang in North Korea, and Hu Jintao in China. Where would these situations lead if the US Military(especially) is stretched thin in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran? Enter Putin. After the siege on the school in Beslan. Putin seems to now be firm in his approach on terrorism. This scenario could and would turn ugly.

Maybe I should start writing a movie script, cuz this is what it sounds like. This 1st part of the missle sheild is bothering me. I believe it insists that N. Korea is far more dangerous than any other. It does not come out and say this, nor have I seen any plans, but this is what it is saying to me.

The thing that scares me the most if anything nearly like this happens is--
Countries will turn against the US and attack here. If there is any type of a quick witted attack from the US on another country, the might just be saying, "Enough". The tables could very well turn on the US, and myself as a citizen, it frightens me.

OK start the flaming

If you think you can invade Iran for no honest reason other than you want to you must be mad.

Axis of evil LOL there is a growing believe that 9/11 was self inflicted a US government plot. The plane going into the pentagon is under review by many for example.

The word Crazy comes to mind - Firstly you cannot beat the iraqi's into a permanent ceasefire. (dont forget your paying for this war)

Secondly the Iranian military are fighting for there country and families, not a single tyrant who everybody hates. (more big bucks, and a draft as well)

Somebody said this could start ww3 well if it did the US will be to blame and nobody wins ww3 its a endgame scenario everyone loses.

[spelling error]

[edit on 26-9-2004 by Munro_DreadGod]

Susquehanna
I think we should have a new form of warfare, not the traditional blow everything up attitude that we have now.

I dont think we have that attitude, If we did we would level Iraq, instead of the way were doing it, patroling streets, door to door searches, precision guided bombs, ya get the point. Were being as "gentle" as we can be.

People consistently seem to forget something that was released (and quickly pushed out of the news) on 03/04/2003:

`NK Missile Warhead Found in Alaska�

By Ryu Jin
Staff Reporter
The warhead of a long-range missile test-fired by North Korea was found in the U.S. state of Alaska, a report to the National Assembly revealed yesterday.

``According to a U.S. document, the last piece of a missile warhead fired by North Korea was found in Alaska,�� former Japanese foreign minister Taro Nakayama was quoted as saying in the report. ``Washington, as well as Tokyo, has so far underrated Pyongyang�s missile capabilities.��

times.hankooki.com...

They've evidently had the range for awhile, even though it has been hushed. I wonder how many months lag-time we're getting in terms of political developments with NK.

MK

Originally posted by Murcielago

Susquehanna
I think we should have a new form of warfare, not the traditional blow everything up attitude that we have now.

I dont think we have that attitude, If we did we would level Iraq, instead of the way were doing it, patroling streets, door to door searches, precision guided bombs, ya get the point. Were being as "gentle" as we can be.

But if we can get guys in to take out the leaders of these regimes, and just the leaders, not innocent bystanders, that is the way to go. If there is another person who fils in and is just as horrible, take them out too. That's the way I'm talking about. "Stealth" warfare, for lack of a better term.

Originally posted by MKULTRA
People consistently seem to forget something that was released (and quickly pushed out of the news) on 03/04/2003:

`NK Missile Warhead Found in Alaska�

By Ryu Jin
Staff Reporter
The warhead of a long-range missile test-fired by North Korea was found in the U.S. state of Alaska, a report to the National Assembly revealed yesterday.

``According to a U.S. document, the last piece of a missile warhead fired by North Korea was found in Alaska,�� former Japanese foreign minister Taro Nakayama was quoted as saying in the report. ``Washington, as well as Tokyo, has so far underrated Pyongyang�s missile capabilities.��

times.hankooki.com...

They've evidently had the range for awhile, even though it has been hushed. I wonder how many months lag-time we're getting in terms of political developments with NK.

MK

Kind of hard to get the public convinced that Iraq is a threat to our security when NK is landing warheads in Alaska, so let's keep this quiet.