North Korea

[mattprezo]

With the US stating that "military strikes" could not be ruled out on both Iran and North Korea , is there not a risk that they will totally overstretch their diplomatic firepower, not to mention their military.

There is no way they could take on both, plus Iraq and Afgan, with any real sucess.

How best to go forward with these unquestionably evil regimes?
Check out www.prezo.co.uk

[SomeNick]

Leave North Korea alone for a while longer. Let them be annoyting some more. That way the USA wont be seen as the evil power bullying the small guy. Let everyone realize what an ass hole Kim Jom Il is, first.

The USA should just keep eyes open in case North Korea launches a nuclear warhead. Other than that...

[Imperator]

By military strikes, we are talking AIR strikes. We have the best air force in the world, and can easily strike North Korea (or anywhere for that matter) within a matter of hours.

And I've heard we can deploy an 800 Marine force anywhere in the world in 24 hours.

We're quick response type of people (America= Bigger, Faster, Better).

What I fail to understand is why we always need to broadcast that information to our targets and the rest of the world.......

Kim Jong Il doesn't need to know that we aren't ruling out military strikes damnit.....

[LazyDrunk]

To Mr. Bush: Don't worry about the pussies who need to be told what "their government" is thinking. Communicate with your diplomats, not over the airwaves. That's how shit gets started. You may be kooky, and you may accept that fact, but don't play at addressing the American people as if we're truly wondering "omg what're we going to do now."

[BeFell]

Am I the only one hoping North Korea will try to launch a Nuclear missile towards America only to have it fizzle out and crash land halfway to the cost of L.A. (Not that a direct hit would be all that much of a loss). I imagine the resulting firework display from our response would be quite pretty.

The US doesn't have to worry about spreading it's forces too thin in responding to North Korea because it would most likely be all air strikes and if troops on the ground are required it is my understanding we may have a few guys sitting around just south of the border knocking up Asian chicks.

As far as if any kind of military action is required, that's really going to be up to North Korea. The Koreans aren't going to fight like the Muslims, Kim Jong Ill isn't going to hide a nuclear bomb on a subway car he is going to do something flashy that will prove to the world once and for all that he doesn't have a 2 inch dick. If he keeps his dick in his pants, nothing is going to happen, if not, boom.

[GoldenHammer]

At 10/10/06 11:20 PM, Imperator wrote: By military strikes, we are talking AIR strikes. We have the best air force in the world, and can easily strike North Korea (or anywhere for that matter) within a matter of hours.

And I've heard we can deploy an 800 Marine force anywhere in the world in 24 hours.

We're quick response type of people (America= Bigger, Faster, Better).

What I fail to understand is why we always need to broadcast that information to our targets and the rest of the world.......

Kim Jong Il doesn't need to know that we aren't ruling out military strikes damnit.....

China will have much more millitary force than u from USA, they will be strongest force of the planet, so enjoy ur moment of glory.

[cellardoor6]

At 10/10/06 11:47 PM, GoldenHammer wrote:

China will have much more millitary force than u from USA, they will be strongest force of the planet, so enjoy ur moment of glory.\

Yeah...you say that even though every indepedent (non-biased) military analyst in the world believes that China will never oust the US as the worlds military superpower. All the advanced weapons that Chinese have anyway are still 20 years behind the US and they are usually bought from Russia.

China's military is pretty weak compared to the US, actually Chinas military has about 1/30 the force projection. They have alot of ground troops, but their technology is pretty pathetic when you compare it to the information technology the US has. Plus, China has no military means of transporting their forces outside of their borders for any significant amount of time. They are basically a lame-duck, they might do so-so in a regional land war, but the US has a WAY more advanced military in all aspects.

Anyone who says that China will be more powerful than the US in military terms is obviously uneducated or is just saying such nonsense because they WANT this to be true due to their bias.

[Archon-John]

The US, if need be, would easily beat all four countries. The only problem we're having in Iraq and Afghanistan right now is that we have no set enemy (hence no real war). We simply have a small portion of the populace that either liked it when people were being thrown into paper shredders and what not, or would like it if we left so they could take the reigns of a new country and shape it to their whims. Our military was created to fight a war on three fronts, we can easily fight one in a concentrated area of the middle east provided we are actually fighting an enemy military force.

The big problem in Iraq and Afghanistan is that there are civillians fightning against us. Just like in Viet Nam.

Unfortunately, the only effective way to fight a civillian force is just that. To fight them - this involves fighting all of them.

Unfortunately, there is no appropriate way to fight a civillian force. When we do fight them "fairly" we take more casualities than normal, and we inflict more casualties on true civillians than normal, simply from lack of distinction. We saw the same thing in Viet Nam. When we fight them how we (militarily speaking) should fight them... well, that involves killing everyone, known as total war, and that's really not cool in circumstances that are not "extreme".

Point being, if we need to fight an enemy military, (like the kind North Korea has) we could do it easily. But when we are forced to distinguish civillian from civillian-in-disguise, we aren't so great.

What I wish people would realize is that the people fighting against us in Iraq do not have the best intentions of their people in mind, or they would not attack us as civillians. They only create confusion and a feeling of terror (making them terrorists) If they truely cared about their people, they would fight us as an organized force. Granted they would lose horribly, but they would remove the chances of us hurting innocent civillians - but, like I said, they care only for themselves and their preservation, not for others. Further proof of this comes from suicide bombers and car bombers. While suicide bombers have much less motivation from self preservation, they actively target the greatest number of people, civillian or not, as do car bombers. Hence they are not fighting for their people, but for themselves.

[Neoptolemus]

At 10/11/06 03:05 AM, Archon-John wrote: The US, if need be, would easily beat all four countries.

That's opinion.

The big problem in Iraq and Afghanistan is that there are civillians fightning against us. Just like in Viet Nam.

Why do you think civilians are attacking NATO troops? Because they see it as an occupation and they constantly see NATO troops killing civilians.

Unfortunately, the only effective way to fight a civillian force is just that. To fight them - this involves fighting all of them.

What? The best way to fight civilians is to fight civilians? That sounds like something Bush would say..
Anyway, you can't expect a civilian population to back you if you slaughter their families.

Unfortunately, there is no appropriate way to fight a civillian force. When we do fight them "fairly" we take more casualities than normal, and we inflict more casualties on true civillians than normal, simply from lack of distinction. We saw the same thing in Viet Nam. When we fight them how we (militarily speaking) should fight them... well, that involves killing everyone, known as total war, and that's really not cool in circumstances that are not "extreme".

Not cool? Don't you mean immoral and goes against international law.

Point being, if we need to fight an enemy military, (like the kind North Korea has) we could do it easily. But when we are forced to distinguish civillian from civillian-in-disguise, we aren't so great.

You're also not great at guerrilla warfare, fighting insurgency, urban warfare etc.

What I wish people would realize is that the people fighting against us in Iraq do not have the best intentions of their people in mind, or they would not attack us as civillians. They only create confusion and a feeling of terror (making them terrorists) If they truely cared about their people, they would fight us as an organized force. Granted they would lose horribly, but they would remove the chances of us hurting innocent civillians - but, like I said, they care only for themselves and their preservation, not for others. Further proof of this comes from suicide bombers and car bombers. While suicide bombers have much less motivation from self preservation, they actively target the greatest number of people, civillian or not, as do car bombers. Hence they are not fighting for their people, but for themselves.

That's quite idiotic. Have you ever been in a war zone against a force with higher numbers and better equipment? Your best bet is to lower your enemies moral so that they hesitate more when fighting then you can win. So technically speaking the insurgents are only doing what any intelligent person would.

[SmilingAssasin]

Really, whats the fuss. I think North Korea has proved on many occasions that they couldn't hit a fucking target if they were an inch in front of it. And its not like thier ballistic missiles are of the highest grade are they, if I remember correctly most of the ones they've tested either fell into the sea or exploded spectacularly on the launch pad. I successful test in my view is when something other than a gigantic sea mass is hit.

Damn..... they're threatening.

[funky-moose]

At 10/11/06 11:40 AM, SmilingAssasin wrote: I successful test in my view is when something other than a gigantic sea mass is hit.

Damn..... they're threatening.

You know... you don't need to it to be a missile to use a nuke. And even then, want to wait for there missiles to get better? They've already shown us they have at least the brains to make a nuke.

[Viper-Studios]

I always thought North Korea should be nuked

[troubles1]

hopefully this is were the UN will setup in, but if not because of the serious threat of them selling the nukes to terrorist, witch is very probable, most of the other nuclear countries should setup in. together they may be able to solve it without the loss of lives.

[Iamrecognized]

At 10/10/06 11:40 PM, BeFell wrote: Am I the only one hoping North Korea will try to launch a Nuclear missile towards America only to have it fizzle out and crash land halfway to the cost of L.A. (Not that a direct hit would be all that much of a loss).

Hey! Fuck you!

At 10/11/06 11:05 PM, troubles1 wrote: hopefully this is were the UN will setup in, but if not because of the serious threat of them selling the nukes to terrorist, witch is very probable, most of the other nuclear countries should setup in. together they may be able to solve it without the loss of lives.

Hahaha! The UN do something? You make me laugh. The UN is probably still voting on if it will vote on the issue. And if that vote passes, and then the real one does as well, the end effect is that they will probably send a letter to Kim Jong Ill that says, "Stop it else we will vote on sending you another letter!" And then not follow through with it.

[Eskimo-Bob]

N korea still has lots of work to do with there tests before it starts to get really bad, besides n koreas has many sactions to worry about which is basicly gonna cripple them.

[fli]

At 10/10/06 10:18 PM, SomeNick wrote: The USA should just keep eyes open in case North Korea launches a nuclear warhead. Other than that...

And do what?
Wave hello to them?

Eh-- more new news... from 2002.

[The-Bi99man]

At 10/10/06 06:07 PM, mattprezo wrote: With the US stating that "military strikes" could not be ruled out on both Iran and North Korea , is there not a risk that they will totally overstretch their diplomatic firepower, not to mention their military.

There is no way they could take on both, plus Iraq and Afgan, with any real sucess.

How best to go forward with these unquestionably evil regimes?
Check out www.prezo.co.uk

If the US wasn't scared to actually use a significant amount of our military power, we could easily take on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea at the same time, and none of them would even stand a chance. Despite what the lack of initiative to get stuff done may lead you to believe, the US is still the most powerful military force on the planet, by leaps and bounds. As long as we don't hesitate to use as much force as necessary, there isn't a nation in the world that could even dream about taking on the US. The problem is that everybody knows that we're run by a bunch of pussies, so they go ahead and do shit that they know we don't want them doing, because they know we won't do anything to stop them (aside from politely asking, and then running to the UN when we're disobeyed).

[The-Bi99man]

Anyway, on the topic of North Korea: I say let them have their little Nuclear test. But if a warhead comes anywhere near US territory, I'd have no problem with seeing North Korea nuked until there is no North Korea left to nuke. I'm talking like bomb them until the ground literally gives out, sinks into the ocean, and North Korea becomes a giant, radioactive lake.

[Arone]

heres my take on the situation, the us is retarded for even saying anything publicly other than "we are taking north koreas continuing threats and actions as a serious threat and will do anything diplomatic to stop a nuclear holocost" then they should drop an abomb, its not even like its genocide, i mean theres a south korea too right, plenty of koreans to go around. cut it as a loss of an evil twin and move on :p

[HoboPorn]

At 10/10/06 11:20 PM, Imperator wrote:

What I fail to understand is why we always need to broadcast that information to our targets and the rest of the world.......

Thats easy, it's to let them know we can do that, and to basically make them fear that, so they don't do anything stupid.

[xcrime-cyber]

I thought Korea the friend america

[NihonjinStud]

At 10/10/06 11:40 PM, BeFell wrote:

The US doesn't have to worry about spreading it's forces too thin in responding to North Korea because it would most likely be all air strikes and if troops on the ground are required it is my understanding we may have a few guys sitting around just south of the border knocking up Asian chicks.

You. Many rucky white man fuck many asian chick in asia. Asia girlu rove white man. No brrack peopre prease! We asian take ah gleat plide in hate alll brack peopre. Brack peopre is useress monkey firth.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 10/12/06 02:20 PM, JapStud wrote: You. Many rucky white man fuck many asian chick in asia. Asia girlu rove white man. No brrack peopre prease! We asian take ah gleat plide in hate alll brack peopre. Brack peopre is useress monkey firth.

Hell yeah!

Down with the Bracks!!!

Those filthy Bracks come over and steel our women and jobs!

[NihonjinStud]

At 10/12/06 02:31 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote:

At 10/12/06 02:20 PM, JapStud wrote: You. Many rucky white man fuck many asian chick in asia. Asia girlu rove white man. No brrack peopre prease! We asian take ah gleat plide in hate alll brack peopre. Brack peopre is useress monkey firth.

Hell yeah!

Down with the Bracks!!!

Those filthy Bracks come over and steel our women and jobs!

Yes. Brack is firthy.

Brack never get women, onry ugry fat deplate woman or ugry brack ape woman. Brack to razy to wolk too. That why they onry stear and make clime.

Asia so safe because no brack arrowed.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

You’re an idiot.

moron alert! moron alert!

[grissomsbeard]

Wouldn't mind hearing a little less talk from Bush and Blair and a bit more unity and strength from the U.N. It doesn't reflect well on the U.S. (or U.K. where I live) to keep having leaders who're already unpopular for ramming their so-called beliefs and righteous opinions down our throats, go on about how evil a régime North Korea is.

The U.N. has stated categorically that it's against what's happening in N. Korea, so sanctions are the best route to take initially (imho). Nothing like losing a buck or having starving people to feed when you're wasting money on testing nuclear weapons and the like. See how long they last out then, before talking about any sort of military attack.

We also have to remember China and the threat a communist ally could pose, as well as the sensitivity of S. Korea and Japan being so close to N. Korea. If anyone should decide what should happen next, then it should be North Korea's neighbours and not the British, Americans or anyone else. Plenty of countries have nuclear capabilites now. But why is the so-called West any more trustworthy with them than anyone else? You may argue we have democracies to defend, but how democratic are they really, when governments (namely the U.K. and U.S.) have gone against the majority view of the people they're supposed to represent. Blair certainly has here and is suffering as a result now.

Right now with North Korea, it's just a case of wait and see.

[glenrlee]

It is my opinion the crazy little guy running North Korea will on;y understand force. He has terrorizef the people of his own country for years. And sooner or later the USA will have to go step on him like the bug he is. YES I SAID USA. Because the U N does not have balls to step and do what needs to done.

[Teutonic]

At 10/12/06 12:21 PM, xcrime-cyber wrote: I thought Korea the friend america

Haha since when did you think this? NK is running aout of friends by the day.

[Cycloned]

Ok, I can't read any more ignorant thoughts. What all of you fail to realize it that when you talk of war you are including death. Many people don't understand that North Koreans are not objects but human beings as well. We cannot just go launch a nuke at them and call it a day. We would kill to many innocent civilians.
How would you feel if you were a person in North Korea right now. You have no idea what is going on in the outside world, your starving, and now American's have no problem with killing you because they view your life as worthless. It wouldn't be so damn grand then.
And for all of you that underestimate the power of the world. We are pissing off to many people and our military cannot take on the entire world. We have unlimited money and natural resources for waging war, but we don't have one thing that the rest of the world does...billions of people. The populations of the world is almost 7 billion people and the United States only makes up 300 million of that, which means there is another 6,700,000,000 people that we would have to fight. Yes, I know most of these people live in 3rd world countries, but the entire world is starting to develop stronger economies and civilizations. Within 10-20 years, China will be the world's leader economic and military power and India will be right behind them.
We do not have the numbers to beat the world. That is why there is a little thing called diplomacy. In fact, war and action are the opposite of diplomacy. Words, thoughts, and feelings can fix ALL situations, and those of you who think that they can't...well thank god you're not our diplomats. Life is more valuable than what you all are making it seem to be. IF you had half a heart or a tid bit of brain then you would know that. We can replace regimes, military power, buildings, and the president (the office not the person) but we can NEVER replace a human life.

[cellardoor6]

At 10/12/06 10:13 PM, Cycloned wrote: Ok, I can't read any more ignorant thoughts. What all of you fail to realize it that when you talk of war you are including death. Many people don't understand that North Koreans are not objects but human beings as well. We cannot just go launch a nuke at them and call it a day. We would kill to many innocent civilians.

Nobody hear disregards human life in North Korea. I personally wish that the people of North Korea had a better life. But I DO NOT put their lives before the lives of my own countrymen and the lives of allied countries.

I's rather that North Korea got attacked, killing many of its civilians, causing the end of their regime so that in the future the entire East of Asia isn't threatened by a nuke-wielding psychotic dick head like Kim Jung Il or whoever might come after him.

It is a crude analogy but you have to break some eggs to make an omelot. Allied action in WWII accidently caused the deaths of millions (yes millions) of innocent lives, but this saved much more lives from potential actions by our enemies and the war ended up creating a democratic Western Europe and prevented many more possible wars.

To do what is needed, to disarm North Korea, this would create a much more hopeful atmosphere in Asia, it would pretty much gaurantee peace because North Korea is the only beligerant militaristic nation in Asia today. Alot of North Koreas would die, but then again...alot of North Koreans die by starvation and from being put in labor camps by their own government!

And for all of you that underestimate the power of the world. We are pissing off to many people and our military cannot take on the entire world. We have unlimited money and natural resources for waging war, but we don't have one thing that the rest of the world does...billions of people.

The amount of people of a country means nothing in modern warfare, nor does it have much affect on the economic capability of a country. You're just using your own misguided opinion to form that view. You don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, I know most of these people live in 3rd world countries, but the entire world is starting to develop stronger economies and civilizations.

Every economically successful country in the world has extensive trade with the US. Every country that the US doesn't trade with ISN'T economically successful. All the countries that are developing rapidly do so because the US assists them in doing it. This is a fact, not a nationalist sentiment.

Within 10-20 years, China will be the world's leader economic and military power and India will be right behind them.

Thats not true. At the rate China is growing right now, they would oust the US as the worlds economic superpower in 2025, HOWEVER, their economy is growing too rapidly to sustain itself, they are due for a crash in the near future. Plus, the source of China's growth is their economic cooperation with the US, 60% of China's economy revolves around the US, but this is only 12% of the US economy...

So China is no threat to the US because China relies on the US way too heavily.

And, Militarily, China is a joke. They have a large military with alot of soldiers but China's military technology is 20 years behind the US. Their navy is laughable, their airforce is comprised of rusting Russian planes, and China has poor communications systems and information warfare capability. They are basically a lame duck, they might do well fighting on land near their own country, but they do NOT have the capability to engage in a large scale conventional war across the full spectrum of modern warfare.

If the US and China engaged in a conventional war with no nukes involved, the US would basically dominate China in all aspects, CHina's military tactics are based on overwhelming another force with sheer numbers, but they would have a REALLY hard time doing this to the US when the US can rely purely on Naval and Air forces and could annihiliate Chinese forces before the Chinese even knew that they were being attacked.

And about India, their government is allied with the US government and they are a democratic country. They are not threat to the world or to the US considering they also rely HEAVILY on the US for their economy and even for their military as well. Indias most advanced military systems are sold to them by the US. In fact, the US military conducts training operations with the Indian Air Force... They are no threat to the US because india is a peaceful, law-abiding, democratic country.

We do not have the numbers to beat the world.

You don't need numbers, this isn't the 18th century, the population of a country isn't the sole means of deciding their economic potential. But we don't need to beat the world anyway because most of the world is on our side, regardless of what the peasants in the streets burning American flags lead you to believe. All the countries that could conceivably threaten the US are the ones that are isolated by the world community, or are ALLIES of the US and rely on the US for their own existence.

You don't know what you're talking about. You're not thinking logically you're just allowing your weird emotional response and your own hunch to interpret the world. You need to base your views on FACTS, not the psycho hippy nonsense.