PDA

View Full Version : Your opinions on what we should do...



OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 05:04 AM
about North Korea...

I do not want arguing between KC and LAS and Olevet posse members.

I want our AMERICAN points of views. In which I know will differ.


So please, leave all hatred and childishness aside...


My POV...we should agree with North Korea (NK) when lifting the armistice. And just whip the living horseschit out of them.

China is starting to give up on NK and so is Russia. Add to the fact that we have accelerated our technology when it comes to our military seems to be untouched....especially when talking about NK.

Anyway...my POV out of the way...we will see if Obama (which I voted and advocated for) has balls or is neutered (sp?)

Attack or wait until thousands of innocent South Koreans die?



Screw you I am drunk! ;)

reevie
5/28/2009, 06:28 AM
It's a tough one. Even though China isn't happy with NK right now, they would still rather have a split Korea for the buffer zone. So I don't think they'd allow us to go in and level the country. If we took any action that would lead to unification, I think they'd get involved and we don't need or want to get into a shooting war with China.

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 06:37 AM
It's a tough one. Even though China isn't happy with NK right now, they would still rather have a split Korea for the buffer zone. So I don't think they'd allow us to go in and level the country. If we took any action that would lead to unification, I think they'd get involved and we don't need or want to get into a shooting war with China.


Yes and no.

China is not stupid.

Where does over half of the Chinese export money come from?

The United States of America!

Do they want to cut off an expenditure or an asset (or a money maker)? If you do not think the US is not an asset of China...you may want to learn something before speaking!

North Korea has become an eye sore for any allies they have had the last 56 years.

Hell, in the given days or weeks, Iran will even distance themselves from NK.

Yes, Iran may be fanatic, but they are not stupid!

Just keep an eye on Iran within the next few days or weeks if this issue escalates!

BornandBred
5/28/2009, 07:50 AM
I was watching this show the other day about US snipers and the training they must go through. Well, suffice it to say that it helped me develop my opinions on what we should do with NK.

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 08:03 AM
I was watching this show the other day about US snipers and the training they must go through. Well, suffice it to say that it helped me develop my opinions on what we should do with NK.


The US has a no assassination policy though...So the Snipers you watch on TV will never get a call to assassinate a national diplomate, let alone a national head of state.

BornandBred
5/28/2009, 08:07 AM
The US has a no assassination policy though...So the Snipers you watch on TV will never get a call to assassinate a national diplomate, let alone a national head of state.

Let's ignore the obvious, that the US would likely never attempt something like this. Who is next in line for NK? Is there another crazy person in line? If somebody took KJI out, would we be better or worse off?

sooner_born_1960
5/28/2009, 08:08 AM
The US has a no assassination policy though...So the Snipers you watch on TV will never get a call to assassinate a national diplomate, let alone a national head of state.

As far as we know.

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 08:09 AM
Let's ignore the obvious, that the US would likely never attempt something like this. Who is next in line for NK? Is there another crazy person in line? If somebody took KJI out, would we be better or worse off?


I do not know names...but how it is set up, it is another socialist, like the USSR that will take over...so the view points will be similar...but not necessarily the same.

However, if we want this BS to stop...we must get our hands dirty and finish the gjob from 56 years ago!

China will nor bite the hand that feeds it! Or China will not get involved like they did in the 1950s.

yermom
5/28/2009, 08:10 AM
it seems that it might be getting blown out of proportion. the Koreas have already come to blows twice in the last 10 years over crap like this

i can't imagine they are actually stupid enough to use nukes knowing how that would force the hand of the international community. i think it's a bunch of the same saber rattling we are used to

AggieTool
5/28/2009, 08:10 AM
Close every Wal-Mart until China gets NK to fall in line.

Should take about two weeks.

:D

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 08:11 AM
As far as we know.


Do you think Obama changed the policy that would violate geneva conventions?


:eek:


I doubt he has the balls to do anything against NK until NK decides to drop nukes on Japan!

He is a democrat after all....agaisnt war and ****...he would rather plant a ****ing pine tree than to drop a bomb in the toilet! :D

Wait...I am a ****ing democrat too! S HIT!!!!

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 08:15 AM
Close every Wal-Mart until China gets NK to fall in line.

Should take about two weeks.

:D


Jesus dude...you dont care if you are green or red, do you?


You do know back in the day...you were in diapers (much like today) that Wal-mart was all about USA first, right?

TUSooner
5/28/2009, 08:17 AM
I obviously have not given this seriosu thought. But It seems like we might give China a wink and a nod and let them (urge them) go into NK and clean house. At least China is the devil we know. They already have mucho nukes and are arguably less likely than Kim Jong-il to do something catastrophically rash with them. Chinese commie rule would also - again "arguably" - be better than the current status for the N Koreans. Of course, China probably wouldn't do it if we wanted them to.
That's all the ignorance I have to display on this subject.

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 08:17 AM
it seems that it might be getting blown out of proportion. the Koreas have already come to blows twice in the last 10 years over crap like this

i can't imagine they are actually stupid enough to use nukes knowing how that would force the hand of the international community. i think it's a bunch of the same saber rattling we are used to


testing new waters huh?

To a point I agree......yeaaaaaaaaaaaah.....

North Korea did not fire off missles under Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, Ford, Carter....

I think KJI will try to go out with a bang...the dude cannot live forever, and according to record...he is older than Moses...so death is closely following!

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 08:20 AM
I obviously have not given this seriosu thought. But It seems like we might give China a wink and a nod and let them (urge them) go into NK and clean house. At least China is the devil we know. They already have mucho nukes and are arguably less likely than Kim Jong-il to do something catastrophically rash with them. Chinese commie rule would also - again "arguably" - be better than the current status for the N Koreans. Of course, China probably wouldn't do it if we wanted them to.
That's all the ignorance I have to display on this subject.


Yeah, China could do it....and they are NK's best and closest backer...

However, China is also losing confidence in NK.

It is not flexing up good for NK....If China totally washes their hands of NK...the Yellow Sea will be rules by the Koreans, just a unified Korea!

SoonerProphet
5/28/2009, 08:25 AM
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=21524

OklahomaTuba
5/28/2009, 08:25 AM
I say bust out the bubbly!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01381/2000---Madeleine-A_1381624i.jpg

OklahomaTuba
5/28/2009, 08:26 AM
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=21524

Heh.

Ignore them and they will just go away.

BRILLIANT!!!!

SoonerProphet
5/28/2009, 08:29 AM
Heh.

Ignore them and they will just go away.

BRILLIANT!!!!

Yes Tuba, cause that is what the article states. We know an overeaction will work so well cause it has such a proven track record and all.

OklahomaTuba
5/28/2009, 08:35 AM
So then we wait until he sells his nukes to Iran or drops one on Seoul???

Neville Chamberlain school of diplomacy stuff right there.

Again, brilliant strategy there bud.

SoonerProphet
5/28/2009, 08:39 AM
So then we wait until he sells his nukes to Iran or drops one on Seoul???

Neville Chamberlain school of diplomacy stuff right there.

Again, brilliant strategy there bud.

What is your briliant strategy o wise one? Bomb them, yes that has worked out so well for the hardliners the last eight years or so in ending proliferation.

Again, nice reading skills there bud.

olevetonahill
5/28/2009, 08:42 AM
Yes and no.

China is not stupid.

Where does over half of the Chinese export money come from?

The United States of America!

Do they want to cut off an expenditure or an asset (or a money maker)? If you do not think the US is not an asset of China...you may want to learn something before speaking!

North Korea has become an eye sore for any allies they have had the last 56 years.

Hell, in the given days or weeks, Iran will even distance themselves from NK.

Yes, Iran may be fanatic, but they are not stupid!

Just keep an eye on Iran within the next few days or weeks if this issue escalates!

Kinda like some members ?:D

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 08:43 AM
Kinda like some members ?:D

Stop pointing your finger at me you old fugger! :D

TUSooner
5/28/2009, 08:47 AM
What is your briliant strategy o wise one? Bomb them, yes that has worked out so well for the hardliners the last eight years or so in ending proliferation.

Again, nice reading skills there bud.

You expected....?

OklahomaTuba
5/28/2009, 08:49 AM
It did work well to some degree. In fact its light years ahead of the train wreck happening now.

Iraq was disarmed, Libya gave up their program free and clear, the Norks actually negotiated with us and China AND destroyed their plants. And Iran was put on notice.

And yes, take out their nukes. If China won't do anything, then we must. The last thing we need is a lunatic with a nuke. Its not like economic sanctions will do anything to that socialist paradise anyways.

olevetonahill
5/28/2009, 08:52 AM
Instead of starting a shootin war
Just do what has been planned , Run a barricade , search ships entering their space.
If the NKs want to start it then WE finish it :pop:

sooner_born_1960
5/28/2009, 08:54 AM
Good points, tuba. If not US, then someone needs to disarm the NK's.

Harry Beanbag
5/28/2009, 08:55 AM
My POV...we should agree with North Korea (NK) when lifting the armistice. And just whip the living horseschit out of them.


Whether that's the right thing to do or not, the U.S. is incapable of doing it right now.

SoonerProphet
5/28/2009, 09:08 AM
It did work well to some degree. In fact its light years ahead of the train wreck happening now.

Iraq was disarmed, Libya gave up their program free and clear, the Norks actually negotiated with us and China AND destroyed their plants. And Iran was put on notice.

And yes, take out their nukes. If China won't do anything, then we must. The last thing we need is a lunatic with a nuke. Its not like economic sanctions will do anything to that socialist paradise anyways.

Libya did it because economic sanctions were in fact having an effect and the good colonel was tired of being a pariah. Iraq was disarmed of what exactly...yellow cake? Iran, Pakistan, and NK have all acquired nukes, and the threat of or use of force has done absolutely zero in terms of ending proliferation.

If you take out their "nukes" then what do you suggest the citizens of Seoul do, tell them good luck as the embrace for the inevitable retaliation that is to come.

This same flawed logic exists with Iran. Just because you bomb them does not mean they are going to stop, or that it will usher in regime change, or that it will magically make the populace of either nation embrace the US as liberator

OklahomaTuba
5/28/2009, 09:09 AM
Whether that's the right thing to do or not, the U.S. is incapable of doing it right now.

Unfortunatly, a strike on their nukes would probably spark an invasion of SK. Which is why we have 25,000 soldiers stationed there.

There is no good option, but ignoring the problem and hoping it just "goes away" is beyond stupid. CATO needs to stick to economic and social matters IMO (and for the record, I worked for the chairman of CATO for a number of years)

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 09:12 AM
Whether that's the right thing to do or not, the U.S. is incapable of doing it right now.


How so?

Honestly?

Our military is over 1 million strong and not even 1/5 of it is in combat situations as we speak!

Not to mention the Navy that is not being used in combat regions right now!

Our navy as it is right now can stragetically reach all of North Korea.


Right or wrong, we have the military might to take on North Korea....couple that with Japanese and South Korean troops that will more than double the assets we would have at our disposal.

Do not believe all skeptics.

OklahomaTuba
5/28/2009, 09:13 AM
Libya did it because economic sanctions were in fact having an effect and the good colonel was tired of being a pariah.
Yeah, Use of force has NOTHING to do with that decision. at all.

It's just a completely unrelated coincidence that they gave them up after we invaded Iraq, right??

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 09:14 AM
Libya did it because economic sanctions were in fact having an effect and the good colonel was tired of being a pariah. Iraq was disarmed of what exactly...yellow cake? Iran, Pakistan, and NK have all acquired nukes, and the threat of or use of force has done absolutely zero in terms of ending proliferation.




I take it you were born in the 1990s when it comes to lybia?


Iran, well they are all talk and scared ****less of Israel!

Pakistan has been a UN allie for years.

Our truest and most dangerous threat has not been Syria, Iraq, or Iran...it has been North Korea!

No ifs, ands, or buts about it!

SoonerProphet
5/28/2009, 09:16 AM
Unfortunatly, a strike on their nukes would probably spark an invasion of SK. Which is why we have 25,000 soldiers stationed there.

There is no good option, but ignoring the problem and hoping it just "goes away" is beyond stupid. CATO needs to stick to economic and social matters IMO (and for the record, I worked for the chairman of CATO for a number of years)

Yes, because clearly the wise option is to spark a catastrophic war in which millions of koreans would die, a humanitarian crises as refugees flood into china, and billions(if not trillions) of dollars would be spent to stop an "if", and you have solved what exactly.

OklahomaTuba
5/28/2009, 09:18 AM
This same flawed logic exists with Iran. Just because you bomb them does not mean they are going to stop
Then you bomb then again until they get the message or until they can't make nukes anymore.

Appeasing dictators and lunatics has a much worse track record.

SoonerProphet
5/28/2009, 09:19 AM
I take it you were born in the 1990s when it comes to lybia?


Iran, well they are all talk and scared ****less of Israel!

Pakistan has been a UN allie for years.

Our truest and most dangerous threat has not been Syria, Iraq, or Iran...it has been North Korea!

No ifs, ands, or buts about it!

You keen sense of who I am and my age is bit off base, you do not know me from Adam. Besides that, what the hell are you getting at with the silly comment anyway?

A UN allie? wtf

Collier11
5/28/2009, 09:21 AM
Blow em to smitherenes<is that still a word? I think NK is largley FOS, they want and need attention for different reasons, they know what would happen if they really pisses us off and they couldnt do anything about it. This avenue we just need to follow the diplomatic roads and see where that takes us

OklahomaTuba
5/28/2009, 09:22 AM
Yes, because clearly the wise option is to spark a catastrophic war in which millions of koreans would die, a humanitarian crises as refugees flood into china, and billions(if not trillions) of dollars would be spent to stop an "if"

Ahh ok, so we should wait until Kim drops his nuke on someone or sells it to a terrorist group, right??

Sure worked well with AQ in the 1990s!!!

Again, brilliant thinking there.

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 09:22 AM
Yes, because clearly the wise option is to spark a catastrophic war in which millions of koreans would die, a humanitarian crises as refugees flood into china, and billions(if not trillions) of dollars would be spent to stop an "if", and you have solved what exactly.


Millions?

Seriously dude...grab some research before preaching your peace agenda...an agenda that only works pussified leaders!


I do agree, it would/could be very ugly within the first week or two of the renewed war on the Korean Penisula. However, we would evacuate as many innocence as possible.

However, we would not be able to do that if we do not plan now, or if we decide to wait until it is too late.

North Korea is about to do something.

We have two options....

1. Strong arm them and make them back down with China backing us....

2. Totally annilate them...with China squirming about North Korea!


From 1950-1953....we were not so much fighting North Korea as we were actually fighting Chinese military personel.

Nowadays, that **** wont happen! China is about done backing North Korea because there is no economic backdrop for them to do so....it is losing them money.

And China, not stupid, will not fight with the country that provides a vast majority of their export riches!

Sooner04
5/28/2009, 09:23 AM
I don't agree with Prophet on many political issues, but I acknowledge he's as informed as anybody on the board.

Since this place has turned into the "Land of Inevitable", I could tell that the link he posted would get him called a buffoon or worse by some of our "residents".

There's a reason the Oval only has about 25 folks viewing it nowadays. And I think that 25 will dwindle.

SoonerProphet
5/28/2009, 09:23 AM
Then you bomb then again until they get the message or until they can't make nukes anymore.

Appeasing dictators and lunatics has a much worse track record.

It isn't the nukes that are the problem, it is their large conventional army and the location of seoul that is the problem. Threatening or bombing them, or anyone, will not end the desire to get nuclear weapons.

Who said anything about "appeasement", whatever that means...sounds like a catchy soundbite/marketing technique. Bandow made no mention of giving in to their demands.

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 09:24 AM
You keen sense of who I am and my age is bit off base, you do not know me from Adam. Besides that, what the hell are you getting at with the silly comment anyway?

A UN allie? wtf


Mr. Brainiac...it was not a guess or even trying to be keen...

It was showing your lack of knowledge of the situation.

And I will tell you this much...I was just 9 or 10 years old when the BS with Lybia went down....

The difference between you and I...I love learning history...not hugging trees and saving tuna!

Sooner04
5/28/2009, 09:25 AM
The difference between you and I...I love learning history...not hugging trees and saving tuna!
Go learn about Oscar Robertson then.

Collier11
5/28/2009, 09:25 AM
Then you bomb then again until they get the message or until they can't make nukes anymore.

Appeasing dictators and lunatics has a much worse track record.


Millions?

maybe not millions, who knows, but it would be bigger than you are giving it credit for

Seriously dude...grab some research before preaching your peace agenda...an agenda that only works pussified leaders!


I do agree, it would/could be very ugly within the first week or two of the renewed war on the Korean Penisula. However, we would evacuate as many innocence as possible.

However, we would not be able to do that if we do not plan now, or if we decide to wait until it is too late.

North Korea is about to do something.

^ How long have we been hearing that, NK wont do anything outside of trying to sell nukes to Iran or some other extremist, we just need to make sure that sh*t doesnt happen

We have two options....

1. Strong arm them and make them back down with China backing us....

will China back us right now?

2. Totally annilate them...with China squirming about North Korea!

Do we want to **** off China?


From 1950-1953....we were not so much fighting North Korea as we were actually fighting Chinese military personel.

Nowadays, that **** wont happen! China is about done backing North Korea because there is no economic backdrop for them to do so....it is losing them money.

And China, not stupid, will not fight with the country that provides a vast majority of their export riches!


dont be so sure of yourself on that last idea

SoonerProphet
5/28/2009, 09:26 AM
Ahh ok, so we should wait until Kim drops his nuke on someone or sells it to a terrorist group, right??

Sure worked well with AQ in the 1990s!!!

Again, brilliant thinking there.

What if "ifs" and "buts" where candy and nuts. Let's talk realistically here please, not dwell in what ifs.

How is AQ in any way related to the workings of a nation-state?

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 09:32 AM
Go learn about Oscar Robertson then.


I do not need to learn about O.R.

I think he is top 5...just not top 2.

get over it, not everyone will agree with you.

SoonerProphet
5/28/2009, 09:35 AM
Mr. Brainiac...it was not a guess or even trying to be keen...

It was showing your lack of knowledge of the situation.

And I will tell you this much...I was just 9 or 10 years old when the BS with Lybia went down....

The difference between you and I...I love learning history...not hugging trees and saving tuna!

Dude, I've tried to have civil conversations with you on two very similar threads. You ran away on the last one after you attempted to drag it down with shouts of "tree hugger", "pussified" and other assorted gems. This one seems to be headed in that general direction, even after you claimed you wanted honest opinions to open with.

Look, I have given you my "opinion", an attack on NK offers no guarantees of a stable korean peninsula or an end to proliferation. The continued track of diplomacy, limited sanctions, and trying not to take the John Bolton overeaction stance, imo, will work best to solve the dilemna. Perhaps a grand bargain to assuage the north about security and the people slowly recognize that their utopian paradise is a fraud.

OklahomaTuba
5/28/2009, 09:36 AM
How is AQ in any way related to the workings of a nation-state?

Just giving yet another example of US waiting around and doing nothing until one day you have thousands of dead people laying in the streets.

olevetonahill
5/28/2009, 09:38 AM
Obama should Challenge KJ1 or what ever to a game of Tiddly Winks , and may the best man win .:D

Harry Beanbag
5/28/2009, 09:39 AM
How so?

Honestly?

Our military is over 1 million strong and not even 1/5 of it is in combat situations as we speak!

Not to mention the Navy that is not being used in combat regions right now!

Our navy as it is right now can stragetically reach all of North Korea.


Right or wrong, we have the military might to take on North Korea....couple that with Japanese and South Korean troops that will more than double the assets we would have at our disposal.

Do not believe all skeptics.


North Korea has far more active and reserve troops than the United States, none of which have been ground down by 8 years of warfare. The Navy, which of course can reach any part of the N. Korea from the air, does not help with boots on the ground which is what you need to "whip the living horsechit out of them".

Of course that isn't even mentioning the unlimited human supply from China.

OklahomaTuba
5/28/2009, 09:41 AM
Look, I have given you my "opinion", an attack on NK offers no guarantees of a stable korean peninsula or an end to proliferation. The continued track of diplomacy, limited sanctions, and trying not to take the John Bolton overeaction stance, imo, will work best to solve the dilemna. Perhaps a grand bargain to assuage the north about security and the people slowly recognize that their utopian paradise is a fraud.

All I know is, we have been down this road for over 10 years and it keeps getting worse, not better. Much worse since the liberals took charge in fact.

At this point we need to do something much different.

SoonerProphet
5/28/2009, 09:45 AM
All I know is, we have been down this road for over 10 years and it keeps getting worse, not better. Much worse since the liberals took charge in fact.

At this point we need to do something much different.

The fact that you mention "liberals" is proof of your partisan blinders. You do not want to look at any issue regarding policy as the "best" or "right" thing, you only want it as an avenue to score petty political points.

OklahomaTuba
5/28/2009, 09:47 AM
North Korea has far more active and reserve troops than the United States, none of which have been ground down by 8 years of warfare.

Please.

Our military is far from "ground down".

They may have numbers of starving soldiers waiting to overrun the south, but there is no indication they have guns that work, or bullets, or anything really that could match our armed forces.

Scott D
5/28/2009, 09:51 AM
Let's ignore the obvious, that the US would likely never attempt something like this. Who is next in line for NK? Is there another crazy person in line? If somebody took KJI out, would we be better or worse off?

don't know if anyone mentioned, but KJI2 is reported to be less stable than his crackpot father.

OklahomaTuba
5/28/2009, 09:51 AM
The fact that you mention "liberals" is proof of your partisan blinders. You do not want to look at any issue regarding policy as the "best" or "right" thing, you only want it as an avenue to score petty political points.
Just pointing out a fact. They sense WEAKNESS.

Our enemies sense the weakness that Obama represents. Most of his campaign was on surrendering to terrorists in Iraq. What does NORK have to worry about if he will run the white flag against a insurgency????

Scott D
5/28/2009, 09:52 AM
Please.

Our military is far from "ground down".

They may have numbers of starving soldiers waiting to overrun the south, but there is no indication they have guns that work, or bullets, or anything really that could match our armed forces.

if you think the NK military is starving or underequipped you're even more deluded than you usually make yourself out to be.

Jello Biafra
5/28/2009, 09:53 AM
North Korea has far more active and reserve troops than the United States, none of which have been ground down by 8 years of warfare. The Navy, which of course can reach any part of the N. Korea from the air, does not help with boots on the ground which is what you need to "whip the living horsechit out of them".

Of course that isn't even mentioning the unlimited human supply from China.

egggzachary....not so sure about the china thing however, korea has been "diggin in" for well over 50 years...you thought it was tough to bomb vietnamese into submission? wait till you get a glimpse of these lil pricks...


as someone who has viewed the ROK in action at Ft. Carson, I would imagine thier northern counterparts are as disciplined if not moreso, no such thing as brutality when dishing out discipline to the troops. nothing we do will scare them and in most cases, if we capture them, they will laugh at waterboarding.

we will have to put well over 100 thousand troops on the turf to choke them out and even then, it won't be a quick gulf war 91 edition type scenario.

our technology will weigh heavily in our facor which is a good thing. if it weren't for technology, we would probably have to put more like 200K+ on the ground.

Collier11
5/28/2009, 09:54 AM
its the common people who are starving

Harry Beanbag
5/28/2009, 09:55 AM
Please.

Our military is far from "ground down".

They may have numbers of starving soldiers waiting to overrun the south, but there is no indication they have guns that work, or bullets, or anything really that could match our armed forces.


So you're saying we would have no problem fighting a three front war? The third front being far more problematic, bloody, and resource sucking than the previous two with the potential to conflagrate the entire Asian continent. We have several larger and more dangerous enemies that would relish the opportunity this would present.

Whatever money North Korea has, the military has first priority. Going in expecting them to not have any bullets is ridiculously stupid, fortunately, the Pentagon doesn't think that way.

Scott D
5/28/2009, 09:56 AM
exactly collier, but don't expect Tuba to understand the subtle ways a dictator maintains power. Usually is based on treating the military very very well while keeping their leadership under a very tight fist.

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 09:56 AM
Dude, I've tried to have civil conversations with you on two very similar threads. You ran away on the last one after you attempted to drag it down with shouts of "tree hugger", "pussified" and other assorted gems. This one seems to be headed in that general direction, even after you claimed you wanted honest opinions to open with.

Look, I have given you my "opinion", an attack on NK offers no guarantees of a stable korean peninsula or an end to proliferation. The continued track of diplomacy, limited sanctions, and trying not to take the John Bolton overeaction stance, imo, will work best to solve the dilemna. Perhaps a grand bargain to assuage the north about security and the people slowly recognize that their utopian paradise is a fraud.


I call it as I see it.

UN sanctions do not work nowadays. They havent for a couple three decades, if ever. Hell all the UN is good for is so imperialism does not return.

I agree...an attack on NK offers no guarantees for as table Korea....however, sitting back with our eyes closed, thinking the UN will actually protect the innocence of both sides of the border will do nothing to better it either.

As long as kim Jung Il (sp?) is in charge, NK will never be trustworthy.

It is either time for NK to put up or shut up...and frankly, when they test two or three stage missiles that can reach well inside the continential US, then it is time to do something.

Diplomacy is a good tool...however, even Diplomacy has an end...and that is where war begins....unfortunately.

Sometimes war is the best option.

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 09:59 AM
North Korea has far more active and reserve troops than the United States, none of which have been ground down by 8 years of warfare. The Navy, which of course can reach any part of the N. Korea from the air, does not help with boots on the ground which is what you need to "whip the living horsechit out of them".

Of course that isn't even mentioning the unlimited human supply from China.



Where is our military grojdn down?

I suppose the over 1 million Allied troops at our disposal is not a good thing?


And besides....We will not do this like the first conflict...we would do this with what we know is far more superior....through the air to soften defenses....

The North Koreans may have a large military...but it is ages from ours...and damn sure not as trained!

Hell our Air Force can give them the flight plans...and they still wouldnt be able to do **** about it!

Scott D
5/28/2009, 10:02 AM
ok 75 let me put it to you this way.

Say we go through with the incredibly stupid idea of armed aggression against NK. Who do you think will be the first to respond against us?

That's right China and Russia. We don't have room for a 4th and 5th front much less a 3rd front right now. It's a logistic nightmare, period.

The options in NK are worse than Kim Jong Il in event of his death at this point, his son is even crazier than him, and any real viable candidate to run the country has been put to death by KJI.

China has grown tired of the act, and would have moved to remove KJI without remorse if they also hadn't come to the assessment that the situation would worsen in that void.

War is never the best option, and should always be the final option.

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 10:02 AM
So you're saying we would have no problem fighting a three front war? The third front being far more problematic, bloody, and resource sucking than the previous two with the potential to conflagrate the entire Asian continent. We have several larger and more dangerous enemies that would relish the opportunity this would present.

Whatever money North Korea has, the military has first priority. Going in expecting them to not have any bullets is ridiculously stupid, fortunately, the Pentagon doesn't think that way.


First of...learn the terminology...it would not be a three front war.

Second of all, it would be mainly South Koreans, with out support.

Third...out navy would have unprecidented access to the yellow sea.


Not to degrade anyone here...

But it amazes me how ignorant some of us can really be when it comes to this situation.

Scott D
5/28/2009, 10:04 AM
First of...learn the terminology...it would not be a three front war.

Second of all, it would be mainly South Koreans, with out support.

Third...out navy would have unprecidented access to the yellow sea.


Not to degrade anyone here...

But it amazes me how ignorant some of us can really be when it comes to this situation.

yeah....you think the Chinese and Russians are going to let us go unimpeded through disputed waters?

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 10:06 AM
ok 75 let me put it to you this way.

Say we go through with the incredibly stupid idea of armed aggression against NK. Who do you think will be the first to respond against us?

That's right China and Russia. We don't have room for a 4th and 5th front much less a 3rd front right now. It's a logistic nightmare, period.

The options in NK are worse than Kim Jong Il in event of his death at this point, his son is even crazier than him, and any real viable candidate to run the country has been put to death by KJI.

China has grown tired of the act, and would have moved to remove KJI without remorse if they also hadn't come to the assessment that the situation would worsen in that void.

China and Russia would not be the first to respond with arms against us.

I will tell you this much Scott....if North Korea attacks our Navy, like they want too right now...Russia and China will stay the hell out of it.

1. Russia does not have the economy to even think about a war against us...nor do they have the technology.

2. China could stick with us...but all we would have to do is boycott or embargo trade with them....

What would that do? Shut down their trade with Australia, the US, Japan, Western Europe.....

The Chinese may want to play the role of a super power, but they cannot afford it right now.

So please scott, do not try to use the excuses of the Cold War era...it just will not aid Russia or China in any positive manner!

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 10:07 AM
yeah....you think the Chinese and Russians are going to let us go unimpeded through disputed waters?


LMFAO...ignorance is bliss!

Do you really think we would be at war with Russia and China?

Do you really think Russia is a major player in the world affairs anymore?

Seriously....the only thing NK has going for them.....is China...and China is starting to get fed up with NK's postering.

SoonerProphet
5/28/2009, 10:07 AM
about North Korea...

So please, leave all hatred and childishness aside...

You should heed you own advise...it might keep you around awhile




Screw you I am drunk! ;)

Still?

Jello Biafra
5/28/2009, 10:09 AM
i would expect us to get very little in the way of troops with the exception of ROK soldiers.

i doubt seriously that North Korea is a hill either Russia or China want to die on. China has just emerged from the stone ages with all of the money we have put into their economy and Russia is just happy it doesn't cost them 1000 american dollars for a loaf of bread anymore.

we have a SERIOUS technology lead on many countries in the world and many of these technologies have yet to be revealed. Russia knows it and so does China. North Korea is simply trying to extort more money out of the world... Clinton gave a bunch of money to them and if i remember correctly, they disapeared until bush left office.

Sooner04
5/28/2009, 10:10 AM
Do you really think Russia is a major player in the world affairs anymore?
Oscar Robertson. Oscar Robertson.

Through the first 384 games of his NBA career (his first five seasons), Oscar Robertson had the following per game averages:

Points: 30.3
Rebounds: 10.4
Assists: 10.6

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 10:10 AM
You should heed you own advise...it might keep you around awhile





Still?


HUH OH...Am I about to get bained?

LOL....stop acting like you have power around here prophet!

This type of post is laughable at best!

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 10:10 AM
Oscar Robertson. Oscar Robertson.

Through the first 384 games of his NBA career (his first five seasons), Oscar Robertson had the following per game averages:

Points: 30.3
Rebounds: 10.4
Assists: 10.6

Sweet....now about the topic at hand...or you just too dumb to know the difference?

;)

Harry Beanbag
5/28/2009, 10:11 AM
First of...learn the terminology...it would not be a three front war.


It wouldn't? :confused: Regardless of my ignorance, I can count to three.





Not to degrade anyone here...

But it amazes me how ignorant some of us can really be when it comes to this situation.

Can't say I disagree with you there.

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 10:12 AM
Still?

Not so much...but I still see stupid people.

Sooner04
5/28/2009, 10:13 AM
The problem here is that some post opinions that differ from others. Some can handle those opinions, others cannot.

Unfortunately, the ones who cannot have flooded this place the last couple of years.

Scott D
5/28/2009, 10:14 AM
Yeah, I'm done with the ignorance in this thread. Go ahead and discount Russia and China in this matter, it'd be your funeral.

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 10:15 AM
It wouldn't? :confused: Regardless of my ignorance, I can count to three.






Can't say I disagree with you there.

No...it wouldnt be a three front war.

Yes, we would have 3 different wars in 3 different countries...but it would not be a 3 front war.


Take for example...a 2 front war is where there is two fronts...yes in two different geographical areas...However, the objective would be to force the opponent to split its forces to figth on both fronts.

Hence, your terminology is incorrect about a three front war.

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 10:16 AM
The problem here is that some post opinions that differ from others. Some can handle those opinions, others cannot.

Unfortunately, the ones who cannot have flooded this place the last couple of years.


All too true.

;)

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 10:18 AM
Yeah, I'm done with the ignorance in this thread. Go ahead and discount Russia and China in this matter, it'd be your funeral.


Ignorance? I do not discount their existence in the matter...However, what you and I disagree on is that they will not just jump right in the fight...especially if North Korea follows through with their threats.

I do apologize though....But not my fault that you actually think you know it all.

Harry Beanbag
5/28/2009, 10:20 AM
No...it wouldnt be a three front war.

Yes, we would have 3 different wars in 3 different countries...but it would not be a 3 front war.


Take for example...a 2 front war is where there is two fronts...yes in two different geographical areas...However, the objective would be to force the opponent to split its forces to figth on both fronts.

Hence, your terminology is incorrect about a three front war.


OMG, :rolleyes: . Is war in 3 theaters easier than a "three front" war. For being so detail oriented on this minutia, one would think you would put a little more thought into the important matters related to this subject.

soonerscuba
5/28/2009, 10:20 AM
No...it wouldnt be a three front war.

Yes, we would have 3 different wars in 3 different countries...but it would not be a 3 front war.


Take for example...a 2 front war is where there is two fronts...yes in two different geographical areas...However, the objective would be to force the opponent to split its forces to figth on both fronts.

Hence, your terminology is incorrect about a three front war.Heh.

Collier11
5/28/2009, 10:21 AM
I don't agree with Prophet on many political issues, but I acknowledge he's as informed as anybody on the board.

Since this place has turned into the "Land of Inevitable", I could tell that the link he posted would get him called a buffoon or worse by some of our "residents".

There's a reason the Oval only has about 25 folks viewing it nowadays. And I think that 25 will dwindle.


ok 75 let me put it to you this way.

Say we go through with the incredibly stupid idea of armed aggression against NK. Who do you think will be the first to respond against us?

That's right China and Russia. We don't have room for a 4th and 5th front much less a 3rd front right now. It's a logistic nightmare, period.

The options in NK are worse than Kim Jong Il in event of his death at this point, his son is even crazier than him, and any real viable candidate to run the country has been put to death by KJI.

China has grown tired of the act, and would have moved to remove KJI without remorse if they also hadn't come to the assessment that the situation would worsen in that void.

War is never the best option, and should always be the final option.

not to mention, other powerful countries are just waiting for a reason to get pissed at us

Pricetag
5/28/2009, 10:22 AM
Hey, any of you guys calling for war here served in the armed forces?

Jello Biafra
5/28/2009, 10:27 AM
Hey, any of you guys calling for war here served in the armed forces?

umm yeh.

9 years

desert storm (original)
4 years, 19K (m1 tanker)
1 year, drill Sgt.
4 years, 13 foxtrot (forward observer)

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 10:27 AM
OMG, :rolleyes: . Is war in 3 theaters easier than a "three front" war. For being so detail oriented on this minutia, one would think you would put a little more thought into the important matters related to this subject.


LOL....

At least you are getting the point. Get your **** straight then lets talk beanbag. :)

Other than that...

War no matter what is complex and should be of last resort...and when it comes to North Korea, I think we have come to that chapter once again...just 56 years later.


I am not a strategist...so how it would be played out, I cannot tell you.

But what I can say is this:

Russia will not be a major player in this situation...and China will do everything to talk North Korea down.

If North Korea does not back down and continues...China may still back them...but not necessarily as getting directly involved.

If China did get directly involved, they would lose a lot more than they gain from doing so. Especially when it comes to economically, seeing as the West is their biggest money maker!

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 10:30 AM
Hey, any of you guys calling for war here served in the armed forces?


No, I havent...

However, my father has a foot stone on his grave brought to you by the Air Force.

My younger brother is a member of the 101st Air Bourne Rangers.

My Uncle is a E-9 in the Navy.

My Oldest brother is a E-7 in the army and currently stationed in South Korea.

And this is not counting more than a handful of friends that I know in the military.

I chose to take a full ride scholarship over military when I was younger.

That does not discount me, or anyone else that has not served, the right to speak what they feel.

And for those like Olevet and Jello, and StormChaser, and others and around the world...I have always showed thanks and appreciation to what they did or are doing!

Harry Beanbag
5/28/2009, 10:34 AM
Russia will not be a major player in this situation...and China will do everything to talk North Korea down.

The danger with Russia isn't that they will become directly involved on the Korean peninsula, it's that they could see the opportunity to do something else that we would have no ability to respond to or prevent, and they would know it.

Historically, for the most part China just wants to be left alone, but Korea is very close in proximity to them so who knows.

Collier11
5/28/2009, 10:35 AM
I think the overall point is that when you just thrust us into war without ever having served, those who have served find that somewhat irrational

Harry Beanbag
5/28/2009, 10:37 AM
I think the overall point is that when you just thrust us into war without ever having served, those who have served find that somewhat irrational


Especially when they attempt to lecture you on terminology and feel like they've won some great battle of their own. :rolleyes:

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 10:39 AM
The danger with Russia isn't that they will become directly involved on the Korean peninsula, it's that they could see the opportunity to do something else that we would have no ability to respond to or prevent, and they would know it.

Historically, for the most part China just wants to be left alone, but Korea is very close in proximity to them so who knows.


I could agree with that...but that goes with any and all countries that do not see eye-to-eye with the US....does it not?

And you are 100% correct about China as well, they do want the outside world to leave them alone. However, they do have a few allies, one being North Korea.

I do not think China is willing to strip their economy to involve themselves directly with North Korea in war with us again.

They do so from 1950-1953...and it hurt them from quite a while economically.

olevetonahill
5/28/2009, 10:39 AM
gettin shot aint fun :eek:

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 10:41 AM
Especially when they attempt to lecture you on terminology and feel like they've won some great battle of their own. :rolleyes:


Dude, it does not matter if you served or not...

Doesnt make you an expert.

Just like it doesnt matter if you played the sport or not. Doesnt make you an expert at the sport either.

All one has to do to make the correct terminology is to find the definition...not really all that hard man. :)

Harry Beanbag
5/28/2009, 10:42 AM
I could agree with that...but that goes with any and all countries that do not see eye-to-eye with the US....does it not?


Well yeah, that's kind of the point. The U.S. getting even more bogged down than we already are is not a good thing for the future of world politics.

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 10:42 AM
gettin shot aint fun :eek:


Well, you dont have to be in war to get shot.

And I understand what ya mean.

It isnt fun to allow a **** poor country to take pot shots at you just to defy you or just to see what you will do.

My grandfather has 2 purple hearts from the first Korean conflict.

We should have finished it then...

If NK decides to follow through with their threats...I hope to God, Obama does not hold anything back!

Collier11
5/28/2009, 10:43 AM
Dude, it does not matter if you served or not...

Doesnt make you an expert.

Just like it doesnt matter if you played the sport or not. Doesnt make you an expert at the sport either.

All one has to do to make the correct terminology is to find the definition...not really all that hard man. :)

Big diff, sport is sport, war is war. You can never play a down of football and be a great coach. Could you never have fought in a war or served and be a great General, Hell No!

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 10:44 AM
Well yeah, that's kind of the point. The U.S. getting even more bogged down than we already are is not a good thing for the future of world politics.


Yet, we cannot allow our enemies (the Korean Conflict is not officially ended, just a truce) to do whatever they want to defy the world community either.

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 10:45 AM
Big diff, sport is sport, war is war. You can never play a down of football and be a great coach. Could you never have fought in a war or served and be a great General, Hell No!


Scott, where did I even say they are the same?

I know analogies can be hard to comprehend...but they are actually rather simple bro. ;)

Jello Biafra
5/28/2009, 10:47 AM
i don't think some understand the lethality of our military. we would be going back our roots and what we have built this military for.
we are ill equipped (or were) for door to door...building to building fighting. we are well equipped for your typical distance fighting.

if we put a division of tanks surrounding a VALLEY with proper support (infantry, artillery, logstics, air support, engineering) it could take the koreans well over a year to kill that entire division. '
in 91, we were seeing and killing targets upwards of 2400 meters on the tanks...yeh thats damn near a mile and half away. you know you are getting spanked when you are having as nice little lunch and shiit just starts blowing up around you and 5 minutes later, you see military vehicles driving up to you...the guys we captured actually thought they were being bombed AGAIN. and these are the same troops we trained...again...WE TRAINED THEM> and they still had no clue.

those are just the tanks. the m1a2s are capable of acquiring and killing 3 targets as fast as the loader can load the gun tube...probably around 6 to 8 seconds.
mlrs,infantry, navy support, the new fighters, A10s...apache helicopters...i can't sepak on that but im telling you...we could spank quite a few before they finished us off.

NYC Poke
5/28/2009, 10:49 AM
If North Korea goes nuclear, Japan will rapidly follow, which is something that scares the bejeesus out of China. We sit back and let China do the heavy lifting on this one. We just provide support as necessary.

My Opinion Matters
5/28/2009, 10:53 AM
So the definition of civil and informed discussion has now been reduced to "OU Sooners 75 making unsubstantiated claims of possesing superior knowledge of American military intelligence and strategy (that are no doubt the result of a night course he once took on political science) while simultaneously stomping his feet and shouting juvenile insults at more respected, better informed, and more established posters that have an incrogruent POV on the matter?" Got it.

Nice to see someone has taken up the mantle of Big Red Ron in his absence.

Collier11
5/28/2009, 10:56 AM
Well look at it this way Tim, you played college football, O-line to be exact.

I did not play college football and I am not a coach, I do watch a lot of football and study it. IF you were explaining to me how to play O-line, proper techniques and terminology for the position and I began strongly disagreeing with you or telling you that you were wrong, do you think you would be happy with me? I doubt it. I could offer what I know and you could take it or leave it.

Now switch it around to war, you arent offering what youve learned through your family experiences and studying, you are telling ex and current soldiers that you know more than them, that is impossible.

Anyone can know all the terminology they want but til youve experienced you cant possibly know.

So with me, I can tell anyone on here that wants to listen how to properly play baseball on a high level(but not that high), I can tell you how to refinance your house, beat your meat, and several other things that are less exciting, but I can only offer what I know about war and college football from studying, not actually experiencing

Pricetag
5/28/2009, 10:57 AM
So the definition of civil and informed discussion has now been reduced to "OU Sooners 75 making unsubstantiated claims of possesing superior knowledge of American military intelligence and strategy (that are no doubt the result of a night course he once took on political science) while simultaneously stomping his feet and shouting juvenile insults at more respected, better informed, and more established posters that have an incrogruent POV on the matter?" Got it.

Nice to see someone has taken of the mantle of Big Red Ron in his absence.
Well, you have to admit, he does have a bunch of family and friends who are/were in the military.

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 11:07 AM
So the definition of civil and informed discussion has now been reduced to "OU Sooners 75 making unsubstantiated claims of possesing superior knowledge of American military intelligence and strategy (that are no doubt the result of a night course he once took on political science) while simultaneously stomping his feet and shouting juvenile insults at more respected, better informed, and more established posters that have an incrogruent POV on the matter?" Got it.

Nice to see someone has taken of the mantle of Big Red Ron in his absence.


First...your comprehension yet again fails you.

Now then, I am not talking about military intelligence or strategy. I am talking about government involvements with the BS that NK is trying to pull.

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 11:09 AM
Well, you have to admit, he does have a bunch of family and friends who are/were in the military.


I do not have a bunch of family and friends in the military...I have 2 brothers (one of which is in South Korea) and an Uncle in the military currently. My father served in the Air Force during vietnam. My grandfather served at the end of WWII and the beginning of KC.

And I happen to know more than a handful of people that I consider friends that are currently serving this nation.

Bring your sarcasm all you want....it is apparent you have nothing to add to this discussion but ridicule.

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 11:12 AM
Well look at it this way Tim, you played college football, O-line to be exact.

I did not play college football and I am not a coach, I do watch a lot of football and study it. IF you were explaining to me how to play O-line, proper techniques and terminology for the position and I began strongly disagreeing with you or telling you that you were wrong, do you think you would be happy with me? I doubt it. I could offer what I know and you could take it or leave it.

Now switch it around to war, you arent offering what youve learned through your family experiences and studying, you are telling ex and current soldiers that you know more than them, that is impossible.

Anyone can know all the terminology they want but til youve experienced you cant possibly know.

So with me, I can tell anyone on here that wants to listen how to properly play baseball on a high level(but not that high), I can tell you how to refinance your house, beat your meat, and several other things that are less exciting, but I can only offer what I know about war and college football from studying, not actually experiencing


I would not be unhappy with you. Mark Clayton (ESPN NFL Analyst) Never played the sport, but is very knowledgable about the sport nontheless.

Robert Gates (sec. of defense) has never served in the Military, and outside of the President, he is over the entire military. And he has done a damn good job in my opinion.


Like I said, just because you have not done it does not mean you do not know what you are speaking of.

And FTR Scott... I have never said that I know more than anyone. Just eitehr agree or disagree with people.

Jello Biafra
5/28/2009, 11:14 AM
I can tell anyone on here that wants to listen how to properly ..... beat your meat,

so....i was wondering.....


any pointers?


:O

Collier11
5/28/2009, 11:16 AM
I would not be unhappy with you. Mark Clayton (ESPN NFL Analyst) Never played the sport, but is very knowledgable about the sport nontheless.

Ask any coach or player if John Clayton knows that much. He only knows the basics and he gets insider info, not exactly X's and O's

Robert Gates (sec. of defense) has never served in the Military, and outside of the President, he is over the entire military. And he has done a damn good job in my opinion.

Gates was a 2nd Lieutenant in Vietnam

Like I said, just because you have not done it does not mean you do not know what you are speaking of.

Not so fast my friend

Collier11
5/28/2009, 11:16 AM
so....i was wondering.....


any pointers?


:O

are you practicing or is it for pure pleasure? :D

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 11:16 AM
Not so fast my friend


His bio, I just read showed CIA no military...my mistake.

Link though please.

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 11:19 AM
Not so fast my friend


****...Mark...John...both the same...LOL

John Blake...Coach...sucked ***. Player...kicked ***!

Good enough for you?

Collier11
5/28/2009, 11:21 AM
just cus you cant run a program doesnt mean that John Blake doesnt have a ton of football knowledge

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 11:28 AM
just cus you cant run a program doesnt mean that John Blake doesnt have a ton of football knowledge


Just cause you never played doesnt mean you do not have a ton of football knowledge either!


Charlie Weis...will that be a better example?

he never played the game after high school...yet has at least 3 superbowl rings with New England and is the Head Coach at Notre Dame.

And plenty of people can agree, he is a offense guru (X's and O's type of guy) when it comes to football!

Jello Biafra
5/28/2009, 11:31 AM
are you practicing or is it for pure pleasure? :D

more practice than anything....im married for 16 years just use it every once in a while anyway. ;)

Collier11
5/28/2009, 11:32 AM
in that case you have to do the stranger or the twist n shout

Collier11
5/28/2009, 11:32 AM
Just cause you never played doesnt mean you do not have a ton of football knowledge either!


Charlie Weis...will that be a better example?

he never played the game after high school...yet has at least 3 superbowl rings with New England and is the Head Coach at Notre Dame.

And plenty of people can agree, he is a offense guru (X's and O's type of guy) when it comes to football!


Point made, thanks! He is a coach, he is active in it, he does it for a profession. He has committed his life to football.

Pricetag
5/28/2009, 11:34 AM
I do not have a bunch of family and friends in the military...I have 2 brothers (one of which is in South Korea) and an Uncle in the military currently. My father served in the Air Force during vietnam. My grandfather served at the end of WWII and the beginning of KC.

And I happen to know more than a handful of people that I consider friends that are currently serving this nation.

Bring your sarcasm all you want....it is apparent you have nothing to add to this discussion but ridicule.
Well, after that, I feel inclined to contribute something besides the sarcasm.

I'm with everyone besides you and Tuba who feel that warring with North Korea would be extremely unprudent.

I've never understood the idea that big talk from **** ant nations is something that a nation like the United States must respond to, diplomatically or (especially) militarily. Let them talk about attacking us. It is not their words, but our reaction to them that matters.

TUSooner
5/28/2009, 11:38 AM
It sure is easy to advocate war when you know you won't have to go and probably won't be reached (even in a post 9/11 world).

Armchair General <<<<<< Armchair QB

"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think hard before starting a war." ~~ Otto von Bismarck.
I belive Bismarck also said, "Everyone knows how a war starts, nobody knows how it ends."

It may take violence to keep NK from nuking someone. It will more likely take at least a plausible threat of violence. But other severe consequences short of war may do the trick; and smart, clever, tough-minded people need to figure out what that is.

Internet personae who talk about attacking NK as if it were as simple as aranging a pick-up basketball game are nuts.

Jello Biafra
5/28/2009, 11:40 AM
I've never understood the idea that big talk from **** ant nations is something that a nation like the United States must respond to, diplomatically or (especially) militarily. Let them talk about attacking us. It is not their words, but our reaction to them that matters.

good point. sadam was talking some big shiit right before we landed... didn't work out for him real well either.

although deep down i don't really beleive it, we didn't do it for the oil. we did it for kuwait. now look at them. didn't i read somewhere a female was running for an office? or won an elcetion or something? saddam must be turning in his grave.

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 11:43 AM
Well, after that, I feel inclined to contribute something besides the sarcasm.

I'm with everyone besides you and Tuba who feel that warring with North Korea would be extremely unprudent.

I've never understood the idea that big talk from **** ant nations is something that a nation like the United States must respond to, diplomatically or (especially) militarily. Let them talk about attacking us. It is not their words, but our reaction to them that matters.


I never said that warring with NK would be unprudent.

See this is the problem with people that differing opinions. Those that have them think you mean something other than what you say.

I have state that NK has been a cancer to the civilize world. I have stated that UN is an irrelevant institution. I have also stated that war should be the last resort.

And I have also stated that diplomacy has failed with NK.

So now here we are....taking threats from North Korea.

Well **** that...punch the mother ****er in the mouth before he punches you!

Enough with the pleading and the begging....it is either time for NK to put up or shut the **** up.

They have proven they have the ability to deliver a Nuclear weapon east of the Rockie Mountains...but lets not do anything....lets stall with them just so they can refine their nuke tech and make an actual warhead for one of the ICBM!

yeah...that seems like the logical and safe thing to do! :rolleyes:

War with NK, no matter who throws the first punch, will be bloody and cost a lot of innocent lives, thanks to Seoul's proxmity to the DMZ.

But if we wait too long, NK will be able to hit Chicago, costing that many more lives.

Collier11
5/28/2009, 11:44 AM
I think revenge would be more likely than oil in the last war, if there were alterior motives

OU_Sooners75
5/28/2009, 11:44 AM
It sure is easy to advocate war when you know you won't have to go and probably won't be reached (even in a post 9/11 world).

Armchair General <<<<<< Armchair QB

"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think hard before starting a war." ~~ Otto von Bismarck.
I belive Bismarck also said, "Everyone knows how a war starts, nobody knows how it ends."

It may take violence to keep NK from nuking someone. It will more likely take at least a plausible threat of violence. But other severe consequences short of war may do the trick; and smart, clever, tough-minded people need to figure out what that is.

Internet personae who talk about attacking NK as if it were as simple as aranging a pick-up basketball game are nuts.

Do some minor research.

Once NK completes their 3 stage rocket...they will be able to reach all the way to Indianapolis.

From where I am sitting...that means they can reach me.

Jello Biafra
5/28/2009, 11:44 AM
It will more likely take at least a plausible threat of violence. But other severe consequences short of war may do the trick; and smart, clever, tough-minded people need to figure out what that is.



i dont think the family would want to risk losing control of the country. i think they want to extort money.

stoops the eternal pimp
5/28/2009, 11:46 AM
****...Mark...John...both the same...LOL

John Blake...Coach...sucked ***. Player...kicked ***!

Good enough for you?

Mark Clayton is gonna kick you in your ovaries for saying that he and John Clayton are the same:P

My Opinion Matters
5/28/2009, 11:47 AM
Do some minor research.

Once NK completes their 3 stage rocket...they will be able to reach all the way to Indianapolis.

From where I am sitting...that means they can reach me.

lulz.

TUSooner
5/28/2009, 11:50 AM
I never said that warring with NK would be unprudent.
See this is the problem with people that differing opinions. Those that have them think you mean something other than what you say.
I have state that NK has been a cancer to the civilize world. I have stated that UN is an irrelevant institution. I have also stated that war should be the last resort.
And I have also stated that diplomacy has failed with NK.
So now here we are....taking threats from North Korea.
Well **** that...punch the mother ****er in the mother before he punches you!
Enough with the pleading and the begging....it is either time for NK to put up or shut the **** up.
They have proven they have the ability to deliver a Nuclear weapon east of the Rockie Mountains...but lets not do anything....lets stall with them just so they can refine their nuke tech and make an actual warhead for one of the ICBM!
yeah...that seems like the logical and safe thing to do! :rolleyes:
War with NK, no matter who throws the first punch, will be bloody and cost a lot of innocent lives, thanks to Seoul's proxmity to the DMZ.
But if we wait too long, NK will be able to hit Chicago, costing that many more lives.

Rufus T. Firefly and company endorse this message.
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/6476/marxbrotherstowar.jpg (http://img33.imageshack.us/my.php?image=marxbrotherstowar.jpg)
"To war! To war!"

I know it's old, but somebody must have seen the movie.....

Pricetag
5/28/2009, 12:15 PM
Do some minor research.

Once NK completes their 3 stage rocket...they will be able to reach all the way to Indianapolis.

From where I am sitting...that means they can reach me.
Dude, minor research also indicates that they aren't close to being able to put a warhead on top of that three-stage rocket.

JohnnyMack
5/28/2009, 12:29 PM
I haven't read much of this thread because, well, most of you are schmucks. But I will say that what North Korea is doing right now is negotiating. They're doing it with rockets and nuclear blasts, but they're clearly looking for something. Methinks it isn't entering a conflict that would spell their untimely demise, but I could be crazy.

Collier11
5/28/2009, 12:31 PM
could be?

JLEW1818
5/28/2009, 12:33 PM
obama needs the **** you attitude

MR2-Sooner86
5/28/2009, 12:40 PM
The US has a no assassination policy though...So the Snipers you watch on TV will never get a call to assassinate a national diplomate, let alone a national head of state.

In the first Gulf War we had a sniper on Sadam but he wasn't given the order to fire.


yeah....you think the Chinese and Russians are going to let us go unimpeded through disputed waters?

Yes. Russia's navy ship to ship can match ours but has shrunk. China's navy is still being built. Not to mention neither country has any carries like we do. They might have one or two.

Here's a nice little article I found. Since we're talking about armies I figured I'd throw this in. With any list it can be debated but it does give some nice facts.

World's Strongest Armies (http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/30-22635.aspx)


Ranking Takes into account Quality, Quantity and Training of Men and Machinery. WMD's such as Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons are not taken into account in the ranking.

1 - USA
2 - China
3 - Israel
4 - Russia
5 - India
6 - England
7 - South Korea
8 - North Korea
9 - Pakistan
10 - Turkey

USA:

USA's Air-Force and Naval Forces are unmatchable. Their technological and qualitative superiority are decades ahead of other Non-NATO countries. USA's land forces are vulnerable as seen in the Iraq Occupation. US forces are mobile forces, designed to destroy Soviet Forces in European battlefields. They have been slowly adapting to more Israeli Type Formations. While vulnerable in Land Forces, its Tanks, APC and Helicopter Gunships are very superior. US Special Forces are among the world's best, their sheer size of 45,000 Special Forces ranging from Delta Forces and NAVY Seals are exceptionally trained and equipped.


China:

China has the World's Largest Army, World's 5th Largest Naval force after USA, UK, Russia and France and has the 3rd Largest Air Force after USA and Russia. That does not make its army better. It is a very obese Army and its current standards look similar to the US and other NATO forces of late 1960's and early 1970's in terms of technological and design standards. But it is rapidly changing, as China is streamlining its forces to more hard hitting fighting forces and again based on Israeli Forces. The Sheer Quantity of Chinese Forces makes it a formidable foe to defeat. Chinese Special Forces is still in its infancy, as slowly it is evolving into a more hard hitting fighting force. China's main ambition is the conquest of Taiwan so most of its military budget is being spent on Naval Forces.

Israel:

Israel's current army stands around 80,000 - 100,000 men always deployed. It can have a force of 600,000 to 700,000 men in 24 hour period when faced with a war situation. It was the first Army to integrate Special Forces, High Technology, Hard hitting fire power, Intelligence, Covert Operations into its regular order of battle. Currently Israeli Special Forces are regarded as the world's best. Israel's Land Army is very powerful with Me kava Tanks, APC and ground support Gunships and Air-Force. No country in the Middle East with the exception of Egypt and Iran can even dare to wage a conventional war ground war with Israel. Integrating Technology and New tactics is Israel's strongest point. Israel has the 4th largest Air Force, and in technological standards is on par with USA, UK and France. The biggest weakness of Israel is its Naval Forces but it gone under a process of rapidly upgrading its Naval Forces with New Submarines, Gunboats and a few destroyers.


Russia:

Russia's Army of 10,000,000 men from the Cold War Days has dwindled to 800,000 men. Despite the lack in its fighting ability as its involved in the conflict in Chechnya, it?s a very powerful Fighting Force when involved in a conventional war. Russia has the largest Tank Force in the World with Around 40,000. Its Air Force has fallen into bad disarray, but its Pilots are exceptionally Trained, Naval Forces have also suffered as the Kursk disaster proved, but its naval forces are only 3rd to USA and UK. Russia's turn towards democracy has been a hard one, but its recovering.

India:

India has the world's 3rd Largest Army, and 6th largest Air-Force and an emerging Naval Power. Its main conflict with Pakistan forces it to concentrate 700,000 men in Kashmir. Its Tank Forces are mainly of Russian origin and its indigenous Tank development has flopped. Its new Alliance with Israel is upgrading its Infantry Forces. Its Air-Force is in need of rapid upgrade as most of the Jets are in bad condition. Its Naval Forces are growing, but reliance on old Russian War Ships have cost more harm than good. Indian Special Forces such as Black Cats are well trained, but conventional Indian Forces suffer heavily from Kashmiri Militants as the Indian Army is modeled on the Russian Army.

England:

While no longer the global power it once was, the British Naval and Air-Forces are still among the best. It?s Land Army with its Tanks and APC are also world class. Its Military has been heavily downsized with more focus on Special Forces combating militants in Northern Ireland and international deployment in Iraq. Its Naval Force is only 2nd to USA. England's Military is very strong technologically but the small size of it, makes its ranked 6th in the world.

South Korea:

South Korea has a very powerful Land Army, with the state of the art American Tanks, APC, Gunships. Its Air Force is also very strong with latest American Fighters and Naval Forces are strong as well. Its army numbers around 700,000 men plus over a 1,000,000 reserves it can call up. South Korea's Army is designed for fighting and defeating the North Korean Army.


North Korea:

North Korea has the largest Submarine fleet in the world with 1,700 mini submarine and large submarines. Its Air Force numbers around 1,200 to 1,500 and its Land Army is around 1,200,000 to 2,000,000 men. It has the 2nd largest Artillery with 12,000 and close to 8,000 Tanks. It is very strong numerically but in quality it lacks as most of its forces are old Russian weaponry.

AggieTool
5/28/2009, 12:53 PM
In the first Gulf War we had a sniper on Sadam but he wasn't given the order to fire.



Yes. Russia's navy ship to ship can match ours but has shrunk. China's navy is still being built. Not to mention neither country has any carries like we do. They might have one or two.

Here's a nice little article I found. Since we're talking about armies I figured I'd throw this in. With any list it can be debated but it does give some nice facts.

World's Strongest Armies (http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/30-22635.aspx)

Where the fox was France?:D

My Opinion Matters
5/28/2009, 12:53 PM
Interesting. I didn't realize there were BCS rankings for the world's military forces.

OklahomaTuba
5/28/2009, 12:58 PM
Mack Brown is crying somewhere.

OklahomaTuba
5/28/2009, 01:00 PM
Wonder if this true???

Breaking: US Army moves to DEFCON 2Sources close to MiNa claim the US Army has moved their alert level to Defcon 2. This was initiated by the alarming situation in North Korea. The US Army has over 35,000 troops stationed in South Korea, well within reach of North Korean convential weapons.

North Korea has the largest artillery force (can be equipped with nuclear warheads) in the world, which adds more to the already tense situation.

Earlier today, N. Korea's leader Kim Jong issued threaths to the South Korean and US Navy ships for coming too close to North Korea's territorial waters. The South Koreans and the Americans, may be positioning themselves for a preemptive strike.http://macedoniaonline.eu/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

CK Sooner
5/28/2009, 01:06 PM
How so?

Honestly?

Our military is over 1 million strong and not even 1/5 of it is in combat situations as we speak!

Not to mention the Navy that is not being used in combat regions right now!

Our navy as it is right now can stragetically reach all of North Korea.


Right or wrong, we have the military might to take on North Korea....couple that with Japanese and South Korean troops that will more than double the assets we would have at our disposal.

Do not believe all skeptics.

Betcha the UK would send some, maybe.

My Opinion Matters
5/28/2009, 01:06 PM
Wonder if this true???
http://macedoniaonline.eu/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

Macedonia Online? Seriously, Tuba? This is the best you could come up with?

OklahomaTuba
5/28/2009, 01:10 PM
Macedonia Online? Seriously, Tuba? This is the best you could come up with?

Come up with?? Good Lord I Just found it and thought it was interesting, no idea if its real or not.

Scott D
5/28/2009, 01:10 PM
he was probably drawn into it for the article on the Hitler underwear.

sooner_born_1960
5/28/2009, 01:14 PM
Not much different than the Reuters article. Find it yourself.

Scott D
5/28/2009, 01:17 PM
there was a reuters article on "Next" recalling underwear with a Hitler image?

sooner_born_1960
5/28/2009, 01:22 PM
Probably. I didn't look for one, though.

Scott D
5/28/2009, 01:28 PM
it was pretty funny.

Random consumer: These underwear have Hitler on them!
Designer: It's not Hitler, it's Lenin!
Random distributor: Consumer said it looks like it might be Hitler, we don't want to offend anyone.

apparently we learn that an image of Lenin that looks like it might be Hitler is ok if it doesn't look so much like Hitler.

AggieTool
5/28/2009, 01:56 PM
Jesus dude...you dont care if you are green or red, do you?


You do know back in the day...you were in diapers (much like today) that Wal-mart was all about USA first, right?

Tell ya what.

If you were to remove all the Chinese made goods from Wal-Mart shelves, what do you think would be left?

My solution would make us aware of how much manufacturing we've moved out of the U.S. and pressure China to pressure NK.

Now what was your solution again?;)

And no, I don't care if I'm red or green considering who routinely negs me.

Kinda like being called "poopie-head" by five year olds.:D

Scott D
5/28/2009, 02:37 PM
Yes. Russia's navy ship to ship can match ours but has shrunk. China's navy is still being built. Not to mention neither country has any carries like we do. They might have one or two.

Here's a nice little article I found. Since we're talking about armies I figured I'd throw this in. With any list it can be debated but it does give some nice facts.

World's Strongest Armies (http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/30-22635.aspx)

to be fair, none of what you posted countered the point that two nations are unlikely to allow our forces to move unimpeded through "their*" territorial waters. They are definitely not going to sit and watch something take place in their sphere of influence without any sort of action.

As for the sniper issue, rumor is that KJI has a lot more "body doubles" than Saddam ever considered having, his personal level of paranoia is so high, it makes that of other despots look downright tame as a kitten.

* = as usual in regards to international waters nations tend to claim area outside of their natural territorial breaks especially in Asia and the Baltic region.

soonerfan28
5/28/2009, 03:02 PM
I read maybe 10 posts on this thread, but in my opinion I think we need to worry about what crazy Korean will do to our interests in his own region. I would say that Japan probably is and should be what we worry about first. The hatred runs deep on both the Korean and Japanese side and I could see this crazy f*ck doin' some damage over there. Hope not because I've got family over there.

LosAngelesSooner
5/28/2009, 03:09 PM
I honestly, truly don't know. This is a really complicated issue which is only made more difficult by them having nuclear weapons.

But I DON'T think ANOTHER scolding letter from the U.N. is gonna have any effect whatsoever.



(and please don't group me in with anyone/group/etc. I'm solo here)

Collier11
5/28/2009, 03:16 PM
TREE HUGGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!













;)

LosAngelesSooner
5/28/2009, 03:42 PM
Instead of starting a shootin war
Just do what has been planned , Run a barricade , search ships entering their space.
If the NKs want to start it then WE finish it :pop:If we DO this, people will die. US Soldiers will die. But it might be the only course of action.

Now, IF we do this, we should INSIST that it's a coalition. Multiple nations searching the ships, that way WHEN KJI launches missiles tipped with nukes, and WHEN a nuke goes off, we're not the ONLY ones with thousands of citizens dying and then going in to war. CHINA, RUSSIA, FRANCE, England, Italy, Germany, Japan...they ALL have to be in on the blockade with us.

Just my opinion.

sooner_born_1960
5/28/2009, 03:44 PM
We can INSIST, but if they don't want to play, we're on our own.

LosAngelesSooner
5/28/2009, 03:53 PM
That's always the case, though...isn't it?

But I'll bet Obama can do a better job getting them to line up with him than Dubya did. The other leaders know he's not trying to start a war. The Cowboy President? Notsomuch...

soonerscuba
5/28/2009, 04:10 PM
I just read most of the thread, and remembered a saying at OU when I was coming in as a freshman that was repeated every year, and still might be one of the best pieces of advice I have yet to ever hear.

"Don't be a ******, everyone can tell". Reasonable people can look at identical data and draw different conclusions, and nobody has the corner on international rogue state issues, especially nuclear rogue states.

Scott D
5/28/2009, 04:25 PM
It's still going to come down to how serious China is going to take the issue, any sabre rattling or shows of force don't mean a whole lot if Beijing decides to side with Pyongyang.

JLEW1818
5/28/2009, 04:30 PM
That's always the case, though...isn't it?

But I'll bet Obama can do a better job getting them to line up with him than Dubya did. The other leaders know he's not trying to start a war. The Cowboy President? Notsomuch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4Jn6rY923Y

Chuck Bao
5/28/2009, 04:33 PM
I think you guys are misreading China and its ambitions of being a global player on all levels.

There is no way that China will concede to a US-led assault on the Korean peninsula.

China has already received the biggest flow of investment funds in the history of mankind. If some or all of these foreign-Chinese business ventures go bust on disruption of international trade, so what? It wasn’t their money. The question of whether they can handle the shock of rising unemployment has been, to some degree, answered over the last six months.

The Chinese have a chip on their shoulder and territorial integrity is extremely popular and plays very well with the populace and the growing nationalistic pride.

China must be alarmed by the nuclear and missile testing and those missiles can reach Beijing as well. North Korea had been a client state, but it must be an embarrassment now, running counter to China’s current ambitions. I would be more interested in reading how the China media is covering the story.

Yes, South Korea and Japan is in harm’s way. Japan can do nothing, given the atrocities committed 60-100 years ago.

North Korea only wants to negotiate with the US and that is just brinksmanship and trying to downgrade their South Korean counterparts as lackeys to the colonial ambitions of the US.

The US should step back and let the UN do their meaningless consensus building that what North Korean did was wrong.

China is on the world stage now. Let’s give them a chance to prove that they can settle the problems at their doorstep and whether they actually can prove that their motive is beneficial and their wielding of economic and political power is positive.

homerSimpsonsBrain
5/28/2009, 04:54 PM
Johnny**Mack** and TU are right. NK is just posturing. And there are some pretty compelling reasons to contain them and not to start something. 22 million folks within range of the guns aimed at Seoul agree...

From a pretty interesting article on DPRKs war planning:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5027-1.htm


The potential use of weapons of mass destruction by DPRK seriously complicates any potential assessment on a North Korean offense against the south. It is difficult to adequately determine the potential damage caused by a WMD because of the large number of variables surrounding the delivery of such weapons. If North Korea uses WMD, chemical agents are the most likely to be deployed. This is likely for several reasons. The state of North Korean nuclear weapons is not precisely known, but is it generally believed that they are presently too large to be deployable. Similarly, North Korean biological weapons are not considered as viable as chemical weapons because of the complexity of the delivery biological programs and the fact that the DPRK biological program has not received the same attention as the DPRK chemical program. Chemical Program

Like its biological warfare effort, we believe North Korea has had a long-standing chemical warfare program. North Korea’s chemical warfare capabilities include the ability to produce bulk quantities of nerve, blister, choking, and blood agents, using its sizeable, although aging, chemical industry. North Korea is believed to hold a significant stockpile of agents and weapons.

North Korea is believed to be capable of weaponizing chemical weapons to suit a variety of delivery means. These would include not only ballistic missiles, but also artillery and aircraft, and possibly unconventional means. In fact, the United States believes that North Korea has some long-range artillery deployed along the demilitarized zone (DMZ) and ballistic missiles, some of which could deliver chemical warfare agents against forward-based U.S. and allied forces, as well as against rear-area targets. North Korean forces are prepared to operate in a contaminated environment; they train regularly in chemical defense operations. These chemical defense units have both detection and decontamination systems. Their missions include reconnaissance and the training of personnel in the use of protective equipment. Chemical training and exercises for both military and civilian personnel have increased consistently over the years. North Korea's chemical weapon (CW) production capability is estimated to be about 4,500 tons per year, though this could increase to 12,000 tons per year in case of war. North Korea appears to have emphasized the weaponization of mustard, phosgene, sarin, and V-type chemical agents. Reports indicate that North Korea has some 12 CW facilities where raw chemicals, precursors, and actual agents are produced and/or stored, and six major storage depots for CW ordnance. North Korea also has placed thousands of artillery systems—including multiple launch rocket systems that are particularly effective for CW delivery—within reach of the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) and Seoul. Pyongyang has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

JLEW1818
5/28/2009, 04:57 PM
but what if North Korea bombs South Korea and or Japan....

it's just a sucky situation for everyone.

Chuck Bao
5/28/2009, 05:31 PM
but what if North Korea bombs South Korea and or Japan....

it's just a sucky situation for everyone.

Indeed.

But, I really think that the period of the US serving as the world's cop is over. The US taxpayer can't be expected to pay for it.

If the human race isn't ready to deal with these problems, there will be many, many more civilian deaths. Maybe a jolt is needed to get the UN more aggressive in preventing the spread of WMD to rogue nations.

Vaevictis
5/28/2009, 05:31 PM
Historically, for the most part China just wants to be left alone, but Korea is very close in proximity to them so who knows.

More recently, they have had their own "Monroe Doctrine" where they've tried to limit American influence in the region -- mostly unsuccessfully -- but they did run our asses right back across the 38th parallel in the 50's.

They've already gone to war with the US over Korea, let's not lightly assume they won't do so again.

(* That's mostly in response to OU_Sooners75, Harry, not you -- your comment is just a good way to interject.)

soonerfan28
5/28/2009, 06:37 PM
Indeed.

But, I really think that the period of the US serving as the world's cop is over. The US taxpayer can't be expected to pay for it.

No doubt. There comes a day when we need to cover our own soil and stop trying to fix the world. We are a world power and to an extent I think we have been expected to police the world, but now it's time for us to worry about domestic issues.

JohnnyMack
5/29/2009, 01:31 PM
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10250