BF2S Forums North Korea firing missles?

darknova wrote:

Wow, dude, you got the best spelling/typing skills ever.

aint easy when it aint your motherlanguage and the check spelling gives an error i have to learn 4 languages that aint easy

Last edited by Major Payne (2006-07-10 12:36:17)

Nyte wrote:

If US couldn't defeat the commies in the Korean War, the commies in the Viet Nam War, the commies in Kosovo... what makes you think they can beat North Korea?

According to Wikipedia, US has only really "won" 2 wars. WWI and WWII (I'm not referring to "independence wars").

Even France has won more wars than the US... and that's saying something.

Technology has advanced quite a bit since korea and vietnam. 

Also United States has gone from not existing to the largest military power in the world in less then 200 years.
with your example of France.  They've been around for what 1,000+ plus years and are what now?

Last edited by Colfax (2006-07-10 12:45:47)

actually I meant dark nova "Wow, dude, you got the best spelling/typing skills ever." and was just reading Payne's comments on some other threads, I disagree that the Netherlands were forced to do anything and find it somewhat worrying that someone over there is telling him that the US would attack the Neth just for sitting out.

kr@cker wrote:

The sad thing is that Payne provides more compelling arguments in broken english than most of us with proper grammar.

On topic, I love how the same people that critiscise Bush for being a hard-ass to Saddam who made threats against the US on a daily basis are now saying he's too soft on Lil Kim for trying diplomacy first (which, btw, was also tried for over a decade with Iraq

Let's be honest here.  The only reason Bush is not using "Cowboy Diplomacy" is we are stretched too far out as it is, and he either knows or is being told we are not capable of fighting on so many fronts at one time.  We also can't afford it right now.  He's got us too deep in debt as it is.

Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-07-10 13:05:43)

JaMDuDe wrote:

Nyte wrote:

If US couldn't defeat the commies in the Korean War, the commies in the Viet Nam War, the commies in Kosovo... what makes you think they can beat North Korea?

According to Wikipedia, US has only really "won" 2 wars. WWI and WWII (I'm not referring to "independence wars").

Even France has won more wars than the US... and that's saying something.

America could destroy most of NKs army in a matter of hours as i said before. I think the france thing is a joke but we have won more than 2 wars.

Soviet Mario can drop america in a matter of hours too...

GATOR591957 wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

The sad thing is that Payne provides more compelling arguments in broken english than most of us with proper grammar.

On topic, I love how the same people that critiscise Bush for being a hard-ass to Saddam who made threats against the US on a daily basis are now saying he's too soft on Lil Kim for trying diplomacy first (which, btw, was also tried for over a decade with Iraq

Let's be honest here.  The only reason Bush is not using "Cowboy Diplomacy" is we are stretched too far out as it is, and he either knows or is being told we are not capable of fighting on so many fronts at one time.  We also can't afford it right now.  He's got us too deep in debt as it is.

How do you define " Cowboy Diplomacy " who coined the term this for this decade and where do you see it employed ?

I haven't heard it since Ronald Reagan was President and even then, Like the term " Reagenomics "
they stopped using it when all his policies bore fruit and proved sound.

Then Reaganomics became " the Recovery "

Also how did you come to this opinion. How many fronts do you believe The Coalition fighting on? Do you get to see the same satellite imagery that The intelligence services do for instance?

JaMDuDe wrote:

Nyte wrote:

If US couldn't defeat the commies in the Korean War, the commies in the Viet Nam War, the commies in Kosovo... what makes you think they can beat North Korea?

According to Wikipedia, US has only really "won" 2 wars. WWI and WWII (I'm not referring to "independence wars").

Even France has won more wars than the US... and that's saying something.

America could destroy most of NKs army in a matter of hours as i said before. I think the france thing is a joke but we have won more than 2 wars.

yes we could crush them in a matter of hours, but i think we'd be hesitant to turn the middle east into a nuclear parking lot

You cant approach Iraq and NKorea the same. To be a cowboy in Iraq is semi-OK because they cant really hurt us back. NKorea can hurt us back(Invading the South, Supplying a nuke to someone or using it on allies).For that reason we are more cautious with Korea. Of course the Us could nuke everyone and be done with it, we would get nuked too but we have resources to rebuild.

{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Do you think North Korea would have fired the test rockets if the U.S. was more of a threat?

wait....NK DID fire test rockets.  One of which "supposedly" would have landed near Hawaii had it not malfunctioned.  But when I hear the media say "near" I think of somewhere in the range of 500 miles or more lol.

I agree, the media has a tendacy to play on things to get higher ratings, which is sad most of the time cause you never really know what is truth and what is fiction created by the mass media.

For a good example, many military friends who have served 1 - 2 terms in Iraq have all agreed how well pleased the Iraqi (sp?) people are to have us there and thank them just about everyday. However the media doesn't represent that and shows them burning flags instead and ranting on how we destroyed thier lives. I just have to shake my head at that. Sort of like how anyone would do anything to just get on tv here in the states.

Major Payne wrote:

sankick wrote:

But yet your name refers to a ficticious American Marine that enjoys killing in the movie.  Do you like the U.S. or hate it.  Make up your mind.  Ohhh wait you did back in WWII.  You let us fight for your country to keep it from being called Naziland.

f u i aint a nazi

so england fight for my country to ass and you only fought against German because you were afraid and they attacked your fleet you focking used europe after the war whit your loans and everything after that you've fought against russia in our countrys so you all had a huge bufferzone called Europe

o btw because of germany we got highways you walked on the moon you got nuclair weapons

???? Where do i begin...
1.  Russia was  our ally in WWII.
2.  German U boats were attacking anyship that did not have a swaztica on it.
3.  Yes we helped rebuild Europe and sent Economist over to Japan after the the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to help them get back on thier feet.
4.  Are you really Da Ali G?
5. Fuck you too.  Where in my statement did I call you a Nazi?
6.  Are you saying while walking on the moon we found "nuclair" weapons?
7.  I'm glad you have highways...We have pie!
8.  I like Netherland bush...It's like eating an Eskimo pie.

Last edited by Sandskink (2006-07-11 00:44:24)

1.  To sandskink and major payne- the US got highways after WWII too, Ike really liked the autobahn system and he used it as the basis for our interstate highway system.
2.  The US woudl be wise to not go anywhere near NK, especially if it isn't a real UN approved EU-backed actual humanitarian campaign to remove a dictator.  We will certainly not use nukes, because a. it is stupid and b. I don't care how prevailing the westerlies are that shit blows around and China ain't gonna be too pleased.  I don't care how bad the US can "pwn" NK, it ain't gonna happen, they don't have much oil and if we occupy NK we will piss off China, a country that can threaten us in the future and has a large army/navy/armed forces that isn't a joke, and they certainly weren't too pelased with us the previous times that we messed around in southeast asia, especially in North Korea.

can we get back on topic please ? Who got what out of WWII and whose grand parents freed who 60 years ago is hardly relevant to the current discussion about north korea.

We should rather try to adress the question wether NK is a real threat to the US or not. Some arguments against:

1) They don't have the economy to support a large scale conflict.
2) they don't have the supply capabilities to support troops over a larger distance
3) while their armed forces may be strong in numbers, they lack the technology to compete with the US armed forces in a conventional conflict. The US Air Force would bomb them into oblivion.
4) all they could do would be attack south korea ( again ), and it is unlikely that the UN would let this go unsanctioned
5) their people are starving, a lot of them depend on foreign food programs.

most importantly:
6) Russia and China are the regional superpowers and I bet my ass they wouldn't allow North Korea to pull a stunt right in their back yard. Both were very quiet during the Iraq war, but that would change radically, should a conflict brake out in their region.

Let's face it, NK isn't a threat to the US, not a real one anyway. But the same was true for Iraq, and look were they are at now.

Then again, do I believe the US military / economy would be able to handle conflicts in Iraq, Iran and North Korea ? No, that's just not going to happen.
As has been described here a lot, most people in Iraq were symphathetic towards the Coalition forces, but that would not be the case in Iran or North Korea. You'd have to fight them to the last man to win...

Let them fire up some rockets if they wish, they still cannot win a conflict against you, and they know it.