I agree, the US will not be destroyed militarily. I'm sure the US could bomb the shit outta North Korea and their allies. Hell, they might not even bother with carpet bombing. Im sure they have many somethings much larger and more edffective. They won't lose a war due to an inadequate millitary.King_County_Downy wrote:
North Korea is small enough to be carpet bombed in 2 days. They know this.
Carpet bombing..lol , not likely now.CameronPoe wrote:
In fact that's already been done in the past.King_County_Downy wrote:
North Korea is small enough to be carpet bombed in 2 days. They know this.
Sorry your being biased and harboring some sort of hatred leads you to make ignorant statements.. like saying the Korean war was a failure. The goal of the United States was to preserve a free and democratic south after the North Invaded.. There was no question who was the agreesor or what the intentions were from the outset. The fact that the fight turned north and if you knew aything about the Korean war youd know the battle of Inchon had no intention of taking ofver the North but relieving Pusan. The Korean war was anything but a failure and your insistance of saying so is disrepsect to the people who fouht and died for South Koreas freedom.Bubbalo wrote:
Re: Korean War: Regardless of the US' original intention, it eventually decided to invade North Korea, and was pushed back.
Really is that why in 1950 Stalin signed the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance a 30 year military alliance and 300 million dollar grant ? Stalin didn't support the nationlaists he simply abdicated any hope that China could somehow win a civil war and a war with Japan at the same time. In fact in 1926 Chiang Kai-shek kicked the Soviets out of China and the Soviets gave full aid the the PRC. During the Korea war some million Chinese fought with Russian t-34's mig's and other Russian weapons. The PRC and the Soviet Union were full blown allies and any bickering on the side hardly changes that fact. They didnt have any formal conflict with Russia till the late 60'sBubbalo wrote:
but make no mistake: the Stalin and Mao hated each other.
I think the NAEA and United Nations China and just about every other relevant world leader disagrees with you. A country with no real ability to fight a conventional war a piss poor economy starving its own people and a leader that threatens the world with nuclear attacks and/or black market sales of WMD's is not a person who can be trusted or a country that deserves it.Bubbalo wrote:
I believe that, given that other countries have nukes, he has every right to have them.
Last edited by the_outsider38 (2006-10-11 01:50:48)
How you can draw moral equivalence with Kim Jong is ridiculous. Thats like giving everyone a gun because the police have them.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
I think the NAEA and United Nations China and just about every other relevant world leader disagrees with you. A country with no real ability to fight a conventional war a piss poor economy starving its own people and a leader that threatens the world with nuclear attacks and/or black market sales of WMD's is not a person who can be trusted or a country that deserves it.Bubbalo wrote:
I believe that, given that other countries have nukes, he has every right to have them.
Last edited by the_outsider38 (2006-10-11 02:09:11)
Even if they were threatned if they did.the_outsider38 wrote:
Although the voter turn out in Iraq was higher then in the US, interesting.....
WHY post a new post for EVERY new subject about north korea?? its xxxxxxxx of post nowDesertFox423 wrote:
I'm sure you're all aware by now of North Koreas nuclear plans.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/1 … index.html
What do you think is going to happen? Are they bluffing, or really have capabilities?
Yes, so thats either a big positiver for Iraq or a negative for the USKmarion wrote:
Even if they were threatned if they did.the_outsider38 wrote:
Although the voter turn out in Iraq was higher then in the US, interesting.....
http://Tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/101711013-L.jpg
Last edited by the_outsider38 (2006-10-11 02:17:43)
Since when have police been an un-biased enforcement agency? That's why there's Internal Affairs. And we're not all allowed to have guns, either. Double-check our exceptions.Bubbalo wrote:
The police analogy is foolish: since when have Russia, the US, France, China, UK been an un-biased enforcement agency? A better analogy would be another private citizen owning a gun. Of course, the comment itself is funny coming from an American. You are all allowed to have guns.
Fair enough. If my kid comes to me and says, "the school bully keeps threatening me. Hes much bigger and stronger than me and I can't beat him in a fight." Id tell him, not to stand up to him, as he will probably get a punch in the face. Id say go and make friends with another school bully and use him as protection until you are big enough to kick shit outa the bully yourself.Kmarion wrote:
"If the United States continues to take a hostile attitude and apply pressure on us in various forms, we will have no choice but to take physical steps to deal with that," he said.
Supposed to in an ideal world, but aren't in reality. Of course, you already know that. Assuming we do use the private citizen analogy, I'll repeat that not all of us are allowed to own guns. There are conditions that exist which restrict or outright prohibit private gun ownership.Bubbalo wrote:
But police are supposed to be an unbiased enforcement agency.
And assuming we do use the private citizen analogy, why would the US et al. pass and North Korea fail?
NK hasn't taken any action against anyone since the Korean war. Quite the contrary, it is the rest of the world that has sanctioned and taken action against them.the_outsider38 wrote:
Look, we all know why they want them. When was the last time Russia, France, China, and the UK used a nuke? Sure they have them but they don't use them.
Have you looked at the way that country is being run? I know I wouldn't trust him with any sort of weapon.
Maybe if North Korea signed in on that agreement and became a little less hostile towards everyone else they would be allowed to have nukes, but this is not the case.
Remember after the world wars Germany wasn't allowed to build warships over a certain size because they proved that they were a hostile nation (not anymore). North Korea has already proved they are hostile, so why let them have big guns? South Korea and Japan would be toast.
Fine, we should give Kim a course on proper use of nuclear bombs, then issue him a permit.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Supposed to in an ideal world, but aren't in reality. Of course, you already know that. Assuming we do use the private citizen analogy, I'll repeat that not all of us are allowed to own guns. There are conditions that exist which restrict or outright prohibit private gun ownership.Bubbalo wrote:
But police are supposed to be an unbiased enforcement agency.
And assuming we do use the private citizen analogy, why would the US et al. pass and North Korea fail?
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=48129jonsimon wrote:
NK hasn't taken any action against anyone since the Korean war. Quite the contrary, it is the rest of the world that has sanctioned and taken action against them.the_outsider38 wrote:
Look, we all know why they want them. When was the last time Russia, France, China, and the UK used a nuke? Sure they have them but they don't use them.
Have you looked at the way that country is being run? I know I wouldn't trust him with any sort of weapon.
Maybe if North Korea signed in on that agreement and became a little less hostile towards everyone else they would be allowed to have nukes, but this is not the case.
Remember after the world wars Germany wasn't allowed to build warships over a certain size because they proved that they were a hostile nation (not anymore). North Korea has already proved they are hostile, so why let them have big guns? South Korea and Japan would be toast.
And if we took weapons away from hostile nations, America would be unarmed.
