Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on July 31, 2004, 09:20:07 AM
-
Iran Says It Resumes Building Nuclear Centrifuges (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20040731/ts_nm/iran_nuclear_dc)
Can you say "Operation Opera (http://www.alisrael.com/tamuz/)"?
-
What's this have to do with Israel?
-
Israel took out similar facility in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What's this have to do with Israel?
everything, and with it the US
Israel accuses Iran of resuming suspect nuclear activities (http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040719180154.htgpmxxq.html)
Israel tells of Iran nuclear fear (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3873625.stm)
bigger news than Iraq today if you ask me ...
-
does Israel have Nuclear Weapons? officialy i mean.
-
Iran participated in strikes against the Iraqi eactors, and co-ordinated with Israel.
I suspect Iran will have learnt from that Iraqi experience, and made it much harder to take out heir nuclear facilities with a pre emptive strike.
Given the way things have gone in Iraq, an invasion of Iran is out of the question, an air campaign against them probably is as well. With US troops on the ground in Iraq, any move against Iran is unlikely.
I hink one of the biggest long term problems to come out of the war in Iraq is it's stopped any decisive action against Iran aquiring nukes.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
does Israel have Nuclear Weapons? officialy i mean.
Officially? No.
-
Will be interesting to see how this plays out. The Israelis aren't known for being fettered by dimplomatic rigamarole when action seems necessary.
-
Because the US vetos any attempt at diplomatic preasure against isreal.
Otherwise they would be under boycot.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Because the US vetos any attempt at diplomatic preasure against isreal.
Otherwise they would be under boycot.
sorry we're not going to let you help get the jews killed...
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Because the US vetos any attempt at diplomatic preasure against isreal.
Otherwise they would be under boycot.
And we will continue to veto any pressure while prompting Israel to bomb them if they need to.
Go Israelis :aok
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
I hink one of the biggest long term problems to come out of the war in Iraq is it's stopped any decisive action against Iran aquiring nukes.
I think just the opposite
no ground troops but I am sure our flyboys could use their a to g systems without to much trouble
-
So - they have to attack at least the following cities where installations are built or actually under construction:
Bushir
Teheran
Ramsar
Bonab
Natanz
Arak
Isfahan
Ahvaz
Maybe it would be more effective to ask the foreign nations who help Iran in their nuclear program to stop the support.
Like Russia, China, Northkorea, France, Germany and so on.
Btw - Iran has actually missiles with the range to hit Israel and also biological and chemical weapon systems.
They havent used them, if I am right.
Why should they ?
Even while Iran declared Israel an official enemy the jewish state helps Iran politicly because it keeps the real enemy of Iran very busy: The arabs.
So the last thing Iran would do is attacking Israel or trying to destroy it. They serve the political interests of Iran well - as they did in the past.
You make the mistake to combine Iran and Arabs or thinking that they are united because they are muslims (while ignoring the fact that shiites and sunnites consider the other side as heretics).
One simple example:
During the war of Armenia and Azerbeidjan Iran supported the orthodox-christian Armenia and not the sunnite-islamic Azerbeidjan. Weapons, money and all other support was given to Armenia.
Iranian policy is not so primitive to say : "Hey - there are christians and the other are muslims, so lets beat the christians."
And another thing to remind:
Iran has never attacked another country in the last 100 years.
But it was attacked so often in the last 100 years.
We even declared our neutrality in both world wars - but these declarations were ignored.
In the 1st WW the Ottoman Empire, zaristic Russia and England fought battles in north-Iran.
And in WW2, when Iran refused to join the Allies and declare war to Germany the soviets and the British invaded the country, forced the Shah to resign and installed his son as a puppet who then joined the Allied and declared war to the Reich.
After WW2 Iran turned to the USA and for a while it seemed that Iran has a good chance.
In the 50ties the Shah was deposed in an unbloody revolution by the premier Mossadegh and Iran was on the way to democracy.
But then the CIA arranged the reinstallation of the Shah and the secret police SAVAK was killing thousands of iranians year by year while the western nations were so fascinating of the handsome iranian king and his wife.
The command centre of the CIA during the coup was in the US-embassy in Teheran - another fact which the iranian learned.
So when the shah was finally deposed in the bloody revolution it was wrong but logical that also the embassy was attacked.
Iran slipped into the next terror regime of the Mullahs, in a war, when the country was attacked by Saddam.
It was under attack of missiles with gas during the war ahgainst iranian cities - and the world didnt care because Iran was the bad guy and Iraq with Saddam the good guy.
And today Iran has to see what happened to Afghanistan and Iraq.
No democracy , no hope for the future. Again in both countries corrupt criminals are ruling and causing terror.
In Afghanistan the warlords and even the Taliban are producing drugs to poison the whole world and get money for their armies and pityful little wars.
In Iraq the three groups are still fighting and the puppetregime of Alawi is as accepted as the powerless man called Hemed Karzai in Kabul.
And also it could be seen that a terroristic country like Northkorea is not touched because of its nuclear arsenal.
So maybe - just maybe - some iranian analysts think that nuclear weapons could be an effective defensive weapon.
The sad thing is that Iran is actually trying to get the mullahs off power and bringing the country to democracy.
But all these efforts would stop when Iran is attacked by foreigners.
So I am sure that the mullahs indeed hope that some israeli or US cruise missiles hit an iranian installation to manipulate the people.
And that is this is the stupidy if you put Iran to the Arabs or really believing that they have any interest to destroy Israel.
Policy is much more complicated - not a simple black and white.
-
I think just the opposite
no ground troops but I am sure our flyboys could use their a to g systems without to much trouble
If the US bombs Iran whilst still in Iraq, you'll get a shia uprising in Iraq that makes al Sadr's efforts of last April look tame.
You migh not get any casualties amongt the pilots, but you'll get plenty amogst the troops on the gound in Iraq.
I doubt the US will bomb Iran before pulling the majority of its troops out of Iraq, and I doubt they'll let the Israelis do it either.
-
Originally posted by Udie
sorry we're not going to let you help get the jews killed...
Give me a freaking break.
-
unofficially 20
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Give me a freaking break.
Cool. You're the first Canadian Jew I've met. I knew there were some. Heck ... lots came over before and after the war. Just never met one. Nice to meetcha.
-
I'll have you know that I have lots of friends that are jews, so I think I can speak for them when I say blah blah blah.
-
Originally posted by babek-
Maybe it would be more effective to ask the foreign nations who help Iran in their nuclear program to stop the support.
Like Russia, China, Northkorea, France, Germany and so on.
Rogue nations are hard to control.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Rogue nations are hard to control.
Indeed, and oranges are orange. :D
-
SHUDDUP YOU SOFOMROMRONMORAN!!!
EXPWERPWOIRWTAERMTWEREWARMIMU NT
-
On the one side they are called "rogue nations" on the other hand they are called our civilized allies in the war against the terror.
So there is the real problem.
Russia for example has delivered to Sudan a whole bunch of new jet fighters - like MiG29 while in the same time the sudanese government is butchering their african minority.
So - problems could be not solved by military actions.
It didnt worked in Afghanistan or Iraq.
It wont work in Iran.
Only by raising pressure to those nations who deliver technology know-how and hardware to Iran you can stop the iranian nuclear project.
And this is the point where policy is coming in and makes a simple analysis very complicated.
-
Originally posted by babek-
On the one side they are called "rogue nations" on the other hand they are called our civilized allies in the war against the terror.
So there is the real problem.
Russia for example has delivered to Sudan a whole bunch of new jet fighters - like MiG29 while in the same time the sudanese government is butchering their african minority.
So - problems could be not solved by military actions.
It didnt worked in Afghanistan or Iraq.
It wont work in Iran.
Only by raising pressure to those nations who deliver technology know-how and hardware to Iran you can stop the iranian nuclear project.
And this is the point where policy is coming in and makes a simple analysis very complicated.
didnt work? whats your definition of work? you make no sense.
-
Yeah how did it not work?
In Iraq we removed a brutal dictator and prevented him from ever achieving his goals of developing WMD and invading his neighbors. Plus we ended the UN sanctions and prevented further decades of Saddam torturing and murdering his own people.
In Afghanistan we destroyed the home base of Al Qaeda, killed or captured most of their people, and removed a barbaric Muslim dictatorship.
How did these actions "not work" again?
I hope any action against Iran "doesn't work" also. That would probably mean removal of yet another barbaric muslim junta and permanent destruction of their ability to wage nuclear terrorism against the west.
-
I hope any action against Iran "doesn't work" also. That would probably mean removal of yet another barbaric muslim junta and permanent destruction of their ability to wage nuclear terrorism against the west. [/B]
Dear Mr tool. Your administration lied to you for the reasons going to that war. And it blew it's wad on it. Even in a best case senario, regarding removing SH. The wad = still blown. At great cost the the American people, who did not have a choice whether or not to elect their head of state on such a platform.
Iran and North Korea and just about every other two bit dictatorship are free to act as they see fit for at least (what?) the next ten years because the wad = blown? Cripes, the US can not and could not afford to go to war with Iraq. You had to go futher into debt to do so.
And please don't bring up the Lybia ****. Lybia hasn't been a threat to the west for ages now. Your government has no ****ing money! 450 billion deficit. You can ***** about the incredible about of spending they are doing and how it's bad and not a revenue stream issue, but they are (at the end of the day) still doing it! No money, can't afford war, can't afford a next war. Capiche?
-
LOL, Bush lied... too funny.
I guess France, Russia, Britain, the UN all lied too.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
LOL, Bush lied... too funny.
I guess France, Russia, Britain, the UN all lied too.
Nuke, do you think a mobile weapons factory is a WMD? Is a facility for the creation of WMD an actual deployable weapon of mass destrution?
-
So because of Iraq North Korea can do whatever it wants provided it does it in 10 years? Why? Because you think we couldnt fight them if they invaded the south. Right...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So because of Iraq North Korea can do whatever it wants provided it does it in 10 years? Why? Because you think we couldnt fight them if they invaded the south. Right...
Grun do you think a mobile weapons factory is a WMD? Is a facility for the creation of WMD an actual deployable weapon of mass destrution?
To answer your question. Of course the US can fight North Korea, but the Zulus could also fight the British at Rorkes Drift. Could the US fisably attain their goals?
Now please answer my preceding question.
-
Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!
-
1st: Afghanistan
The regime of the Taliban in Kabul has been removed. Right.
Have the Taliban been wiped out ? No.
Did Al kaida lost all their bases and support in Afghanistan ? No.
Today Afghanistan is devided in regions controlled by Warlords.
The west of Afghanistan is controlled by an iranian puppet ruling in the city and province of Herat. No rights for women - no democracy - same like the situation when the USSR has to left Afghanistan.
In the northeast part of Afghanistan the usbekian Warlord Dostum has his terror regime - a regime very much Saddam. He is supported by the CIA and was responsible for killing thousands of POWs and the assassination of at least 2 ministers of the Karsai government to become more powerful (he is also member of Karsais government).
In the southeast the pasthuni tribes have regaines their old power and again here the women have no rights, must wear the burkha. These pashtuni tribes are nothing else than the Taliban - and they are supported by the pashtuni tribes from Pakistan.
There are many other minor parties and each are fighting the others.
In Kabul Karsai cant move out without his foreign guards - he is like th soviet pupped Nadjibullah who was hanged by his people when his soviet masters left Afghanistan.
And to make its worse for the world all these parties produce drugs to finance their little warmachines.
So you call this a succes in war against terror in Afghanistan ?
Then Iraq:
One dictator was removed - and new dictators put place.
Btw - none of the neighbors feared Saddam, because his military and economy lied in ruins. There was short before the attack on Iraq a conference in Ankara where Turkey, Iran, Syria, Saudi-Arabia and other gulf-states met and came to the conclusion that Iraq was no danger for their neighbors.
But the good thing is that Saddam weas removed.
The bad thing is that obviously no one has planned for the day after the victory.
The shiite-leaders (shiites = the majority of the people in Iraq) who wanted to cooperate with the USA, the Ajatollahs Choei and Ajatollah Hakim were assassinated.
Now only two leaders are left, the dominating Ajatollah Sistani (born in Iran and supported by Iran) and this Mullah Sadr who wants to kill Sistani to reach his goal to become leader of the shiites. (His group was at least responsible for the assasination of Hakim - maybe also of Choei).
In north Iraq the kurdish clans are fighting each other and the sunnite arab minority dont want to loose the power it had since the creation of Iraq after WW1 - supported by Jordan and the Saudis and also Syria.
The puppetregime under Allawi - a man who worked very long for the CIA - is hated by most parts of the iraqis.
And day by day US- and other occupation forces are under attack in Iraq and die.
If you call this a success then I dont want to see a failure by your definition.
So - these were only two minor countries with battered military, demoralized population with gorups within who fight each other.
Iran has not only larger territory but 60 million people who can easily be turn into fanatism if the right buttons are pushed.
For example when again foreigners are attacking the country.
-
BBS hawks, listen this babek man, he has some points.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Grun do you think a mobile weapons factory is a WMD? Is a facility for the creation of WMD an actual deployable weapon of mass destrution?
To answer your question. Of course the US can fight North Korea, but the Zulus could also fight the British at Rorkes Drift. Could the US fisably attain their goals?
Now please answer my preceding question.
So now in your mind the USA Military is the Zulus and the NKPA is the brits at Rorkes drift?
Are you really saying that in your mind the NKPA is better trained, better led and better equipped, than the USA military?
Good god are you insane thrawn?
The only issue of doubt in such a war is how many South Koreans civilans die to NK artillery.
And here is another perspective - lets not forget the South Korean Army..
http://www.g2mil.com/korea.htm
-
Iran = Theocratic dictatorship, known terrorist supporter, WMD ambitions
= needs to be removed as a threat. Period.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I'll have you know that I have lots of friends that are jews, so I think I can speak for them when I say blah blah blah.
You may wanna check with them first. ;)
-
Originally posted by babek-
1st: Afghanistan
The regime of the Taliban in Kabul has been removed. Right.
Have the Taliban been wiped out ? No.
Did Al kaida lost all their bases and support in Afghanistan ? No.
Today Afghanistan is devided in regions controlled by Warlords.
The west of Afghanistan is controlled by an iranian puppet ruling in the city and province of Herat. No rights for women - no democracy - same like the situation when the USSR has to left Afghanistan.
In the northeast part of Afghanistan the usbekian Warlord Dostum has his terror regime - a regime very much Saddam. He is supported by the CIA and was responsible for killing thousands of POWs and the assassination of at least 2 ministers of the Karsai government to become more powerful (he is also member of Karsais government).
In the southeast the pasthuni tribes have regaines their old power and again here the women have no rights, must wear the burkha. These pashtuni tribes are nothing else than the Taliban - and they are supported by the pashtuni tribes from Pakistan.
There are many other minor parties and each are fighting the others.
In Kabul Karsai cant move out without his foreign guards - he is like th soviet pupped Nadjibullah who was hanged by his people when his soviet masters left Afghanistan.
And to make its worse for the world all these parties produce drugs to finance their little warmachines.
So you call this a succes in war against terror in Afghanistan ?
Then Iraq:
One dictator was removed - and new dictators put place.
Btw - none of the neighbors feared Saddam, because his military and economy lied in ruins. There was short before the attack on Iraq a conference in Ankara where Turkey, Iran, Syria, Saudi-Arabia and other gulf-states met and came to the conclusion that Iraq was no danger for their neighbors.
But the good thing is that Saddam weas removed.
The bad thing is that obviously no one has planned for the day after the victory.
The shiite-leaders (shiites = the majority of the people in Iraq) who wanted to cooperate with the USA, the Ajatollahs Choei and Ajatollah Hakim were assassinated.
Now only two leaders are left, the dominating Ajatollah Sistani (born in Iran and supported by Iran) and this Mullah Sadr who wants to kill Sistani to reach his goal to become leader of the shiites. (His group was at least responsible for the assasination of Hakim - maybe also of Choei).
In north Iraq the kurdish clans are fighting each other and the sunnite arab minority dont want to loose the power it had since the creation of Iraq after WW1 - supported by Jordan and the Saudis and also Syria.
The puppetregime under Allawi - a man who worked very long for the CIA - is hated by most parts of the iraqis.
And day by day US- and other occupation forces are under attack in Iraq and die.
If you call this a success then I dont want to see a failure by your definition.
So - these were only two minor countries with battered military, demoralized population with gorups within who fight each other.
Iran has not only larger territory but 60 million people who can easily be turn into fanatism if the right buttons are pushed.
For example when again foreigners are attacking the country.
thats a bunch of writing but your picture has nothing to do with reality. not going to waste a sunday am grading your fiction writing paper but heres one example. where exactly in afghanistan are there still training camps for al qaeda? you said they are there please enlighten me and tell me where exactly?
-
Originally posted by Naso
BBS hawks, listen this babek man, he has some points.
no he doesnt. nearly every one of his "points" are untrue.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
thats a bunch of writing but your picture has nothing to do with reality. not going to waste a sunday am grading your fiction writing paper but heres one example. where exactly in afghanistan are there still training camps for al qaeda? you said they are there please enlighten me and tell me where exactly?
Don't do it, Babbie! He's just trying to get a fix on them so he can inform the powers that be where to target your friends! :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Don't do it, Babbie! He's just trying to get a fix on them so he can inform the powers that be where to target your friends! :D
that is not as far from the truth as you might think if there was any credence to what babek was typing. :)
-
You'd have to race me to it. There may be a reward. :D
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Give me a freaking break.
This is not the fish I was hoping to hook. I'm going to throw it back. Didn't even pull out any drag either! :mad:
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You'd have to race me to it. There may be a reward. :D
if you had the assets to call on id give it to you. me and my pals are not eligible for any rewards. just dont forget us at the bar. :)
-
"Are you really saying that in your mind the NKPA is better trained, better led and better equipped, than the USA military?"
No.
Now that's two questions of yours I anwsered and you have yet to answer mine. Any particular reason you aren't answering it or are you just gutless?
And NUKE, where did you go? :eek:
Is a mobile weapons factory is a WMD? Is a facility for the creation of WMD an actual deployable weapon of mass destrution?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Is a mobile weapons factory is a WMD? Is a facility for the creation of WMD an actual deployable weapon of mass destrution?
Its a violation of the cease fire agreement. Is that answer enough for you?
-
Getting back to the subject..
I think that it's not fair that certain countries can produce cheap power(nuclear) and dictate that other nations(usually impoverished countries) cannot have this technology..
Level the playing feild...How about NO countries use nuclear power until this planet gets it's act together?...
Wait..It's too late for that,will never happen.
It's too late to dictate who can't have reactors as well.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Getting back to the subject..
I think that it's not fair that certain countries can produce cheap power(nuclear) and dictate that other nations(usually impoverished countries) cannot have this technology..
Level the playing feild...How about NO countries use nuclear power until this planet gets it's act together?...
Wait..It's too late for that,will never happen.
It's too late to dictate who can't have reactors as well.
Thats not a valid argument. Even Croatia has a nuclear power plant but there are no global concerns on us producing nuclear weapons. The problem in Iran is not that they are producing plant for power, rather that they are producing the type of plant and acting in a suspicious manner as if they intend to produce nuclear weapons.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
It's too late to dictate who can't have reactors as well.
No it isn't. Truth be told, we'd willingly contract to build, oversee and/or operate nuclear powerplants in their countries/regions. Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons or the technology to build them (supported and enforced by the United Nations) is nothing new. Some seem to think so, however.
-
Exactly..Why can't we build them abroad and monitor them?
-
Because they won't allow it?
Try that tactic with Iran. Might want to study Farsi so you understand when they say Ӂ. ǡ .
-
Gosh Grun and NUKE, to scared to answer a little question. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Gosh Grun and NUKE, to scared to answer a little question. :rolleyes:
What question? Your stupid mobile WMD factories question?
Of course they are not ready to use weapons - they are factories.
Thats the obvious answer to you question, right?
Now go ahead, spring your little trap! Go! You go girl!
:aok :rofl
-
Now it's my turn to ask a question!
Is your post where you say that the USA couldnt defeat the North Korean Army and where you compared a US fight against NK to the futile Zulu attack on the Brits at Rorkes Drift proof that you are retardred or proof that you are insane?
Maybe thats a bit harsh, but damn it was an unbelivably stupid thing you said Thrawn... :)
-
Nah, it just means that I didn't explain my crappy analogy well enough.
"Now go ahead, spring your little trap! Go! You go girl!"
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html
Bush called the possible mobile weapons labs, weapons of mass destruction, which are are not. This is a lie.
Now I imagine you might be thing, "Yes Thrawn, you tard, but lying also has to be done with intent. Perhaps Bush didn't know they weren't WMD."
Well, I guess this is possible. But you and I (and I imagine NUKE as well) knows they aren't, and Bush is the President of US with access to some of the best minds in the world to advise him. He alsoo brought the US to war (which resulted in the deaths of thousands, if not tens of thousands of people) primarily on WMD arguement. God forbid that he was such a moronic incompetant that he did this without actually knowing what they are.
So it seems to me that there are two choices, liar or moronic incompetant.
PS: Hortlund, it doesn't suprise me at all that you don't know when you are actually answering a question and when you are evading it. No, your statement doesn't answer my question at all. But just FYI, the possible biological weapons labs turned out to be nothing more than hydrogen producing plants for the use in weather ballons for artillary purposes.
-
Pretty weak but I'm happy if you're happy and I'm happy for you no longer having to hold that info back. I imagine it's like the same releif we all have when we get to the bathroom after a long car ride. :)
Anyway, care to explain your analogy better Thrawn, we have the time to do it now.
-
Bombing the Nuclear facilities in Iran isn't an option and can't be compared as an option like Israel's strike.
For the simple reasons that Iran's nuclear programe development is far to advanced and to spread out. You couldn't be sure that you'd even destroyed 50% of it. But most of all any strikes now would cause a massive radiation leak that depending on the wind course might even end up in the US.
Funny that Iraq gets so much attention when it's neighbour is busy enriching Uranium. Anyone able to work that one out? LOL
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Bombing the Nuclear facilities in Iran isn't an option and can't be compared as an option like Israel's strike.
For the simple reasons that Iran's nuclear programe development is far to advanced and to spread out. You couldn't be sure that you'd even destroyed 50% of it. But most of all any strikes now would cause a massive radiation leak that depending on the wind course might even end up in the US.
Funny that Iraq gets so much attention when it's neighbour is busy enriching Uranium. Anyone able to work that one out? LOL
...-Gixer
Oil?
Ketchup?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I imagine it's like the same releif we all have when we get to the bathroom after a long car ride. :)
See, now that is a sweet assed analogy, and quite apt discription.
Anyway, care to explain your analogy better Thrawn, we have the time to do it now.
Hell no, I would rather forget the analogy itself ever happened and just explain myself differently instead.
The US could fight NK. I just don't think it could defeat it conventionally. Too many troops are already commited elsewhere. Are you going to call up the entire National Guard to do it? Let's not forget that China traditionally goes to war whenever one of this buffer states are attacked. And then there is the question of occupation. 20 million commie fanatics in a mountainous, hilly country? No thanks.
Probably part of the reason that both Bush and Clinton decided to negoatiate with them instead.
PS: Simply calling something weak is...well...weak.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Oil?
Ketchup?
Possible that Kerry might go to war over Ketchup to protect the Heinz business from cheaper imports.
If so certinly make about as much sense as Bush's reasoning for invading Iraq.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
See, now that is a sweet assed analogy, and quite apt discription.
Hell no, I would rather forget the analogy itself ever happened and just explain myself differently instead.
The US could fight NK. I just don't think it could defeat it conventionally. Too many troops are already commited elsewhere. Are you going to call up the entire National Guard to do it? Let's not forget that China traditionally goes to war whenever one of this buffer states are attacked. And then there is the question of occupation. 20 million commie fanatics in a mountainous, hilly country? No thanks.
Probably part of the reason that both Bush and Clinton decided to negoatiate with them instead.
PS: Simply calling something weak is...well...weak.
Thx I liked that analogy as well. :)
I think you overstate the overall effectiveness of the NK army. Plus any serious US combat with NK would also involve the SK army which is very strong. The article is posted pretty much highlights all the stuff I feel about NK. My only worry is how many SK civilians in and around Seoul would die from the thousands of close by in range NK artillery batteries and rockets before we took those guns out. Thats the military reason why nobody is eager to start a war with the North. FYI South Korea spends 15 billion on defense, the north spends 5 billion.
Wow, 20 million commie fanatics? You mean 20 million starving people fed by US rice shipments which really wouldnt be available in wartime?
Not likely china would side with dear leader like they sided with great leader in 1950. China's wellbeing is linked to the USA far more than it is to NK - this was in no way the case in 1950. And Russia certainly wouldnt join in or send their latest weapons like they did in 1950.
NK is only developing nukes as a bargaining chip because except for their artillery threat to Seoul they are nothing and nobody gives a damn.
Oh yes, your Bush polish TV thing is weak. Im sad you had to agonize for days and days to post it, I apologize for not answering sooner. The serious answer to your general question is, I suppose, that they had other, now incorrect, intel about Iraqi wmd. There are some posts around here about that, but I havent been following the news. Maybe you should just be happy they havent found any wmd. How about just using: Boosh said there were WMD and now they havent found any, so Boosh lied. Yea thats a stronger argument, or something.
Finally, never count these guys out! They can kick North Korea's arse any day of the week!
GO ARMY!
(http://www.macalester.edu/~psych/whathap/diaries/diariess98/shannonb/zulu.jpg)
:)
-
North Korea wouldn't be the walk over you'd like to think it is Grun, like Iraq was. If the North invaded their plan would obviously be to take the Peniinsula within a couple weeks making it very hard for the US to resupply what ever if anything was left let alone retake it without a major commitment.
If the fighting fell back to the Norths defenses it would possibly turn into a bloody stalemate like last time. I'm suprised you think the North would be a walk over as it wasn't the first time and wouldn't be any different today. Especially given how thin US assets are spread around the world at the moment. Commitments to Iraq and a large scale war in Korea would require the draft.
Plus any war with N.Korea today wouldn't stay conventional for long. And would be a pretty terrible scenario for all envolved. Especially for the civilan populations North and South Korea.
I don't think China would step in for North Korea either but it would certinly damage relations for a while. If China did step in it would pretty much be game over as far conventional options.
...-Gixer
-
nk military would get destroyed very fast. no way it can fight sustained war. huge problem is that any war with nk seoul and all civilian in seoul are as good as dead. nk has more than twenty thousand in artillery and rockets all in hardened position and all in range of seoul. first hours of war with nk many infiltrator all over sk and seoul is hit by so much artillery it is totally destroyed. this why iraq first not iran or nk. iran has large moderate group opposes leadership and they not being shot into mass graves yet. nk you go after them you lose seoul and hundreds of thousands of civilians. soft regime change best bet for nk.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
North Korea wouldn't be the walk over you'd like to think it is Grun, like Iraq was. If the North invaded their plan would obviously be to take the Peniinsula within a couple weeks making it very hard for the US to resupply what ever if anything was left let alone retake it without a major commitment.
If the fighting fell back to the Norths defenses it would possibly turn into a bloody stalemate like last time. I'm suprised you think the North would be a walk over as it wasn't the first time and wouldn't be any different today. Especially given how thin US assets are spread around the world at the moment. Commitments to Iraq and a large scale war in Korea would require the draft.
Plus any war with N.Korea today wouldn't stay conventional for long. And would be a pretty terrible scenario for all envolved. Especially for the civilan populations North and South Korea.
I don't think China would step in for North Korea either but it would certinly damage relations for a while. If China did step in it would pretty much be game over as far conventional options.
...-Gixer
dont know if nk could actually use nukes in war. i dont think they set up for tactical use are they? if they arent they probably cued up to hold japan hostage and any icbm site is going to be jdamd to stone age before nk has chance to pop the lid and warm up the missiles.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
North Korea wouldn't be the walk over you'd like to think it is Grun, like Iraq was. If the North invaded their plan would obviously be to take the Peniinsula within a couple weeks making it very hard for the US to resupply what ever if anything was left let alone retake it without a major commitment.
If the fighting fell back to the Norths defenses it would possibly turn into a bloody stalemate like last time. I'm suprised you think the North would be a walk over as it wasn't the first time and wouldn't be any different today. Especially given how thin US assets are spread around the world at the moment. Commitments to Iraq and a large scale war in Korea would require the draft.
Plus any war with N.Korea today wouldn't stay conventional for long. And would be a pretty terrible scenario for all envolved. Especially for the civilan populations North and South Korea.
I don't think China would step in for North Korea either but it would certinly damage relations for a while. If China did step in it would pretty much be game over as far conventional options.
...-Gixer
NK wouldnt be a walk in the park - many people would die - but the outcome is obvious. NK cant maintain a sustained war.
Why this obessesion with just the US forces fighting the NK army. SK has a huge modern military and they spend 3X as much on it anually as NK.
The only real threat NK poses in the artillery around seoul and the massive casualties it would cause. They have crappy tanks, they have poor air force, stalinist type command systems, practically no heavy manufacturing, no ability to repair it, no food, outdated air defense.
They have a millon man army. Well thats a million targets for SK/USA airforces beacuse that army has no roof.
In 1950 with complete surprise and the best current soviet weapons they overran a basically unarmed SK in a matter of weeks.
In 2004 with badly outdated junk in bad repair they have no chance against a SK with a modern military that spends 3X as much on defense as the north. Phu that together with US airpower, which NK cant answer and a US carrier or two or four and they are nothing.
Yes a lot of people will die simply due to the numbers involved but NK has no hope of winning and really no hope of succeding at all in any significant way.
-
Just curious, you ever plan to join the army and go to Korea to fight int his conflict gruenherz?
-
Originally posted by anonymous
no he doesnt. nearly every one of his "points" are untrue.
And it's enough for you to say this, for it to be the case?
If you can even dispute a few of Babek's points with reasoned arguments, i'll tip my hat. But I wont hold my breath......
Glas
JG13 Lokis Kinder
-
Originally posted by Glas
And it's enough for you to say this, for it to be the case?
If you can even dispute a few of Babek's points with reasoned arguments, i'll tip my hat. But I wont hold my breath......
Glas
JG13 Lokis Kinder
yes it is enough. ive been to afghanistan and i dont think your armchair international relations expert has. he claims war on terror in afghanistan is not success by pointing out activities by afghanis that have been going on for as long as afghanistan has existed. we didnt go there to eliminate every blood feud between every tribe. we went there to make it so al qaeda could not use the place as a secure base for training and planning for terrorist operations. any taliban or al qaeda left in afghanistan are hiding or trying to sneak out and id call that "not" training and planning to commit terror acts in a secure environment. he points out that a warlord has cia backing like its some kind of dammning indictment. no sheet babek every warlord had cia backing thru the pakis during soviet invasion of afghanistan. and he killed some pows. no he killed fighters from rival tribes. not good but like i said we arent there to convert everyone to the cult of mr rogers we went there to take away al qaedas primary base of operations. he says they still have camps there i say they dont and my opinion is based on being there before and knowing guys there who would love to have a camp to hit instead of crawling around the mountains for days on end looking for "the right cave". there are no training camps left there. four guys hiding in fear of their lives does not make a training camp in my book. two thirds of al quadas top leadership is dead or captured and the rest are on the run and somehow afghanistan is a failure because we cant make them be nice to each other. thats one straight from the coffee shops if ive ever heard it. and now iraq is more of the same. we went to remove sadaam from power and its been done. we are there to stabilize country and its being done. if babek thinks it should be all cleaned up in a year and you side with him then i dont know what to say. you guys either have no grasp of real world timetables or you should be working as foreign ministers because the human race needs someone of your natural ability. either of you guys ever been to iraq or afghanistan? ask your seer babek to provide some facts for his analysis before you ask me to argue with a five year old that the sky actually does end at the edge of the atmosphere.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
NK wouldnt be a walk in the park - many people would die - but the outcome is obvious. NK cant maintain a sustained war.
Why this obessesion with just the US forces fighting the NK army. SK has a huge modern military and they spend 3X as much on it anually as NK.
The only real threat NK poses in the artillery around seoul and the massive casualties it would cause. They have crappy tanks, they have poor air force, stalinist type command systems, practically no heavy manufacturing, no ability to repair it, no food, outdated air defense.
They have a millon man army. Well thats a million targets for SK/USA airforces beacuse that army has no roof.
In 1950 with complete surprise and the best current soviet weapons they overran a basically unarmed SK in a matter of weeks.
In 2004 with badly outdated junk in bad repair they have no chance against a SK with a modern military that spends 3X as much on defense as the north. Phu that together with US airpower, which NK cant answer and a US carrier or two or four and they are nothing.
Yes a lot of people will die simply due to the numbers involved but NK has no hope of winning and really no hope of succeding at all in any significant way.
Grunherz, just be gratefull that neither you nor I will ever have to serve in a conflict in Korea.
;)
-
Originally posted by montag
Just curious, you ever plan to join the army and go to Korea to fight int his conflict gruenherz?
Yea! I say that NK isnt as strong as some claim, you say that I want a war inKorea... Fantastic!
-
Ok, then if you sign up, I'll sign up. LOL!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
NK wouldnt be a walk in the park - many people would die - but the outcome is obvious. NK cant maintain a sustained war.
The only real threat NK poses in the artillery around seoul and the massive casualties it would cause. They have crappy tanks, they have poor air force, stalinist type command systems, practically no heavy manufacturing, no ability to repair it, no food, outdated air defense.
They have a millon man army. Well thats a million targets for SK/USA airforces beacuse that army has no roof.
In 2004 with badly outdated junk in bad repair they have no chance against a SK with a modern military that spends 3X as much on defense as the north. Phu that together with US airpower, which NK cant answer and a US carrier or two or four and they are nothing.
I bet 40 years ago allot of Generals were saying similar things about North Vietnam and the Vietcon. And Russian Generals about Afghanistan.
If the war moved back to the North and they were on the defensive why would they fight a conventional toe to toe war anyway? Course they wouldn't but it would be a hell of a slog in that terrain to flush them out where it requires numbers on the ground.
Just because you have carriers,bombers,and more tanks dosn't really work against a enemy that choses to fight where and when they want and with how many.
Look how many troops are tied up and will be tied up for years to come in Iraq just by a few militants. Or "Thugs" as Bush always likes to call them. Imagine what it woujld be like in the mountains of Korea.
Conventional War US probably would wear down the North but it wouldn't be a cakewalk like the initial invasion of Iraq.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
I bet 40 years ago allot of Generals were saying similar things about North Vietnam and the Vietcon. And Russian Generals about Afghanistan.
ground.
...-Gixer
VN would have been won in 6 months if the polititions had not held back our boys.
-
Three words:
Tet. They lost.
However, they ended up winning through politics.
-
Also might want to look up "Linebacker II" to see what the US could have done to NV all along if we had wanted too.
-
One of the main issues with NK is whether or not China would back them up again. For those who've forgotten, we weren't just fighting the North Koreans.
-
Yeah, check out General James Van Fleet and see how those Chinese ended up.
Another political bailout for the bad guys.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
One of the main issues with NK is whether or not China would back them up again. For those who've forgotten, we weren't just fighting the North Koreans.
Plus they forget Russia too. In 1950 the Russians supplied the North Koreans and Chinese with absolute state of the art current stuff that matched or exceeded US hardware. There will not be any sort of technological parity in a war now..