Thread: North Korea

Originally Posted by Lemur

Who was it that said; "Saddam, Nerve Gas, Germ Warfare, Blah Blah"?
I remember it being Bush/Blair... *%&()* liers!

Yeah, that all turned out well, didn't it?

It's like you find out your neighbour is bashing his wife. So you go 'round her place and burn the house down. While you're there you hope to help yourself to a few jerry cans of fuel and create lucrative deals with your mates to re-build the house. Now the neighbour has nowhere to live. But you tell her she can't possibly live at your place, as she might be a criminal. best you can do, you tell her, is to build a cage in your backyard for her to live in for an indeterminate length of time while you 'check her out'. Makes perfect sense to me.

Of course all those brave men and women who were killed and hurt in the fray just add to the sadness of the whole scenario. Like System of a Down says in the song B.Y.O.B "Why don't presidents fight the war?"...

Just my opinion, I realise it might be odd...

Originally Posted by Bruno

As for battle hardened Iraqis...
The US military leadership has a much higher opinion of the NK army than the Iraqi army.

Once again History is an amazing teacher... The US leadership had a much higher opinion of the Iraqi Military too, much the same rhetoric all over again..

Right up until the bullets started flying, TWICE !!!

BTW the world left Saddam alone too, right up until he invaded Kuwait, and he killed Thousands ask the Kurds about Gas attacks, and where was the world???? Same as the world ain't stepping to the plate in Africa either, we continue to let it go on..

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Actually it was Saddam, that $#%$& Liar...

Much like NK is posturing with Nukes right now, I guess if we were to assume that they have them since they say they do, and we were later to find they didn't we would be called Liars again

I'm not sure if the comparing NK into Iraq is that fair. In the case of the WMD Saddam denied 'til the very end of having them. It was someone else claiming Iraq had them.
In the case of NK nukes they said they have nukes, made their tests, and the wertern scientist and analysists later claimed it was true.

Be it this or that, i do not believe that using nukes will be the first option on either side. Not even the second option. It's the NK artillery that is well capable of taking SK or at least Seoul into stone age. Even in teh times of high tech nukes and UAV 's mechanized, fast moving artillery is dangerous thing.

If NK would be an easy case it would been taken care of a long time ago.

Being such a short thinker as i am, i do not believe that this will escalate. The speeches of that funny little NK leader is for internal politics.

If it is not NK itself, then it's either China or US (or them together, behind diplomatic curtains) that will find a way to reselve things the way no-one loses his face.
Hope i am not wrong. Just my 2c.

Originally Posted by Sailor

I'm not sure if the comparing NK into Iraq is that fair. In the case of the WMD Saddam denied 'til the very end of having them. It was someone else claiming Iraq had them.
In the case of NK nukes they said they have nukes, made their tests, and the wertern scientist and analysists later claimed it was true.

Come on, really ????? You actually don't have to search any farther the Wikipedia,,


Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction


Guess you guys are proof positive the those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it..

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Come on, really ????? You actually don't have to search any farther the Wikipedia,,


Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction


Guess you guys are proof positive the those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it..

Like your link said. Those WMD were destroyed after first war. Haven't seen much evidence of them although they were the reason to start the second. Not to make Halliburton rich.

Now, do not get me wrong. I guess no-one underestimates your efforts and sacrifice to get rid of the dictators of this world. You just sometimes seem to forget that you weren't there alone, without allies who were willing to go with you no matter the costs.

What it comes to death toll in Afganistan, the highest death toll and human suffering numbers is with you of course. I'm sorry for them all.
Percentially highest death toll is with the Danish (it's the statistics i saw at work few months ago). A small nation with not much to gain, except loyalty to US (probably their politicians could tell).
I am personally sorry for everyone who has to give their life for their country. For their countries i hope they have the reason good enough. I've some brothers-in-arms who've lost their lives or ruined their lifes for good while helping little girls to get safely to village schools somewhere near Mazar-i-Sharif. But only few.

What it comes to Africa at your previous post i think the French are doing good job at Mali right now. I'm far too lazy to find all the operations there's currently going on, but surely i can tell that there's Finnish forces at least in Mali, Uganda and Somalia.
Not to gain any oil but maybe just to prevent human catastrophes from getting worse. Probably our politicians know better if they would like to tell.

I do not mean to offend or be rude or anything like that. As i said, if NK with it's artillery would be just a walk in a park, then it would have been taken care of a long time ago.

Originally Posted by Sailor

Like your link said. Those WMD were destroyed after first war. Haven't seen much evidence of them although they were the reason to start the second. Not to make Halliburton rich.

Now, do not get me wrong. I guess no-one underestimates your efforts and sacrifice to get rid of the dictators of this world. You just sometimes seem to forget that you weren't there alone, without allies who were willing to go with you no matter the costs.

What it comes to death toll in Afganistan, the highest death toll and human suffering numbers is with you of course. Percentially highest death toll is with the Danish (it's the statistics i saw at work few months ago). A small nation with not much to gain, except loyalty to US (probably their politicians could tell).
I am personally sorry for everyone who has to give theirnlife for their country. For their countries i hope they have the reason good enough. I've some brothers-in-arms who've lost their lives or ruined their lifes for good while helping little girls to get safely to village schools. But only few.

What it comes to Africa at your previous post i think the French are doing good job at Mali right now. I'm far too lazy to find all the operations there's currently going on, but surely i can tell that there's Finnish forces at least in Mali, Uganda and Somalia.
Not to gain any oil but maybe just to prevent human catastrophes fomgetting worse. Maybe our politicians know better.

I do not mean to offend or be rude or anything like that. As i said, if NK with it's artillery would be just a walk in a park, then it would have been taken care of a long time ago.

You need to go read that one more time the Brits are still taking apart Chemical Weapons as of 2012..

In 2012, Britain will help the Iraqi government dispose of what is left of Saddam's chemical weapons. The teams will work to safely destroy remnants of munitions and chemical warfare agents left over from Saddam's regime


No offense taken, but honestly ignoring history does not make you right, No one did anything about Saddam until he invaded Kuwait, guess you are missing that comparison to NK, and nobody will do anything about NK until they invade SK...Which just like Saddam will bring a fast end to their Military posturing, I would bet that they have studied history though and realize that changing from posturing to action has a tendency to lead to destuction...

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Those that do not learn from history... Blah Blah Blah

You do realize that Iraq had a much better military than NK ever thought about possessing, without ever using a Nuke the US took it apart ... TWICE !!!


Now proceed to explain why that won't work

I was there the first time with the USMC 1st Tanks. I remember being briefed that Iraq had the 3rd largest military in the world and the 4th most tanks of any country. What the briefers didn't tell us was that many in the Iraqi army had less than 20 rounds of ammunition and the tanks that the Coalition Forces would face, were aging, ill- maintained heaps. As a tank officer, we came across a few tanks that were inoperable and buried in berms. The barrels were manually targeted for one shot. Many of the Iraqi army realized that the rhetoric coming out of Bagdad was suicidal in the face of a modern armed force and did the wise thing in surrendering.

With many friends still serving, I would hope that NK forces were in similar condition as the 1990's Iraqi Army.

Very interesting list of countries complicit in aiding Iraq in producing chemical and biological weapons Iraqi chemical weapons program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . It is all fun and games, not to mention profit, till some looses an eye.

The Persian Gulf War was not fought over the WMD issue but rather the invasion of Kuwait. One of the justifications for the Second Persian Gulf War was that Saddam had WMDs. Most if not all the biological and chemical weapons seemed to have been destroyed in the years between the two wars. I don't think there was ever discovered a working nuclear bomb after the dust settled post Second Persian Gulf War. The long range super gun designed by Gerald Bull was nowhere near being completed either.

There really only was one reason for both those wars, IMHO, and that was the protection of oil supplies. Personally I don't think anybody steps up to bat in the other areas mentioned is because there is nothing to be gained by doing so at the moment. It is simply good enough to stand by and wring our collective hands and sound pious. Simple matter of priorities and human suffering is way down the list.

Winning the war might be the easy part but winning the peace that is supposed to ensue post war seems elusive in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a can of worms.

Bob

But no 1st world government, the US included, would send a nuke into Pyongyang. There is too much of a chance of collateral damage In this day and age, total war, is obsolete. I hope we will never see the days of countries bombing civilian populations just to gain a psychological edge.

Originally Posted by Sailor

Like your link said. Those WMD were destroyed after first war. Haven't seen much evidence of them although they were the reason to start the second. Not to make Halliburton rich.

The WMD's were not destroyed during the first war. Coalition Forces were stopped south of Bagdad. It wasn't until Coalition Forces retreated back to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that Saddam gassed the Kurds for not fighting against Coalition Forces driving down from the north.