Korea is heating up
The other day, I read the headline "Kim says N. Korea will emerge victorious in the event of a nuclear war" and it hit me.
Iraq is distraction. Korea is not being ignored. We just want them to think so. With Iraq we have a reason to send troops abroad and have them combat ready. We have all of our fleets ready for war. No one realizes that these fleets are just as ready to attack Korea as they are to attack Iraq. They just need to go there.
And the thing is, the international community is overwhelmingly against a war with Iraq, but few would object to action against N. Korea (only China would be furious).
Now we're sending 3000 troops to "fight militants in the Philippines". How convenient.
Anyone else think Korea might be the intended primary target?
Perhaps I'm giving the Bush administration too much credit. Maybe the'yre not really clever enough to plan something like this.
Iraq is distraction. Korea is not being ignored. We just want them to think so. With Iraq we have a reason to send troops abroad and have them combat ready. We have all of our fleets ready for war. No one realizes that these fleets are just as ready to attack Korea as they are to attack Iraq. They just need to go there.
And the thing is, the international community is overwhelmingly against a war with Iraq, but few would object to action against N. Korea (only China would be furious).
Now we're sending 3000 troops to "fight militants in the Philippines". How convenient.
Anyone else think Korea might be the intended primary target?
Perhaps I'm giving the Bush administration too much credit. Maybe the'yre not really clever enough to plan something like this.
Comments
paranoid, devious, Machiavellian, opportunistic, misdirecting...
then yeah... I believe they are. And when it comes to dealing with those who wish to destroy our country, I don't think those things are all that bad.
Don't forget, this is the second generation of a CIA director's presidency. Devious Spookiness is in the DNA (not to mention the cabinet!)
<strong>The other day, I read the headline "Kim says N. Korea will emerge victorious in the event of a nuclear war" and it hit me.
Iraq is distraction. Korea is not being ignored. We just want them to think so. With Iraq we have a reason to send troops abroad and have them combat ready. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, we want them to think they're not important to us because we recognize this as typical North Korean sabre rattling. They're not going to do anything rash just yet. We were preparing for Iraq before North Korea even became a problem. Iraq was always intended, Korea is sort of like a 'bonus' for all the military commanders with a hard-on for carnage.... if we do go to war with North Korea. And we're not going to.
North Korea would have to attack first for us to spontaneously attack them. You want tell tale signs that we're going to target Korea? We've been preparing to attack Iraq for the past year... it's been so obvious for the past year. You'd have that kind of warning with North Korea. That or North Korea will strike someone first. Either way, there is no hidden agenda with North Korea. Iraq was never a hidden agenda either. Anyone watching the news for the past year knows that.
[quote]<strong>We have all of our fleets ready for war. No one realizes that these fleets are just as ready to attack Korea as they are to attack Iraq. They just need to go there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, we always have military units ready for war. We could fight a war in Antarctica, and our fleets will 'just need to go there'. Yeah, they're close to Korea... but we're not really ready for a full on conflict.
[quote]<strong>And the thing is, the international community is overwhelmingly against a war with Iraq, but few would object to action against N. Korea (only China would be furious).</strong><hr></blockquote>
I totally disagree. I think the international community would oppose a war with North Korea more than a war with Iraq. Korea's military is one million strong, they have modern weapons, and supposedly nuclear weapons. All of their munitions are aimed at South Korea right now. In case you don't remember, the United States was involved for years in the Korean War. South Korea and North Korea are still technically fighting that war. If the international community had to pick, they would pick Iraq. If North Korea goes to war with anyone, it's going to be a hell of a lot messier than Iraq.
[quote]<strong>Now we're sending 3000 troops to "fight militants in the Philippines". How convenient.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually it is less than 500 special forces troops to fight people that are posing a serious threat.
[quote]<strong>Anyone else think Korea might be the intended primary target?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutely not. As I said, we were preparing for Iraq long before North Korea was an issue. If we attack North Korea, we'd better take everyone out in one blow, because if not, they're going to attack Seoul. Lots of innocent people will die. Lots of our troops will die. They will use nuclear weapons. Why would we want to attack a country that would do that when we do attack them?
[quote]<strong>Perhaps I'm giving the Bush administration too much credit. Maybe the'yre not really clever enough to plan something like this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Bush Administration doesn't want to start a war with N. Korea. To Reemphasize, North Korea has a one million man military. They have a lot of modern weapons. They supposedly have nuclear weapons. They have all their weapons aimed at Seoul right now. If you open the pandora's box that is North Korea, by the time you do get the chance to close the box it will hardly resemble one anymore.
[ 02-20-2003: Message edited by: M3D Jack ]</p>
Seriously though, isn't action in Korea not due (or warranted) for maybe another 11 years, per UN SOP? At the very least, 3 months of negotiations and peace talks? ...And why aren't any other nations bringing up the Korea issue for discussion at the UN? Is this of no concern to them except the US?
They have nukes, that means we don't attack them.
<strong>North Korea has a lot more time before we do anything to them.
They have nukes, that means we don't attack them.
True enough. That doesn't mean that we won't use Iraq to distract N. Korea, while we step up the gathering of intelligence, putting people and alliances in place, and planning/performing "other covert actions"
i bet saddam wished he had a couple hidden somewhere...the very fact that we will attack iraq proves they don't have nucs....
<strong>
True enough. That doesn't mean that we won't use Iraq to distract N. Korea, while we step up the gathering of intelligence, putting people and alliances in place, and planning/performing "other covert actions"</strong><hr></blockquote>
How exactly is N. Korea distracted by us dealing with Iraq? Building up alliances to go after N. Korea would be an exceptionally public event. You've seen us building a coalition against Iraq for the past year. Iraq knew we would be coming to get them after 9/11.
N. Korea has the luxury of knowing that since they are so well armed, we're not going to go after them nearly as quickly or with such an adament attempt at a hostile conflict. We will try and get Korea to chill for a while. Unless N. Korea attacks someone first, we're not going to war with them anytime soon.
What other trades have those two nations made? Is this "axis of evil" talk more than jargon? Iraq and North Korea share commonalities. They're ruled by dictators and there is no love lost between them and the United States.
Is Kim Jong Il's rhetoric an armed negotiation tactic or a real desire to initiate conflict? Events of the Twentieth Century showed us many examples of nations who made real their threats of aggression against their neighbors.
The most recent media interviews with the people of South Korea seem to indicate that the current generation chafe mightily under the presence of the United States military. There are protests in the larger college towns with rallies decrying the United States in offensive, derogatory language. These are facts that most Americans have not read about in the papers or seen in their local news reports, which is good because then we'd have yet another wave of nationalism directed against the Koreans.
A lot of Americans would say "Fine, let's pull out and let the North have the South and be done with those a**holes."
The reason these protests haven't become more widely reported is that they've remained public demonstrations, outside of South Korean political policy. So, older, wiser heads still prevail in the halls of leadership in the south, but for how many more years? My personal opinion is that having Korea split in two is an abomination for the people, but that reunification has the very real possibility of becoming financially disastrous to the economy of the South and cannot be allowed under any circumstance as long as Il is in power.
The connections between North Korea and Iraq are real, but it may be years before the full details of that relationship are made clear to us.
Scary shit indeed.
I do not doubt for a moment that if NK used nukes against the US we would turn the entire country into a radioactive wasteland with a quickness.
Very very unwise for someone to actually use a nuclear weapon nowadays.
<strong>
Just like so many other Americans, you seem to ignore the fact that ALL of the Islamic world, ALL of Asia and MOST of Europe are against war with Iraq.
How could there be any more apparent opposition than this?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whoa, I'm pretty much aware of that. But do you think they would favor a war with North Korea over a war with Iraq?
Let's play out this scenario. We sit every country in the world down in a conference room. We tell them, "Look, the US is going to bomb the crap out of either Iraq or North Korea. All in favor of North Korea over Iraq?"
... and a cold silence will fill the air. If you HAD to choose between one or the other, you're going to choose Iraq. Just because they don't favor war with Iraq doesn't mean they favor it with North Korea. I don't understand how you're justifying the cause for some sort of hidden agenda making north Korea out to be the real target.
All I'm saying is that if you think the international community is against war with Iraq, wait until they have to voice an opinion as to whether or not they support a war with North Korea....
(And don't tout that 'just like every american' crap with me either. Not being an american doesn't give you some holier than thou right on everything international. My being an american doesn't make me a moron on it either.)
<strong>Between NK and US the MAD philosophy applies.
I do not doubt for a moment that if NK used nukes against the US we would turn the entire country into a radioactive wasteland with a quickness.
Very very unwise for someone to actually use a nuclear weapon nowadays.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. I also don't think the US is in any hurry to find out whether NK would actually use a nuclear weapon. We don't want them to use theirs any more than we want to use ours. Which is precisely why we're not going to rush into any sort of conflict with NK...
<strong>Whoever started this thread is stupid.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Anyway this thread has the merit to show that many poeple agree here that there will not be a war against NK.
<strong>
Just like so many other Americans, you seem to ignore the fact that ALL of the Islamic world, ALL of Asia and MOST of Europe are against war with Iraq.
How could there be any more apparent opposition than this?</strong><hr></blockquote>
"Just like so many other Americans"
They oppose what seems distant from them.
And Iraq is not a distraction. North Korea's just too big a threat now for anybody to do anything. In fact, the US might just do the oppposite. They'll turn a blind eye to the activity in the region and tell China, Russia to deal with it...maintaining a "Hey, you won't help us, we won't help you" policy. It's childish, but so are so many other things in world politics.
<strong>
I'm a voting American. Pretty silly for you to assume that all Americans live in the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pretty silly of you to label so many other Americans as ignorant considering the same blanket can be used to cover any population.
[ 02-21-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
<strong>
Just like so many other Americans, you seem to ignore the fact that ALL of the Islamic world, ALL of Asia and MOST of Europe are against war with Iraq.
How could there be any more apparent opposition than this?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You seem to have over used the word "ALL" there.
if they start a war by a first strike of any kind; striking S.Korea first, attempting an intercontinental bilistic missile attack on the U.S. [highly unlikely],
they would in one stroke justify an all out war that they have little chance of winning.
yes, they could inflict painfully high numbers of casualties and deaths.
the Bush hawks have made no secret of their willingness to strike an aggressive target with every means available to them including nuclear arms [horor].
N.K. best strategy is probably just being enough of a problem to get some new ink on old stringent deals for aid.
<strong>
the Bush hawks have made no secret of their willingness to strike an aggressive target with every means available to them including nuclear arms [horor].</strong><hr></blockquote>
Riiiigght...
First of all, North Korea's not going to preemptively attack anyone with nukes. If that happens, China will gladly wipe North Korea off the face of the planet for its own safety. At least you're not totally off-base with that one...
But where do you get the idea the hawks in the US want to use nukes? Why would they want to use nukes now any more than before? Short of a preemptive nuclear strike at a US target, the US military would be satisfied using less controversial conventional weapons to remove targets of whatever size and strength. You can bet the US is not going to pick a fight with a nuclear power.
[ 02-21-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
<strong>
You can bet the US is not going to pick a fight with a nuclear power.
[ 02-21-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Especially with a mad one. And speaking of crazy, i think that we have a winner with the gov of NK.