Looks like our troops went the wrong way...

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
It seems that we may have to engage N. Korea before even worrying about Iraq -- news today annouces declassification of info that Korea does indeed have test missiles with a range long enough to reach the U.S. west coast.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 44
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Let France deal with it. That way they can cut a sweat oil deal and ship illegal arms in direct violation of UN resolutions.
  • Reply 2 of 44
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott:

    <strong>Let France deal with it. That way they can cut a sweat oil deal and ship illegal arms in direct violation of UN resolutions.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    hoh hoh hoh!
  • Reply 3 of 44
    rodukroduk Posts: 706member
    I've often wondered where it will all end. Is the US going to systematically invade every country around the globe that poses a threat? The invasion of Afghanistan didn't achieve its objective of capturing Bin Laden. The invasion of Iraq hasn't even begun yet but already there's another country being lined up.

    Perhaps rather than invading countrys the US should give them less reason to be hostile in the first place. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
  • Reply 4 of 44
    I don't believe the US is giving radical muslims reasons to be hostile -- their problems with "the infidel" are thousands of years old. It is the same situation with N. Korea - it is merely an extension of the Cold War (or even could say it's never ended). Did the US birth Karl Marx?



    [ 02-12-2003: Message edited by: fred_lj ]</p>
  • Reply 5 of 44
  • Reply 6 of 44
    [quote]Originally posted by RodUK:

    <strong>I've often wondered where it will all end. Is the US going to systematically invade every country around the globe that poses a threat? The invasion of Afghanistan didn't achieve its objective of capturing Bin Laden. The invasion of Iraq hasn't even begun yet but already there's another country being lined up.

    Perhaps rather than invading countrys the US should give them less reason to be hostile in the first place. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    not getting bin laden was a bummer, to be sure, but to say that afghanistan was a failure is just ignoring the facts.



    here some of them are:



    1&gt; hostile government removed

    2&gt; sympathetic government installed

    3&gt; many, many terrorist and potential terrorist dead and or captured

    4&gt; terrorist financial and communications network thrown off balance

    4&gt; major terrorist play ground no longer as safe as it used to be

    5&gt; countries actively sympathetic to terrorist now know that such action is not good for long term health
  • Reply 7 of 44
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    [quote]Originally posted by RodUK:

    <strong>I've often wondered where it will all end. Is the US going to systematically invade every country around the globe that poses a threat? The invasion of Afghanistan didn't achieve its objective of capturing Bin Laden. The invasion of Iraq hasn't even begun yet but already there's another country being lined up.

    Perhaps rather than invading countrys the US should give them less reason to be hostile in the first place. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yes. But it's easier said than done. Even if the U.S. were to try and become "less hated", they will always be a target for the simple fact that they are the most powerful country in the world.

    Some of it is brought upon themselves, but America must put up with a lot of crap too. It's tough having to bear the burden of all the world's problems.It's a no win situation.
  • Reply 8 of 44
    franckfranck Posts: 135member
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott:

    <strong>Let France deal with it. That way they can cut a sweat oil deal and ship illegal arms in direct violation of UN resolutions.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    What does France have to do with that ?
  • Reply 9 of 44
    [quote]Originally posted by Artman @_@:

    <strong></strong><hr></blockquote>



    "In case of nuclear attack go to the nearest East Coast"?
  • Reply 10 of 44
    How do you know that we arent looking southward at that sign from a northerly position? If that were the case then you would telling people to go the wrong way Anders!
  • Reply 11 of 44
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    The war in Afghanistan also reduced the opiate traffic coming out of the country.



    [quote]sympathetic government installed<hr></blockquote>



    However, it is quite unstable: Hamid Karzi has a rather tough job ahead.
  • Reply 12 of 44
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    [quote]Originally posted by Franck:

    <strong>



    What does France have to do with that ? </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Because France is so good at this stuff. Right? Go France!
  • Reply 13 of 44
    Actually the information "released" today has been known since 1995 and was released publically in 2001. The Whitehouse later came out and toned down the statements made by the CIA. Pretty much old news.



    Since North Korea has never actually tested this missle, it has a pretty low chance of actually working. Plus North Korea knows if they launch the thing we will nuke them with a couple of ICBMS.



    This was brought up today probably because of infighting between the CIA, Pentagon, and Whitehouse. Someone wanted to draw attention away from Iraq and focus it on North Korea. (The CIA was initially hesitant about attacking Iraq)
  • Reply 14 of 44
    franckfranck Posts: 135member
    Scott,

    will you be kind enough to elaborate a bit ?
  • Reply 15 of 44
    jrcjrc Posts: 806member
    Can't we design an interceptor missile for on the way UP, and not down? Be easier to trail and stay on the hot end, than to hit a cool fast pinpoint coming at you.



    A small, agile missile could be faster to the kill and not need a large warhead. Plus, the aggressor would get the nuke back on their locale, I'd think.
  • Reply 16 of 44
    stunnedstunned Posts: 1,096member
    Sigh. All these problems are uncalled for. Can u imagine how peaceful and prosperous the world woud be if every country devotes its missle and dedfence spending on the economy?



    North Korea is one sad example of poor governance. Almost half of the country depends on foreign aid for basic subsistence, while its leaders indulge themselves in wine and meaningless missle threats. But its sucidal to ignore North Korea as desperate countries will resort to desperate measures, and they can a terrible record of doing something silly.
  • Reply 17 of 44
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    [quote]Originally posted by RodUK:

    <strong>I've often wondered where it will all end. Is the US going to systematically invade every country around the globe that poses a threat? The invasion of Afghanistan didn't achieve its objective of capturing Bin Laden. The invasion of Iraq hasn't even begun yet but already there's another country being lined up.

    Perhaps rather than invading countrys the US should give them less reason to be hostile in the first place. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yes, the US is going to do that. At least that's what'll happen if Bush has his way. Here's an excerpt from Bush's national security policy, from Sept. 20, 2002.



    [quote]

    "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing or equaling the power of the United States,"

    <hr></blockquote>



    So, the US is going to do everything it can to keep it's military superiority. Even if there's no threat. Read more of the 33 page report <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf"; target="_blank">here</a>. Enjoy! Imperialism is reborn.
  • Reply 18 of 44
    [quote]The war in Afghanistan also reduced the opiate traffic coming out of the country.<hr></blockquote>



    No, NO. When the Taliban were in power, opium production was slashed. Since the war in Afghanistan opium crops hit records. The international narcotics trade is too lucrative to squash, Wall Street banks depend on it, as do our 401k's.



    <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=336722"; target="_blank">http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=336722</a>;

    <a href="http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,772598,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,772598,00.html</a>;

    <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/05/international/asia/05OPIU.html"; target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/05/international/asia/05OPIU.html</a>;
  • Reply 19 of 44
    cowerdcowerd Posts: 579member
    [quote]Since North Korea has never actually tested this missle, it has a pretty low chance of actually working. Plus North Korea knows if they launch the thing we will nuke them with a couple of ICBMS.<hr></blockquote>They have tested the rocket with 2 stages, or do you not remember the Japanese freaking out in 1998 when the North Koreans fired off a couple of missiles over Japan.



    Nuke would give the North Koreans a 20-25 minute window to pretty much level Seoul and everything else in the way. Not to mention the 37,000 US troops on the border--we do they go when we nuke North Korea genius?



    BTW not leaked because of infighting between agencies, This stuff was declassified by the CIA in 2001. Leaking now though does help justify ABM development.
  • Reply 20 of 44
    cowerdcowerd Posts: 579member
    [quote]Can't we design an interceptor missile for on the way UP, and not down? Be easier to trail and stay on the hot end, than to hit a cool fast pinpoint coming at you.<hr></blockquote>How do you respond within seconds of a missile launch? You need proximity, of both detection and response, both of which are generally impossible. Watching too much star trek?
Sign In or Register to comment.