Should the US pull forces from the Persian Gulf for an attack on North Korea?

Lancer · February 5, 2003, 14:01

I've heard alot of lefty critisism of Pres Bush for "ignoring" North Korea. Well, what should he do? What would a lefty pres do? What would you do? Back off Iraq, redeploy and invade North Korea?

So, what's the amazing strategy of the left? All I've seen so far is *****ing and moaning. That's basicly my ex-wife's strategy + moaning.

Nothing new there...

So, does the left have a plan?

I say we deal with Saddam while getting transport in place for redeploying our heavy divisions as quickly as possible. When Iraq is just about done we let the reserves finish it and redeploy while building a coalition of Pacific rim countries. We then do a series of anphib invasions, speading our assets to prevent them nuking a large force. We use our airforce to break up large concentrations of NK troops that might defeat small landings in detail. This will prevent us having to fight across the heavily defended border. Us forces then break out letting coalition forces mop up. Keep moving too fast to nuke.

Lets hear your plan...

Chris 62 · February 5, 2003, 14:07

One at a time.

NK is next.

DuncanK · February 5, 2003, 14:13

You made two threads

Zylka · February 5, 2003, 14:18

FUN LAND FOR BOMBS FOR KIDS

DinoDoc · February 5, 2003, 14:18

That depends. Do France and Germany approve?

Zylka · February 5, 2003, 14:19

I'm actually all for the U.S. removing military presence from Korea to appease the masses of idiots.

Then when the inevitable happens, just go back to kick ass all the while saying "I told you so!"

Chris 62 · February 5, 2003, 14:51

Why bother going back?

One less market of cheap goods coming to the US.

Arrian · February 5, 2003, 15:22

Quote:

That depends. Do France and Germany approve?

-Arrian

Lefty Scaevola · February 5, 2003, 15:22

I am not sure that the USA can deploy enough ground troops for a offesnive into NK at the force ratios we have become accustom to.

Sandman · February 5, 2003, 16:06

I have considerably less reservations about bombing North Korea than Iraq.

Demerzel · February 5, 2003, 16:08

I seriously doubt the US will attack N.Korea, too much chance of casualties and if there is one thing that ends a US campaign double quick it's serious casaulties.

Iraq can be won and won easily which is why it'll be fought, N.Korea would risk serious losses and won't happen.

Velociryx · February 5, 2003, 16:42

I am shocked and ashamed that you people are talking about attacking those poor, misunderstood D*ck-'taters.

Everybody in the "enlightened" world knows full well that these two men are pillars of virtue and the are filled to the brim with desires for peace and love throughout the planet, and want nothing but the best for their people and ours.

these men are selfless, tireless crusaders, leading the charge against the imperialist cowboy empire who is just looking for an excuse to attack them, including inventing lies and broadcasting them on their state-run news channel, CNN.

We should *celebrate* the wise, enlightened rule of these two modern-day Ghandis, and try to help them in any way we can. When they start up a nuclear testing program, or announce a desire to do so, we misunderstand entirely. They do not do so out of a desire to produce weapons of war, but to emulate GE, and "bring good things to light," providing cheap, state-subsidized electricity for the whole of the nation, useing nuclear plants to do it.

We should, therefore, earmark no less than 2% of our GDP to give over to these two proud nations in a spirit of tribute and friendship, so they may continue to enact their enlightened policies.

This would, no doubt, earn us praise the world over, especially from our European allies, who have long understood the secret power of this plan, which is why they criticise us so strongly for our warmongering.

Power to the 'taters!

-=Vel=-

Andrew1999 · February 5, 2003, 17:11

I support appeasment of both Iraq and North Korea.

"Appeasement", of course, is the new right-wing shorthand for "any approach that doesn't involve dropping cruise missiles on the country in question."

Velociryx · February 5, 2003, 18:54

Now Andrew! Appeasement is so passe! We don't do that any more, don't you know!? We just....give them exactly what they want! (but that's....ummmm....different!)

-=Vel=-

Demerzel · February 5, 2003, 20:11

Britain and the US both have WoMD, so I'm sure does Russia and China amongst others.

Naturally even the Americans won't bomb themselves ( though they will bomb allies

) but should they bomb all the rest?

According to rhetoric on here and from Bush, they should but they won't - quel surprise!

Inverse Icarus · February 5, 2003, 20:11

JUH JUH JUH JUH JENOCIDEEEEEE IDE IDE IDE

Sava · February 5, 2003, 20:18

Lancer sounds like Rush Limbaugh... "blah blah blah the left blah blah blah liberals... blah blah blah whining lefties blah blah blah"

A lot of you American hawks would be singing a different tune about war if you actually knew what war was. Maybe if your homeland was ravaged by devastation, millions of your people killed, then you would know what the f*ck you were talking about, and you would have a greater respect for war and when it should be used.

North Korea is a bigger problem than Iraq. But like Iraq, war is not a solution to the problems of NK.

But hey, go ahead, you puds don't know how to do anything but bomb people when they do something you don't like. And others are simply driven by hate and contempt after 9-11.

I wonder how many of you have children. Do you teach them to simply bully and fight other kids when they have disputes?

GePap · February 5, 2003, 20:19

The Bush Motto:

Scream, and carry a little stick.

The admin. won't attack N.K, its too strong to attack opn the cheap. The issue will come back to bite them in the ass latter this year, though.

Willem · February 5, 2003, 20:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
One at a time.

NK is next.

Yeah right!

North Korea - 1 million soldiers in rugged terrain
US - 250-350 thousand troops? (Not sure of the exact figure)

I don't think so. The Chinese certainly wouldn't be very pleased either.

Lancer · February 6, 2003, 13:31

Willem, don't forget the SK forces. SK would have to be on board for any such war.

Now that we have a direct threat of nuclear first strike from NK, I think we'll HAVE TO go to NK next. Also, maybe pulling our forces from Iraq to Korea might not be a bad idea...before NK gets more nukes.

Wezil · February 6, 2003, 13:36

You still taking this seriously Lancer? Come on.

NK won't strike 1st (suicidal) and the US won't attack NK (too dangerous). GWB will engage in 'appeasement' before this is over. There will be no conflict.

Demerzel · February 6, 2003, 13:54

oh no not "appeasement"??

GWB couldn't do that - only us "europussies" bother with "appeasement".

let's bomb and attack anyone who we want, diplomacy never ever works! America will have to bomb N.Korea now esp. now Rumsfield has said this about them

"“It’s a regime that is a terrorist regime. ... And the fact that they have announced that they are going to breach three or four agreements ... is a worrisome thing,” he told reporters."

Wezil · February 6, 2003, 13:56

Precisely why I used the word. GWB will appease. I don't bet, but this is one bet I would take.

edit - Don't get me wrong. I think Saddam should have a big fat bomb dropped on his head (along with many other world 'leaders'). My point is that the situation with NK is actually much more dangerous (to the US) and this is a risk the US won't take. A non-military solution is in the cards for NK.

KrazyHorse · February 6, 2003, 13:57

He's already started. The US rolled over and played dead on this one two months ago.

Willem · February 6, 2003, 15:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
Willem, don't forget the SK forces. SK would have to be on board for any such war.

Now that we have a direct threat of nuclear first strike from NK, I think we'll HAVE TO go to NK next. Also, maybe pulling our forces from Iraq to Korea might not be a bad idea...before NK gets more nukes.

I think it's totally unnecessary and extremely dangerous. NK is using the nulcear option as a bargaining tool, not as an actual threat. Right from the very beginning they've been trying to enter into negotiations over the issue. What they want most of all I think is a non-aggresion pact with the US; that was pretty much their first demand. They're nervous about Bush's "axis of evil" designation and trying to wring some guarentees from the US, nothing more. Moving troops in their direction would only make things worse than they are now.

As for SK forces, it doesn't matter, there will be very heavy casualities on both sides. Plus it would have serious repurcussions diplomatically with both Russia and China. There are very good reasons why Bush and Co. are downplaying the issue.