N. Korea Says It Has, Plans to Test Nukes - Page 4

Bosh · August 30, 2003, 04:53

Those of you on this thread who are saying that the US should (have) "done something" about North Korea are forgetting one very important factor, the South Koreans. There is absolutely no way that the South Koreans would participate in any attack on the north and without a staging ground it would be a real headache to take out a country as militarized as North Korea while supplying your army completely by sea without a friendly bridgehead.

This is because the North could pretty much level Seoul with the long-range artillery it has on its side of the DMZ and for some strange reason that doesn't go over to well with South Koreans. And also many South Koreans (especially young nationalist types) really dislike US military presence as is, especially since the mess with the soldiers running over two girls last year. If the US started a war with the North you'd probably get enormous numbers of young South Koreans protesting and blocking roads etc. which would make US mobilization in the South somewhat difficult...

The Mad Monk · August 30, 2003, 05:01

QCubed is right.

Nobody seems to be listening.

GePap · August 30, 2003, 07:38

It';s very interesting that those that call NK "China's puppet" usually uttery ignore that there happens to be a country of 40 million people plus south of North Korea, a country that would bear most of the cost of any war (after the people of the north), and one that now is a democracy. Maybe they think NK is a puppet becuase they think SK is our's?

The Mad Monk · August 30, 2003, 07:39

Hah?

GePap · August 30, 2003, 07:47

When I look at Imran's posts, I barely see any mention of SK, specially any metion that they might have some say in what can be done vis a vi NK, cause, guess what, if the US wants to attack NK, they need SK approval, for anything more than airstrikes from carriers or bases in japan, and even then, Sk is the one to pay the rpice for any big war. And in general, this seemt o be a rather common thing in the US, ignoring SK (heck, we did it in 1953, why not today?)

MOBIUS · August 30, 2003, 08:46

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
And Mobius, it still wasn't primarily over WMD.
Repeating it doesn't make it so.

It was until they couldn't find any...

Now it has become a war of liberation, which is fine strictly in that context - except that no one else is getting liberated...

I mean look at the aptly named Liberia, the US was too chicken just to land a few hundred troops despite both sides in the fighting inviting them! In the week or two it took for the Nigerians to get there, hundreds of lives had been lost that could have be avoided!

Liberation, my arse!

Unless we're talking about 'liberating' Iraq's oil...

Proteus_MST · August 30, 2003, 22:09

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS

Unless we're talking about 'liberating' Iraq's oil...

And you must admit, that they did a god job there

Maybe the Water Pipelines and other things get regularly sabotaged,
but the oil keeps running

They even sent Trops especially to protect the Oil Ministry in the few days after collapse of the Iraqui Resistance, to prevent that it may get looted, just as the Iraqi National Museum

Seeker · August 30, 2003, 23:50

BTW, boshko have you seen the wacky NK women's sports teams on TV at the Universiade?

Did you see them fighting with the anti-NK protestors and how they all move at the same time?

The Mad Monk · August 31, 2003, 01:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Proteus_MST

And you must admit, that they did a god job there

Maybe the Water Pipelines and other things get regularly sabotaged,
but the oil keeps running

They even sent Trops especially to protect the Oil Ministry in the few days after collapse of the Iraqui Resistance, to prevent that it may get looted, just as the Iraqi National Museum

Actually, the oil pipeline's been hit and shut down, too.

JCG · August 31, 2003, 01:24

Well, duh.

Urban Ranger · August 31, 2003, 03:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Seeker
Did you see them fighting with the anti-NK protestors and how they all move at the same time?

Really? Wow.

Gatekeeper · August 31, 2003, 03:07

More like eerie, UR. Automatons, I tell ya.

Ned · August 31, 2003, 03:09

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
When I look at Imran's posts, I barely see any mention of SK, specially any metion that they might have some say in what can be done vis a vi NK, cause, guess what, if the US wants to attack NK, they need SK approval, for anything more than airstrikes from carriers or bases in japan, and even then, Sk is the one to pay the rpice for any big war. And in general, this seemt o be a rather common thing in the US, ignoring SK (heck, we did it in 1953, why not today?)

IIRC, the SK's did not want to sign the Armistice. They wanted to continue the war and drive the Chinese back to where they came from.

I assume, GePap, you are endorsing this view rather than the Eisenhower position?

GePap · August 31, 2003, 12:47

Nope. Of course, even if the government of the SK at that time was sanguine, they could have still gotten a seat.

Kuciwalker · August 31, 2003, 12:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
IIRC, the SK's did not want to sign the Armistice. They wanted to continue the war and drive the Chinese back to where they came from.

I assume, GePap, you are endorsing this view rather than the Eisenhower position?

Did not.

The situation is different fifty years later.

The Mad Monk · August 31, 2003, 12:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
More like eerie, UR. Automatons, I tell ya.

Here's the link to the thread on the NK "Cheerleader Incident":

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=95761

Check the site I link to in that thread -- it's a head spinner.