What is he thinking?

[Ketchup345]

^

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ketchup345 on 2004-08-17 16:38 ]</font>

[Shattered_weasel]

My father has been to Korea before and says that there is more than enough people there.

[Aredhel]

They absolutely MUST stay there. North Korea is a serious threat and will not hesitate to attack South Korea in an effort to 'unite the two'.

If not for the sake of Korea - then for the sake of China. China is one of the single-greatest threats to the United States and America's way of life. It's been fairly obvious that they plan on invading Taiwan to 'unite the two nations' (same theme, eh?) and if it weren't for US military presence in that region, China would have taken over long ago. We learned in WWII that you should never abandon your nation's last post in a region that could become potentially dangerous - otherwise, you might have to take it by storm once more in order to get a foothold in the war effort (Operation Overlord, anyone?).

Thus, North Korea Government = evil.
Chinese Government = bigger, eviler brother.

If anything, we should be sending MORE troops into South Korea to be more ready for the inevitable asian bum-rush.

Being raised on Air Force bases for much of my life, I got to know a LOT of people, a lot of friends, who were born and lived in Okinawa, South Korea, etc... I've not actually seen it myself, but I've heard that at the major US military base in Korea, there are humongous missle batteries lining the perimeter of the base. They are all, constantly, pointed north.

This isn't all-out war...yet. When it happens, though - it will probably be something the universe forgets about. After the dust clears, there will be no evidence that humans even existed on earth. It's a sad state of affairs, surely; but all that will matter is that the noble, albeit self-righteous, stood their ground and defended what they believe in. Despite the decadence and degrade of American society, a nagging feeling lingers to defend our wayward way of life. Perhaps it's just propaganda, media-driven drivel puppeting our frustrations with a blinded flag ((c) to SoaD), but when it's all said and done, wouldn't you LIKE to be known as someone who defended the individualism-driven society? If not atleast, yourself and your loved ones?

[Allos]

I highly doubt North Korea will try something even with the withdraw.

[Madzozs]

This move comes from Bush's necessity to win people over for the coming election. Every President had made some drastic "good will" decision in the months before re-election. This is his way of getting people to say "Sure he sent a bunch of people to their grave by starting another war in Iraq, but he's bring others home. I can dig it."

[pixelate]

I'm sure we really need to send more troops to take out the evil threats to the American way of life.

Right...

We're doing that in Iraq, and that has gone to complete shit. After hearing the reports of what our soldiers are doing in Iraq, I'm not sure the American way of life is really worth protecting.

I really don't want to live in a constant state of fear, which is the American way of life.

Enjoy the anxiety you're creating for yourself and the rest of the world.

[BlakWolf]

Remember when China cut off those pipelines to North Korea when they were making threats against the US?

Oh, you don't? Huh.

[Aredhel]

On 2004-08-17 19:44, pixelate wrote:
I'm sure we really need to send more troops to take out the evil threats to the American way of life.

Right...

We're doing that in Iraq, and that has gone to complete shit. After hearing the reports of what our soldiers are doing in Iraq, I'm not sure the American way of life is really worth protecting.

I really don't want to live in a constant state of fear, which is the American way of life.

Enjoy the anxiety you're creating for yourself and the rest of the world.



Hey, great job blaming the plight of THE ENTIRE FUCKING HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES ON ME. Yes, I'm creating anxiety, as though it wasn't there already. People have been waging war FOREVER and nothing will ever change that short of a mass extinction.

I'm glad you don't like what's happening in Iraq, good for you. I don't goddamn care what happens there because there was never any threat to the US. But it is unfair to compare these two events together - especially based on what I was saying. We should have absolutely no plans to invade north Korea as we did in Iraq - but we should reinforce the defenses already present in South Korea. It's mere self-defense. Surely, you must be interested in self-preservation by means of national preservation, eh?

I don't necessarily agree with the US way of life - the American way of life is a dream, an idea that could never truly manifest itself but continues to beat on, like God, in a country filled with thoughtlessly-blissful believers. The American way of life and the actual way of life adopted by people from the United States is far different.

Merely living IS fear - without the imminent threat of death, there is no definition, no validation for existence. For some reason, you believe that the American way of life (which doesn't truly exist) entails living in fear - how is this any different from the rest of the world? The fear of death is universal, assuming that it's not and that people from other countries do not fear death as humans should, is a complete fallacy. Or perhaps, subconsciously, you don't think people from other countries are humans capable of the same emotions Americans have. In that case, your misunderstanding has stemmed from your innate fear of people from other nations and the only fear and anxiety you feel and must enjoy has been created by... you.

[Aredhel]

On 2004-08-17 19:47, BlakWolf wrote:
Remember when China cut off those pipelines to North Korea when they were making threats against the US?

Oh, you don't? Huh.



Hey, remember has China has the largest army in the world and how they purposefully deprive army males of women? Now why would they do that? Hmm...

Honestly, I don't remember China cutting-off pipelines when North Korea was threatening the US. I think the media was too busy doing reports on Michael Jackson and how he felt about Spetember 11th - but that's just it - not every little detail, no matter how important, gets leaked out into the headlines. I DO, however, remember recently Government-warranted reports of North-Korean scientists crossing the border between China and North Korea nightly. Likewise, Chinese scientists were monitored by the US crossing the border. Now what were they doing? I have no idea. I'd care not to speculate - I'd rather just send troops to Korea and prepare for the worst.

Once more, I'm not saying that we should attack North Korea or that we should attack China, I'm just saying that we need to prepare for some serious shit to happen, otherwise we're going to be caught off-guard, with our hands dripping in oil and sand. I'm saying that we need to keep our eyes open, especially to large superpower countries that somehow get away with publicly executing citizens for tax-fraud.

War is upon us, whether we like it or not. Always has been always will be. We can either sit there and think about how the world would be perfect without war or we can do something about that guillotine that constantly lingers over ALL of our heads.

I don't like living in fear. I don't like this cold world with such cold people who are all afraid of one another. I don't like being controlled by fear either.

I'm not making claims to knowing something special about this - I know just as much as what I'm told by the media, just like everyone else. I have, however decided that living in fear is existence - embracing that fear is realization - and fighting that fear is living.

[pixelate]

On 2004-08-17 21:21, Aredhel wrote:
Hey, great job blaming the plight of THE ENTIRE FUCKING HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES ON ME. Yes, I'm creating anxiety, as though it wasn't there already. People have been waging war FOREVER and nothing will ever change that short of a mass extinction.

I'm glad you don't like what's happening in Iraq, good for you. I don't goddamn care what happens there because there was never any threat to the US. But it is unfair to compare these two events together - especially based on what I was saying. We should have absolutely no plans to invade north Korea as we did in Iraq - but we should reinforce the defenses already present in South Korea. It's mere self-defense. Surely, you must be interested in self-preservation by means of national preservation, eh?

I don't necessarily agree with the US way of life - the American way of life is a dream, an idea that could never truly manifest itself but continues to beat on, like God, in a country filled with thoughtlessly-blissful believers. The American way of life and the actual way of life adopted by people from the United States is far different.

Merely living IS fear - without the imminent threat of death, there is no definition, no validation for existence. For some reason, you believe that the American way of life (which doesn't truly exist) entails living in fear - how is this any different from the rest of the world? The fear of death is universal, assuming that it's not and that people from other countries do not fear death as humans should, is a complete fallacy. Or perhaps, subconsciously, you don't think people from other countries are humans capable of the same emotions Americans have. In that case, your misunderstanding has stemmed from your innate fear of people from other nations and the only fear and anxiety you feel and must enjoy has been created by... you.



Just because anxiety existed before you came into the work doesn't justify a necessity to embrace it, create it, and want it brought onto others.

Iraq isn't a threat now because the job is done. Iraq was played up as a great evil that need to be stopped, so we stopped it. And now, after the fact, we realize they weren't must of one.

Now we're being led to believe that Korea is a threat and great evil. Are we going to get paranoid again to the point of needing to use the defenses you suggest we build up/reinforce? And after we do that, are we going to realize that we were lied to about Korea being a threat?

Now that Iraq is done and over with, it's easy to not care about it. But we need to remember what led up to invading it and why we don't care about it. After we put a great show of force and resources into defenses to deal with Korean threat, what next? We could find that they actually were a threat. Or we could find that they actually weren't a threat. When will you care about being led around from threat to threat and the damage it causes?

There's a difference between fearing death by your own means and fearing death by the means of others. Fearing death by the means of others is not universal. Not everyone has a fear of being killed by another person. And no one should have to have the fear of being killed by someone else.

And of course people from other countries are humans. Believing that they aren't would be ridiculous. Of course they're capable of the same emotions Americans have. We're all human. We're all responsible for ourselves. We're all responsible for each other, for every decision a human makes is part of us all. What you do is part of me. What that person does is part of you. What that person does is part of me.

Just be responsible.

[Dangerous55]

I say pull every soldier back to America, and let the world see if it becomes the Utopia it thinks it would be.

Well, I dont actually want that, but it would be interesting.

[Aredhel]

On 2004-08-17 22:30, pixelate wrote:
Just because anxiety existed before you came into the work doesn't justify a necessity to embrace it, create it, and want it brought onto others.

Iraq isn't a threat now because the job is done. Iraq was played up as a great evil that need to be stopped, so we stopped it. And now, after the fact, we realize they weren't must of one.

Now we're being led to believe that Korea is a threat and great evil. Are we going to get paranoid again to the point of needing to use the defenses you suggest we build up/reinforce? And after we do that, are we going to realize that we were lied to about Korea being a threat?

Now that Iraq is done and over with, it's easy to not care about it. But we need to remember what led up to invading it and why we don't care about it. After we put a great show of force and resources into defenses to deal with Korean threat, what next? We could find that they actually were a threat. Or we could find that they actually weren't a threat. When will you care about being led around from threat to threat and the damage it causes?

There's a difference between fearing death by your own means and fearing death by the means of others. Fearing death by the means of others is not universal. Not everyone has a fear of being killed by another person. And no one should have to have the fear of being killed by someone else.

And of course people from other countries are humans. Believing that they aren't would be ridiculous. Of course they're capable of the same emotions Americans have. We're all human. We're all responsible for ourselves. We're all responsible for each other, for every decision a human makes is part of us all. What you do is part of me. What that person does is part of you. What that person does is part of me.

Just be responsible.



Since when has justification been acceptable? Justification is the means for all evil resulting from free choice. I suppose I have no excuse for furthering anxiety - I suppose I am only human and must address several issues in this world before I die. But that's just it - I am not this world's keeper, though it is my home, there is not much incentive to keep in mind the benefits for future generations. This is the plague of humankind - we are always fighting the wars of our forefathers needlessly squabbling over dirt and gold and pride and whatever else we can 'justify' by survival and incentive.

I know how you feel - I don't like any of this either. It has, unfortunately, become necessary to justify actions for the sake of survival. Regardless of whether or not our justifications are valid or not is irrelevant in terms of the result of our scathing human derision. As always, we must look towards the goal, towards our heaven, towards whatever awaits us after this world that we all die defending our morals for. Despite efforts at peace, the drums of war beat on, as though peace were never present. As is, this world has had only had 2 years of universal peace in the last 2000 years - what does this tell you about human nature? We are at a perpetual state of war with ourselves and with others, nothing will ever change this, but the hope lies in the goal; some indiscernable beam of light at the end of the tunnel is radiant with desire. It is This that defines humans. Despite human proclivity towards it, altercation is not exclusive to us - chimps have been known to wage tribal wars against one another. Whatever you can derive from this regarding evolution shouldn't be addressed here; what should be thought about this here is the very fact that, despite comparative underdevelopment, war comes so easily to creatures both similar and different than we are. Thus, a 'monkeys do it: why can't we?' mentality may result and be validated through the subconscious. What does, however, define humans is this: denial of human nature. Humans are humans because they deny that they are human. How else could such beauty result from such chaos? Peace corps. United Nations. War relief funds. these are all signs that we deny war - we, as humanity, will wage war against ourselves and then go back to pick up the pieces. Does any other race on Earth do this? Nah. It's an exclusive trait - it shows that we NEED empathy for validation - we can define our sentience through mercy and compassion for those we have hurt so very, very much.

So what does all of this mean? John Steinbeck once wrote:

Fear the time when the bombs stop falling while the bombers live - for every bomb is proof that the spirit has not died. And fear the time when the strikes stop while the great owners live - for every little beaten strike is proof that the step is being taken. And this you can know - fear the time when Manself will not suffer and die for a concept, for this one quality is the foundation of Manself, and this one quality is man, distinctive in the universe.

War is an inevitablity - it should not be sought-out for any means, as it has a way for finding us all on its very own. But when immersed by it, war should be embraced for its passion. You cannot say that modern war is passionless; though different from its ancient counterpart, intense nationalism coruscates through the bumper-sticker businees of America and its vast, slovenly hillbilly population. Passion is blind, just as love and justice are. Do we shun and ban passion simply for its ignorance? No - it defines us. It is the source of everything worthwhile in this world. Thus, we make war and die as heroes in an individual sense, or we pacify ourselves and die anyways as hollow husks of human beings at the mercy of men with guns. Nobody ever said that it makes sense - in fact, it's extremely fucking ridiculous - but that's..... life.

As long as you promote peace, you are human because you are denying what comes to us naturally. Simple as that.

My point is: we must wage war to deny it and survive. Reinforcing troops in Korea is not seeking out war - it is nowhere near the path of disarmanent, either. In a sense, the great war between China and the US has already began, assuming the Korean war was what it was: a proxy-war between the two emerging superpowers, with Korea in the middle. Again, I'm not saying it makes sense in the least bit: but when has that ever inhibited human behavior?

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-08-18 19:28, Aredhel wrote:


So what does all of this mean? John Steinbeck once wrote:

Fear the time when the bombs stop falling while the bombers live - for every bomb is proof that the spirit has not died. And fear the time when the strikes stop while the great owners live - for every little beaten strike is proof that the step is being taken. And this you can know - fear the time when Manself will not suffer and die for a concept, for this one quality is the foundation of Manself, and this one quality is man, distinctive in the universe.

War is an inevitablity - it should not be sought-out for any means, as it has a way for finding us all on its very own. But when immersed by it, war should be embraced for its passion. You cannot say that modern war is passionless; though different from its ancient counterpart, intense nationalism coruscates through the bumper-sticker businees of America and its vast, slovenly hillbilly population. Passion is blind, just as love and justice are. Do we shun and ban passion simply for its ignorance? No - it defines us. It is the source of everything worthwhile in this world. Thus, we make war and die as heroes in an individual sense, or we pacify ourselves and die anyways as hollow husks of human beings at the mercy of men with guns. Nobody ever said that it makes sense - in fact, it's extremely fucking ridiculous - but that's..... life.








That is my understanding of warfare, good post.

[ShadowNINJA007]

I think we went to Iraq as a populaity stunt. We didn't need to, but he thought we would support him later for it.

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-08-20 21:29, ShadowNINJA007 wrote:
I think we went to Iraq as a populaity stunt. We didn't need to, but he thought we would support him later for it.




How fucking heartless do you think President Bush is?

[BogusKun]

On 2004-08-17 18:34, Shattered_weasel wrote:
My father has been to Korea before and says that there is more than enough people there.



My father would've told me... the extra soldiers there don't really make any sense. But you have to consider this... some there on patrol needs rest. And because no other country will contribute to policing Korea... US have to do it themselves. Japanese only have Intel and contractors.

[Ketchup345]

On 2004-08-20 22:21, Dangerous55 wrote:
How fucking heartless do you think President Bush is?


Some people think he is very heartless:
1) Against all abortion. If this becomes illegal, there will be thousands more deaths than just the unborn since people will go back to "back alley abortions".
2) Against stem-cell research, which has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives a year. Also, this may slow down the research of other possible treatments for these diseases.
3) Invaded Iraq with intelligence that even top officials said was probably be wrong or at least altared to be used to support Bush's position for war, leading to several thousands of deaths (US and Allies', and Iraqi). Not to mention as of right now, many Iraqis are actually worse off than under Saddam.
4) Gave Halliburton over $1 billion in no bid contracts. (Won't kill anyone, but never gave other companies who could possibly do just as good of a job the same chance to earn those billions, ).
5) Said outsorcing was good for the economy. Hundreds of thousands of people are expected to lose their jobs to this next year. Sure, the US will get some jobs back, but not the same type these people are trained for, and retraining can take years and thousands of dollars they don't have.
6) Is not concentrating much on real threats (Korea, Iran, etc.). Also doesn't distribute Homeland security money in a decent way (why does Wyoming {or some other sparsely populated midwestern state} earn over $50 money per person than crowded New York?)
7) Ignoring the genocide in Africa. He could at aleast ask the UN to upgrade the situation to a Genocide so that they would take care of the situation (since the US has very little to spare).
8) Is running the US into a record deficit, when he said he would try to keep it balanced. Sure, after 9-11, some deficit was expected, but not how deep we are in now.
9) Aiding the rich more than the people who need it. The tax cuts will benefit the poor, but not by much. Therich will beneit over 70 times more when the full effects come into place.
10) He is ignoring some of the 9-11 Commission's ideas that would try to prevent another major terrorist attack.

I'm fairly sure there is more.

He hasn't done much that could help prevent deaths and show he has a heart as far as I've seen.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ketchup345 on 2004-08-21 10:12 ]</font>

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-08-21 07:30, Ketchup345 wrote:


Some people think he is very heartless:
1) Against all abortion. If this becomes illegal, there will be thousands more deaths than just the unborn since people will go back to "back alley abortions".
2) Against stem-cell research, which has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives a year. Also, this may slow down the research of other possible treatments for these diseases.
3) Invaded Iraq with intelligence that even top officials said was probably be wrong or at least altared to be used to support Bush's position for war, leading to several thousands of deaths (US and Allies', and Iraqi). Not to mention as of right now, many Iraqis are actually worse off than under Saddam.
4) Gave Halliburton over $1 billion in no bid contracts. (Won't kill anyone, but never gave other companies who could possibly do just as good of a job the same chance to earn those billions, ).
5) Said outsorcing was good for the economy. Hundreds of thousands of people are expected to lose their jobs to this next year. Sure, the US will get some jobs back, but not the same type these people are trained for, and retraining can take years and thousands of dollars they don't have.
6) Is not concentrating much on real threats (Korea, Iran, etc.). Also doesn't distribute Homeland security money in a decent way (why does Wyoming {or some other sparsely populated midwestern state} earn over $50 money per person than crowded New York?)
7) Ignoring the genocide in Africa. He could at aleast ask the UN to upgrade the situation to a Genocide so that they would take care of the situation (since the US has very little to spare).
http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_cool.gif Is running the US into a record deficit, when he said he would try to keep it balanced. Sure, after 9-11, some deficit was expected, but not how deep we are in now.
9) Aiding the rich more than the people who need it. The tax cuts will benefit the poor, but not by much. Therich will beneit over 70 times more when the full effects come into place.
10) He is ignoring some of the 9-11 Commission's ideas that would try to prevent another major terrorist attack.

I'm fairly sure there is more.

He hasn't done much that could help prevent deaths and show he has a heart as far as I've seen.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ketchup345 on 2004-08-21 10:12 ]</font>



Riiiiiiight.......



President Bush is not a heartless bastard because you disagree with him on nearly everything, or everything, who knows.


The point of what I said before was missed, I guess.

The leader of the most powerful nation on Earth is not going to start an EXTREMELY(and, he had to know before hand it was going to be) controversial war for...votes?

If Bush was so heartless he could do ALOT more horrible things then what people say against him.

[Ness]

The real way the solve the North Korea problem is through China. If it weren't for China, North Korea would literally starve to death. All China has to do is say," If you don't do this, this, and this; we will cut off all your supplies." But they won't say that? Why? Because they want the US to handle it.

I say we should have gone to North Korea instead of Iraq because atleast then Bush wouldn't have had to lie to get us to go there.

North Korea isn't afraid of the fact that we are there; it's South Korea's army of 800,000 troops that is detering North Korea. From what I understand, we have only 20,000 - 30,000 troops there anyway. Besides, South Korea wanted our troops to leave anyway and even elected their current president based on that. So I say let's pull them out.

[Ketchup345]

On 2004-08-22 00:07, Dangerous55 wrote:
Riiiiiiight.......

President Bush is not a heartless bastard because you disagree with him on nearly everything, or everything, who knows.

The point of what I said before was missed, I guess.

The leader of the most powerful nation on Earth is not going to start an EXTREMELY(and, he had to know before hand it was going to be) controversial war for...votes?

If Bush was so heartless he could do ALOT more horrible things then what people say against him.


Can you prove that those 10 things will not hurt many people (either financially or physically), and even allow many deaths to occur?
What more can he do that is within his power to make people's lives worse?
Most of those are facts that they will hurt people (physically or financially), and he is doing nothing about them. Can you prove that most of those are not facts and won't hurt anyone?

To ad to the list of how "heartless" he is:
11) Doesn't care about the environment at all. He gives tax breaks to people who buy SUVs (even Hummers which get around 10 miles to the gallon last I knew). These tax breaks are much greater than the breaks given to people who buy the more environmentally friendly cars, such as hybrids and solar powered. Also, he tried to pass a bil that would let major pollution creaters to expand (I believe it was) up to 20% without having to comply with DEP regulations. This would cause a major pollution problem on many states.
12) He ignores top officials who have information that could effect hundreds of thousands of people's lives (such as info before the War in Iraq).

He doesan't are about the environment, people's lives, or the poor; just his social elite.

Point he he doesn't care about most of the people he is supposed to be representing.


And Ness:
Our 37,000 troops may not seem like much, but as long as they are there, North Korea will be hesitent about invading South Korea. 37,000 may be near useless in a war, but they know that if those 37,000 come under attack from a North Korean offensive, that the US will use its strength against them. Having troops there shows that we are dedicated to keeping South Korea the way it is. If we pull them out, if a war does break out, then the US may be unlikely to move troops into the region, due to the war on terror, and the very big chance that North Korea has nuclear weapons. North Korea doesn't care about South Korea's troops much, since their troops are better trained, and they have over 1 million ground troops, and one of the biggest special ops programs in the world (North Korea spends most of its budget on its military). If China does cut off the food, Korea would be defeated. But I'm sure that they don't want to run the risk of having those nuclear missiles aimed at them, and have at least thousands of innocent civilians starve to death, they are going to keep sending food.

I do agree though, we should have finished the Korean War instead of Gulf War I.5/Gulf War II.

[Ness]

On 2004-08-22 06:45, Ketchup345 wrote:

And Ness:
Our 37,000 troops may not seem like much, but as long as they are there, North Korea will be hesitent about invading South Korea. 37,000 may be near useless in a war, but they know that if those 37,000 come under attack from a North Korean offensive, that the US will use its strength against them. Having troops there shows that we are dedicated to keeping South Korea the way it is. If we pull them out, if a war does break out, then the US may be unlikely to move troops into the region, due to the war on terror, and the very big chance that North Korea has nuclear weapons. North Korea doesn't care about South Korea's troops much, since their troops are better trained, and they have over 1 million ground troops, and one of the biggest special ops programs in the world (North Korea spends most of its budget on its military). If China does cut off the food, Korea would be defeated. But I'm sure that they don't want to run the risk of having those nuclear missiles aimed at them, and have at least thousands of innocent civilians starve to death, they are going to keep sending food.

I do agree though, we should have finished the Korean War instead of Gulf War I.5/Gulf War II.



I considered that when I wrote that post and while the fact that our US troops may be a factor in why North Korea hasn't attacked, but what is really keeping n. Korea from attacking is pressures from China and the troops in South Korea. Part of me doubts that Bush would stop the War on Terror to send troops to S. Korea if they were attacked.

N. Korea aim their nukes at China? Are you kidding? If N. Korea even hints at doing such a thing, China would invade and/ or wipe N. Korea off the map faster than you could "obliterate." N. Korea may have a few nukes, but China is still the dominant nuclear power in the region. It's not in China's best interest to have N. Korea continue their nuclear program because if that happens then Japan and S. Korea will also go nuclear.

I doubt that China would actually starve N. Korea to death, but they could use that in their negotiations because it's true.

[Ketchup345]

On 2004-08-22 07:06, Ness wrote:
I considered that when I wrote that post and while the fact that our US troops may be a factor in why North Korea hasn't attacked, but what is really keeping n. Korea from attacking is pressures from China and the troops in South Korea. Part of me doubts that Bush would stop the War on Terror to send troops to S. Korea if they were attacked.

N. Korea aim their nukes at China? Are you kidding? If N. Korea even hints at doing such a thing, China would invade and/ or wipe N. Korea off the map faster than you could "obliterate." N. Korea may have a few nukes, but China is still the dominant nuclear power in the region. It's not in China's best interest to have N. Korea continue their nuclear program because if that happens then Japan and S. Korea will also go nuclear.

I doubt that China would actually starve N. Korea to death, but they could use that in their negotiations because it's true.


Bush wouldn't stop the "War on Terror", but he doesn't have to use land troops. We do have an Air Force and a Navy. Neither of these are a huge help in the "War on Terror" (I believe that Afghanistan is out of range of the Navy, all but the Aircraft Carriers I believe; and the Navy is not much help against Iraqi "insurgents" either). A troop relocation would take a while anyways, and we have almost no troops to spare.

North Korea doesn't have to use the nuckes to keep food coming from China. The Chinese officials most likely know that if they even threaten to cut off the food supplies, Pyongyang will at least threaten to aim the missiles to the north. This will get China's attention, since they do not want to suffer many civilian causalties due to refusing to send food to the south. I don't doubt that if war did break out again, China would do fairly well against North Korea (especially if the nuclear power was brought into play). But North Korea will do a good job defending against a ground invasion with their large numbers (over 3.5 million capable of fighting, around 1 million trained; biggest special ops forces). The Chinese will recieve significant losses.
They could threaten to, but they know it could lead to consequences.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ketchup345 on 2004-08-22 07:30 ]</font>

[Ness]

On 2004-08-22 07:29, Ketchup345 wrote:

Bush wouldn't stop the "War on Terror", but he doesn't have to use land troops. We do have an Air Force and a Navy. Neither of these are a huge help in the "War on Terror" (I believe that Afghanistan is out of range of the Navy, all but the Aircraft Carriers I believe; and the Navy is not much help against Iraqi "insurgents" either). A troop relocation would take a while anyways, and we have almost no troops to spare.


If S. Korea was attacked it would be the S. Korean troops doing most of the fighting, even if the did send the air force and the navy over.



North Korea doesn't have to use the nuckes to keep food coming from China. The Chinese officials most likely know that if they even threaten to cut off the food supplies, Pyongyang will at least threaten to aim the missiles to the north. This will get China's attention, since they do not want to suffer many civilian causalties due to refusing to send food to the south. I don't doubt that if war did break out again, China would do fairly well against North Korea (especially if the nuclear power was brought into play). But North Korea will do a good job defending against a ground invasion with their large numbers (over 3.5 million capable of fighting, around 1 million trained; biggest special ops forces). The Chinese will recieve significant losses.
They could threaten to, but they know it could lead to consequences.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ketchup345 on 2004-08-22 07:30 ]</font>


You keep forgetting who has the upper hand here. China does. Yes N. Korea may threaten to do this or that, but ultimately those threats will be empty because they know that China will blow them out of the water. Besides, if they attack China then how will they get their food? If they do attack China, it would cause them to cut off all supplies going to N. Korea altogether. It's a lose-lose situation for N. Korea. If China does threaten to cut off their food supplies, they will be in trouble, but if they attack China then they will be wiped out. You seem to have forgotten how large China's Army is. The last time I checked it was 250,000,000 million people, which is not too much smaller than the entire population of the US. N. Korea may have the largest special ops program in the world, but 250,000,000 million troops vs. 3,500,000 are some pretty bad odds.

[Aredhel]

On 2004-08-22 11:24, Ness wrote:

250,000,000 million troops vs. 3,500,000 are some pretty bad odds.



Vietnam, anyone?

[Ketchup345]

On 2004-08-22 11:24, Ness wrote:
If S. Korea was attacked it would be the S. Korean troops doing most of the fighting, even if the did send the air force and the navy over.
The US, and the UN would help too, but South Korea alone can't take on the North's.


You keep forgetting who has the upper hand here. China does. Yes N. Korea may threaten to do this or that, but ultimately those threats will be empty because they know that China will blow them out of the water. Besides, if they attack China then how will they get their food? If they do attack China, it would cause them to cut off all supplies going to N. Korea altogether. It's a lose-lose situation for N. Korea. If China does threaten to cut off their food supplies, they will be in trouble, but if they attack China then they will be wiped out. You seem to have forgotten how large China's Army is. The last time I checked it was 250,000,000 million people, which is not too much smaller than the entire population of the US. N. Korea may have the largest special ops program in the world, but 250,000,000 million troops vs. 3,500,000 are some pretty bad odds.


Those threats may be empty, but doesChina know how Korea will react?

The UN does help North Korea with food too. China does not supply all of it.

China does have the numbers on their side, but they don't have the homeland and terrain advantage. Also, China would have some probems supplying that many troops.

Troops should still be stationed there, just to show that the US would not stand an invasion by North Korea.
It's kind of like would you rather rob a bank where you know noone is armed, or rob one where you know that there may be people who are armed? Having troops makes Korea say that if they invade, there is a 100% chance of the US backing up South Korea, when if they aren't there, there isn't a 100% chance.

[Ness]

On 2004-08-22 11:55, Ketchup345 wrote:

Those threats may be empty, but does China know how Korea will react?


The point I'm making here is that rather N. Korea attacks China or not, N. Korea would be up the creek if China stopped sending them supplies.


The UN does help North Korea with food too. China does not supply all of it.

True, but China supplies the great majority of it and if they pull out then not only will the prices of food rise, the first priority will go to the ruler and the soldiers, meaning that there won't be much left for the civilians. So they will still starve to death.


China does have the numbers on their side, but they don't have the homeland and terrain advantage. Also, China would have some problems supplying that many troops.

That is assuming they send all of them in and they don't have to when you consider how many they have. China probably has several maps of N. Korea and are probably trained to tread rough terrain so the terrain won't be that much trouble and small advantages like homeland and terrain advantages don't matter much when you are as severely outnumbered as N. Korea would be if China invaded.



Troops should still be stationed there, just to show that the US would not stand an invasion by North Korea.

Why? They wanted us gone in the first place so why not give them what they ask for?




It's kind of like would you rather rob a bank where you know no one is armed, or rob one where you know that there may be people who are armed? Having troops makes Korea say that if they invade, there is a 100% chance of the US backing up South Korea, when if they aren't there, there isn't a 100% chance.



That would work if S. Korea didn't have an alliance with the US. Even if the Us pulled all its troops out of S. Korea, S. Korea still has the support of the US and that alone is probably enough to keep N, Korea from attacking.

[Ketchup345]

China would not stop sending supplies to China. They know about the deaths that they would cause. I am sure they don't want to force change in Korea by starving so many innocent people. North Korea probably knows this.

The Koreans can still stop Chinese supply lines, even if they are outnumbered. The terrain limits the ways that supplies can be delivered.

The Chinese may be able to have maps and such, but only the Koreans know how the terrain is layed out. This will allow them prepare for a war by stashing supplies, and digging holes and tunnels. It worked fairly well in WWII (supplies won the war).

Also, the US hasn't held to its alliances right away on many occasions. But if we pull out, the North Koreans may just think that it is a sign of weakness for the US, since they probably know the US is short on troops, which are being used in other areas. This leads to an earlier war than necessary, which the US can't handle, due to the other conflicts we are involved in. North Korea knew that the US wouldn't stand for the spread of "Communism" in the 1950s, but they gave it a shot anyways. Also, after the Vietnam War, North Korea knows that if enough punishment has been inflicted, the US will withdraw. A War in North Korea would give a strategic benefit to North Korea, since the terrain benefits them. China may not want to risk having nuclear missiles aimed at themselves by entering the war.

The whole situation is kind of unstable though. The US should stay there to ensure that North Korea doesn't try anything. I doubt that the US would be able to put enough ground troops into the area, and I don't think the South Korean army is trained as well. If China would participate is a major factor.

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-08-22 06:45, Ketchup345 wrote:


Can you prove that those 10 things will not hurt many people (either financially or physically), and even allow many deaths to occur?
What more can he do that is within his power to make people's lives worse?
Most of those are facts that they will hurt people (physically or financially), and he is doing nothing about them. Can you prove that most of those are not facts and won't hurt anyone?






This is so fucking stupid.

Those 10 things will hurt some people, nobody is arguing that, but that does not make the President heartless and full of blood lust! Was Truman a heartless prick because he decided to nuke Japan? Or was Wilson because he decided not to go to war to shorten in?

Do you get it?! The damn President(any President) HAS to make choices that will bring some people to harm! Always did, always will. THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE DOESNT CARE!

If you don't think Bush could have done alot worse then invade Iraq you are hopeless. You're mind has to be so gummed up with Bush hatred that you lost all common sense.


About the N.Korea thing, we cannot pull out totally. There has to be some troops there to "start" our assiting the South.

Now I think China will do one of two things when the Korean War flares up again. They will either sit it out and try to profit from it, or assist North Korea and attempt to take Taiwan back. The US would have a tough time assisting both South Korea and Taiwan, for some time at least until we get going.

Another big question, what would Russia do?

[Ness]

I'll bow down this time Ketchup because i;ve lsot the will to argue, but I do agree with you on your list of things Bush did. While that doesn't make him heartless, it does make him an incompetent president.

[HUnewearl_Meira]

My best friend was stationed in Korea for about two years or so, and just recently got re-stationed in Texas. The only thing he complained about while he was there was that it takes friggin' forever to get something delivered from Amazon.com.

The thing is that we made an example out of Iraq. We went and completely overthrew a government we considered to be insufficiently responsible, just on the *suspicion* that they might have weapons of mass destruction. It was pointed out during the war, that North Korea had started backing off on some of its bolder statements, and it was believed that it was because of what was going on in Iraq. That may've been the point of the war to begin with-- a warning to others, that if they being or continue working with nuclear weapons, the Coalition will come and beat you down.

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-08-23 10:59, HUnewearl_Meira wrote:
My best friend was stationed in Korea for about two years or so, and just recently got re-stationed in Texas. The only thing he complained about while he was there was that it takes friggin' forever to get something delivered from Amazon.com.

The thing is that we made an example out of Iraq. We went and completely overthrew a government we considered to be insufficiently responsible, just on the *suspicion* that they might have weapons of mass destruction. It was pointed out during the war, that North Korea had started backing off on some of its bolder statements, and it was believed that it was because of what was going on in Iraq. That may've been the point of the war to begin with-- a warning to others, that if they being or continue working with nuclear weapons, the Coalition will come and beat you down.



Yup, Qaddafi sure took that warning.

[Ketchup345]

How hard is it to just ask the UN to upgrade the Africa situation to Genocide? Everyone knows the US can't really handle that on top of what we already are, the least we can do is ask that the rest of the world take care of the situation.
Many of these decisions were not necessary, and he knew that they could hurt more people than help. And learn to count, I added an 11th (another failure, his no child left behind, which will hurt more than it helps due to cutting funding to schools that don't meet the requirements, which are the ones who need it most).
I never said he was full of blood lust. Just that he doesn't seem to be in favor of many things that will save lives, and not saving lives = heartless.

You (D55) are so full of love for Bush you aren't seeing everything completely either. He could have done worse, yes. Every president does have to make some decisions that will hurt some people, but he is probably making more than necessary.

I agree on the China thing though. China could use the advantage of the US fighting 3 wars to take back Taiwan. The US is stretched thin enough as it is.

[Aredhel]

On 2004-08-23 12:04, Ketchup345 wrote:

not saving lives = heartless.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Whose life did you just recently save?

His responsibility isn't to save the entire fucking human race, Ketchup - we don't belong as policemen of the world, you of all people should understand that seeing as how you so fervently disagree with Bush's entry into Iraqi politics. Please submit all suggestions in November and thanks for shopping with us!

[Ketchup345]

On 2004-08-23 12:31, Aredhel wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Whose life did you just recently save?

His responsibility isn't to save the entire fucking human race, Ketchup - we don't belong as policemen of the world, you of all people should understand that seeing as how you so fervently disagree with Bush's entry into Iraqi politics. Please submit all suggestions in November and thanks for shopping with us!

I meant when he has that much power, either to kill or save thousands of lives. Obviously normal people can't be judged the same way.

He doesn't have to save the whole human race, but he is supposed to do as much as he can.

Obviously we can't police the world. That's what the UN is supposed to be for. Iraq was not a threat, and many top officials were saying that. I haven't heard anyone say that North Korea is a real threat, that does deserve to have some action against them.

I would "submit my suggestion in November" if I didn't have 3 freaking months stopping me from voting.

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-08-23 12:04, Ketchup345 wrote:
How hard is it to just ask the UN to upgrade the Africa situation to Genocide? Everyone knows the US can't really handle that on top of what we already are, the least we can do is ask that the rest of the world take care of the situation.
Many of these decisions were not necessary, and he knew that they could hurt more people than help. And learn to count, I added an 11th (another failure, his no child left behind, which will hurt more than it helps due to cutting funding to schools that don't meet the requirements, which are the ones who need it most).
I never said he was full of blood lust. Just that he doesn't seem to be in favor of many things that will save lives, and not saving lives = heartless.

Last time I saw it was the US who put pressure on the UN to call the Africa situation Genocide. Don't tell me to "learn to count" buddy, thats just being a little prick.

You are acting as if everything is set in stone. Do you think Bush is going to start the no child left behind program if he knows for a fact it will hurt more then it helps? It is all what you THINK will happen, and I tend to think he has more info on it
(everything) then you.

Again, this is fucking stupid. You actually think he is heartless, amazing. And your reasoning just absolutely sucks!

If every choice he had to make was clear cut like you seem to think it would be, he would always make the right decision!

You disagree with him, that does not make him heartless!




You (D55) are so full of love for Bush you aren't seeing everything completely either. He could have done worse, yes. Every president does have to make some decisions that will hurt some people, but he is probably making more than necessary.

I do not love Bush nor do I hate him. Although I do hate bias and love the truth.

OK, fine, he is making more decisions that hurt people then past Presidents. But you have to understand he is making them because he believes they will do good, not just kill people!




You call the man heartless because he started the Iraq war, I say that proves he ISNT heartless. Threat or no threat to us Saddam was a threat to his own people. That cannot be argued. Bush went in, Iraq is now free of Saddam!

[darkholemind]

this is an INCREDIBLY long thread first off. But we need a place to discuss this stuff so here it goes.


What the U.S. needs to do is pull our troops (all of them) back to the U.S. although not ethical it would teach, meh... 60% of the worlds nations could not survive without some help from the U.S. The pure fact of the matter is the U.S. plays mother to the world and all of the nations that don't side with us/ don't agree with our views are ect. ect. are the rebelling teens. They hate us for our help and protection but they can't yet survive without our help for whatever reason.

If you wan't proof look at the insurgents in Iraq, the situation and North Korea and Kuwait in the 90's.

They may hate us but in the end they'll learn to deal with it or grow up and take care of there own affairs.