[JB 330ci]

Originally Posted by Squawks

JB, how quickly/easily do you think we can dominate NK in the case war-mongerer Bush decides on a blitzkrieg against them? Witholding nuclear weaponry, of course.

There are many variables on how it could go ranging from support within NK to our planning process.

NK doesn’t really constitute a threat per se, since their equipment we can pick off with airpower for the most part. But it's the Special Forces, which NK has a lot of we have to watch out for. They are not blind to our situation in Iraq, and would modify their tactics, techniques and procedures for use in NK.

The Air Force and Navy is a joke, while the Army only has manpower on their side...not very good force multipliers against a highly advanced and technological foe. They have considerable fuel problems, maintenance problems, and sometimes can't even feed their people/soldiers. Despite the terrain of NK, which will constraint our movement, we have a battle-harden force from our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The loyalty to the regime will be the biggest question...if we wipe out all the key leadership in a couple strikes, NK for the most part may fall rather quickly. However it could go the other way as well.

The biggest problem would be taking out all of the artillery along the NK SK border, with over 5,000 pieces, 75% aimed at Seoul, SK will take some considerable damage at the outbreak of hostilities. There are more advanced studies out there about NK which of course cannot be talked about but for the most part this is how it is.

The best way for NK to integrate into SK would be through a seamless transition...through the use of propaganda and massive aid/construction programs...if we show them progress, they will be more likely to support us in the long run.

This is just a quick synopsis on the problem. (And not mentioning China at all)

The major parts of the war would be over quickly (not as fast as Iraq, and also depending on when attack is launched due to seasonal variances) however, the peace sustaining operations would involve the most planning and analysis of the situation. The entire country won’t be pacified when we take it over however there won’t be any major Force-on-Force battles, just die-hards of the regime, and some regional hold-outs we bypassed.

SK would need substantial aid in order to integrate NK into SK society. It would take perhaps up to a decade for the infrastructure to be built, and you will also need to educate people as well. NK won’t reach a level of SK standard of living for around 25 years. For example just look at West/East Germany and the problems associated with the unification. It would be much worse with Korea.

[Nikki]

It's going to happen, nuclear war. It's just a question of when. Tomorrow? Next year? 5 years from now?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060619/...4yBHNlYwNmYw--

[aapriadi]

Originally Posted by Nikki

It's going to happen, nuclear war. It's just a question of when. Tomorrow? Next year? 5 years from now?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060619/...4yBHNlYwNmYw--

for real!? now i wonder if NK is actually more dangerous than iraq

[Agni]

Originally Posted by JB 330ci

There are many variables on how it could go ranging from support within NK to our planning process.

NK doesn’t really constitute a threat per se, since their equipment we can pick off with airpower for the most part. But it's the Special Forces, which NK has a lot of we have to watch out for. They are not blind to our situation in Iraq, and would modify their tactics, techniques and procedures for use in NK.

The Air Force and Navy is a joke, while the Army only has manpower on their side...not very good force multipliers against a highly advanced and technological foe. They have considerable fuel problems, maintenance problems, and sometimes can't even feed their people/soldiers. Despite the terrain of NK, which will constraint our movement, we have a battle-harden force from our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The loyalty to the regime will be the biggest question...if we wipe out all the key leadership in a couple strikes, NK for the most part may fall rather quickly. However it could go the other way as well.

The biggest problem would be taking out all of the artillery along the NK SK border, with over 5,000 pieces, 75% aimed at Seoul, SK will take some considerable damage at the outbreak of hostilities. There are more advanced studies out there about NK which of course cannot be talked about but for the most part this is how it is.

The best way for NK to integrate into SK would be through a seamless transition...through the use of propaganda and massive aid/construction programs...if we show them progress, they will be more likely to support us in the long run.

This is just a quick synopsis on the problem. (And not mentioning China at all)

The major parts of the war would be over quickly (not as fast as Iraq, and also depending on when attack is launched due to seasonal variances) however, the peace sustaining operations would involve the most planning and analysis of the situation. The entire country won’t be pacified when we take it over however there won’t be any major Force-on-Force battles, just die-hards of the regime, and some regional hold-outs we bypassed.

SK would need substantial aid in order to integrate NK into SK society. It would take perhaps up to a decade for the infrastructure to be built, and you will also need to educate people as well. NK won’t reach a level of SK standard of living for around 25 years. For example just look at West/East Germany and the problems associated with the unification. It would be much worse with Korea.

Why use our money and resources? make the lazy Europeans spend their money and do their part at keeping world peace. Not saying we shouldnt do anything, but Europeans need to help also, we dont need to be screwed over like in Iraq.

[Powertools]

Originally Posted by Agni

Why use our money and resources? make the lazy Europeans spend their money and do their part at keeping world peace. Not saying we shouldnt do anything, but Europeans need to help also, we dont need to be screwed over like in Iraq.

agreeee...and some to No Action Talk Only members!

[shragon]

thanks for the links! nice collection of nk pics. i've always been kind of fascinated by what goes on in that country and what it exactly looks like within its borders. in some ways it's almost like it's stuck in a time warp, because of it's severe isolation from the rest of the world. i've seen some video in the past that gave me a pretty good idea, but that first set of pics showed so much more. pretty depressing.

[Squawks]

Originally Posted by Agni

Why use our money and resources? make the lazy Europeans spend their money and do their part at keeping world peace. Not saying we shouldnt do anything, but Europeans need to help also, we dont need to be screwed over like in Iraq.

By saying this you realize that you fail to notice that the United States of A is the world's leading and most profilic imperialist. Can you name any other country in Europe equally imperialist as the U.S.? Disregarding England back in the old days - you simply can't.

Why would the Europeans want to jump in on something they probably won't gain too much out of? It is, after all, the U.S. of A that wants to rule the whole world to spread: "democracy", "capitalism", and to what many may object but I also truly feel is it at: Christianity.

Is it a coincidence that the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea all have massive followings in Christianity (when they did not before) and all of this happened to take place after the U.S. imperialized (and still do today) them?

It's analogous to saying that the rest of the world is lazy because they're not helping us secure our Mexican border.

[Asiann]

We seem tohave our hands in everything and every place that is of interest. Plus others view the U.S. as a world leader that will help and send troops whereever even if it means we are stretched out and in over our heads! Thanks Bush!

[JB 330ci]

Originally Posted by Squawks

By saying this you realize that you fail to notice that the United States of A is the world's leading and most profilic imperialist. Can you name any other country in Europe equally imperialist as the U.S.? Disregarding England back in the old days - you simply can't.

Cold War - USSR
Age of Imperialism ring a bell?
Spain, Portugal, England, Germany, France, The Dutch,
Even further back you have Rome.

Originally Posted by Squawks

Why would the Europeans want to jump in on something they probably won't gain too much out of? It is, after all, the U.S. of A that wants to rule the whole world to spread: "democracy", "capitalism", and to what many may object but I also truly feel is it at: Christianity.

The US spreading Christianity? I don't think so. There are religious missions throughout the world of the major faiths. I don't see the US spreading religion per se, but just the big religious coalitions. Last time I checked they don't belong to the US government. A majority of the missions are American and European, and it's evident why that is. Both areas have considerable wealth and a religious populace which is able to support missions throughout the world.

Where does the Muslim support come from? Let's see, Mostly from the Middle East, US and Europe (the wealthier parts of the world)...wow what a concidence

Originally Posted by Squawks

Is it a coincidence that the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea all have massive followings in Christianity (when they did not before) and all of this happened to take place after the U.S. imperialized (and still do today) them?

Philippines belonged to Spain before 1898. The Spanish sent many missions to convert the Philippines to Christianity.
Japan- The US opened Japan sometime in the late 1800's I don't know the exact date however Christianity didn't really take off until the late 1950's.
South Korea- Korean War anyone? A majority of the participants’ during the Korean war were Christian so it's no surprise.

In both Japan and South Korea, both countries required aid and reconstruction, which usually comes from NGO's and religious organizations. I'm sure there are many Christian missions dating back to the late 1940's and 1950's throughout Japan and Korea.

[docbolo]

I'm glad we have JB here to set the record straight.

By the way, who cares if the whole world is converted to christianity? I agree with Ann Coulter with regards to the crazed muslim countries - Kill their leaders and convert them all to christianity.

Ever seen a christian suicide bomber? Sure the christians have a nice history of genocide, but atleast they stopped that many years ago. They evolved. Muslims did not. I'm not religious but if you need to feed the masses some sort of make-believe story atleast let it be christianity.

What do you think JB?

[Squawks]

When was the last time I checked that the U.S. is a Christian country? Hmm, let me see - there is a list of the commandments inscribed in court buildings. Here there's a big fat cross on Mount Soledad here in San Diego which, by the way, is not private land/property. Most of our previous U.S. President is Christian. Our current Dubya is Christian. But hey, that was just a side note that I obviously can't concretely support with facts and I doubt anybody can (then again, you also can't dispute that events are *not* goaded by religion).

You mentioned Spain sending many missions over to the Philippines --- need I say more? You just defeated your own point - I never said the U.S. is the sole mongerer of Christianity! So apparently, when a country imperializes another, they also convert the inferior, conquered natives to "superior" religions.

Muslim support? The U.S. may barter with Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. but the last I checked, we're giving weapons, airplanes, and bombs to Israelis, not the PLO. Maybe it's because the Israelis are better business partners.

Doesn't matter how far back in time the missions dated back. Perhaps you should ask yourself *where* the missions came from.

[shimshimhada]

If the whole world hears the gospel, the end of the world will come. Screw that.

[Squawks]

Hey Doc, I never intended to spawn a Christianity vs. Muslim debate as that is not the issue at hand.

The main point is that countries only involve themselves when there is a gain on their behalf, whether that be something monetary or perhaps political. You rarely see countries jumping in to help rebel warfare in Africa or South America.

Another point to JB: you keep mentioning US/Europe as Christian mongerers but perhaps it would be interesting for you to know that South America is single-handedly home of the world's largest (and most devoted) population of Christian believers.

[JB 330ci]

Originally Posted by Squawks

When was the last time I checked that the U.S. is a Christian country? Hmm, let me see - there is a list of the commandments inscribed in court buildings. Here there's a big fat cross on Mount Soledad here in San Diego which, by the way, is not private land/property. Most of our previous U.S. President is Christian. Our current Dubya is Christian. But hey, that was just a side note that I obviously can't concretely support with facts and I doubt anybody can (then again, you also can't dispute that events are *not* goaded by religion).

The US is a secular country with a majority of the population Christian. Europe is secular as well. However take Saudi Arabia for example, a Muslim country with all Muslim traditions and laws. That is a Muslim Country.

Originally Posted by Squawks

You mentioned Spain sending many missions over to the Philippines --- need I say more? You just defeated your own point - I never said the U.S. is the sole mongerer of Christianity! So apparently, when a country imperializes another, they also convert the inferior, conquered natives to "superior" religions.

I mention it because its a fact. I don't hide facts or choose to manipulate the data to form a one-sided opinion.
When a nation/group takes over another, it brings it's culture as well, and part of that culture may or make not be religion. It depends on multiple variables, but for the most part the missionaries (In the 19th century and onward) went on their own funds and support structure from their home country.

Your example is flawed, if the US is so imperialistic, why aren't we converting Iraq and Afghanistan to Christianity?

Originally Posted by Squawks

Muslim support? The U.S. may barter with Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. but the last I checked, we're giving weapons, airplanes, and bombs to Israelis, not the PLO. Maybe it's because the Israelis are better business partners.

We are talking about religion and religious support, not weapons...get back on subject

Originally Posted by Squawks

Doesn't matter how far back in time the missions dated back. Perhaps you should ask yourself *where* the missions came from.

Why do I need to ask? I already know. From religious organizations within the US, EU. Part of their agendas is to spread the faith of their particular religion and by doing that you go to different countries. This is the reason why there are Christian missions in South America, Africa and Asia. It's the same for Muslim missions as well.

Keep on going bud

[JB 330ci]

Originally Posted by Squawks

Another point to JB: you keep mentioning US/Europe as Christian mongerers but perhaps it would be interesting for you to know that South America is single-handedly home of the world's largest (and most devoted) population of Christian believers.

This maybe true however the majority of countries in South America don't have the wealth and support structure to send missioniaries to the rest of the world.

[docbolo]

Originally Posted by Squawks

Muslim support? The U.S. may barter with Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. but the last I checked, we're giving weapons, airplanes, and bombs to Israelis, not the PLO. Maybe it's because the Israelis are better business partners.

or its because the PLO is a terrorist organization run by scum and the israelies are jewish i.e. they contribute meaningfully to society. They make up one of the smallest percentages of people yet have the highest percentage of Nobel prize winners.

Have you been to Israel Squawks? Its like a little america there. People just like you and me who are into technological progress and science. People with common sense. They are surrounded by the same kind of sick roaches that struck us on 9/11.

[JB 330ci]

Originally Posted by docbolo

I'm glad we have JB here to set the record straight.

By the way, who cares if the whole world is converted to christianity? I agree with Ann Coulter with regards to the crazed muslim countries - Kill their leaders and convert them all to christianity.

Ever seen a christian suicide bomber? Sure the christians have a nice history of genocide, but atleast they stopped that many years ago. They evolved. Muslims did not. I'm not religious but if you need to feed the masses some sort of make-believe story atleast let it be christianity.

What do you think JB?

Islam still needs time for it to reform into a more moderate form. The Islamic Extremists and radicals comprise a slim minority of the entire Muslim population.

[Squawks]

Hey, Doc - I'm not bashing on Israel in any way and unfortunately, I haven't been there myself personally although I know you have, as you posted perhaps a week ago. It's a pretty place from the pictures I've seen.

It's funny you mention no support for Palestinians because they are "terrorist" and I suppose you are right if by "terrorist" you mean suicide bombers. Sure they're aren't any Israeli suicide bombers but are they not killing as well? If you define a terrorist as one who kills (or murders) then it goes both ways. How about that movie, Munich? Israel carries out airstrikes and they kill a lot of innocent civilians in the process. People using sophisticated laser guided missles or women in gowns with C5's underneath - I view them both as terrorists.

But I agree with you Doc that Israel is a place of renown expertise in the field of science. The actual state of Israel is quite properous both educationally and economically, unlike its counterparts in the impoverished regions of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank...coincidentally populated heavily by Arabs.

[docbolo]

Originally Posted by Squawks

It's funny you mention no support for Palestinians because they are "terrorist" and I suppose you are right if by "terrorist" you mean suicide bombers. Sure they're aren't any Israeli suicide bombers but are they not killing as well? If you define a terrorist as one who kills (or murders) then it goes both ways. How about that movie, Munich? Israel carries out airstrikes and they kill a lot of innocent civilians in the process. People using sophisticated laser guided missles or women in gowns with C5's underneath - I view them both as terrorists.

Well, I suppose this is one viewpoint. But I wouldn't base much off of anything you see in liberal-run hollywood. The thing is, I don't define "terrorist" in the same way you do. Sure the Israeli's defend their country. Sometimes there are some innocent casualties but to call them as bad as the terrorists is just the same as accusing me or you of being a terrorist.

When I was there I talked to as many israelis as I could. They are just like us man. They have to react to any terrorist attacks with intense force otherwise the Arabs will look at them as weak. The peaceful wannabe France route does not work with these people. They have run that experiment already.

Aside from the reasons I mentioned earlier, Israelis have a right to defend their country because there was nothing there before they moved there. It was viewed as uninhabitable desert land. JB can back me up on that. The jews came in and put trees, irrigation, industry, electricity, etc. etc. They made a civilization from sand. Now the Arabs want it? Based on what? The same old anti-semitic shit that has been going on since the beginning of time. Enough is enough. The jews have earned this tiny parcel of land. All of society owes it to them. There is no debate there.

The islam/arab scum there should invest in building their own educational system and making a contribution to society instead of whining all day about not having a teensy piece of land (even though they have 95% of the mideast landmass, they are still not content). They don't even produce their own electricity or water - the Israelis give it to them.

[Squawks]

I agree with you, Doc. The Israelis made the Gaza Strip a nice place - or at least it used to be. Hell, right now electricity is provided by the Israelis even though they withdrew from Gaza a while ago.

Regardless, I'd be equally terrified of losing my life whether I'm cruising around in an upscale outdoors mall in Tel-Aviv or cruising on a bike in the impoverished streets of Palestine. Either die from a quick missle strike or a suicide bomber - I think both options are pretty bad and equally horrifying.

I really don't understand why Israeli won't simply give up the West Bank to the Palestinians and withdraw from it just to get peace...polls even show that 70% of Israelis want to utilize this "land for peace" maneuver.

But in the end, it surmounts to the simple fact that if they do withdraw, the Arab/Islam fanatics will hail that moment as the day Israelis/Jews/Western-forces/U.S. surrendered to the almighty Allah and the holy warriors of Jihad. It's all nothing but defense for pride.

[docbolo]

Originally Posted by Squawks

But in the end, it surmounts to the simple fact that if they do withdraw, the Arab/Islam fanatics will hail that moment as the day Israelis/Jews/Western-forces/U.S. surrendered to the almighty Allah and the holy warriors of Jihad. It's all nothing but defense for pride.

you are absolutely right. On top of that, there would be no peace even if they give up that land. The fanatics will not rest until Israel is crushed in its entirity. These people simply cannot be "reasoned" with as you would with a civilized population. The fight between Israel and Islam is truly a fight of Civilization v. Backwards Fanaticism (to put it lightly).

[just4kickz]

yeah f'real... i agree with doc. i mean people who have rooted themselves within this NK vs SK... Palestine vs. Israel... western civilization vs. middle east fail to realize that no matter what... we'll have to share the world and its resources to some extent.