Jump to content

North Korea: Sanctions Are Declaration of War


Recommended Posts

quote:

NewsMax.com Wires

Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2006

SEOUL, South Korea -- North Korea on Tuesday blasted U.N. sanctions aimed at punishing the country for its nuclear test, saying the measures amount to a declaration of war and that the nation wouldn't cave in to such pressure now that it's a nuclear weapons power.

North Korea: Sanctions Are Declaration of War

I swear... North Korea WANTS a war from what I can see, this is the reason why a nuclear disarmament was agreed upon by the major powers of the world - because a nuclear war would lead to the end of man kind.. but North Korea seems to be to STUPID to understand that little technical detail.

Ok, UN, what will you do now? The same damn thing they did to Iraq? Those sanctions didn't work either, and they won't work HERE... The UN doesn't seem to LEARN from it's mistakes. (Not surprising..)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Cmdr. WeeGee:

Actually, old El Reg summed it up pretty good.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/16/us..._be_of_service/

Makes sense. As long as we've got troops down there he's got something to cause fear in the populace.


Umm, not really...

To quote the article:

quote:


Unfortunately for the Bush/Blair team, Kim Jong-il is the wrong monster very much in the wrong place. Over 140,000 US troops in Iraq still can't secure the little stretch of road between Baghdad Airport and the Green Zone. A military crisis in east Asia, everyone knows, is far beyond any US capacity to address.

That is one of the more absurd things I've ever read.

Two different scenarios:

1: Rogue nation surrounded by no real, standing threats, therefore forcing the US to perform a far more long term approach in transfer of power, all the while under constant harrassment from nearby enemies. This scenario is Iraq.

2: Rogue nation bordered by US-Allied nation ALREADY in a near state of war against rogue nation, with a large standing army ABLE and WILLING to swoop in and assume any vacuum of power both politically and culturally, with little to no regional fallout. This scenario is Korea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1: Iran and Syria aren't exactly non-threats. Successful terror missions sponsored by both Iran and Syria have already caused serious uprising issues in Iraq. This is all surrounded by a growing problem between the Shiites and the Sunnies.

2: Last I checked, over the past few years South Korea has been becoming increasingly supportive of North Korea. In fact, South Korea was completely supportive of the North's "right" to civilian nuclear power, even though they knew that it would eventually result in the North being a nuclear state. They were also even more reluctant to pose sanctions immediately than China was.

The US Military is currently exausted with troops in combat in both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as non-combat deployments all over the rest of the world (including South Korea). The fact that guard units are still being called up to go back overseas is more proof of this than one needs.

NATO may be able to quickly address this with US troops in the mix, however the US alone does not have the current capacity to deal with the North Korean threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


1: Iran and Syria aren't exactly non-threats. Successful terror missions sponsored by both Iran and Syria have already caused serious uprising issues in Iraq. This is all surrounded by a growing problem between the Shiites and the Sunnies.

Which is my point exactly. That is precisely how Korea is DIFFERENT from Iraq.

quote:


2: Last I checked, over the past few years South Korea has been becoming increasingly supportive of North Korea.

They have been IN NO WAY supportive. In fact, BOTH governments STILL actively declare sovereignty over the entire Korean peninsula.

South Korea has indeed tried establishing extremely limited economic ties with NK, but that really isn't what I would call "supportive".

quote:


The US Military is currently exausted with troops in combat in both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as non-combat deployments all over the rest of the world (including South Korea). The fact that guard units are still being called up to go back overseas is more proof of this than one needs.

Actually, one needs to know how the military works internally when it comes to deployments.

The US military is equipped, theoretically, to fight 2 and 1/2 wars. Iraq is almost one and Afganistan is barely one half. Sending in reservist engineering and support units do not drastically diminish this ability.

Furthermore, what do you think those units deployed overseas in non-combat capacities are there for? They aren't sitting on international soil just to sit there - they are there for the purpose of being able to fight if called upon. In fact, those are often our most combat-cabable units.

I mean, heavy armor units (tanks, etc) don't have much use anymore in Iraq/Afganistan. So, just because they are deployed in Germany doesn't mean that their capability to project power is diminished.

quote:


NATO may be able to quickly address this with US troops in the mix, however the US alone does not have the current capacity to deal with the North Korean threat.

That statement is manifestly untrue.

Would we be able to OCCUPY? Probably not, I would agree. Would the US military be able to win an offensive war, however?

No doubt. Whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Kalshion:

.... I swear... North Korea WANTS a war from what I can see, this is the reason why a nuclear disarmament was agreed upon by the major powers of the world ....

Actually, China is now backing out of anything with real teeth in it, and the Russian's are following suit.

This my friends, is what happens when the US loses it's resolve to DO SOMETHING about despotic regines that threaten the world. Back in 1950, after N. Korea invaded S. Korea and started the Korean War, MacArthur asked Truman to allow him to use 26 Tactical Nuclear Bombs, to force the N. Koreans to end the war. Instead, Truman replaced him with General Matthew Ridgeway. Ridgeway made the same request, but it was denied. Eventually, we fought them back to the line and were satisified at that, instead of destroying an overly aggressive governement. Back then, just as today, everyone said we should give up, it's not our problem, it's a half a world away, leave the Despot alone, Make peace not war, blah, blah, blah...

The Result? We lost our resolve, we stayed with the Status Quo, and today we have North Korea threatening us with Nuclear Weapons.

Nice.

I'm Sure Kim-Jung Mentally-Il will be releasing a statement THANKING all the peaceniks in the US for Helping him and his father out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are to stupid to realize that if we left something alone, eventually it'll turn around and bite us in the rear end. That's exactly what is happening now.

Anyway, Darkling, we all know the REAL REASON why N'Korea has nuclear weapons we also know exactly WHO sold them those secrets, so why haven't we tried him for treason? Since any OTHER person who'd have done that WOULD be tried for treason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Would we be able to OCCUPY? Probably not, I would agree. Would the US military be able to win an offensive war, however?

No doubt. Whatsoever.

I think its easily argued that a war has not been won until your occupation is successful and any uprising has been quelled.

You're right, we would win an offensive war within hours of invasion. However, China wouldn't let us succeed in an occupation of North Korea. They would most certainly invade as well and try to stop us dead in their tracks, any way they can. If gunfire starts on that peninsula I think there's a good chance we'll be looking at the third world war.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalshion:

People are to stupid to realize that if we left something alone, eventually it'll turn around and bite us in the rear end. That's exactly what is happening now.

Of course, if we do whatever the hell we want it already worsens our already terrible International Diplomacy record. We've already pissed our allies off by telling them to piss off every time they tell us to calm down. Burning diplomatic bridges bites you in the ass just as bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


I think its easily argued that a war has not been won until your occupation is successful and any uprising has been quelled.

Umm, no. You'd have to then change the meaning of the term "war".

There are other types of "war" than wars of occupation.

quote:


You're right, we would win an offensive war within hours of invasion. However, China wouldn't let us succeed in an occupation of North Korea.
Which is my point all along. The US would never seek to occupy NK - the South Koreans, however, WOULD, at the drop of a hat.
They would most certainly invade as well and try to stop us dead in their tracks, any way they can. If gunfire starts on that peninsula I think there's a good chance we'll be looking at the third world war.

HIGHLY DOUBTFUL, even IF we would attempt an occupation (which we wouldn't).

First off, the Chinese economy is bankrupt without access to US markets. That means, no oil. Which means, no ability to fight a war.

quote:


Of course, if we do whatever the hell we want it already worsens our already terrible International Diplomacy record. We've already pissed our allies off by telling them to piss off every time they tell us to calm down. Burning diplomatic bridges bites you in the ass just as bad.

Oh yes, it's our ALLIES that should be able to behave to whatever moral standard they have this week.

But if the Big Bad USA gets mad, we better consult and abide them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Oh yes, it's our ALLIES that should be able to behave to whatever moral standard they have this week.

But if the Big Bad USA gets mad, we better consult and abide them...

I never said that. International diplomacy is like courting a woman. If you're acting rude and disrespectful the entire time the woman isn't going to give you any respect back.

If we have a damn good reason to ignore our allies, we should definitely do it. Recently though, we haven't. As Asimov said in the past, "Violence is the diplomacy of the incompetent." Right now, our international image is pretty damn incompetent because of Iraq, and to ignore that is just even more incompetent.

I'm not saying Iraq was a bad thing either. I think in the end it was probably a good decision, but we can't ignore our international image, because at the end of the day its pretty important with how the world is today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Cmdr. WeeGee:

If you're acting rude and disrespectful the entire time the woman isn't going to give you any respect back.

Yeah, but here's the problem, If you're doing all the work, paying all the bills, and taking care of your house, and all the B*tch is doing is spending all your money, getting fat and eating Bon-Bon's all day, then tries to tell you how YOU should behave, then we have a problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Cmdr. WeeGee:

If we have a damn good reason to ignore our allies, we should definitely do it. Recently though, we haven't.


Let's see, our reaction to the Terrorist when they Blew up the WTC was to get in there and kick ass, our Allies reaction to Terrorist who blew up their train stations was "Hmm, what did we do to piss them off"???.... Oh we're so sorry, please forgive us, we've already forgiven you for killing our families!!! [/QB]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...