Political Crossfire Forums

[eynon]

Lancaster wrote: Canada_rocks wrote: Eynon81 wrote: Canada_rocks wrote: Eynon81 wrote: btw...I can tell you from personal experience that S. Koreans are the biggest, toughest guys in all Asia.




Exibit A, SOme South Korean Bad Asses.

And apperantly, they have metal claw hands for crushing

:lol: :wink: But yea, I noticed they don't take no s**t.

for the crushing of evil Communist tyrants.

A crushing I sure most of the rest of the free would would love to help with if South Korea said it was ok!

Yep. I would agree. Kim Jung Il is a dick (can I say dick on PC) oh well I just did. we can make naked republicans run across the mine field to clear them..Actually, I've seen some Republicans, they can keep their cloths on :lol:

So, as it seems death and suffering CAN be great material for a joke... :)

the best :-D


btw...you know guys I was trying to make a serious point about america bowing to the wishes of our close allies, you don't have to take everything I say lightly :-| ....ok, go ahead :)

[LandOfHypocrisy]

Those Koreans look like they could easily take down the 80's band "Flock of Seagulls". ...I wouldn't want to mess.




In all seriousness though, the U.S. has nothing to gain from not attacking North Korea. North Korea has already made clear it's willingness and intentions to engage in Nuclear proliferation. Any delay in attacking them will only let them improve their technology and delivery systems.

South Koreans scream for pacifism. And I believe it's for different reasons. Some are rebellious disaffected youth who find it trendy or in vogue to be anti-government. Some Koreans seek to show how much freedom of speech they have, or at least hope broadcasts of their protests will be aired in North Korea showing the hostage population that they want peace and a better future for the North. Only by being anti-government would the North air their protests through their controlled propaganda.

What South Korea fails to realize though is that Kim Il Jong, through his policies, is making North Korea an international threat and nuissance. This extends well beyond being just a "Korean" problem. So I'm not 100% for letting South Koreans handle this in a myopic way.

The U.S. should plan a feasible first strike offensive that would incapacitate North Koreas counterstrike ability in a cripling way. ...We probably have one already, and should consider employing it. Kim Jong has demonstrated that his regeime has no credibility for keeping it's promises. You can't bargain with someone like that.

[Canada_Rocks]

LandOfHypocrisy wrote: Those Koreans look like they could easily take down the 80's band "Flock of Seagulls". ...I wouldn't want to mess.




In all seriousness though, the U.S. has nothing to gain from not attacking North Korea. North Korea has already made clear it's willingness and intentions to engage in Nuclear proliferation. Any delay in attacking them will only let them improve their technology and delivery systems.

South Koreans scream for pacifism. And I believe it's for different reasons. Some are rebellious disaffected youth who find it trendy or in vogue to be anti-government. Some Koreans seek to show how much freedom of speech they have, or at least hope broadcasts of their protests will be aired in North Korea showing the hostage population that they want peace and a better future for the North. Only by being anti-government would the North air their protests through their controlled propaganda.

What South Korea fails to realize though is that Kim Il Jong, through his policies, is making North Korea an international threat and nuissance. This extends well beyond being just a "Korean" problem. So I'm not 100% for letting South Koreans handle this in a myopic way.

The U.S. should plan a feasible first strike offensive that would incapacitate North Koreas counterstrike ability in a cripling way. ...We probably have one already, and should consider employing it. Kim Jong has demonstrated that his regeime has no credibility for keeping it's promises. You can't bargain with someone like that.
agreed, but why stop at a first strike or just crippling them?

[Lancaster]

uugh? because we try to remove the corrupt dictator, not convert the people to radioactive vapour

[Canada_Rocks]

Lancaster wrote: uugh? because we try to remove the corrupt dictator, not convert the people to radioactive vapour

I mean, if we just hit em once and destroy SOME silos...we still run the risk of the Dictatorship continuing. We need a full out invasion.

[RealRepublicanArmy]

It is completely a domestic issue and is not the duty or place for the US government to play daddy to the north korean people. It is the duty of the citizens of any government to overthrow such government when it fails to protect their basic rights. AKA its not our responsibility to die for foreigners.

[eynon]

LandOfHypocrisy wrote: Those Koreans look like they could easily take down the 80's band "Flock of Seagulls". ...I wouldn't want to mess.




In all seriousness though, the U.S. has nothing to gain from not attacking North Korea. North Korea has already made clear it's willingness and intentions to engage in Nuclear proliferation. Any delay in attacking them will only let them improve their technology and delivery systems.

South Koreans scream for pacifism. And I believe it's for different reasons. Some are rebellious disaffected youth who find it trendy or in vogue to be anti-government. Some Koreans seek to show how much freedom of speech they have, or at least hope broadcasts of their protests will be aired in North Korea showing the hostage population that they want peace and a better future for the North. Only by being anti-government would the North air their protests through their controlled propaganda.

What South Korea fails to realize though is that Kim Il Jong, through his policies, is making North Korea an international threat and nuissance. This extends well beyond being just a "Korean" problem. So I'm not 100% for letting South Koreans handle this in a myopic way.

The U.S. should plan a feasible first strike offensive that would incapacitate North Koreas counterstrike ability in a cripling way. ...We probably have one already, and should consider employing it. Kim Jong has demonstrated that his regeime has no credibility for keeping it's promises. You can't bargain with someone like that.


Now hold on here......literally thousands of North Korean artillery pieces are in range of Seoul and can reign down fire and death on that city of millions in a heart-beat. If war broke out the South Koreans would suffer thousands of causalties within the span of a few hours. Sure the South would win the war(especially with American planes ruling the skies), but at great cost to both sides.

Plus South Koreans....get this.....don't want to kill North Koreans.

The South Koreans have been great allies and friends to our own country, can't we in turn be good friends and let them resolve their own problem? :-|

[tictactactical]

tk750 wrote: but G. Bush said, "Duh, um... I think... I think... wait do I think... Oh look its poochie... I'll be back at two, I need to play golf."
It sure is funny when people, such as yourself, make statements, like that in the above quote, that suggest a low intelligence for the president, even though he is much more educated, and of much higher intelligence than you..... So what's that say about you?

[Lancaster]

tictactactical wrote: tk750 wrote: but G. Bush said, "Duh, um... I think... I think... wait do I think... Oh look its poochie... I'll be back at two, I need to play golf."
It sure is funny when people, such as yourself, make statements, like that in the above quote, that suggest a low intelligence for the president, even though he is much more educated, and of much higher intelligence than you..... So what's that say about you?

I love how you know the education level of every person on the planet

[Canada_Rocks]

Eynon81 wrote: LandOfHypocrisy wrote: Those Koreans look like they could easily take down the 80's band "Flock of Seagulls". ...I wouldn't want to mess.




In all seriousness though, the U.S. has nothing to gain from not attacking North Korea. North Korea has already made clear it's willingness and intentions to engage in Nuclear proliferation. Any delay in attacking them will only let them improve their technology and delivery systems.

South Koreans scream for pacifism. And I believe it's for different reasons. Some are rebellious disaffected youth who find it trendy or in vogue to be anti-government. Some Koreans seek to show how much freedom of speech they have, or at least hope broadcasts of their protests will be aired in North Korea showing the hostage population that they want peace and a better future for the North. Only by being anti-government would the North air their protests through their controlled propaganda.

What South Korea fails to realize though is that Kim Il Jong, through his policies, is making North Korea an international threat and nuissance. This extends well beyond being just a "Korean" problem. So I'm not 100% for letting South Koreans handle this in a myopic way.

The U.S. should plan a feasible first strike offensive that would incapacitate North Koreas counterstrike ability in a cripling way. ...We probably have one already, and should consider employing it. Kim Jong has demonstrated that his regeime has no credibility for keeping it's promises. You can't bargain with someone like that.


Now hold on here......literally thousands of North Korean artillery pieces are in range of Seoul and can reign down fire and death on that city of millions in a heart-beat. If war broke out the South Koreans would suffer thousands of causalties within the span of a few hours. Sure the South would win the war(especially with American planes ruling the skies), but at great cost to both sides.

Plus South Koreans....get this.....don't want to kill North Koreans.

The South Koreans have been great allies and friends to our own country, can't we in turn be good friends and let them resolve their own problem? :-|

Dude, in any war there is always a foreign city within scud range from the enemy.

[tictactactical]

Lancaster wrote: tictactactical wrote: tk750 wrote: but G. Bush said, "Duh, um... I think... I think... wait do I think... Oh look its poochie... I'll be back at two, I need to play golf."
It sure is funny when people, such as yourself, make statements, like that in the above quote, that suggest a low intelligence for the president, even though he is much more educated, and of much higher intelligence than you..... So what's that say about you?

I love how you know the education level of every person on the planet
Know what I love just as much? Your tasteless desire to put words in my mouth...

So, tell me, where in my quote did I claim to "know the education level of every person on the planet"?

Listen, here's the gist: Have you, or tk750 (you know, the one you responded for), received the level and/or amount of formal and/or experience oriented education that President Bush has? I guarantee not. So, for someone less educated and/or intelligent to not only question the intelligence of someone more educated, but to do so in such a juvenile manner, would indicate a much lower intelligence, not to mention a lacking in maturity.

[Lancaster]

tictactactical wrote: Lancaster wrote: tictactactical wrote: tk750 wrote: but G. Bush said, "Duh, um... I think... I think... wait do I think... Oh look its poochie... I'll be back at two, I need to play golf."
It sure is funny when people, such as yourself, make statements, like that in the above quote, that suggest a low intelligence for the president, even though he is much more educated, and of much higher intelligence than you..... So what's that say about you?

I love how you know the education level of every person on the planet
Know what I love just as much? Your tasteless desire to put words in my mouth...

So, tell me, where in my quote did I claim to "know the education level of every person on the planet"?

Listen, here's the gist: Have you, or tk750 (you know, the one you responded for), received the level and/or amount of formal and/or experience oriented education that President Bush has? I guarantee not. So, for someone less educated and/or intelligent to not only question the intelligence of someone more educated, but to do so in such a juvenile manner, would indicate a much lower intelligence, not to mention a lacking in maturity.

even though he is much more educated, and of much higher intelligence than you

Right there, you implied you knew what the level of education a stranger had.

By the way, for someone in the position of judging that you've currently alowed yourself to be in, you have a lot of arrogance. What is your level of formal education? I highly doubt that it is the great doctorate that you've decided none of us have

[Canada_Rocks]

Lancaster wrote: tictactactical wrote: Lancaster wrote: tictactactical wrote: tk750 wrote: but G. Bush said, "Duh, um... I think... I think... wait do I think... Oh look its poochie... I'll be back at two, I need to play golf."
It sure is funny when people, such as yourself, make statements, like that in the above quote, that suggest a low intelligence for the president, even though he is much more educated, and of much higher intelligence than you..... So what's that say about you?

I love how you know the education level of every person on the planet
Know what I love just as much? Your tasteless desire to put words in my mouth...

So, tell me, where in my quote did I claim to "know the education level of every person on the planet"?

Listen, here's the gist: Have you, or tk750 (you know, the one you responded for), received the level and/or amount of formal and/or experience oriented education that President Bush has? I guarantee not. So, for someone less educated and/or intelligent to not only question the intelligence of someone more educated, but to do so in such a juvenile manner, would indicate a much lower intelligence, not to mention a lacking in maturity.

even though he is much more educated, and of much higher intelligence than you

Right there, you implied you knew what the level of education a stranger had.

By the way, for someone in the position of judging that you've currently alowed yourself to be in, you have a lot of arrogance. What is your level of formal education? I highly doubt that it is the great doctorate that you've decided none of us have

Who cares. tk750 probably has a grade 2 education and is ticttacttactical's boss. :lol: :lol:

[LandOfHypocrisy]

Eynon81 wrote: LandOfHypocrisy wrote: Those Koreans look like they could easily take down the 80's band "Flock of Seagulls". ...I wouldn't want to mess.




In all seriousness though, the U.S. has nothing to gain from not attacking North Korea. North Korea has already made clear it's willingness and intentions to engage in Nuclear proliferation. Any delay in attacking them will only let them improve their technology and delivery systems.

South Koreans scream for pacifism. And I believe it's for different reasons. Some are rebellious disaffected youth who find it trendy or in vogue to be anti-government. Some Koreans seek to show how much freedom of speech they have, or at least hope broadcasts of their protests will be aired in North Korea showing the hostage population that they want peace and a better future for the North. Only by being anti-government would the North air their protests through their controlled propaganda.

What South Korea fails to realize though is that Kim Il Jong, through his policies, is making North Korea an international threat and nuissance. This extends well beyond being just a "Korean" problem. So I'm not 100% for letting South Koreans handle this in a myopic way.

The U.S. should plan a feasible first strike offensive that would incapacitate North Koreas counterstrike ability in a cripling way. ...We probably have one already, and should consider employing it. Kim Jong has demonstrated that his regeime has no credibility for keeping it's promises. You can't bargain with someone like that.


Now hold on here......literally thousands of North Korean artillery pieces are in range of Seoul and can reign down fire and death on that city of millions in a heart-beat. If war broke out the South Koreans would suffer thousands of causalties within the span of a few hours. Sure the South would win the war(especially with American planes ruling the skies), but at great cost to both sides.

Plus South Koreans....get this.....don't want to kill North Koreans.

The South Koreans have been great allies and friends to our own country, can't we in turn be good friends and let them resolve their own problem? :-|

Um.... We could if Kim Il Jong wasn't making it an international crises.

My point is that we could effectively atomize every Artillery gun with in range of Seoul. We could do so more effectively if we strike first.

What's the point of continuing to prop up Kim Il Jong? He's already starved 2 million people up there and thrown them into Gulags. What kind of deal do you think the South could make with this guy other then some polite form of blackmail?

[Lancaster]

LandOfHypocrisy wrote: Eynon81 wrote: LandOfHypocrisy wrote: Those Koreans look like they could easily take down the 80's band "Flock of Seagulls". ...I wouldn't want to mess.




In all seriousness though, the U.S. has nothing to gain from not attacking North Korea. North Korea has already made clear it's willingness and intentions to engage in Nuclear proliferation. Any delay in attacking them will only let them improve their technology and delivery systems.

South Koreans scream for pacifism. And I believe it's for different reasons. Some are rebellious disaffected youth who find it trendy or in vogue to be anti-government. Some Koreans seek to show how much freedom of speech they have, or at least hope broadcasts of their protests will be aired in North Korea showing the hostage population that they want peace and a better future for the North. Only by being anti-government would the North air their protests through their controlled propaganda.

What South Korea fails to realize though is that Kim Il Jong, through his policies, is making North Korea an international threat and nuissance. This extends well beyond being just a "Korean" problem. So I'm not 100% for letting South Koreans handle this in a myopic way.

The U.S. should plan a feasible first strike offensive that would incapacitate North Koreas counterstrike ability in a cripling way. ...We probably have one already, and should consider employing it. Kim Jong has demonstrated that his regeime has no credibility for keeping it's promises. You can't bargain with someone like that.


Now hold on here......literally thousands of North Korean artillery pieces are in range of Seoul and can reign down fire and death on that city of millions in a heart-beat. If war broke out the South Koreans would suffer thousands of causalties within the span of a few hours. Sure the South would win the war(especially with American planes ruling the skies), but at great cost to both sides.

Plus South Koreans....get this.....don't want to kill North Koreans.

The South Koreans have been great allies and friends to our own country, can't we in turn be good friends and let them resolve their own problem? :-|

Um.... We could if Kim Il Jong wasn't making it an international crises.

My point is that we could effectively atomize every Artillery gun with in range of Seoul. We could do so more effectively if we strike first.

What's the point of continuing to prop up Kim Il Jong? He's already starved 2 million people up there and thrown them into Gulags. What kind of deal do you think the South could make with this guy other then some polite form of blackmail?

Interesting point, but consider this, N. Korea has not attacked the states in any way, it would be an unprovoked Nuclear assault. Also, N. Korea doesn't use artillery, it's in scud form, and can be launched from anywhere. the only way to cripple the arsenal would be to level the whole country.

[LandOfHypocrisy]

Lancaster wrote: LandOfHypocrisy wrote: Eynon81 wrote: LandOfHypocrisy wrote: Those Koreans look like they could easily take down the 80's band "Flock of Seagulls". ...I wouldn't want to mess.




In all seriousness though, the U.S. has nothing to gain from not attacking North Korea. North Korea has already made clear it's willingness and intentions to engage in Nuclear proliferation. Any delay in attacking them will only let them improve their technology and delivery systems.

South Koreans scream for pacifism. And I believe it's for different reasons. Some are rebellious disaffected youth who find it trendy or in vogue to be anti-government. Some Koreans seek to show how much freedom of speech they have, or at least hope broadcasts of their protests will be aired in North Korea showing the hostage population that they want peace and a better future for the North. Only by being anti-government would the North air their protests through their controlled propaganda.

What South Korea fails to realize though is that Kim Il Jong, through his policies, is making North Korea an international threat and nuissance. This extends well beyond being just a "Korean" problem. So I'm not 100% for letting South Koreans handle this in a myopic way.

The U.S. should plan a feasible first strike offensive that would incapacitate North Koreas counterstrike ability in a cripling way. ...We probably have one already, and should consider employing it. Kim Jong has demonstrated that his regeime has no credibility for keeping it's promises. You can't bargain with someone like that.


Now hold on here......literally thousands of North Korean artillery pieces are in range of Seoul and can reign down fire and death on that city of millions in a heart-beat. If war broke out the South Koreans would suffer thousands of causalties within the span of a few hours. Sure the South would win the war(especially with American planes ruling the skies), but at great cost to both sides.

Plus South Koreans....get this.....don't want to kill North Koreans.

The South Koreans have been great allies and friends to our own country, can't we in turn be good friends and let them resolve their own problem? :-|

Um.... We could if Kim Il Jong wasn't making it an international crises.

My point is that we could effectively atomize every Artillery gun with in range of Seoul. We could do so more effectively if we strike first.

What's the point of continuing to prop up Kim Il Jong? He's already starved 2 million people up there and thrown them into Gulags. What kind of deal do you think the South could make with this guy other then some polite form of blackmail?

Interesting point, but consider this, N. Korea has not attacked the states in any way, it would be an unprovoked Nuclear assault. Also, N. Korea doesn't use artillery, it's in scud form, and can be launched from anywhere. the only way to cripple the arsenal would be to level the whole country.

They haven't attacked us? ...They've done everything but. They're like the little annoying kid who puts his finger one inch from your body, and says, "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you!"

We should just assasinate Kim Il Jong, and let them suck on it. It's not like he's elected anyways.

If it's not a democracy, I'm not even sure it should be considered a country.

[SiriusBlack]

Quote: If it's not a democracy, I'm not even sure it should be considered a country.

I disagree. I think they should very much be considered a country and a possible threat.

The whole thing about Concentration Camps raises and bad point. But you know we made concentration camps in America, eventhough it was not to that extent, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. So are they very different than the rest of the world. Japan did it to the Chinese during WWII for Biological testing and now they are one of our biggest Economical supports.

Attacking NK would be a big problem, eventhough Kim Jung Il is a dick, because that could possibly start a catalyst of events in motion. China seems to be kind of in relations with NK so they might come to their rescue and i would say China is the most powerful country with as many troops as they have, if they can penetrate our guns. And if China gets into war with the US and their allies then Russia will probably join with China since the two have been allies for most of mordern civilization and that was proved when China and Russia combined forces in Iraq not too long ago.

NK should not be overloooked but we should not attack it unless we undoubtedly sway China to our side or are sure that NK is really a risk to us and the rest of the world. Quote: Quote: Quote:

[Lancaster]

SiriusBlack wrote: Quote: If it's not a democracy, I'm not even sure it should be considered a country.

I disagree. I think they should very much be considered a country and a possible threat.

The whole thing about Concentration Camps raises and bad point. But you know we made concentration camps in America, eventhough it was not to that extent, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. So are they very different than the rest of the world. Japan did it to the Chinese during WWII for Biological testing and now they are one of our biggest Economical supports.

Attacking NK would be a big problem, eventhough Kim Jung Il is a dick, because that could possibly start a catalyst of events in motion. China seems to be kind of in relations with NK so they might come to their rescue and i would say China is the most powerful country with as many troops as they have, if they can penetrate our guns. And if China gets into war with the US and their allies then Russia will probably join with China since the two have been allies for most of mordern civilization and that was proved when China and Russia combined forces in Iraq not too long ago.

NK should not be overloooked but we should not attack it unless we undoubtedly sway China to our side or are sure that NK is really a risk to us and the rest of the world. Quote: Quote: Quote:

I think you are exactly right, NK is a modern day Serbia, and China is Austro-Hungaria. There will be a global shift in power towards the east in the next ten years. China will be in the position the states are in now, and the west will be irrelevant. India is our only hope in a world like this, and It doesn't seem to be huge military power.

If you want a World War Three then by all means attack NK

[WorldCitizenMovement]

tk750 wrote: Yup I know, but the thing is, the US, to my knowledge has not made any attempts to stop these atrocities. Even more strange, is that we invaded Iraq b/c we thought they had weapons of mass destruction (a.k.a. wmd's). But then, we knew North Korea was creating WMD's (they have biological, chemical, and now nuclear) and yet we did not do anything but G. Bush said, "Duh, um... I think... I think... wait do I think... Oh look its poochie... I'll be back at two, I need to play golf." OIL :shock: ! Thats why we invaded Iraq. Its also racism, no one cares about the Koreans but if its a Jew, now well there are a lot of powerful Jews in this country and its a big discussion. The Holocaust are terrible, but... THERES ANOTHER ONE GOING ON AND NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT IT!!

I remember a theory postulated by Noam Chomsky on U.S. foreign policy in terms of who they invade and why; there were three principles:

1) The country must be virtually defenseless,

Iraq was defenseless, its obvious that Iraq harbouring terrorists, constructing WMDs, and plans to attack America were nothing more than lies and propaganda. North Korea on the other hand is know to be developing Nukes, maintains a massive military machine and is a ruthless country.

2) The country must have some vital economic interests for American business corporations;

Iraq contains 10% of the worlds oil and is easiy attainable. North Korea, however, has no real economic gain to be made from an invasion.

3) The countries political insitutions and especially its leader must be able to be made out as a terrible and ruthless individual with serious capabilities to bring America to its knees;

Suddham was able to be made out as such; he used chemical weapons on Kurds, invaded Kuwait, was a dictator, and easily could be propagandized as a leader harbouring terrorists and WMDS. North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, on the other hand, could be made out as such a man. He "acknowledged to Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi the involvement of DPRK "special institutions" in the kidnapping of Japanese citizens" and it is known as well that North Korea is involved in kidnapping South Korean citizens, but the majority of those held in special institutions are most probably its own; those who are viewed as political enemies, or possibly dangerous people to the establishment. North Korea adopted the political ideology of stalinism or self-reliance and is closely related to the suppposedly millions of Nks who have died from famine or prison camps (political paranoia at best is the result of such human attocities in NK as it was so fashionable during Stalins reign) Furthermore, Kim Jong-il is known to not take American political pressure lightly, rather telling America to mind their own damn business. However, NK as a *real* and *viable* threat to the U.S. is enough to make America back off from doing anything, rather making Kim out as a political enemy of the states makes no sense in connection with the other two principles--Iraq was obviously the easier choice.

5. In my opinion, the U.S. political insitutions could care less about prison camps and wont waste needed dollars on a pointless human crusade that will piss off the U.N as they would see it as American Imperialism; Iraq is a perfect example, only it was easier to make them out as the enemy, NK would not be as simple if it were the other way around. The U.S. political insitutions have to much to worry about when their supporters come knocking at the door, namely the large corporations seeking higher profits (oil companines, military companies, etc)