....so we won the war, North Korea next?
 

I tend to stay away from this stuff but, I heard today that since we had liberated Iraq we were now turing out focus to NK.

As memory servers they were flaunting that they had Nukes (or the ability to make Nukes) but we just gave them the cold shoulder.

So for our troops, is it next stop NK? Home? somewhere else?

Remember: NO FLAMING

I havn't heard anything about us going after NK. I doubt we will though.

I don't think so either.

I would have said the same thing about Iraq back when we were bombing Afghanistan (sp?).

Only time will tell.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but werent they going to go after Syria next? With easter shifts, I've fallen out on what exactly is going on.

I dunno...now NK is bragging about starting production of weapons-grade plutonium...WTF are they thinking??

I really don't see this as a good idea.

MPEDrummer

definately some scary shit if they aren't bluffing. I remember a big debate at work before iraq was attacked, that NK was the bigger threat if they were serious about what they were saying, and that they should be neutralised.

Unfortunately, Blair, Bush and Bush's little string puppet Howard thought differently.

Yes, NK recently announced they have commenced re-processing of spent fuel, the first step to creating bombs, commonly.

I vote we pick on smaller countries.

That way we know we will win.

North Korea would be a much bigger risk, especially with their nukes.

Besides, few thought the US wouldn't win the war in Iraq (although they may have disagreed on the potential costs), the bigger question has always been what happens next.

In answer to the original question, I've asked some people who know some people and its going to be February 3rd next year. But could be delayed if Syria or Saudi Arabia don't fall in a few weeks.

I doubt that George Bush has got the political currency to go after ANYONE after what happened in Iraq. No way would the domestic public bankroll another war. USA wanted to "hit-back" at middle east for 9/11, it's done that.

Besides NK has already calmed down. Iran, Pakistan, etc worry me.

okay, so that Syria thing was for real. (only heard it from a comedian so I left it out)

Okay, I hate the mainstream news of late (have you seen the fox clips? eeks....another thread another thread) anyway, why are we interested in Syria? Is it just convient since we are already in the area or what?

if north korean decides to nuke, their warheads wont reach anywhere. so theyll hit South korea. if south korea is hit... (with a nuke)

north korea is gone as well, so its basically a suicide attack. and also that whole asian peninsula of korea wont be inhabitable for over 40 years. and all the nuclear dust will fly towards japan from climate patterns, and basically, itll be like japan is getting nuked for the 3rd time in history...

U.S does NOT want north and south korea to reunite because of economy, i dont 100% understand that, but i think george bush should suck my dick. im a korean, and if my family is nuked bcause of him, boy he gonna hear it from me.

why woudl you blame George Bush for what NK decides to do with their nukes? Now if USA nuked korea, fine. But I sense a little misdirected agression here.

N Koprea is really more of a problem for China to deal with. The Nuclear club plays by a very different set of rules than what N Korea is attempting

see what happens when you dont proof-read posts?

Syria, under the previous leader, has been a massive supporter of international terrorism, together with Iran. They're also in control of most of Lebanon, including the infamous Bakaa valley, home of many a terrorist group. They're actively opposing the peace process in Israel, and supporting Palestinian terror groups that oppose peace too. They're probably responsible for that terror attack on the US Marines in Lebanon too.

If you take out Syria, you take out big player in the terrorism scene, and you'd finally free Lebanon.

But after Iraq, I think governments in that area will start to worry; they could be next if they fuck up. I think you'll see a gradual shift to more US-friendly actions (on the outside anyway), especially if US troops remain in Iraq for a while (military bases, or protection force, or whatever).

As for North-Korea... the US are not likely to go to war over their actions. A preemptive strike will lead to China's involvement. If NK strikes first, they're toast, and everyone knows that.

I really think that North Korea can be handled diplomatically. North Korea is just flexing a bit of it's nuclear muscle in a game of global blackmail, and to increase the morale of its suffering citizens. A little pressure from China and the rest of the world will hopefully make them drop their guns.

If we have to go in, I'm afraid it would end in nuclear disaster, so the best we can do here is hope that N Korea has the sense to shape up. The ball is basically in their court.

From what I have understood from the quick skimming of the news I've been doing lately, Syria is suspected to be harboring top Baath Party officials. They also were supplying night vision goggles or something to the Republican guard troops.

I haven't heard any officials say that we are even threatening force with them, as far as I can tell it is only inferred by people for whom it is convenient to their views to see America as "looking for a fight".

My biggest fear is that the US is going to target Syria. I think that will have a real destabilizing effect on the entire region. With the latest agreement to hand over some of the top Iraqis, though, it seems that we won't have to worry too much about a Syrian war.

i agree w/ the fact that n.korea is not something easy to conquer.

thye have a highly trained army that wont have any desertions (like iraq)


and what if the same thing that happened in the korean war happen again?

No no, we'll just bomb them back to the stone age before we send in anyone on the ground.

We were beating the North Koreans untill china sent in over 200k troops, thats when cease fire came into effect.

yeah, that's what i was talking about, chinese involvement.


you really think china's going to be cool w/ us installing a democratic free regime right next to their border?

Let's be very specific. It isn't international terrorism in the sense that it does much terror anywhere but Israel (or at least directed at Israelis) so attacking Syria to end terror would basically be going out of your way to help make it easier for Israel's right wing to push its agenda without fear of opposition.

Quote:

But after Iraq, I think governments in that area will start to worry; they could be next if they fuck up. I think you'll see a gradual shift to more US-friendly actions (on the outside anyway), especially if US troops remain in Iraq for a while (military bases, or protection force, or whatever).

Exactly what the neo-cons want. More US friendly actions...democracy is a side note that will help them sell the policing to the American people. Its about utilsing American power in the most basic imperial manner but using rhetoric and propaganda to disguise it because many Americans are still uncomfortable with it.

Quote:

As for North-Korea... the US are not likely to go to war over their actions. A preemptive strike will lead to China's involvement. If NK strikes first, they're toast, and everyone knows that.

DOOMS DAY!

I think it will be Syria next. North Korea SHOULD be next, but George seems to be very focussed on the middle east.

I don't think we'll go to war before the next election. Bush wouldn't want to risk it. But if we do go, how about France? I mean, that should be an easy enough victory and we've already demonized them in the media so the American people will support it.

Damn you Smashy for opposing me on the new TFP! (Hi, by the way) :)

Well... not quite true. Not at all true, in fact. As I said, Syria was probably involved in terrorist acts against US marines. Furthermore, in practice, Syria is in control of Lebanon, and thus in control of the Bakaa valley, which is used by *international terrorists*.

Besides, the fact that Syria supports terrorism in Israel, when they're formally not at war, means that technically, they support international terrorism, it being based and perpetrated outside of Syria.

The PLO used to fight from Lebanon before the Israelis kicked them out. The PLO and their kin attacked the Israeli athletes at the Olympics in Germany - again, international terrorism.

Terror is terror, and it's a crime no matter who it is directed at. Ending terror in the area would make peace in Israel a real possibility, whereas not ending it does not.

Smashy, welcome to the real world, where nice words are used to cover up nasty politics. If American power can bring an end to a lot of problems in the Middle-east, and along the way it also brings democracy to the people of Iraq, I'm all for it. If the Arabs don't want to change their ways, a bit of pressure might persuade them. We can't just go on ignoring potential problems anymore - doing that will produce more 9-11s.

I suppose that in a way is a good thing n.k are not to friendly with there neighbors.
If usa do decide they are next we will be right behind you or in front depends who you talk to. gb i mean.

That's why the omnipotent Powers That Be have provided us with an "Edit" button down on the right side of your post.

Nice to see most everyone back!

Gents, regional politics played a part in the Iraq war and will play a part in a decision to attack or not attack Syria.

Regional politics will also play a very large part in Korea. We won't attack Korea because it won't accomplish what we want and there are too many downsides.

This isn't 'right' or 'wrong', it's just the way it is when politics and national interests are involved.

we will if they keep threatening to nuke us.

The difference between the war with Iraq and N. Korea is that we knew that war with Iraq would be a cake walk. NK on the other hand will fight back. Also a war against them would affect the world economy. S. Korea's economy would be affected and so would Japans. China involvement would only make that worse. I think we should leave that problem to the Asian countries to deal with. It has no direct affect on the U.S. other than our troops in the DMZ.

--------------------------------------------------

yup, bush is going to go w/ the easy targets.

he's not gonna mess w/ the big dogs

yeah, I'm betting Syria

It won't be North Korea next.
China is too sensitive to that.

If anything look for Syria or some African nation.

No blood for oil. Wait, what does North Korea have? No blood for starcraft.

I enjoy when there's talk of going to war, if only just for the reaction of "the left."

Nice to see everyone back!

Call me a peace loving fool, but how about we clean up Iraq and Afganistan before we go picking another fight? The cynic in me thinks that we are starting the war of words with Syria to distract the debate from post war Iraq.

Black market antiquities, anyone? I know just the guy...