....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...

I think Boatin is right.

We are doing the same as what happened in Afghani (good black though, better than that paki black.. mmmmm Smoke!!).. Ignore the old news for the new news which is old news. new war, new pictures, new cnn coverage ... Forget about what happened last week!.

I think the us should do several things
1. invent cold fusion or effective hydrogen fuel cells. Then ship back all the oil we have now to the middle east going haha, screw you, keep your desert and your religon that is about 1500 years behind christanity and other world religons

2. NK said that they started this because of what happened in Iraq, they need a deterant to keep the us out of their country. i say fine, let china deal with it. honestly. its in their backyard, they have the army to do it, and for once the us wouldn't be the hated agressor....

3. Invent an idiot bomb, mass produce these things, and drop them over the entire world. The premise is that somehow it will elminate every stupid person who is bent on world domination, or just has pointless hatred towards others. while this would eliminate half the world, i believe the survivors would thourghly enjoy a utopia of world peace.

Syria is next in line to get fucked over.

I don't think Bush has the guts to fuck with the Koreans.

Knowing him, he might think they all do nothing but play Diablo 2.

*sigh*

Although I agree with the idea (even though it'll be unlikely to happen)... if NK said they started the whole nuke thing because of Iraq, they're full of shit. They started this *before* the whole Iraq thing even started! Just another excuse.

You guys kill me. Talking about which country to conquer next. Pros, cons, etc.

You are no different than the fucking Nazis in 1939.

Zeich Heil, Zeich Heil.

And you're a troll, pure and simple.

Oink, Oink, Oink.

ah, hit a nerve eh.

You don't see the similarities? You have just finished beating Iraq (a country with one tenth your population) and now you are looking for another country (not too tough though) to take on.

WTF?

Germany in 1939 conquered first Austria, then Czekoslovakia, then Poland claiming that it was their right. No country since WW2 has conquered another, let alone 2 countries that I can think of.

The united states would seem to have the taste of blood in its mouth and it likes it. The posters here debating the merits of wheter to attack Iran, or Syria, or North Korea would seem to confirm that.

National pride is one thing. Nationalism is another and it is a slippery slope.

What gives you the right to attack whatever country you do not like?

You have become a nation of conquerers it would seem.

Reconmike looks to the north and says.......it might be time to liberate the liberals and draft dodger lovers from their liberal government....hummmmmmmm......................................

The United States of the whole continent of America, has a really nice ring to it..................................

Exactly my point.....

Not that you haven't tried before (and lost).

True,

and I am gravely concerned about the Leafs too.

Sigh......

Look, james... there's a subtle difference between nazi germany trying to occupy, enslave and subjugate the entire world, and the US trying to get rid of certain nasty dictators. If you don't see that, there's not much to discuss.

The US is not evil, as much as some people think it is.

(Oh, I'm not from the USA, and I didn't see any discussion of what country to attack next; I saw a discussion of a potential future attack, and what people thought about it. Again, a subtle difference in goal.)

Maybe it's time for the US to try some diplomatic measures rather than asking what country they should invade next. Going around threatening countries isn't diplomacy, it's arm-twisting and that only breeds resentment.

james t kirk - the leafs are going down my friend...hehe

I personally thought for a long time that Iran was going to be next: You would see a lot of articles in the news demonizing them, accusing them of harbouring terrorists and having weapons of mass destruction, as well as pointing out what a horrible leadership they live under. Now I'm not sure, it may be Syria is next in line.

As far as stopping terrorism goes, however, it seems to me that bombing countries into the stone age and then installing US-friendly regimes and supplying them with weapons is *exactly*what got us 9/11. Maybe instead of trying the same thing over and over again, we should take a new approach.

Look at what we're doing in Iraq, so far. Installing American military dictators against the will of the people, generating huge protests, while all the time ignoring the important social problems faced, including the post-war power vacuum that allowed looting and crime to go unchecked.

Now the Iraqis see us as invading, occupying infidel forces. When the younger generation grows up, remembering their little brother or sister who was killed in the bombing by the US, what are they going to think? They certainly aren't going to feel love for the great Satan, they're going to see us as the source for all of their problems. That sort of thinking is what gets buildings blown up.

If, instead, we treated Afghanistan and Iraq more like post-WWII Japan, we would be setting them up for a much better time. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar! Setting up an Alaska-like trust for oil revenues, dividends going as cash directly to the population, rather than into the hands of corrupt government officials or US companies, would make the region incredibly more stable and friendly. Concentrating our efforts on restoring the peace to a torn nation, rather than standing by while criminals rob the people (they sure don't think we're doing it for their benefit now). Giving reconstruction contracts to Iraqi companies, or at least other countries, rather than allowing a handful of politically-connected US companies to snap up the best jobs.

Sorry, I guess that turned into a rant about our ill performance in post-war Iraq rather than the "next step". But perhaps the next time, the American people won't swallow the tale of "Liberation, and weapons of mass destruction".

Well dragon, it depends on your point of view.....

I am sure that in the 1930's, a great many Nazis thought that the last thing they were doing was trying to occupy, enslave, or subjugate. They merely thought that they were protecting their interests. And look what it lead to.

It's all relative to where you stand. I am sure there are a great many people (rightly or wrongly) in the world who perceive the US as an agressive, belligerent, unilateral super power that is out of control.

The threat of the US attacking another country like Syria, or Iran, would seem to me to be a very real possibility at the current time. There does not seem to be any concerted voice of opposition. Any time anyone voices even concern, he or she is labelled as anti-american or a traitor.

Maybe before you guys go beating your chests into another war frenzy you should take a hard look at the realities of war.

warning, not a pretty site

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...567875683.html

(edited)Sorry

My wife has asked me not to go into "the" box.

Ah, James... and you assume that pro-war people do not know how brutal and deadly war is?

I know war is nasty, but sometimes *not* going to war leads to more, even nastier problems. For example, in the case of Iraq: less than 1,000 dead civilians during the war, as opposed to an estimated 20,000 dead civilians each year under Saddam's rule.
(And of course, the infamous pre-world war 2 appeasement of Hitler, instead of standing up and saying no.)

You cannot say "let's not fight, ever" just because civilians and soldiers will die in a war - if you do, the people that don't give a rat's arse about such things (Saddam and friends) win.

I think we will (for the most part) kick back until after election 2004. We may do a limit strike against Syria, but taking over another country/regime change will have to wait a while.

And I agree with rogue49, North Korea may be crazy, but we are not. China will slap their little puppy around and make them act all nice for the world.

Well dragon, i guess i am very conflicted about the entire war.

I hear some of the pro points that are made, but i still don't have a warm fuzzy about this. Getting rid of Saddam was fine by me, it's just that i failed to see why it had to be done right there and then. There was 2 other compromise positions before the UN that would have allowed for a bit more time, a bit more diplomacy, and maybe could have spared a few lives. I will agree that I do not think for a minute that the US EVER deliberatly targeted civilians, but like it or not, innocent people got killed, or in the case of that kid, hurt really bad.

Whatever the truth is, of this I am sure. We'll never know one way or the other.

The funny thing about this was that the US bombed the shit out of every gov't everything EXCEPT the Iraqi Ministry of Oil Production. Hmmmm.

Very conflicted

Hmm... perhaps it's *not* because the US wants to take over all the oil (as some people think), but because they want to find out where Saddam's money came from, and where it is now? That'd be kinda interesting, wouldn't it? And incidentally, it's also what the US government claims.

Why on earth would the US need that ministry to steal the Iraqi oil? They know where the oil is, they can see the friggin' oil wells everywhere. There's no need to protect that ministry for this purpose.

Because it's relevant to the production of oil.

You need head office, like it or not.

It's not *that* important for oil production. It is *that* important to find the hidden fortunes Saddam stole from his people...

I think to ease some tensions in the middle east,Bush should work on a bona fide peace plan for Isreali's and Palestinian's regarding Palestinian statehood rather than to go after N.Korea.The North Koreans already got the message from the decisive action taken on Iraq.

Already being done, with the "roadmap to peace" thing. Now that there's a moderate prime-minister in the Palestinian territories, we might see some progress there.

And of course, it's the North-Koreans that are threatening war here, not the US...

there is no way we will go into North Korea, we all should udnerstand that the military situation is extremely far different from Iraq

first off the US forces invading iraq were able to cross over an undefended border from multiple fronts to attack the country. If we went into NK, the only route is through South Korea, through a border defended by millions of combat hardened troops.

not going to happen people

I think the North Korea should be #1 on the priority list. They have a massive army, they have nucleur weapons, and they have an insane leader much much much much more dangerous than Saddam Hussein ever was making threats towards the US.

I do think though that Mr. Bush will keep his eyes in the middle east and Syria. Which is a big mistake.

A picture says more than a thousand words:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/raine.maattan.../bush_ring.jpg

I dont think the US will go after Syria or North Korea. I dont think Bush is THAT stupid.

North Korea is a serious problem - a very serious problem. But to who (or is that whom?)?

North Korea is a very serious problem to Japan - They have proven they have the capability to reach out and touch Japan. Japan has stated - very clearly, that if North Korea loads a WMD onto a missle that this act in itself will be considered an act of war and will be dealt with as such. This action, by the way would automatically draw the US and others into a war with North Korea.

North Korea is a threat in many ways to China. First, North Korea is China's bastard step child. Anything NK does comes back to haunt China. China is perhaps overly concerned about the balance of power in Asia. Japan's economy is a concern and threats to Japan could adversley even effect China's economy. The removal of NK as it now exists would definitely upset their applecart. When it gets to the point of push coming to shove I personally believe it will be China that reigns NK back in. Their current actions are a temper tantrum they are attempt to throw to coerce the US and others into meeting their economic demands - They may or may not be bluffing - to prove they are not they will have to use one of these weapons, probably in a test, to prove they have it - the offering of such proof is going to be considered an act of war by Japan and China is very much aware of the consequence.

According to Mr Bushs "logic" the USA hast to go to war with NK:

- NK has Nukes, they admitted it
- NK has or develops missiles that could reach the USA
- NK is ruled by dictator, his people are starving and Kim gives a shit about it.
- NK is part of the "axis of evil"

All this reasons were enough to go to war with Iraq (although some seem to be more or less faked, see WMDs ). All in all NK is much more of thread than iraq ever was, so why not go to war with NK?

I don't think this qualifies as a "Big Dog" because it's gonna stay on the porch. Other than the threat of nuclear weapons, and at this point no one knows if it is anything other than a threat, N Korea is a threat to S Korea, China and Russia. (Period) They have a large army, ill equipped, ill fed, and they have nothing much else. They have no way of transporting this army to anywhere other than to where they can walk. Even the rag tag vehicles they do have available are in disrepair and antiques. I have a feeling people who do not yet believe George Bush when he says something are standing around with their heads in the sand. He will do what he says he will do and I think you can take that to the bank. When N Korea is thrown the bone they are barking for they will get back on the porch and stay there. N Korea has serious problems - War is the last thing they possibly need - they know it and the rest of the world knows it.

Because Iraq was a MUCH easier target

Of course, then again, we tore through them like a hot knife through butter 12 years ago when they were one of the stronger military prescenses in the world as well. It's not that we're afraid of North Korea, anyone who says that will recieve a liberal dose of scoffing.

More likely, it's because we haven't persued diplomacy yet. Remember, we didn't invade Iraq until they invaded Kuwait, and we didn't go back until we had enough of their BS, and diplomacy proved futile. Kim Jong il has thus far only threatened us, I'm surprised pacifier is wondering why we don't go to war with them, though I'm sure he's just trying to prove a point, we don't because there's no reason to yet. In time we'll properly assess the threat they pose, what they want, and how to go about dealing with them. Hopefully not with war, but don't rule it out. All things considered, they have to know we'd crush them, I think it's clear they want something else. Possibly to do with the United States having lots of food, and them needing some.