archenemy Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 And yes, Japan declared war on Germany in 1914 and that stirred up some serious shit. the way I remember it was that Germany, Austria/Hungary and Russia started it over that squabble about investigating the assassination of an arch-duke. France, England and everyone else just piled on... That's the part that we (European, UK, US) learn about b/c it is what affected us the most. In Asia, they learn more about the effect that the Japanese had (and remember, they started up right at the very beginning of the war) over China, Mongolia, etc and the hegemony they had there. It's all a matter of viewpoint I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted June 22, 2006 Author Share Posted June 22, 2006 I guess noone wants to comment on whether North Korea now poses more of a threat than Iraq did pre-invasion, even if you believed the administration's biggest lies. No comment because you agree with me? Your guys have advocated attacking Iran with a nuclear bomb to try to destroy an underground bunker that they think might be there because Iran is less than five years away from going nuclear. However, no comment on whether we should lob one cruise missle in to blow up a missle filled with flammable liquid that we can see from space? In order to push back any N Korea capability to attack the continental US with already developed nuclear technology? Sounds like commenting on this scenario would just undermine all your other pro-war preemptive attack positions, huh? I thought so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 it's always struck me with all the discussion about racism in America how minor it is in comparision to racism against Koreans... After being in Korea for a while, I can actually see why people may not like them. But hey, racism exists everywhere. Everywhere. Funny, I've heard people say similar things about S. Korea climbers on Denali. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZONK Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 North Korea is pushing and wants to see how much we will push back, Kind of just trying to get the world to pay attation to them. I too spent time there, looked across the DMV and waved to a guard who had me in his sights. Kind of weird I was removing some old mines, but we put new ones back in there place, I spent a lot of time in the south picking up bombs farmers would find in there fields every spring. North Korea has allowed thousands of its own people to die from hunger from spending all there energy on building a nuke program, and thats sad ! but at times I think that at some point they will want a return on there investment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 North Korea is pushing and wants to see how much we will push back, Kind of just trying to get the world to pay attation to them. I too spent time there, looked across the DMV and waved to a guard who had me in his sights. Kind of weird I was removing some old mines, but we put new ones back in there place, I spent a lot of time in the south picking up bombs farmers would find in there fields every spring. North Korea has allowed thousands of its own people to die from hunger from spending all there energy on building a nuke program, and thats sad ! but at times I think that at some point they will want a return on there investment. maybe we just have to wait it out until that freak w/ the goofy haircut simply kicks the bucket? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 North Korea is pushing and wants to see how much we will push back, Kind of just trying to get the world to pay attation to them. I too spent time there, looked across the DMV and waved to a guard who had me in his sights. Kind of weird I was removing some old mines, but we put new ones back in there place, I spent a lot of time in the south picking up bombs farmers would find in there fields every spring. North Korea has allowed thousands of its own people to die from hunger from spending all there energy on building a nuke program, and thats sad ! but at times I think that at some point they will want a return on there investment. Hey! my bro works UXO and is looking for work. PM me if you know of anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 I guess noone wants to comment on whether North Korea now poses more of a threat than Iraq did pre-invasion, even if you believed the administration's biggest lies. No comment because you agree with me? Your guys have advocated attacking Iran with a nuclear bomb to try to destroy an underground bunker that they think might be there because Iran is less than five years away from going nuclear. However, no comment on whether we should lob one cruise missle in to blow up a missle filled with flammable liquid that we can see from space? In order to push back any N Korea capability to attack the continental US with already developed nuclear technology? Sounds like commenting on this scenario would just undermine all your other pro-war preemptive attack positions, huh? I thought so. Hey - there's a surprising revelation. Oh you setter of devious rhetorical traps.... The situations would only be analagous if the historical, political, and strategic contexts in which the decision to use force to address a threat were more or less the same. The middle east is different than the far east, Kim Jong Il is different than Saddam, North Korea's ability to level Seoul had no analogue in the the Middle East, there's no state equivalent to China in the Middle East, etc. If North Korea was an island in the middle of the Pacific, or an isolated state in the middle of the Sahara, bombing the shit out of them the first time one of their crazy ass leaders even said something in public that rhymed with "nuclear" would be an easy option. Pre-emption as a general philosophy makes more sense than "wait until hostile parties acquire all the weaponry that they need to strike at you and then scold them profusely and cross your fingers" model favored by the Democrats and the Euros, but unless you are constantly operating in the realm of pure rhetoric, you have to take entities like China and Seoul into account when making decisions. Flipping this argument on its head, once the sanctions were removed and Saddam resumed his weapons program, and announced his capabilities to the world after successfully wining the stare down with the US and the UN, you would by default support an immediate attack irrespective of the consequences? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 North Korea is nothing more than China's Minature Schnauzer. The PRC could pull Kim's chain any time they wanted, but right now he serves a purpose. Arch, you're right about Korean angst regarding Japan. I've listened to it dozens of times in my work and would say it's at least on a par with Arab anti-semitic sentiments. Have you read "Flyboys" by James Bradley? Some good history about the roots of Japanese militarism and history of WWII in the Pacific. Also read "The Rape of Nanking" if you have the stomach. I'm not down on Japan though. IMO, they represent a clear case where democracy has freed a people from the same militarist/dictatorial oppression that now enslaves North Korea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TREETOAD Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Surely there can't be a country on earth that would be insane enough to drop a nuclear weapon on another...oh sorry 'bout that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 North Korea is nothing more than China's Minature Schnauzer. The PRC could pull Kim's chain any time they wanted, but right now he serves a purpose. Arch, you're right about Korean angst regarding Japan. I've listened to it dozens of times in my work and would say it's at least on a par with Arab anti-semitic sentiments. Have you read "Flyboys" by James Bradley? Some good history about the roots of Japanese militarism and history of WWII in the Pacific. Also read "The Rape of Nanking" if you have the stomach. I'm not down on Japan though. IMO, they represent a clear case where democracy has freed a people from the same militarist/dictatorial oppression that now enslaves North Korea. I have not read Flyboys--I'll go get it. I did read the Rape of Nanking--and cried throughout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I guess noone wants to comment on whether North Korea now poses more of a threat than Iraq did pre-invasion, even if you believed the administration's biggest lies. No comment because you agree with me? Your guys have advocated attacking Iran with a nuclear bomb to try to destroy an underground bunker that they think might be there because Iran is less than five years away from going nuclear. However, no comment on whether we should lob one cruise missle in to blow up a missle filled with flammable liquid that we can see from space? In order to push back any N Korea capability to attack the continental US with already developed nuclear technology? Sounds like commenting on this scenario would just undermine all your other pro-war preemptive attack positions, huh? I thought so. Problem is you didn't think this entire post is simply silly chatter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 What do you "imminent threat" folks (PP I mean YOU) think of this? Should we blast the N Korea missle before it's launched, if they don't back down? From an Op-ed by Ashton B. Carter and William J. Perry in today's Washington Post: Should the United States allow a country openly hostile to it and armed with nuclear weapons to perfect an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of delivering nuclear weapons to U.S. soil? We believe not. The Bush administration has unwisely ballyhooed the doctrine of "preemption," which all previous presidents have sustained as an option rather than a dogma. It has applied the doctrine to Iraq, where the intelligence pointed to a threat from weapons of mass destruction that was much smaller than the risk North Korea poses. (The actual threat from Saddam Hussein was, we now know, even smaller than believed at the time of the invasion.) But intervening before mortal threats to U.S. security can develop is surely a prudent policy. Therefore, if North Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched. A couple observations: I note that the two writers (former Clintonistas who were involved with the completely failed agreements w/ Korea in the past) do not consider the threat imminent. They refer to a policy of "preemption". I have consistently argued that you are missing the essence of the debate by your refusal to note exactly what "imminent" means. The clear implication is that these two writers understand the difference and suggest that Bush was not making an "imminent threat" the issue in the run up to the current Iraq war. They go so far as to call a preemption policy “prudent.” I think their proposal is silly. Launching a cruise missile would still leave a mad man with enough plutonium to make 6-8 nuclear bombs. I would think that field testing our current anti-missile systems would be enough of a deterrent and less aggressive than a missile strike. Cheers, PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Unless your anti-missile systems don't work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Then we'd have the best non-functioning multi-billion-dollar anti-missle system the world has ever seen! USA! USA! We're #1! We're #1! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Well we'd learn something from the failure. Besides realisticaly the Japanese could go "nuclear" in a matter of months not years. A failure might encourage that which might also encourae a reaction from the Chinese. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Well we'd learn something from the failure. So would the terrorists Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Then we'd have the best non-functioning multi-billion-dollar anti-missle system the world has ever seen! USA! USA! We're #1! We're #1! Actually, there was a successful test conducted today just north of Kauai. But I think trying to intercept NK's rocket would be risky politically. Risk/benefit odds seems a bit off. I would love to see it though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Your "successful test" was a strapped chicken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Well we'd learn something from the failure. So would the terrorists Terrorists with ICBM's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackers Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 The real players in that region are going to be Japan and China, and Korea will be a minor leaguer, exept with regards to N. Korea. Jay, you're smoking demographic crack. Japanese don't even have sex anymore. On the other hand, what's the country with the fastest growing population? hmm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Actually, there was a successful test conducted today just north of Kauai. But I think trying to intercept NK's rocket would be risky politically. Risk/benefit odds seems a bit off. I would love to see it though! There's a money pit you fools keep shovelling billions into.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Well we'd learn something from the failure. So would the terrorists Terrorists with ICBM's? You're right - showing your enemies that your defenses don't work is a smart idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Risk/benefit odds seems a bit off. I would love to see it though! The risk is quite a bit lower than a direct attack on NK. Typically the NKs have not givent he customary warnings before their launches thus providing political cover for our "test." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Well we'd learn something from the failure. So would the terrorists Terrorists with ICBM's? You're right - showing your enemies that your defenses don't work is a smart idea. Works for dating. Maybe the japanese should try it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Actually, there was a successful test conducted today just north of Kauai. But I think trying to intercept NK's rocket would be risky politically. Risk/benefit odds seems a bit off. I would love to see it though! There's a money pit you fools keep shovelling billions into.... No shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.