Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Korea Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What are the real chances of Korean War II?
patriotscheme    5/23/2003 12:05:02 AM
Seeing that the U.S. is deeply entrenched with the reconstruction of Iraq and there also is a presidential election looming (meaning no more wars until post-election time), does anyone really think that U.S. policy will continue to follow the Bush Doctrine (assuming he is re-elected) and conduct regime-change in North Korea? Can/will the U.S. be able to pull off such an armed conflict with so many forces tied down elsewhere, Seoul held hostage by artillery, and world opinion so tainted with anti-Americanism?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT
DrCruel    Reality   8/13/2003 9:37:56 AM
I think these statements are incontrovertable: 1) The US is a fairly peaceful, pacifist nation. It has no evangelical agenda. It is essentially in the business of trading and prospering, not conquest and imperialism. 2) The Marxists, also known as the so-called "International Left" champion a version of secular feudalism. They as a group have an insatiable appetite for wealth and power, and are utterly unscrupulous in how they acquire same. This is why they are documentably involved intergrally with the drug trade, terrorism, despotic regimes and slave labour camps. 3) The language of politics has become completely outdated and reversed. The republican revolutionaries, who essentially have achieved their aims in the modern democracies, are representative of the old, trditional liberal Left. Those that oppose them, Marxists who style themselves heirs to the Jacobin Left tradition of the 18th century, actually champion a return to an aristocracy and are thus, in truth, the "New Right". In evidence of which I remind the reader of every Marxist regime ruled by a noble intellectual and/or military class, the rule of primogeniture in choosing successors, and the institution of an enforced fealty pyramid in regards an entrenched heirarchy. 4) By no means do Marxists support the rights of workers, deeming them "the masses" and incapable of an independant autonomy. Marxists are very jealous of their privileges vis-a-vis their serf chattel, violently oppose any move by these people to liberate themselves, and aggressively defend the old medieval royal perogative of doing as the please with and to whoever conducts business within their holdings (nationalization being, in all essences, exactly how feudal rulers viewed the proper relationship of merchants to the king). In light of these truths, why is it that common misconceptions about these people continue to persist? Marxists are reactionary, fascist, conservative, despotic, and utterly behind the times. They are retrogressive, not progressive. Why is it then, that rumours of some hidden and unrealized benevolence continue to surface in regards this trans-national political mafia, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
 
Quote    Reply

DrCruel    Exhibit A:   8/13/2003 9:40:03 AM
Fascism is an extreme measure taken by the bourgeoisie to forestall proletarian revolution; it "expresses the weakness of the bourgeoisie itself, afraid of the realization of a united struggle of the working class, afraid of revolution, and no longer in a position to maintain its dictatorship over the masses by the old means of bourgeois democracy and parliamentarianism." (etc) http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/wim/cong/fascismdef.html
 
Quote    Reply

MTS    SGTObvious   8/13/2003 6:05:26 PM
Nevermind. I told you all I had to say. Accept it or not, your choice.
 
Quote    Reply

MTS    SGTObvious You forget the basics of human nature   8/13/2003 6:30:33 PM
Man is motivated primarily by profit. All these wars that the US is involved in are not about anything but profit, that is why they make up all these enemies. Communism to the US is just a made up enemy. When communism spread to Vietnam, it is a land so far away and it had nothing to do with the US but they decided that communsism was bad. Well bad or not, it is Vietnam not US and Vietnam is nowhere near US. Saddam was not a threat as we can all see now. Since we are in the Korean forum and the subject is the possibility of a second Korean War. Well, if North Korea really has no nuclear weapons, it would increase the possibility of war. The US has to perceive it to be an easy war. Second, they have to make up a story about North Korea in order to justify invasion. There are no threats to the US. The US cannot be hit by any country. When the US goes to war, they can usually justify it anyway, because the US was created by God to "protect liberties" of all peoples in the world i.e. Vietnam, Korean. The hawks in the the Bush administration now have an extra excuse, going after "perceived threats." In a sum, the US can can go war with anyone even though no enemy can seriously park a fleet of carriers right along the US coastline. China is a threat to the US but it is never a target for strikes. All in all, US chooses carefully who it attacks, it usually chooses weaker states. If weapons are not used up, theyhave to be retired at some point or another. But the preferred way is to use them on someone. You ask me where I get this from, I shall give you the answer. It is simple. Making a product has a price tag. They can't just leave the hardware sitting there idle. Going to war is always a good way to showcase the hardware. The US today no longer has to gain land as it were. It is equally good to coerce other countries. It seems as though you buy the American way of thinking. I suggest you just drop this discussion with me.
 
Quote    Reply

capitalist72    RE:Zerbrechen   8/13/2003 6:51:06 PM
I only want to reply to a very specific point raised by MTS which is very incorrect: "If you do a survey across the world, maybe the US followed by UK then Australia are scared of terrorism from an outside source the most. " Add India, Israel, Russia, even China (province bordering Afghanistan), France, UK, Indonesia, Afghanistan - all worried about externally sponsored terror.
 
Quote    Reply

capitalist72    RE:Zerbrechen   8/13/2003 6:57:44 PM
my reply was redundant to another post - sorry.
 
Quote    Reply

WinsettZ    RE:SGTObvious You forget the basics of human nature   8/13/2003 7:01:24 PM
"Since we are in the Korean forum and the subject is the possibility of a second Korean War. Well, if North Korea really has no nuclear weapons, it would increase the possibility of war. The US has to perceive it to be an easy war. Second, they have to make up a story about North Korea in order to justify invasion." If you read the other Korean War II threads they note that the war would have some obstacles to bypass: namely NKs large amount of forces. We are *not* invading. Bush is doing some diplomatic crap with them. An invasion will come in its own time. At the moment NK is in a lockbox. The US controls the sea and it would be hard to export nukes out that venue. Export through China or Russia is possible, but neither would endorse it officially. Without official endorsement of course, any shipments could be open to...interception... "There are no threats to the US. The US cannot be hit by any country. When the US goes to war, they can usually justify it anyway, because the US was created by God to "protect liberties" of all peoples in the world i.e. Vietnam, Korean. The hawks in the the Bush administration now have an extra excuse, going after "perceived threats." In a sum, the US can can go war with anyone even though no enemy can seriously park a fleet of carriers right along the US coastline." The US cannot be hit by any country? That in itself is a product of diplomacy, geography and military strength. We're next to Canada and Mexico. Either could hit us. But we're all on good terms and respecting each other, but you only care about the imperialist US military. That works too. We can be hit by any country if they chose to declare war and try to hit us. It just wouldn't happen. We believe in liberty, our own definition in terms of freedoms and right to buy Nike shoes and criticize America if you wish. You are free to criticize this country, its people (up to the point of personal slander) and our policies (to the point of getting bombs and attacking us); because it is your right. You might be European, your nation probably has some sort of laws respecting liberty and such. The concept itself is no American thingymabob...the product of Enlightenment age thinking. "China is a threat to the US but it is never a target for strikes. All in all, US chooses carefully who it attacks, it usually chooses weaker states." China is a *possible* threat. If you don't know someone, assume and prepare the worst and try to get the best. Always. Weaker is quite relative anyways. In GW2 the Iraqis outnumbered us on paper, because Donny Rumsfeld sent the bare minimum of troops. Bad idea, but still won. As to the idea of why China isn't ever hit, it's because its highly impractical anyways. Their nuke facilities are way out in the Western Desert. That's assuming we wanted them dead in the first place...as you said, they buy our goods. But we also buy theirs. A war doesn't hurt us and hurt the "capitalists" who hypthetically own capital hill, it hurts them too. If weapons are not used up, theyhave to be retired at some point or another. But the preferred way is to use them on someone. You ask me where I get this from, I shall give you the answer. It is simple. Making a product has a price tag. They can't just leave the hardware sitting there idle. Going to war is always a good way to showcase the hardware. This is somewhat true. Eisenhower warned about the military industrial complex. But technology is technology. A organism evolves or dies. A organism mutates in new conditions to be at the peak of its capability, to live. The military updates with the times. Would you prefer we run around with bright red uniforms and muskets and go to battle on hovercars or something? You seem to think that war is cheaper then peace for America. It isn't. War is never cheap. It's been on the news for a while...a billion a week, month? We embarked on a "imperialist" war because Saddam didn't want to stop. Clinton cruise-missiled him. Didn't do jack. Just kept on going... As for the hardware argument: Usually items are not used up. They go into stockpiles. For example, we have about a million M14 rifles from Vietnam and hundreds of thousands of 106mm recoiless rifles and maybe a few million shells. Why? Didn't we go to war to use them up? Hardware can sit and sleep for a very long time. Age doesn't necessarily dictate when a platform must go, its reliability and ability to compete against new enemy technologies and situations. If wars were designed to expend technology, would we not go to war with the Soviets during the 80s to test the shiny Abrams and waste our obsolete Dragon missiles, recoiless rifles and M14s? The US today no longer has to gain land as it were. It is equally good to coerce other countries. Well, duh. Gaining land isn't easy. The Crusaders occupied a bit of land in the middle east and lost it all to Saladin. They started over the right to go to Jerusalem. When they finally agreed on this
 
Quote    Reply

MTS    capitalist72 I said those 3 countries were the most worried   8/13/2003 8:54:10 PM
The more adventures a country undertakes overseas, the more it's citizens has to worry. That is all I was trying to point out. I would say US citizens worry about terrorism the most these days too.
 
Quote    Reply

capitalist72    RE:capitalist72 I said those 3 countries were the most worried   8/13/2003 9:58:34 PM
"Worry" in this context is a subjective term, and can vary per individual awareness/apathy. Definitely there are several countries in the world which face graver threats than the US from terrorism: India, Russia, and Israel are 3 such examples. The reality is that states will act within their sphere of influence: India is a capable regional influencer, and hence has embarked on operations in Sri Lanka, and Maldives. Same with Israel. The USSR was capable of global influence, like the USA, and involved itself all over the world just like the US. Russia today is not as capable as the former USSR. It is unrealistic to expect a state which has the capability to influence and project power on the other side of the globe not to do so in its perceived national interest. It's not a question of "meddling," it's one of capability, and the USA is no better or worse than any other state in this regard.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:The basics of human nature - MTS   8/14/2003 2:02:22 AM
MTS You have some kind of point with the Vietnam War - about the only war of the USA, that I still do not understand. But motivated by profit?? Wall Street and the business community was AGAINST the war, as it would ruin the trade with the area. Profit from the two world wars?? This is more tricky. Both wars were started from profit motives. Germany had no colonies to speak of (around the turn of the century about 1 o/oo of Germany's trade was with the colonies). WW2 was started because Hitler had run the German economy into the ground and tried to steal his way out. The World Wars ENDED with a huge profit to the USA - all the gold in the world had ended up in Fort Knox. This just gave the US further problems: The rest of the world had no petty cash to conduct business with. The US was dragged into both wars because if the allies had lost the US would have faced a hostile Navy of such magnitude, that the security of the continent would have been in danger. The U-boat war and Pearl Harbor showed how ill prepared the USA was for that contingency. As to Iraq: The problem was/is not the weapons of mass destruction per se! The problem was a country with unlimited access to cash (oil) and ambitions of total dominance no matter what. Maybe not a problem for the USA and Europe today - but shure as hell tomorrow - and the japanese economy today is tethering on a knife's edge.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics