Should the US pull forces from the Persian Gulf for an attack on North Korea?

[Inverse Icarus]

JUH JUH JUH JUH JENOCIDEEEEEE IDE IDE IDE

[Sava]

Lancer sounds like Rush Limbaugh... "blah blah blah the left blah blah blah liberals... blah blah blah whining lefties blah blah blah"

A lot of you American hawks would be singing a different tune about war if you actually knew what war was. Maybe if your homeland was ravaged by devastation, millions of your people killed, then you would know what the f*ck you were talking about, and you would have a greater respect for war and when it should be used.

North Korea is a bigger problem than Iraq. But like Iraq, war is not a solution to the problems of NK.

But hey, go ahead, you puds don't know how to do anything but bomb people when they do something you don't like. And others are simply driven by hate and contempt after 9-11.

I wonder how many of you have children. Do you teach them to simply bully and fight other kids when they have disputes?

[GePap]

The Bush Motto:

Scream, and carry a little stick.

The admin. won't attack N.K, its too strong to attack opn the cheap. The issue will come back to bite them in the ass latter this year, though.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Chris 62
One at a time.

NK is next.

Yeah right!

North Korea - 1 million soldiers in rugged terrain
US - 250-350 thousand troops? (Not sure of the exact figure)

I don't think so. The Chinese certainly wouldn't be very pleased either.

[Lancer]

Willem, don't forget the SK forces. SK would have to be on board for any such war.

Now that we have a direct threat of nuclear first strike from NK, I think we'll HAVE TO go to NK next. Also, maybe pulling our forces from Iraq to Korea might not be a bad idea...before NK gets more nukes.

[Wezil]

You still taking this seriously Lancer? Come on.

NK won't strike 1st (suicidal) and the US won't attack NK (too dangerous). GWB will engage in 'appeasement' before this is over. There will be no conflict.

[Demerzel]

oh no not "appeasement"??

GWB couldn't do that - only us "europussies" bother with "appeasement".

let's bomb and attack anyone who we want, diplomacy never ever works! America will have to bomb N.Korea now esp. now Rumsfield has said this about them

"“It’s a regime that is a terrorist regime. ... And the fact that they have announced that they are going to breach three or four agreements ... is a worrisome thing,” he told reporters."

[Wezil]

Precisely why I used the word. GWB will appease. I don't bet, but this is one bet I would take.

edit - Don't get me wrong. I think Saddam should have a big fat bomb dropped on his head (along with many other world 'leaders'). My point is that the situation with NK is actually much more dangerous (to the US) and this is a risk the US won't take. A non-military solution is in the cards for NK.

[KrazyHorse]

He's already started. The US rolled over and played dead on this one two months ago.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Lancer
Willem, don't forget the SK forces. SK would have to be on board for any such war.

Now that we have a direct threat of nuclear first strike from NK, I think we'll HAVE TO go to NK next. Also, maybe pulling our forces from Iraq to Korea might not be a bad idea...before NK gets more nukes.

I think it's totally unnecessary and extremely dangerous. NK is using the nulcear option as a bargaining tool, not as an actual threat. Right from the very beginning they've been trying to enter into negotiations over the issue. What they want most of all I think is a non-aggresion pact with the US; that was pretty much their first demand. They're nervous about Bush's "axis of evil" designation and trying to wring some guarentees from the US, nothing more. Moving troops in their direction would only make things worse than they are now.

As for SK forces, it doesn't matter, there will be very heavy casualities on both sides. Plus it would have serious repurcussions diplomatically with both Russia and China. There are very good reasons why Bush and Co. are downplaying the issue.