DPRK severs ALL ties with the south

[Cheezy the Wiz]

She's a strong woman, Ralph. Stop being so insensitive.

 

[RedRalph]

She's a strong woman, Ralph. Stop being so insensitive.

Ah, sorry, yes. My love for the phallocratic testostertatorship of DPRK got the better of me there for a second

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Ah, sorry, yes. My love for the phallocratic testostertatorship of DPRK got the better of me there for a second

You are a veritable wordsmith genius.

Incidentally, I once had to sit through a ******** art history lecture about how saying something is or has genius is misogynist, since there is no feminine form of the word in Latin.

 

[The Imp]

Sure, to prevent genocide is a very good cause - too bad that hasn't been done most of the time.
For self-defense is a very good cause - too bad no nation having any sanity will attack the big ones or its allies (if you do not trick them into doing so that is).
To bring "freedom" to the people? Ask the Iraqi people how awesome that works.

You act as if I am advocating a war. I'm not, i'm stating that if the Norks attacked, the war should not end until the North Korean regime has been expunged from the earth, with a UN protectorate formed over the country.

 

[The Imp]

To try to avoid a war does surely not fit the definition of paralyzed.

Well, again I am amazed how light-hearted some advocate war. And again I find myself wishing that those people would be forced to serve in one for a change.

You mean the one who send NKorea presents to keep it nice and friendly? The one who actually did not prevent it? Yes?

Agreed, please point me to someone who is actually advocating war.

 

[aelf]

Those who advocate a war of liberation should go fight in it. I will be there in geist.

 

[RedRalph]

You are a veritable wordsmith genius.

Incidentally, I once had to sit through a ******** art history lecture about how saying something is or has genius is misogynist, since there is no feminine form of the word in Latin.

One would think they would have better tings to do

 

[GamezRule]

I am fairly certain that gamezrule was not alive in the 1940s, so how could he (or she) have realized that?

How does me not being alive during WW2 change the fact that it was a war we needed to fight, and about the the other comment, I just had a lesson about this today, and the Russians suffered the worst of WW2, not to mention Stalin killed millions of people in his genocides too, and the USA had a strong feeling of isolationism, not to mention the fact that the American citizens did not want to get involved in Europe, as proven by the Neutrality Act's.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

You act as if I am advocating a war. I'm not, i'm stating that if the Norks attacked, the war should not end until the North Korean regime has been expunged from the earth, with a UN protectorate formed over the country.

Okay, but this won't happen

Agreed, please point me to someone who is actually advocating war.

Anything to get rid of that Guy. I am all for war if that is needed, since it will help make the country freer.

There were more in the last thread on the Korean issue.

 

[The Imp]

Okay, but this won't happen


There were more in the last thread on the Korean issue.

... the war would be over in a matter of days, not months, so I doubt the Russians and Chinese would have the time to maneuver and prevent the fall of the North. Plus, the US and SK are operating under a UN mandate.

 

[Takhisis]

I don't think it will come to anything imortant. They'll do a bit of saber-rattling to justify their parasitic existence as protectors of the state and that's it.

 

[RedRalph]

While I have no doubt DPRK would lose the war, some people seem to think it would be a total cakewalk for the US and its puppet... it wouldn't. There would be huge casualties, and the risk of escalation, while low, would be very dangerous.

 

[Takhisis]

Well, it could always escalate, but having Korea divided is a cornerstone of Chinese foreign policy, I think. Better have no strong countries on your borders, eh? Korea, Viet Nam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, etc. etc. are all part of what they consider their back yard, just like USA considers the American continent as the 'American' -read US- continent. I wonder how long it'll take for the Chinese to proclaim themselves 'Asians' and go on a 'Asia for the Asians' rant.

 

[The Imp]

While I have no doubt DPRK would lose the war, some people seem to think it would be a total cakewalk for the US and its puppet... it wouldn't. There would be huge casualties, and the risk of escalation, while low, would be very dangerous.

What does the DPRK have that Iraq didn't have during both gulf wars?

And escalation? You think China would risk its entire economy over the Norks?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

What does the DPRK have that Iraq didn't have during both gulf wars?

I am reading a book from a reporter who remained in Baghdad during the last Gulf War about (obviously) the war and how it could have been won so easily.

Basic conclusion is: The Iraq never really defended itself. Neither generals nor soldiers (nor Saddam Hussein) saw much point in it and deserted in masses (well, Hussein of course not ). Yes, also the attack was carried out well and up to a standard not seen by the world before (for instance regarding coordination and communication).
But its actual effectiveness is blown out of proportion by the failure of the Iraqi high command get its troops to actually try.

Which means: The Iraq demonstrates how a war can be won by a top-standard modern army in the most favorable case. It does not allow to draw a general conclusion regarding the defensive ability of other "rough states".

 

[The Imp]

I am reading a book from a reporter who remained in Baghdad during the last Gulf War about (obviously) the war and how it could have been won so easily.

Basic conclusion is: The Iraq never really defended itself. Neither generals nor soldiers (nor Saddam Hussein) saw much point in it and deserted in masses (well, Hussein of course not ). Yes, also the attack was carried out well and up to a standard not seen by the world before (for instance regarding coordination and communication).
But its actual effectiveness is blown out of proportion by the failure of the Iraqi high command get its troops to actually try.

Which means: The Iraq demonstrates how a war can be won by a top-standard modern army in the most favorable case. It does not allow to draw a general conclusion regarding the defensive ability of other "rough states".

Yea, wasn't like the Iraqi military was a 70's throwback.

 

[cardgame]

Doesn't NK have a nuke/planning for a nuke?

 

[The Imp]

Doesn't NK have a nuke/planning for a nuke?

Non-deliverable... and even if it was, they wouldn't use it. Pyongyang would reach 300,000 degrees Celsius faster then you can say "War crime".

 

[Takhisis]

That's the kind of reasoning that only a sane person would follow. What if they adopted an 'all is lost' posture? What if they were pushed to the brink by someone actually invading their country?

 

[TheDanish]

I highly doubt South Korea really wants to take control and responsibility of North Korea, NK is so far behind SK it would cost them hundreds of billions of dollars to fix it up.

This. My roommate is from South Korea. He's not an American-born Korean either, he's from Seoul and he doesn't speak English. He doesn't like the idea of the North and South getting together in a sort of East/West Germany-esque joiner.

War won't happen. NK does this crap all the time. I imagine the NK people would sooner overthrow their government than NK actually goes to war. The slow but steady diffusion of cell phones and occasional internet access will be the catalyst for this.