Welcome to thebackpacker.com
create account login
Viewing posts 1 to 50 of 238 messages posted.
Jump to Page |  1 | 2   | 3   | 4   | 5   |  next >>
To add this thread as a favorites, you need to first login.
Attack N. Korea
“A lot of libbies have complained in the past that we should attack North Korea instead of Iraq.
So, if Bush decides to do just that in the upcoming year or so, and send our troops there, are you libbies going to join with him and support the decision, or are you going to whine about it like little cry babies?”
If it says libbie, libbie, libbie on the label...
“I'm probably a libbie in your categoriation. I've raised North Korea, Iran and the Sudan in discussions about Iraq, because many of the justifications for going into Iraq apply as well or better to these countries.
Personally, I think Bush didn't want to go into North Korea, because they really do havr active and potent WMDs. It's a good reason to be very cautious about attacking North Korea. I can imagine circumstances under which attacking North Korea would make sense (just as i could imagine circumstances under which attacking Iraq would makes sense, in fact we had them under the first President Bush).”
“Does the US have enough troops to effectively invade North Korea?”
“Sure we have enough troops to invade North Korea. All the reports about low recruitment numbers are just a bluff.”
“We have enough troops to take out any country. The speed at which we do that depends on how clean we want to be about it. The messes in Iraq didn't come from us, remember. It's the insurgents making the mess. We could wipe them out in no time if the troops would be let loose to do their jobs.”
“Are you saying Bubya is holding back the troops?”
“I say nuke em! We should have done that to Iraq as well.”
“We will get our azz stomped in North Korea unless we use unrestricted force. The pansy way we have dealt with Iraq will not cut it in North Korea. You fight a war to destroy the enemy. Bush declared victory while the bullets were still flying in Iraq. We don't need that clueless idiot leading us into another war.”
“You fight a war to destroy the enemy.
Yes. And destruction of the enemy fighting forces is the only condition of victory.”
“Sarge - a lot of "libbies" as you call them may think that North Korea could pose a greater threat to American than Iraq ever did - but I don't think I've heard too many advocating attacking Korea. Maybe you need to pay a little more attention.”
““Are you saying Bubya is holding back the troops?”
Haha! Yeah, we're holding back in Iraq too. We like it there. We want to be there.
Taking on N. Korea would be a bonehead move. So yeah, I could see us doing that. This one can be done diplomaticly I think. Cut them off. No contact and surely no free hand outs in the form of aid. Let 'em eat dog. then if they get stupid and attack their neighbors...let them and the region handle it.”
“All those artillery pieces which could wipe out seoul in minutes might be a factor, as well as the nuke popped over to Japan.”
“The US military seems to be well in control of the Iraq situation Sarge. You seem so enthusiastic - you're in the shape of a man ten years younger - there must be some role you can fill there?”
“y2 - You might not have heard it but I have. Maybe you are the one that needs to pay more attention, you're the one who hasn't heard it.
Absolutely we're being held back in Iraq. I'm being totally serious here, if you didn't realize that then you are definitely not paying attention or have not talked to any combat troops. There are rules (in areas) such as you cannot shoot an insurgent sniper unless you specifically see him shooting at us, etc. We could easily wipe these guys out, but that isn't what the plan is, regardless of what you'd like the plan to be. There are other objectives.”
“y2 - Why are you making this political discussion about me?
Oh, and what makes you think I haven't filled a role there? Do you have some information I don't?”
“I say we let China deal with Kim Yong. They have more to lose than we do when it comes to N. Korea and their nuclear programs.”
“It's always all about you Sarge.”
“Seriously, you've heard "libbies" saying "attack Korea". Show me where?
last edited: 6/14/05 5:27:55 PM”
“Maybe you need to pay a little more attention.
Sarge. You seem so enthusiastic - you're in the shape of a man ten years younger - there must be some role you can fill there?”
Apparently you think so y2. typical”
“we seem to be doing a lot of killing in Iraq. More than 100,000 Iraqis dead. The US Military has killed way more innocent Iraqis than the insurgents.”
“he US Military has killed way more innocent Iraqis than the insurgents.
How do you know this EarthNsky? If you're using sources like "Iraq body count", there is a lot of problems with their methods, they do not account for many alternatives.
A lot of innocents being killed is due to insurgent actions. It's part of their main plan to cause America to lose support.
Are you disagreeing (by that statement) that our soldiers are being held back?”
“The US military has easily caused a majority of the innocent iraqi dead.”
““we seem to be doing a lot of killing in Iraq. More than 100,000 Iraqis dead. The US Military has killed way more innocent Iraqis than the insurgents.”
““All those artillery pieces which could wipe out seoul in minutes might be a factor, as well as the nuke popped over to Japan.”
Yeah, Seoul, not Washington. Not NYC. Not L.A.. Not Chicago. And yeah, Japan. Not America.”
“the insurgency has killed probably less than 15,000 innocent Iraqis. The rest were killed by coalition forces.”
“Korea has been the biggest threat to the world for more than a decade now and we chose to attack a country that could hardly get a missile outside of its own border. If Iraq was any kind of threat they would have fought back, but that sat back and allowed us to invade with little to no defense.”
“CNN reports more than 100,000 Iraqis dead in Iraq. The insurgency's car bombs kill on average 70 per week. It was our bombs that did the most killing.
last edited: 6/14/05 6:08:46 PM”
“So basiclly you are talking out of your ass then, right?”
“ENS, sorry but war is war innocent people get killed.
sarge, yeah I think Bush is holding the soldiers back in Iraq. Bush Jr followed in the footsteps of Bush Sr. He is trying to play fair when you can't do that in a war. If Bush Sr hadn't of held back the troops in the Gulf War we wouldn't be over there today IMO. So what that all means is that it is the Bush's fault this has been strung out way to long. To many innocent US Soldiers have died over there because no one in the White House had/has any balls to end it quickly.”
“Well, we should not be in Iraq and if we would not be in Iraq, innocent people would not have died. If we were so concerned about extinguishing a major world threat, we would have attacked Korea, not Iraq. Iraq was not a threat.”
“I agree Ewker, in war innocent people die, such has been a fact of war since the beginning of time.”
“"To many innocent US Soldiers have died over there because no one in the White House had/has any balls to end it quickly.” ~Ewker
Right idea, wrong house. Bush has no reelection worries now, we could open up and relax the rules of engagement considerably. So, who is lacking the balls? Not the White House, but the House on the Hill and really, all of Congress. They DO have to worry and ARE worried about reelection. I really despise politics. Anyway, that's my thoughts on that.”
“Iraq is a huge mess and there really is no way to end it quickly. It is just going to take time to sort things out and allow the new Iraqi Government to shape up. We can't realistically pull out until then.”
“Ewker - I agree with everything you said, except at putting Bush at the center of this. Yes, he's ultimatly responsible for how the war is fought, but I think you give too much credit to his reasons for it. I believe it is more of a collective decision from the militaries and intelligence. It's not about "balls" to end it quickly, but making the decision to give up one thing for another. We'd lose valuable information and believe it or not, I believe we'd have a greater image problem on our hands if we did what we had to do. When thinking about this, 2 things should be at the forefront. (1) The muslim community at large (think mosques, etc.) (2) What stage are we at in this? The focus is turning over power to the Iraqis. Not to mention what I previously mentioned about gaining information.
So ENS, with your statement "If we were so concerned about extinguishing a major world threat, we would have attacked Korea, not Iraq. Iraq was not a threat." are you saying that you'd support Bush in a war against North Korea?”
““Well, we should not be in Iraq and if we would not be in Iraq, innocent people would not have died."
Who were all thsoe people in those mass graves? Who were those people laying in the streets gassed? Criminals? Not to sound like a broken record republican but let's not make Saddam sound so innocent.”
“ENS - roadside bombs are only one way innocents get killed by insurgents.”
“I'm not suggesting Saddam is/was innocent, those crimes were an Iraqi problem and should have been dealt with by the Iraqi people. Bush's reason for going to war was because Iraq was a grave and gathering threat to the world, which turned out to be false and unfounded. Saddam's mistreatment of his people was only a reason to go to war after the stockpiles of WMD's Bush promised failed to surface. I'm glad Saddam is finally out of power, I just don't think it was our job to do it and the way we did it was dishonest and we are just as guilty for murder as is Saddam.
Sarge, I support military action in Korea far more than I do in Iraq, but I do not support military action in Korea. I prefer diplomatic solutions at all costs before going to war.
JFK demonstrated how close we can come to war and avoid it by going the diplomatic route. Bush is a diplomatic failure.
last edited: 6/14/05 6:30:26 PM”
“the insurgents are not capable of wholesale killing. They have killed alot of innocents, but they have not outkilled the Coalition Forces.”
“"I prefer diplomatic solutions at all costs before going to war." ~EarthNsky
How many UN resolutions were you willing to let Hussein violate before we went to war? The truth is, diplomacy was tried. Saddam refused to play by the rules and knew what the consequences were. Credit where credit is due. HE cost the innocents their lives.”
“but did it fail? Saddam didn't have WMD. I agree he was not cooperating with the UN and providing the documentation that was required of him, but he was unable to produce WMDs. And as we saw by his military's performance on the battle field, the containment was working. Saddam's military was useless.”
“the insurgents are not capable of wholesale killing. They have killed alot of innocents, but they have not outkilled the Coalition Forces.
-- I'm curious as to what you brought this up.”
“ENS, you don't realize how close we came to war while JFK was President. His finger was on the button (so to speak) waiting to see if the Russian ships were going to stop going into Cuba. If one ship hadn't of stop he was prepared to let hell break loose. He gave the Russians an ultimatum, they knew he wasn't bluffing.”
“Saddam's military was useless against us.
Not against innocent people.”
“exactly my point Ewker. War was however abated.
The JFK/RFK team saved the world during that crisis.
last edited: 6/14/05 6:41:50 PM”
“This goes out to the liberals and conservatives alike ...
We did not attack Iraq because we thought Saddam was capable of giving us a good fight. There seems to be some misunderstanding there. I've stressed this right up to the beginning of the war, and I'm repeating it now.
It was only the liberals and major media (redundant) that was crying before hand that we'd lose in the 100s of thousands of soldiers in the fight. This is not an idea that came from the Bush admin. We did not fight him because we thought he could beat us or give us a run for the money.”
“sarge, to hell with the image we have to portray. If the US does not lookout for itself no other country will lookout for us and that includes England. A time is coming when we cannot be the police of the world. This country is spreading itself to thin around the world. We need to bring every soldier back home and start protecting ourselves first and foremost.”
“I never thought the Iraqi army would put up a fight prior to the invasion. I knew it from the beginning that we'd stoll into Bagdad Patton style. I even remember CNN reporting the same. I don't recall anyone except Saddam suggesting that the Iraqi Army would put up a fight.”
“Ewker - I agree. I was not saying that was the only reason. If you took that reason away, there would be plenty of other reasons to maintain the course we have taken.”
“well, we will be held up in Iraq for atleast 8 more years, according to old man Dick.”
Post a MessageIn order to post a response to this thread you must first be logged in. If you do not already have an account, you must first create a new account.
Ready to Buy Gear?
Great Outdoor Sites