North Korea: Horrors Within, Threats Without

[MMMMMM]

(excerpt) Jan. 15 — In the far north of North Korea, in remote locations not far from the borders with China and Russia, a gulag not unlike the worst labor camps built by Mao and Stalin in the last century holds some 200,000 men, women and children accused of political crimes. A month-long investigation by NBC News, including interviews with former prisoners, guards and U.S. and South Korean officials, revealed the horrifying conditions these people must endure — conditions that shock even those North Koreans accustomed to the near-famine conditions of Kim Jong Il’s realm. (end excerpt)

(excerpt) Among NBC News’ findings:
At one camp, Camp 22 in Haengyong, some 50,000 prisoners toil each day in conditions that U.S. officials and former inmates say results in the death of 20 percent to 25 percent of the prison population every year.
Products made by prison laborers may wind up on U.S. store shelves, having been “washed” first through Chinese companies that serve as intermediaries.
Entire families, including grandchildren, are incarcerated for even the most bland political statements.
Forced abortions are carried out on pregnant women so that another generation of political dissidents will be “eradicated.”
Inmates are used as human guinea pigs for testing biological and chemical agents, according to both former inmates and U.S. officials. (end excerpt)


And this is the regime which is apparently going to be developing nukes, nukes and more nukes in the near future. Any suggestions anyone?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/859191.asp?pne=msntv&cp1=1

[Billy LTL]

The existance of terrible concentration camps in North Korea has been widely documented for years. This fact has never been enough to provoke action against North Korea.

The fact that North Korea possesses chemical and biological weapons and has the delivery systems available to wreak havoc on South Korea and Japan has been known for years and has never been enough provoke action against them.

The fact that some 10% of their population has died of starvation in the past few years while the NK leadership continues to build up and arm their military has never been enough provoke action against them.

Bush, in my opinion, made a colossal mistake when he publicly put North Korea on his "axis of evil" list.

To put it in no-limit hold em terms Bush, holding a decent hand, pushed half his stack into an empty against a tough opponent he or his advisors had to know from experience would either fold or raise him all-in.

The problem with Bush's strategy is that at the time of the "axis of evil" list, North Korea wasn't involved in the pot in any way so folding and waiting for a better shot cost them nothing. Even worse for Bush, his big bet just sat there on the table with the North Koreans simply deciding to simply call "time".

When it became apparent that the US was going to war with Iraq Kim Jong-il realised his time had come. "Raise you all-in goof. What you going to do about that?"

The danger North Korea presents to its immediate neighbours ie Korea (and by association the US, South Korea's closest ally) and Japan is massive.

Experts have estimated that North Korea could rain 500,000 artillery shells an hour onto Seoul. It's been further estimated that if a war lasted for a month the South's dead would reach numbers of over 1,000,000. Further, North Korea does have the missile abilty to deliver explosives, biological and chemical weapons to Japan, a country which hosts seven U.S. bases.

A war, which all experts agree would eventually see North Korea's defeat, would be devasting, and not only to the region.

Outgoing South Korean President Kim Dae-jung's sunshine policy was working, slowly and surely bringing NK into the 21st century. Why antagonize an enemy when you've already got an abundance of them to deal with at the moment.

Suggestions? The Bush administration must swallow its pride (they seem to be doing this) and reach a compromise with North Korea on its sole demand - the signing of a nonaggression pact between the two countries. Such a pact is probably not going to be forthcoming from the US but written guarantees promising the US will not attack the North are looking good.

[MMMMMM]

A good response, and I'll need to think further about several things you mentioned.

Among the various reasons for the "axis of evil" label is the fact that North Korea sells weapons to our enemies.

Perhaps the U.S. could, as a condition for U.S. guarantees, hold that North Korea must stop its nuclear arms programs and provide means of verification, and that it must also refrain from arms sales to certain countries and/or terrorists groups (and the U.S. could possibly sweeten the deal with offers of more aid too). Maybe such a package deal, which might truly appeal to both parties, could be worked out (and then there's the sticky question of verification, since the DPRK obviously cannot be blindly trusted on such matters).

[IrishHand]

The only reason things like the N. Korean concentration caps are coming to light now is to justify future military intervention against them. As noted above, the atrocities committed by N. Korea (or Iraq or Iran or a ton of other countries) are things we've known about for years. There was just never any exciting reason to do anything about it.

Now, of course, we're lining up countries to give our military some practice, and evidently, N. Korea is 3rd in line behind Afghanistan and Iraq. (Interesting that they're in increasing order of military competence - must just be a coincidence. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif)

We realized after Afghanistan that we wouldn't get a blank check to attack whomever we wanted. I'm certain that we'd have crushed Iraq by now if it had had the widescale support that the Afghanistan invasion had. Sadly, it appers that the US public wants justification for each and every country we're going to attack - they're fickle like that. So, rather than have these months of downtime as there are between Afghanistan and Iraq, we'll just start the propaganda machine much earlier. This way, once we dispose of Iraq, public opinion will already be in favor of smacking around N. Korea. Saves time and money - and that's just good business.

It's a basic equation...you just tell your people they're under attack, fill their heads with tales of atrocities and unjustices, and then assure them that our military will make the situation better. Ah...the joys of military politics - been working for over a hundred years now!

[MMMMMM]

IrishHand: "It's a basic equation...you just tell your people they're under attack, fill their heads with tales of atrocities and unjustices, and then assure them that our military will make the situation better. Ah...the joys of military politics - been working for over a hundred years now!"

The DPRK may be too formidable a foe to attack unless they pose very serious and irreconcilable threats to our security and we decide have no choice, the human rights abuses notwithstanding.

I posted the article more in the spirit of observing the nature of the regime which soon may be cranking out nukes at a pretty good clip.

It would be nice if we could just right the wrongs in the DPRK without too much trouble, but the bloodshed involved in doing so by force would far outweigh that involved in ousting Saddam by force. The DPRK has a standing million-man army, and can mobilize millions more in fairly short order.

Yes, the Bush Administration may be using a sequential approach...which would make sense, assuming these countries must be dealt with, perhaps by force. I also happen to favor the idea of using Iraq as a temporary base to swat Hizbollah and any other terrorist groups in the region which have openly declared their intentions to attack the USA.

Nobody has to tell us we're under attack and will be attacked again....that's pretty obvious. Your last paragraph seems rather condescending towards the average American's intelligence, and needlessly cynical in tone.

[brad]

'aYour last paragraph seems rather condescending towards the average American's intelligence, and needlessly cynical in tone. '

sk joe on the street and im pretty sure when u mention babies being thrown out of incubators in kuwait in 91 or 92 or whatever he'll remember that (those iraqi bastards!).

of course he wont remember because he was never told (on nightly news) that the whole story was a p.r. thing.

which doesnt mean the iraqis are good though.

[IrishHand]

the bloodshed involved in doing so by force would far outweigh that involved in ousting Saddam by force.

Not really. N. Korea is just as impotent as Iraq in terms of being able to deal with the first (and only really important phase) of any war we're going to engage in in the forseeable future - the aerial one. We'll send in tons of fighters and bombers and obliterate whatever air power they can muster. Then we move onto obliterating their communications and radar networks. Once that's been taken care of, it doesn't matter if you're defending with a million men or 10 million - it's only a question of mopping up demoralized and confused troops (just ask Poland in '39, France in '40, Russia in '41 and Iraq in the early 90s - all competent militaries on paper, all worthless in practice because of air impotence). Any time one side has complete air superiority and, in our case, complete material superiority, the result is a foregone conclusion.

Trust me - if we apply ourselves, as we surely would, our casualties will be minimal. If we really wanted, we could probably eradicate a nation's military without setting foot on their soil - but the Army and Marines would get upset eventually at being left out.

[MMMMMM]

What makes you so sure you know more about the DPRK's military capabilities than I do?;-) Of course we would win that way. But South Korea would likely pay an immense price. We really couldn't stop the DPRK from rolling over Seoul if they decided to attack... we just tell them we'll squash them if they do it. Also, the DPRK can and probably would launch chemical weapons at our regional bases, not to mention possibly using their handful of nukes. A war with the DPRK would be harder, and entail more casualties and danger to our allies, than war with Iraq. The DPRK has the capacity to inflict immense damage on Japan. The end result might not be in doubt, but the number killed would be greater, even if we're talking only about the number of DPRK army troops killed. They are also fanatical in a way that Saddam's army isn't. By the way, did you ever see the PBS special on DPRK which showed the CHILDREN at a massive rally holding candles aloft and shouting nationalistic, anti-US slogans with fierce looks on their faces? The entire country is run like a cult with an iron fist, and anti-US hatred there runs very deep...it's almost surreal to watch. I strongly suspect we would have to kill an awful lot North Koreans before they would surrender (absent use of nukes perhaps).

[IrishHand]

I strongly suspect we would have to kill an awful lot North Koreans before they would surrender (absent use of nukes perhaps).

That's why we send in the Marines before the Army. /forums/images/icons/cool.gif

I understand your perspective that they could kill more people than Iraq will be able to. However, I tend to suspect that they'd behave in a somewhat sensible manner militarily. Iraq could have killed a lot of people if that had been the goal in the first Gulf War - Kuwaitis prime among them. However, they vainly used their military capabilities in order to slow our steamroller. I tend to suspect that N. Korea would do the same. History shows us that countries which butcher civilians don't get more favorable peace terms in the event that peace is an alternative.

N. Korea's biggest problem isn't the proximity of our many bases in Asia - it's the fact that we can park carriers right off her shores, and can use our warships instead of conventional artillery when that's called for. Really - a combination of sea-based armament and aerial bombardment would surely do the trick.

As for them marching through S. Korea before we could stop them - we've got troops there already. Certainly not as many as they do, but more than enough to slow and or stop a military advance. Frankly, the moment a carrier is nearby, we can completely stop any offensive simply by bombing it into oblivion. There's currently no defense for a large mass of bombs raining down on your forces. In order for them to succeed in invading S. Korea, we'd pretty much have to let them (which we might - that would enable us to get a higher level of control over the region when we win it back).

Don't get me wrong - I understand where you're coming from. On paper, they have a lovely military - plenty of men, tanks, artillery, etc. Operationally, however, it's useless against us. In order to come up with any sort of defense against a US military invasion, you need to: (a) have submarines to deter us from owning the seas (only China has this), and (b) have an air force that we can't knock out in a day to deter us from owning the air. Barring that, it doesn't matter how big your Army is.

[Clarkmeister]

M,

Why aren't you as up in arms about China? By my understanding the atrocities committed in China make North Korea look like a bunch of amateurs.

Unlike Iraq and North Korea, China poses a credible threat to our nation. Unlike those countries, China is an international bully, seeking to extend its borders. Taiwan and similar border issues aren't going away.

We are real good at hand selecting our opponents. Just don't tell me we pick them because of atrocities they commit or the level of threat to our country. Thats crap.

[brad]

you must be living in a dream world, meister, after all, china is a most favored trading nation.

[Clarkmeister]

Good point brad. We would never give MFN status to a nation with a horrible human rights record would we?

Thanks for setting me straight.

[MMMMMM]

I agree that they couldn't stop us. I also think we probably couldn't stop them (only slow them down) if their single-minded goal were to roll over Seoul (since they're practically on top of it anyway). Also, if they became suicidal (unlikely), or pressed brinksmanship too far, they could end up inflicting great regional damage.

I don't think we disagree significantly on these issues.

Anyway, what would you personally guesstimate the chances to be that North Korea might try to blitzkrieg and take over Seoul while we are busily engaged with Iraq? I think the chances are low but I don't think it can be ruled out entirely.

[MMMMMM]

I have previously very harshly condemned China's human rights record and governmental policies many times on this forum. Apparently you missed it somehow.

We do pick our opponents based on many criteria (one of which is how formidable they are). Please don't put words in my mouth (if you are, that is).

We also selectively choose whom we will exert serious pressures upon. In part, we have to for pragmatic reasons. However I would very much like to see more pressure exerted from all free nations upon China to at least modify some of its practices and policies.

China is not to be underestimated in terms of the potential threats it poses to the USA, nor in terms of its designs and plans for various methods of attack upon us (including cyber-warfare). Two Chinese Colonels wrote a book entitled "Unrestricted Warfare" which outlines many of these plans, and in the forward states the goal is the destruction of the USA as a superpower. The Cold War isn't yet truly over. In 1999(!) this book explicitly proposed an attack on the World Trade Center. After 9/11, the two colonels who wrote it were very highly regarded in China. The book also contains outlines of environmental and other warfare methods to be used against the USA.

Now, China has a pragmatic face as well, and I'm not suggesting that it is about to launch attacks on us. But China also very much views us as its major adversary, and still subscribes to old-guard communist philosophies.

[Clarkmeister]

M,

I definitely was speaking in generalities rather than putting words in your mouth. I was merely pointing hypocrisy of our government and the media in how they selectively pick which stories to talk about. China is MFN while Cuba is embargoed. NK is committing atrocities in prison camps, but lets keep our cheap slave labor goods from china coming. Its all a joke.

[MMMMMM]

On purely moral grounds it is ridiculous, agreed, but there's something to be said for pragmatism too. Yet I wish the free world would jointly take a more assertive stance on such things even with giants like China.

[IrishHand]

I don't think we disagree significantly on these issues.
You're right - we probably don't.

Anyway, what would you personally guesstimate the chances to be that North Korea might try to blitzkrieg and take over Seoul while we are busily engaged with Iraq?
Zero. There isn't a country in the world that is going to knowingly invite the US military to squash it. Hussein only invaded Kuwait because we (the US) told him we wouldn't do anything about it. As you might expect, he was most perturbed when we changed our minds. Really - countries want to improve their situations, but not at the risk of certain destruction (the guaranteed result of a conflict with the US military).

Kim will wave his arms and rant and rave and try to use the situation as leverage to get things he wants diplomatically and economically. There's no way he'll force the US to end his regime.

[Ray Zee]

the u.s. has no stomach for any wart where we have to fight it out on the ground for a long period of time, unless we are being attacked.
have we all forgotten that we lost the war in veitnam and we lost the korean war. and we lost when we went into somalia. all wars where the enemy didnt really confront us. places we have to go in and root out snipers, will be our downfall in war. we wont sustain the loses. thats what irag will do this time that they didnt do last time. we wont run over them as they wont be there to run over. they will be dressed as ordinary citizens and shooting out of windows in the cities.
the world will condemn us to no end if we try to bomb the cities full of regular people. and they will be right.

[IrishHand]

unless we are being attacked
It's been over a hundred years since this happened. In that time, we've fought and won nearly every war we've played a part in - most notably WWI and WWII. Vietnam wasn't a war - if they'd called it a war and applied our full military power, things would certainly have worked out differently. Somalia certainly wasn't a war.

I agree 100% that when we send in the military for the wrong reasons and don't have the support necessary to commit our full power, we tend not to do too well (nor would any other country - note Russia in Afghanistan).

the world will condemn us to no end if we try to bomb the cities full of regular people. and they will be right.
The world is already completely opposed to our invading Iraq - our methods aren't going to change that. Even our only real strong supporter (England) isn't in favor of invading them anytime soon. And we won't bomb cities full of regular people - bombing gets bad press. We'll use tanks and artillery and selectively eradicate blocks of buildings. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Hussein will likely give up before that happens though. I'm pretty sure the early obliteration of all his palaces and homes will have an effect on his continued desire to extend his life needlessly. The man surely knows that the moment the invasion begins, he's living on borrowed time. I doubt he has the Hitlerific urge to set himself up in an underground bunker to the bitter end.

[Clarkmeister]

"On purely moral grounds it is ridiculous, agreed, but there's something to be said for pragmatism too. Yet I wish the free world would jointly take a more assertive stance on such things even with giants like China."


This is why I am not behind our actions in Iraq. I, and the whole world, see the rampant hypocrisy in our foreign policy, and it robs us of all moral authority.

What we need to do is start admitting that our foreign policy decisions are primarily economically driven and have nearly nothing to do with moral outrage. The fact is that our country couldn't care less about the atrocities going on in other countries. Its all about the money.

So when you post moral arguements on this board justifying our foreign policy, it simply doesn't wash with me. When the president tells us that we must end the evil in Iraq, it doesn't wash. Selective morality doesn't fly. Say we have to go into Iraq because we need to insure stability for our oil supply, and I'll listen. Tell me we need to invade in large part because he is a "bad guy" who commits all these atrocities to his people, and I laugh. Tell me we need to invade because he poses a potential threat to us, and I laugh. There are lots of evil leaders and lots of hostile countries who pose more of a potential threat should they choose to than him. In other words, don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining. We are there because 1. Its personal and 2. For economic reasons. and maybe 3. Its good to kick some ass once in a while and remind everyone who the big dog is. The rest is all hogwash.

[Ray Zee]

all absolutely true clarky. but no one wants to hear that. the other reasons sound a lot better. please keep this stuff quiet or you will upset our posters.

[Ray Zee]

irish, i do hope your scenario is more correct than what i think may happen. what i do hope happens is that saddam takes the exile offer just before the tanks start rolling in.

[MMMMMM]

I found an interesting article which claims the US tactic in this scenario will be:

(excerpt)"The US is expected to launch the coming war against Iraq with parachute drops on Baghdad, together with commando landings in the city from the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers.

A large-scale force will meanwhile encircle the Iraqi capital, while a mighty tank force dashes north from Kuwait and Qatar, bypassing the southern Iraqi Shiite cities of Najef and Karbala and circumventing the Iraqi army defending Baghdad. Those tanks will join the encircling force.

The object of this colossal movement of military strength is to lay Baghdad to siege.

This tactic and the consistency of the strength for its execution, DEBKAfile’s military sources report, have been taken from the Israeli doctrine of besieging Palestinian West Bank cities in order to lower the level of terror. The doctrine was initiated by defense minister Shaul Mofaz in his last job as IDF chief of staff and has been carried on by his successor, Lt. General Moshe Yaalon.

For over four months, American military officers have been observing Israeli units at first hand, as they operate against terrorists in Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarm, Bethlehem and Ramallah, watching also the IDF method of isolating Yasser Arafat in his Ramallah headquarters.

According to our sources, American military planners are transposing the anti-terror tactics they have witnessed on the West Bank as battle plans for the 101st Airborne Division fighters destined for Baghdad. Israeli tank maneuvers under helicopter cover have been studied in Jenin as a model for the 3rd US division’s M1 Abrams main battle tanks to follow, in the streets of the Iraqi capital.

In effect, American war planners have adopted sections of the IDF’s combat strategy against Palestinian terrorist strongholds. This strategy consists essentially of pouring with stunning speed into targeted urban districts large-scale tanks columns armed with heavy firepower, together with armored units under helicopter and drone air cover, as well as crack fighting units, such as paratroops.

This onslaught leaves the forces under attack too overwhelmed to put up more than token resistance. They soon discover that any attempt to hit the iron giants roaming their streets results in their firing positions, bunkers or rooftops, being pulverized by the attacker’s superior firepower.

This strategy has so far kept Israeli and local casualties in Nablus, Ramallah, Hebron and Jenin to a minimum, while cutting down the volume of terrorism.

According to DEBKAfile’s military sources, the American strategists were also interested in the second half of the Israeli doctrine, namely the way in which Arafat has been corralled in his Ramallah administration and terror headquarters for more than 10 months, together with 20 to 30 Palestinian terror chieftains who dare not come out from under his protection.

US war leaders are planning to use tanks, drones and crack troops in a similar fashion to beleaguer Saddam Hussein, his family and top staff in the palace or bunker in Baghdad or Tikrit in which they are holed up – for as long as it takes. They see no need to break in and capture him, only to wait patiently outside his gates until he surrenders or agrees to leave the country."(end excerpt)

Well it's an interesting idea.It might work and greatly reduce casualties, but a lot remains to be seen.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=235

[MMMMMM]

Well he does pose a potential threat to us and our allies.

He already funds the suicide-bomber-terror cottage industry in the West Bank, and supplying WMD to terrorists isn't that far a step given he's already called for jihad against us 3 years ago. Sorry but I think that's a threat.

Another thing is you can't require moral actions to ignore pragmatism. Yeah it would be groovy if we could snap our fingers and rid the world of every tyrant. But if we can do it with just a few of the really bad ones we've still accomplished something--even if it's in our own interests as well. Morals don't have to be divorced from pragmatism, and just because we can't do it all doesn't mean we shouldn't do some of it. If it's in our own interests too, rather than condemning us for being practical, I say great. Kill two birds with one stone! Now what's wrong with that. Just because we can't take the ultimate moral high ground and act on morals alone doesn't mean we aren't taking any of the moral high ground. It's a real world and we have to be somewhat practical too--that's just life.

[Billy LTL]

As for them marching through S. Korea before we could stop them - we've got troops there already

Some 38,000 I believe. You might want to ask the boys at Camp Boniface, the QRF outside Panmunjom, and many other U.S. camps near the dmz exactly what their role is in the event of a North Korean attack.

The unanimous answer will be to die within five minutes of the advent of hostilities. Sure, we're probably only looking at a couple thousand Americans being killed in the opening hours of an invasion, if that. But that's certainly enough to guarantee Congress will allow the President to wage war against the North.

Don't equate North Korea to Iraq. Different entities entirely. A friend of mine, a journalist, tells a wonderful story of riding on the train from Pyongyang to China.

He heard the strumming of a guitar, a few patriotic voices singing a bit of a tune. He wandered to the back of the train car and saw some of the train staff having a bit of a singalong during a break.

He politely listened for awhile then asked if he could have a go at the box. His first number was "Yesterday" and being a hardcore Beatles fan (and not a very talented musician) his second was "A Hard Day's Night".

Somebody asked him (he spoke fluent Korean) what kind of music he was playing. The Beatles, he replied. Blank stares. Have you ever heard of the Beatles, he asked? More blank stares.

This got him going. Ever heard of Elvis? More blank stares. Did you know a man has walked on the moon? A long silence then one brave soul, remembering his duty said, "Yes, the Great Leader (Kim Il-sung) has experienced that trip."

My point here is that the place ain't normal. It's a nation of people who know only one thing and that's any, and I mean any little show of disrespect will get them and every generation of their family sent to a very terrible place. That's all they know. They have not an inkling of the outside world except for their mortal enemy South Korea and this running-dog America KCNA spouts off about some ten times a day.

I think a war on the Korean peninsula would be as horrific, though shorter, as the war fought there some 40 years ago. I think thousands of Americans, and even worse, millions of Koreans would die. And like Ray said, I don't think American politicians have the stuff to commit their people to the bloodshed. I hope they don't anyway.

I've been to North Korea (if I were more of a writer i'd relate some of my tales. I've spent long periods of time in South Korea, and I've been to Iraq too. And baby, between Iraq and North Korea there ain't no comparison.

In my humble, non-professional, non-expert opinion Bush has only one move, compromise with the North.

Oh ,and your arguement:

On paper, they have a lovely military - plenty of men, tanks, artillery, etc. Operationally, however, it's useless against us

Wrong. The've got arty that would knock your socks off, placed in mountain tunnels on tracks all along the dmz. You've should understand, lots and lots of people from both sides would die if a conflict breaks out there.



Billy

[nicky g]

Oh good. So we can expect endless years of military occupation during which anyone who so much as throws a stone or a takes a back road gets shot, whether they're a 12-year-old boy or a 98-year-old woman. The Israelis have been so successful in bringing peace to the region and "lower(ing) the level of terror", I can't for a moment think why all peacelovers around the world didn't copy them ages ago.

"This strategy has so far kept Israeli and local casualties in Nablus, Ramallah, Hebron and Jenin to a minimum, while cutting down the volume of terrorism."

Please tell me you're joking. The local casualites are enormous, and the suicide bombings keep on killing dozens. Their tactics also encourage anti-Western hate around the world. The Israelis' tactics have been one long disaster. I mean, I think I'm going to cry: just what the West needs to enhance our image abroad and discourage hatred and terrorism - another West Bank. Jesus Christ.

[Billy LTL]

Vietnam wasn't a war

I beg to differ friend. Your words strike me as coming from somebody who didn't live through that era. I don't mean only that you didn't fight in that...what...disturbance? I also mean that you weren't around on the other side, the hippies, the anti-disturbance folks.

Anybody who grew up during the '60s and early '70s would've called the Vietnam conflict a war. Short of nuking the North, America threw virtually everything she was willing to give into that conflict.

Billy

[MMMMMM]

Well I think the terrorism does go up every time Israel withdraws. Anyway the point of the article I posted was just to show a way that perhaps a lot of the in-city fighting which Ray Zee mentioned might be avoided, and with it a lot of the casualties. If this happens, I doubt it would go on for years--Saddam would have to agree to exile or surrender--he couldn't last for years under complete siege and isolation. If nothing else his inner circle might get fed up and kill him themselves.

[MMMMMM]

I was under the impression that it was a closed and cult-like society, but: "Dat beats all dem stories." Whoa.

[Ray Zee]

your right billy. vietnam was a full blown war which we sadly lost. we could have won many times by using the correct force in the right places but the politicians didnt want to, so ruined 100000 or so lives. i still remember the long lines of supplies coming in from china that we wouldnt bomb for fear of bringing them into the war.

we have to realize that even though we can lay destruction to any place on the planet, that doesnt mean we win the war against the people.

[IrishHand]

Sure, we're probably only looking at a couple thousand Americans being killed in the opening hours of an invasion, if that. But that's certainly enough to guarantee Congress will allow the President to wage war against the North.
Umm...that's the idea. Our country always does better when we have widespread public support for something, and the best way to get support is when Americans get killed. Sad but true...

Wrong. The've got arty that would knock your socks off, placed in mountain tunnels on tracks all along the dmz. You've should understand, lots and lots of people from both sides would die if a conflict breaks out there.
I already acknowledged that they had "plenty of men, tanks, artillery, etc" - you must have missed that even though you quoted it. And it'll all be effectively useless once we subject it to 24-hour-a-day sea- and aerial-based bombardment. It's completely impossible to win a battle much less a war when the other side has complete control of the air and the sea. "Arty that would knock my socks off"? Good for them. It can't hit planes or cruisers, but the planes and cruisers can certainly hit it.

Hey - if we were willing to engage in straight land battles as we did often in the 50s, I would be the first to admit we'd have our hands full. Fortunately for us, conventional warfare no longer obliges us to do so. Hey - I agree that there would be a ton of casualties on both sides. However, the 'sides' are N. Korea and S. Korea. Our 'side' would come away pretty clean, all things considered. Would soldiers die? Of course - unless the opponent has completely lost his will to fight (a la Iraq in Gulf War I), we'll lose some people. That's the nature of war, and it's not a bad thing.

[IrishHand]

I don't think it'll happen before we roll in - that would be counter to his whole personality and life of defiance. I think it might happen once he sees his troops fold like an accordion again and everything he owns laid to waste. He might hold on, hoping that we'll give up like last time, but I'm pretty sure he knows the score on this one. Whether it's right or wrong what we're doing there, what we're doing isn't really a mystery - unlike last time, where the goal was ostensibly liberating Kuwait, this time the goal is Mr. Hussein himself.

[IrishHand]

So we can expect endless years of military occupation
If we lay siege to Baghdad, they'll fold in a matter of weeks (if that long). Cities in the desert tend not to do too well with no supplies. (Actually, no modern city would last for long if it were besieged.)

However, there will be 'endless years of military occupation' no matter how the region plays out. We've got a pile of bases there now, and we'll surely tack on at least a couple of new bases in Iraq to make sure that things there go as they're supposed to - meaning in accordance with the greater (that would be us) good.

[IrishHand]

Listen...I'm fully aware of what things were like both in the US and for our troops over in Vietnam during the Vietnam conflict. (And yes, the proper term is "conflict", not "war" or "disturbance." Hey...I only go on what the government tells me to call it. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif) That doesn't change the fact that the US never applied it's full military power to bear on the Vietnam conflict. Yes, we dumped thousands and thousands of troops over there, but that's not the same thing at all. As I argued above, no country tends to do very well in a military conflict unless they have (a) popular support, and (b) full commitment.

We allowed Vietnam to degenerate into a war of attrition - which was and probably always will be a very bad thing for the US military to engage in. Our kill ratios were awesome in the Vietnam war. On paper, we were enormously successful on the ground and in the air. The realities, of course, speak against that. We couldn't afford to lose a thousand men on a regular basis. They could afford to lose 10 times that and not be fazed in the way we would.

More importantly, not only did we not have widespread support domestically, we didn't even have support locally (in S. Vietnam). Basically, it was a really bad idea all 'round.

But back to the point - unless Congress and the President stand up and say that we're at war with someone, we aren't. We apply military power to different places all the time, but that doesn't mean we're at war with them.

[nicky g]

no doubt. it's the thought of them playing the subsequent occupation along the lines of israel in the west bank that frightens me.

[IrishHand]

vietnam was a full blown war which we sadly lost.
I will refer you to my above post. "War" is a diplomatic state between nations, not something that you're allowed to define on your own. (And yes, this means that we're not really at 'war' with terrorism.)

we could have won many times by using the correct force in the right places but the politicians didnt want to
Yes, we could have. That was my point above. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[IrishHand]

Agreed.

[nicky g]

"politicians didn't want to, so ruined 100000 or so lives"

and ended 4 million south-east asian lives needlesly too, no? not to mention cambodian amputees, ruined infrastructure etc. i don't to be honest think it would have been much less needless if they'd won the war either - they weren't quite fighting on the side of the guardians of democracy and human rights.

[jen]

You guys are hilarious...

I totally agree with Clarkmeister's post as well.

Maybe all the 2+2'ers should forgo an afternoon at the poker tables and attend an anti-war rally... /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[Clarkmeister]

Practical Morality.

Hmmmm, somehow I think there's a conflict there.