Page 44 of 53 FirstFirst ... 344243444546 ... LastLast
Results 431 to 440 of 529

Thread: North Korea reportedly fires at South

  1. #431
    Sage
    EnigmaO01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,027

    Re: North Korea reportedly fires at South

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Glad you got that right... Though, it isn't like the US and USSR were on good terms when it happened...
    Of course not but you asked. No one asked the Koreans I note.

    I'm not sure we are really on good terms now. Yes it appears so but I fear the Russians actually despise us and are doing things against us behind our backs. Putin had no respect for Bush 2. But then again I wouldn't trust Putin as far as I could throw a house. He's former KGB and I have no doubt he is taking out people he thinks are problems covertly.

  2. #432
    Sage
    EnigmaO01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,027

    Re: North Korea reportedly fires at South

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Care to point out where the mainstream media made any effort, other than to pronounce the war a massive failure, from the git-go?
    They were gung ho, including CNN, that had a reporter imbeded with the invasion force until the occupation. It's the long drawn out occupation where they went sour.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Just like Walter Kronkite, during Vietnam, when he did everything he could undermine the war effort.
    That's a matter of opinion. Cronkite was telling it like it was IMHO. Our politicans weren't fighting it to win and that's what we were seeing.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Not a conspiracy, just a fact.
    No an opinion.

  3. #433
    Sage
    EnigmaO01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,027

    Re: North Korea reportedly fires at South

    Quote Originally Posted by Ocean City View Post
    What's all this hooplah about South Korea being our "ally" and we must do anything and everything to protect them? Last I recall, no South Korean forces came to assist when after we lost 3,000 citizens in 9/11 and went into Afghanistan and Iraq in response to it. They loose two Marines and now they are our best friend and we must all take up arms and die for them? That seems like a very one sided alliance to me. Back in high school we used to call that a 68.
    South Korea sent troops to Iraq. The third largest number of foreign troops at 3600.

    You've got it all wrong. They were and are a long standing ally.

    Iraq: The Quiet Koreans - TIME
    Last edited by EnigmaO01; 11-28-10 at 01:17 PM.

  4. #434
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,991

    Re: North Korea reportedly fires at South

    Quote Originally Posted by EnigmaO01 View Post
    South Korea sent troops to Iraq. The third largest number of foreign troops at 3600.
    I didn't know that. The argument that always comes up here is that 3600 is nothing. But if we consider that most of our allies are surrounded or bordered with enemies and rely upon us to back them up, they can't really afford to send mass amount of troops abroad.
    Last edited by MSgt; 11-28-10 at 01:33 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  5. #435
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 02:33 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    55

    Re: North Korea reportedly fires at South

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    I didn't know that. The argument that always comes up here is that 3600 is nothing. But if we consider that most of our allies are surrounded or bordered with enemies and rely upon us to back them up, they can't really afford to send mass amount of troops abroad.
    What do you think the ramifications will be of the United States being involved in three different wars simultaneously? Or are you one of those posters on this forum who argue adamantly about the necessity of keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and then in light of the North Korea situation all of a sudden thinks Iraq and Afghanistan aren't important anymore and military efforts should be focused on North Korea?

  6. #436
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,991

    Re: North Korea reportedly fires at South

    Quote Originally Posted by Ocean City View Post
    What do you think the ramifications will be of the United States being involved in three different wars simultaneously? Or are you one of those posters on this forum who argue adamantly about the necessity of keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and then in light of the North Korea situation all of a sudden thinks Iraq and Afghanistan aren't important anymore and military efforts should be focused on North Korea?
    I'm one of those posters that do an extroardinary amount of reading with experience to back up my conclusions. That being said....

    1) U.S. Marines had been bored to death in Iraq since early 2008 and had been trying to get over into Afghanistan where the fight is ever since. We had finally gotten Iraq into a secure place for them to take over their own destiny. Before President Obama took the throne in January, 2009, the plan to leave Iraq was already in motion. Marines are now totally focused on bringing Afghanistan to a close with Iraq far behind us.

    2) Afghanistan will never be more than a corrrupt zoo of bad governance in our lifetimes, which means that we only need to deliver a devistating blow to the Tali-Ban in this coming year so we can leave that situation to Afghanis to succeed or fail. I am scheduled to deploy for 365 days stating in February/March. American forces (as well as NATO and the rest) are scheduled to be leaving shortly after.

    3) North Korea is a war that was always going to have be finished. Like Germany, the nation of Korea has a destiny to re-unite sooner or later. With South Korea as our ally, we have an obligation to stand beside it and not be Europeans (who are also obligated).

    4) It is a myth that America cannot fight two, three, and what ever number comes up, simultaneously. We have engaged across the world and fought multiple enemies at the same time circa 1943. Today, we have forces all across the globe for contengincies and are more than prepared for Korea (all of our forces in Asia have been standing by for this for decades and largely not a part of the Iraq/Afghanistan theatres.) Of course, today's wars don't necessarily mean an extraordinary amount of troop deployment. Unlike the situations inthe Middle East, South Koreans (true allies) have a large capable force to put on a fight fortheirown defense with us as their technical destructor on high with embedded advisors and accompanying forces.

    You are welcome.
    Last edited by MSgt; 11-28-10 at 02:06 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  7. #437
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 02:33 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    55

    Re: North Korea reportedly fires at South

    1.) Whether Iraq is or isn't in a secure place to control its own destiny is very debatable. The democratic election process has not been going smoothly at all and many conservative analyst think the removal of U.S. troops will be detrimental and eventually allow Al Qaeda to make Iraq even more of a stronghold.

    2.) If I'm not mistaken, weren't you one of the many posters on here criticizing Obama for planning to pull out of Afghanistan in 2011, regardless of if the surge worked or not? Now it seems like you support it.

    3.) It is certainly no myth that overextension of armies can be detrimental to a nations war efforts. This is often cited as one of the reasons Hitler lost world war II, is usually brought up in discussion about the fall of Rome, and one of the initial causes for the decline of Great Britain's once super powerful military. The U.S. economy is dire, it's military will be over extended and the morale is already low after fighting two middle eastern wars that have been largely unsuccessful. International support is low, and if the Republicans that took over the House get their way, that means Bush tax cuts will stay in effect and the only way to generate money for a third war will be to simply print it or borrow, thereby worsening our economy and increasing our debt.

    I certainly think there are some legitimate reasons to use military force against North Korea. However, I think that your opinions on policies of war are not valid because they are biased, and rightfully so. One of my favorite quotes "Eagerness for combat is an asset for a soldier, dangerous for a general, and criminal for a politician." ~Anonymous. Being a soldier, you should be eager for combat and justifying it by any means necessary, and we certainly appreciate your attitude and service to protect our country. However, soldiers, due to this needed bias, shouldn't be debating war policies, since it is only their job to fight and believe in whatever war policies are politicians put forth. And our politicians should be (although they are often not) very cautious about using military force as a solution to any problem or conflict, and should certainly consider matters such as overextension, the current economy, and many other factors. Simply "carpet bombing" North Korea as soon as possible would inevitably lead to a World War III against China (fighting China in North Korea in the 50s didn't go to good for us) and that's something that should be considered with the most discretion and caution.

  8. #438
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,657

    Re: North Korea reportedly fires at South

    Bah...this will likely be resolved soon enough. North Korea rattled its rusty little sabre...we did nothing but are sending in a carrier group to show how tough we can be, and China is calling for 'emergency meetings' which will amount to $$$, food, and oil for North Korea. Same **** different day...

  9. #439
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,991

    Re: North Korea reportedly fires at South

    Quote Originally Posted by Ocean City View Post
    1.) Whether Iraq is or isn't in a secure place to control its own destiny is very debatable.
    No... it is not. Iraq was left with enough stability to design it's own success or its own failure. This was always going to be the end result. Contrary to the critics complaint, "Vermont" in the desert was never practical. Our mission is over.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ocean City View Post
    2.) If I'm not mistaken, weren't you one of the many posters on here criticizing Obama for planning to pull out of Afghanistan in 2011, regardless of if the surge worked or not? Now it seems like you support it.
    No...I was not. Afghanistan was always going to be Afghanistan. We were never there to conquer and we were never going to occupy forever. With the beating the Tali-Ban is about to take in our final year, the Afghani government will be in position to decide how best to support their own corrupt government. Contrary to the critics' complaint, "Vermont" was never the goal. Our mission is about over.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ocean City View Post
    3.) It is certainly no myth that overextension of armies can be detrimental to a nations war efforts.
    It is a myth that America has stretched out its military. You clearly suggested exactly that with your uneducated belief that our military is stretched to the breaking point. This was a myth three years ago when over zealous Army generals shot their mouths off and short changed their branch and it is a myth today. Let's not pretend that you were merely arguing over a general tactical truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ocean City View Post
    I certainly think there are some legitimate reasons to use military force against North Korea. However, I think that your opinions on policies of war are not valid because they are biased, and rightfully so. One of my favorite quotes "Eagerness for combat is an asset for a soldier, dangerous for a general, and criminal for a politician." ~Anonymous. Being a soldier, you should be eager for combat and justifying it by any means necessary.....
    I am not eager to go to a war against an irrationally nuclear armed country. I am not a soldier, I am a Marine. I am the one on this very thread that keeps telling people that there is absolutely nothing our ground forces can do against a nuclear armed country and any attempt to simultaneoulsy take out nuclear sites by air is a serious gamble. This irrational player would rather go out with a bang than to surrender its power. They have traveled down their road of pride for too long.
    Last edited by MSgt; 11-28-10 at 03:34 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  10. #440
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Last Seen
    03-18-13 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,544

    Re: North Korea reportedly fires at South

    Quote Originally Posted by EnigmaO01 View Post
    What a bunch of malarky.
    Don't communicate with me if you don't have anything to say.

Page 44 of 53 FirstFirst ... 344243444546 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •