• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

North Korea reportedly fires at South

j-mac said:
Yeah, and whom might that be?


j-mac
Click to expand...

I would have expected for an airborne operative to know. That innocent nation was Iraq. It took no part in 9-11 and we went above and beyond in the decision to destroy that nation. And we overthrew the government, etc. Perhaps we should do the same in NKorea?
 
Gray_Fox_86 said:
I would have expected for an airborne operative to know. That innocent nation was Iraq. It took no part in 9-11 and we went above and beyond in the decision to destroy that nation. And we overthrew the government, etc. Perhaps we should do the same in NKorea?
Click to expand...

Uh huh....And are you privy to every scrap of intel of the time? I suspect not. But I don't know.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Uh huh....And are you privy to every scrap of intel of the time? I suspect not. But I don't know.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Answer two questions:

1.) Did Iraq attack the U.S.?

2.) Did Iraq have anything to do with 911?

If the answer is no to both questions there was no justification to attack Iraq and occupy the country. End of story. You can play the classified game all you want but even Bush 2 has acknowledged Iraq was no threat to the U.S. That's why he went on to his nation building and "we're going to bring democracy to the Iraqi people" facade.
 
Last edited:
EnigmaO01 said:
Answer two questions:

1.) Did Iraq attack the U.S.?
Click to expand...

Define 'attack'

2.) Did Iraq have anything to do with 911?
Click to expand...

I would not be able to answer definitively as I am not privy to all of the information surrounding that from every source. Neither are you I might add. My gut tells me that in some way whether it was a training site like is thought to have been in central Iraq with the Airliner fuselage, to possible materiel support in the form of funding. It is possible.

If the answer is no to both questions there was no justification to attack Iraq and occupy the country. End of story. You can play the classified game all you want but even Bush 2 has acknowledged Iraq was no threat to the U.S. That's why he went on to his nation building and "we're going to bring democracy to the Iraqi people" facade.
Click to expand...

the former President Bush has also acknowledged that gong into Iraq was the right thing to do. You and I have debated this subject at length for years now, and the best you can do is a stalemate. You used to get rather upset at me for using what you called "Black and white thinking" meaning that I only gave a this or that false choice to the equation before me. Well, tell me what is it you do here. Looks the same to me.

I maintain that today Iraq is a better place without Saddam Hussein. Am I for 'nation building'? No, but in the light of events of the time, we acted in the way we thought was right, and no armchair quarterbacking is going to change that.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Define 'attack'



I would not be able to answer definitively as I am not privy to all of the information surrounding that from every source. Neither are you I might add. My gut tells me that in some way whether it was a training site like is thought to have been in central Iraq with the Airliner fuselage, to possible materiel support in the form of funding. It is possible.



the former President Bush has also acknowledged that gong into Iraq was the right thing to do. You and I have debated this subject at length for years now, and the best you can do is a stalemate. You used to get rather upset at me for using what you called "Black and white thinking" meaning that I only gave a this or that false choice to the equation before me. Well, tell me what is it you do here. Looks the same to me.

I maintain that today Iraq is a better place without Saddam Hussein. Am I for 'nation building'? No, but in the light of events of the time, we acted in the way we thought was right, and no armchair quarterbacking is going to change that.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Of course Bush says it was the right thing to do. There's no way a man of his ego would say otherwise even though to any nonpartisan independent observer it was an unmitigated disaster and continues to be to some extent. Funny I don't remember the mass bombings when Sadam was in power, so your they are better off now is questionable. I look for Iraq to become another dictatorship.

Wow for all the blood and treasury we've spent there I don't find that very successful. We got rid of one dictator to make the way for another one. And at what cost? We should have stayed out of bum **** Eqypt in the first place.
 
Last edited:
EnigmaO01 said:
Of course Bush says it was the right thing to do. There's no way a man of his ego would say otherwise even though to any nonpartisan independent observer it was an unmitigated disaster and continues to be to some extent. Funny I don't remember the mass bombings when Sadam was in power, so your they are better off now is questionable. I look for Iraq to become another dictatorship.

Wow for all the blood and treasury we've spent there I don't find that very successful. We got rid of one dictator to make the way for another one. And at what cost? We should have stayed out of bum **** Eqypt in the first place.
Click to expand...

Wow, you weren't paying very much attention, were you?
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Answer two questions:

1.) Did Iraq attack the U.S.?

2.) Did Iraq have anything to do with 911?

If the answer is no to both questions there was no justification to attack Iraq and occupy the country. End of story. You can play the classified game all you want but even Bush 2 has acknowledged Iraq was no threat to the U.S. That's why he went on to his nation building and "we're going to bring democracy to the Iraqi people" facade.
Click to expand...

You're naive to think Iraq wasn't involved in some manner (Clinton warned of this many times). And if you're going to defeat Islamic terrorism, you'd best set up a base to do it from. Where better than Iraq, right in the middle of the backwards Islamic world?
 
Erod said:
You're naive to think Iraq wasn't involved in some manner (Clinton warned of this many times). And if you're going to defeat Islamic terrorism, you'd best set up a base to do it from. Where better than Iraq, right in the middle of the backwards Islamic world?
Click to expand...

Again prove it. I want to see evidence that Iraq was involved in 911 or was a threat to the U.S.
 
Reuters AlertNet - ANALYSIS-N.Korea crisis latest blow to Obama's nuclear agenda

President Barack Obama has set the goal of eventually ridding the world of nuclear arms as a central theme of his presidency, but North Korea's defiance and other recent setbacks have raised fresh doubts about whether he can turn his vision into reality.

With Obama's broader nuclear agenda seemingly imperiled at home and abroad, he now faces a test of whether he can salvage credibility for U.S. leadership in dealing effectively with more immediate threats like the one posed by Pyongyang.

North Korea has suddenly jumped to the top of Obama's list with the disclosure of new advances in uranium enrichment at its main atomic complex and its shelling of a South Korean island on Tuesday.

Obama's is expected to try to balance hard rhetoric to intimidate and contain the North with diplomacy aimed at avoiding military escalation as he seeks to rally the international community to ratchet up the pressure on the reclusive communist leadership in Pyongyang.

Some analysts question whether such a nuanced approach will be enough to bolster his longer-term push for global nuclear disarmament.

Those hopes have already suffered setbacks as Iran continues to flout international demands to curb its nuclear program and Obama's signature arms reduction treaty with Russia remains bogged down in the U.S. Senate.

Obama set expectations high last year in Prague when he declared it was time to end "Cold War thinking" and committed the United States to seeking a nuclear weapons-free world.

Obama followed in April with the unveiling of a new U.S. policy that renounced development of new nuclear weapons and restricted use of those already in Washington's arsenal.

Aides said it set an example for other nuclear nations, which just days later attended a nuclear security summit hosted by Obama at which he secured agreement to work toward locking down loose bomb-making material.

But the new U.S. doctrine drew condemnation from conservatives who said it would compromise national security.

Critics say Obama's approach has also helped embolden Iran and North Korea, which have largely spurned Obama's diplomatic outreach and pressed ahead with their nuclear programs.
Click to expand...

he really shoud return his nobel
 
apdst said:
What are you basing that opinion on? History tells us that the Chi-coms can't put enough combat divisions into the peninsula, to do any real good.
Click to expand...

Er... As I recall, when MacArthur got close to the Chinese border, the Chinese sent more than a million men to rout and defeat the American Army and push the Americans all the way back beyond the original dividing line, handing the Americans their worst defeat in over a eighty years.

So which history books are you looking at?
 
donsutherland1 said:
The only problem with that hypothesis is that North Korea knew in advance that the military exercises were just that, exercises. Hence, North Korea was fully aware that there was no offensive intent to the military activity, which negates the theory of a preemptive attack aimed at thwarting an invasion. North Korea's surprise attack was nothing but an act of naked aggression as part of a larger strategy aimed at (1) procuring some kind of concession(s) and/or (2) ultimately gaining recognition as a nuclear weapons state so as to solidify Kim's Songun policy. Indeed, the latter is supported by a recent Washington Post story that reported, "The North Korean government told a team of visiting American experts last week that it would effectively dismantle one of its nuclear weapons programs if the United States again pledged that it had 'no hostile intent' toward the government of Kim Jong Il, a member of the delegation said." In other words, North Korea is trying to shift the playing field from denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula into its eliminating one of two or more nuclear programs.
Click to expand...
don't think it works that way, don
if your enemy - and they are still at war - announces a military exercise in disputed waters and fails to heed your request not to conduct thos exercises in that location, then fires artillery while within those disputed waters, that might be seen as provocative ... especially if the enemy dictator is a bat **** crazy, paranoid
why does ROK have to ply those disputed waters, now, after the submarine attack
would not be surprised if the ROK was seeing what it could provoke
 
Le Marteau said:
Er... As I recall, when MacArthur got close to the Chinese border, the Chinese sent more than a million men to rout and defeat the American Army and push the Americans all the way back beyond the original dividing line, handing the Americans their worst defeat in over a eighty years.

So which history books are you looking at?
Click to expand...

I think he would be getting that info from the R. Limbaugh archives.
 
Le Marteau said:
Er... As I recall, when MacArthur got close to the Chinese border, the Chinese sent more than a million men to rout and defeat the American Army and push the Americans all the way back beyond the original dividing line, handing the Americans their worst defeat in over a eighty years.

So which history books are you looking at?
Click to expand...

Yes. And in doing so, they lost about a million men. We lost less than 100,000 men, not even 10% of the casualties we inflicted.

Needless to say, there is much more to war than control of the battlefield.
 
repeter said:
Yes. And in doing so, they lost about a million men. We lost less than 100,000 men, not even 10% of the casualties we inflicted.

Needless to say, there is much more to war than control of the battlefield.
Click to expand...

ok. what is paramount to control of the battlefield when waging war?
 
Le Marteau said:
Er... As I recall, when MacArthur got close to the Chinese border, the Chinese sent more than a million men to rout and defeat the American Army and push the Americans all the way back beyond the original dividing line, handing the Americans their worst defeat in over a eighty years.

So which history books are you looking at?
Click to expand...

The same history books that tells us, that after the initial shock, allied forces started pushing back those, "1 million men".

I also read the history books that tell us that China was able to present a million man front, because of a lack of battle space.
 
justabubba said:
ok. what is paramount to control of the battlefield when waging war?
Click to expand...

When taken in conjunction, an ability to trade space for time, and to inflict vast casualties, like the Allies did in Korea, is more important than controlling the battlefield. Of course, in Korea, that'd work until there was no more space to give up, at which point the control of the battleflied would become important.

Way I see it, if you can inflict a few thousand casulties, with a hundred or two of your own casulties, I'd take it.
 
repeter said:
When taken in conjunction, an ability to trade space for time, and to inflict vast casualties, like the Allies did in Korea, is more important than controlling the battlefield. Of course, in Korea, that'd work until there was no more space to give up, at which point the control of the battleflied would become important.

Way I see it, if you can inflict a few thousand casulties, with a hundred or two of your own casulties, I'd take it.
Click to expand...

you would take it until their massive numbers overwhelmed your forces, such that you lost control of the battlefield and the engagement
i do not see a position superior to being in control of the battlefield
 
repeter said:
When taken in conjunction, an ability to trade space for time, and to inflict vast casualties, like the Allies did in Korea, is more important than controlling the battlefield. Of course, in Korea, that'd work until there was no more space to give up, at which point the control of the battleflied would become important.

Way I see it, if you can inflict a few thousand casulties, with a hundred or two of your own casulties, I'd take it.
Click to expand...

Controlling the battlefield = inflicting more damage upon the enemy's combat power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom