• 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

Since when has this "historical perspective" you speak of had ANY bearing on these modern times, let alone any time?

I've never heard of anyone paying much attention to it, so why should we start now?

Edit: And, on a side note, I am 100% sure that a military operation with a name like "Operation Frequent Wind" garnered a HUGE number of jokes about it...

That's why mistakes keep getting repeated.
 
I would think the NK's “peasants” (I use that word because that seems to be how they are treated, sort of) might be more likely to work with an attacking force, rather than against it, depending on how said attacking force acted, what their intentions were…and so forth.

Of course, that assumes my limited understanding of how NK treats it’s “citizens” is at least partially accurate.

And that their propaganda can be overcome.

If we go in to defeat the Norks, then, by your logic, they won't work with us. If we hit the Norks with the maximum amount of violence and destroy any will to resisit, then they will deal with our presence. If they don't, then that means there'll just be some more killing to be done.
 
Before you post s*** you might at least check what I was responding to. Yes I did consider that photo but settled on the on I posted. The only objection had with the one I posted is that it took up too much space and people have to toggle it out back and forth.enjoy GB. :2wave:

Of course you considered that photo; especially, since those people are mostly Vietnamese nationals and not the U.S. military and it was taken in 1975, three years after all US forces had withdrawn from Vietnam; in an orderly, phased withdrawel.

But, hey; let's not let historical facts get in our way. Right?
 
Well that's a no brainer. I was responding to the statement that seemed to think it would all be over in no time with our air strikes and more modern technology. That didn't even happen in Iraq. The enemy just hid, adapted, and resumed a different tact as they knew they couldn't beat us in conventional means. Then they started blowing the **** out of us with IED's.

Actaully, the enemy fought us the front of public opinion.

There were 80,000+ IED's employed and American casualties totalled about 4,000. Not exactly, "blowing the ****", out of us. If the bad guys would have their version of MSNBC, or CNN, the IED strategy would have been a complete failure. But, luckily for the terrorists, MSNBC and CNN are on our side.
 
Of course you considered that photo; especially, since those people are mostly Vietnamese nationals and not the U.S. military and it was taken in 1975, three years after all US forces had withdrawn from Vietnam; in an orderly, phased withdrawel.

But, hey; let's not let historical facts get in our way. Right?

It pertained to what/who i was responding to, sorry you didn't like my choice of pictures, will try to get your approval before i post anymore pics in the future.:2wave:
 
That's why mistakes keep getting repeated.
My point exactly...

If we go in to defeat the Norks, then, by your logic, they won't work with us. If we hit the Norks with the maximum amount of violence and destroy any will to resist, then they will deal with our presence. If they don't, then that means there'll just be some more killing to be done.
WTH are you talking about?

I was imagining a scenario wherein we do our utmost to destroy any and all NK military forces that do not surrender (especially taking out any ability to nuke our forces ASAP), and at the same time do our utmost to get the NK civilians working with us to root out any military that try to go guerrilla on us.

And guerrilla force needs some form of supply/support, I doubt they could last long without any supplies, and if the civilians are on our side…

But, as I said, it depends (in part) on overcoming any propaganda the NK powers that be have been feeding their people for the last 50 years…

You for some reason seem to be lumping every single person in NK into one whole…
 
Actaully, the enemy fought us the front of public opinion.

There were 80,000+ IED's employed and American casualties totalled about 4,000. Not exactly, "blowing the ****", out of us. If the bad guys would have their version of MSNBC, or CNN, the IED strategy would have been a complete failure. But, luckily for the terrorists, MSNBC and CNN are on our side.

Firstly there were more to IEDs than targetting Americans, and secondly the American Army doesn't exactly have a steller record of "bombs/bullets per kill." I agree that the battle over public opinion was just as important, but youre underestimated how often a weapon actually has to kill someone for it to be effective.
 
Firstly there were more to IEDs than targetting Americans, and secondly the American Army doesn't exactly have a steller record of "bombs/bullets per kill." I agree that the battle over public opinion was just as important, but youre underestimated how often a weapon actually has to kill someone for it to be effective.

So, you agree that IED's did more for the war for public opinion--with the help of the mainstream media--than they did for the actual war on the battlefield?

IOW, the anti-war media found something that they could blow out of proportion, so as to undermine the American war effort.
 
So, you agree that IED's did more for the war for public opinion--with the help of the mainstream media--than they did for the actual war on the battlefield?

IOW, the anti-war media found something that they could blow out of proportion, so as to undermine the American war effort.

IED's demonized the war. But really, it exposed the inherent problem behind the war: the public didn't expect it to become an occupation. If we'd gone in, lost the same amount of soldiers against the Iraqi Army, and then gotten out, the public would be pissed, but they would be satisfied in the knowledge that we whupped up on the guys who did it to us. With IED's, we don't always find the lucky a**hole with a shovel and mortar shell, instead all we see is our Humvees getting blown to pieces.

In a lot of ways, the media made it worse, but the problem was there to begin with, on a fundamental level: we hate fighting and enemy we can't see, and we want to watch our enemies get the sh*t beaten out of them. Thats what we're missing from this war, and fear-mongering also makes for better ratings. Honestly, the media isn't trying to undermine anything, and to think that is absurd. Our media is only there to make money, and they need ratings for that.
 
Last edited:
So, you agree that IED's did more for the war for public opinion--with the help of the mainstream media--than they did for the actual war on the battlefield?

IOW, the anti-war media found something that they could blow out of proportion, so as to undermine the American war effort.

The IEDs had a massive impact on the actual war and I include the war for public opinion in that as well. However as far as degrading our combat effectiveness in traditional military thinking, they weren't a major threat. By that I mean we still had a military on the ground which could move, engage, etc. But this wasn't a traditional war, the objective often had nothing to do with traditional military fighting, and a single IED or threat of an IED could by itself could massively undermine US power in the area.

Part of that war was to protect the locals, which became very difficult not only when they were fighting each other but when they, and outside groups, used IEDs and other unconventional methods.
Not every single IED attack or threat made it onto news in the US, however it had real impacts within Iraq, on the Soldiers, and on the operational environment even if it was never reported or heard about in the US.

Now as far as your anti-war media trying to lose the war for the US, well if you're going to argue a conspiracy theory provide evidence of their intent to do that or go to the proper forum.
 
Yonhap is reporting that North Korea has fired at Yeonpyeong again, though none of the shells landed on the island itself

South Korea's military had ordered civilians on a border island to evacuate to shelters, military officials said Sunday, after hearing sounds of "several rounds" of artillery firing, though no shells landed on the island.

While the emergency evacuation order on Yeonpyeong Island, devastated by North Korea's artillery attack on Tuesday, was lifted, military officials said they are keeping a close watch on the movements of the North's coastline artillery batteries as they maintain a "ready-to-fire" posture.

"The evacuation order was issued after sounds of several rounds of North Korea's artillery were heard on Yeonpyeong," said an official at the South's Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS).

The JCS official said, however, the distant sounds of artillery firing came from the North's firing training inside its territory, not the coastline artillery near the island

Link
Yonhap twitter feed
 
IED's demonized the war. But really, it exposed the inherent problem behind the war: the public didn't expect it to become an occupation. If we'd gone in, lost the same amount of soldiers against the Iraqi Army, and then gotten out, the public would be pissed, but they would be satisfied in the knowledge that we whupped up on the guys who did it to us. With IED's, we don't always find the lucky a**hole with a shovel and mortar shell, instead all we see is our Humvees getting blown to pieces.

In a lot of ways, the media made it worse, but the problem was there to begin with, on a fundamental level: we hate fighting and enemy we can't see, and we want to watch our enemies get the sh*t beaten out of them. Thats what we're missing from this war, and fear-mongering also makes for better ratings. Honestly, the media isn't trying to undermine anything, and to think that is absurd. Our media is only there to make money, and they need ratings for that.

I believe that anybody, with a little common sense, knew that there was going to be a post war security mission. Afterall, the lack of a post-war strategy in Afghanistan, is why were had to go back to Afghanistan; and ultimately, ther reason we had to go back to Iraq.
 
The IEDs had a massive impact on the actual war and I include the war for public opinion in that as well. However as far as degrading our combat effectiveness in traditional military thinking, they weren't a major threat. By that I mean we still had a military on the ground which could move, engage, etc. But this wasn't a traditional war, the objective often had nothing to do with traditional military fighting, and a single IED or threat of an IED could by itself could massively undermine US power in the area.

Part of that war was to protect the locals, which became very difficult not only when they were fighting each other but when they, and outside groups, used IEDs and other unconventional methods.
Not every single IED attack or threat made it onto news in the US, however it had real impacts within Iraq, on the Soldiers, and on the operational environment even if it was never reported or heard about in the US.

Now as far as your anti-war media trying to lose the war for the US, well if you're going to argue a conspiracy theory provide evidence of their intent to do that or go to the proper forum.


Care to point out where the mainstream media made any effort, other than to pronounce the war a massive failure, from the git-go?

Just like Walter Kronkite, during Vietnam, when he did everything he could undermine the war effort.

Not a conspiracy, just a fact.
 
The IEDs had a massive impact on the actual war and I include the war for public opinion in that as well.


IEDs had a greater impact on the civilian at home, far from any danger, than it did for combat operations inside Iraq.


Now as far as your anti-war media trying to lose the war for the US, well if you're going to argue a conspiracy theory provide evidence....

His point is very valid. Drama sells papers. Civilians buy papers. Civilains form opinons around that drama. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy. It's just good business for which the average civilian is to stupid to cipher. If you wish to pretend that the media seeks out good stories to tell the average fat ass back home in a hopes that drama no longer sells, then perhaps you should discover a few uncomfortable truths. Your idea that the IED was impacting this war on the ground to some overwhelming degree is evidence that you paid too much attention to the media for your guidance. IEDs were a nuisance, but it did not alter operations. Another one was the "grand Iraqi Civil War" that simply vanished. How much of that little bit of media drama did you swallow? Or that Iraqis would never vote. Or that failure was behind every corner.

By the way, justabuba thanked your post. That should probably tell you how far off you are.
 
Last edited:
IEDs had a greater impact on the civilian at home, far from any danger, than it did for combat operations inside Iraq.




His point is very valid. Drama sells papers. Civilians buy papers. Civilains form opinons around that drama. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy. It's just good business for which the average civilian is to stupid to cipher. If you wish to pretend that the media seeks out good stories to tell the average fat ass back home in a hopes that drama no longer sells, then perhaps you should discover a few uncomfortable truths. Your idea that the IED was impoacxting this war on the ground is evidence that you paid tomuch attention to the media for your guidance. Another one wasthe "grand Iraqi Civil War" that simply vanished. How much of that little bit of media drama did you swallow?

By the way, justabuba thanked your post. That should probably tell you how far off you are.

Laughed my snuff, right out of my lip...thanks!
 
IEDs had a greater impact on the civilian at home, far from any danger, than it did for combat operations inside Iraq.

His point is very valid. Drama sells papers. Civilians buy papers. Civilains form opinons around that drama. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy. It's just good business for which the average civilian is to stupid to cipher. If you wish to pretend that the media seeks out good stories to tell the average fat ass back home in a hopes that drama no longer sells, then perhaps you should discover a few uncomfortable truths. Your idea that the IED was impacting this war on the ground to some overwhelming degree is evidence that you paid too much attention to the media for your guidance. IEDs were a nuisance, but it did not alter operations. Another one was the "grand Iraqi Civil War" that simply vanished. How much of that little bit of media drama did you swallow? Or that Iraqis would never vote. Or that failure was behind every corner.

By the way, justabuba thanked your post. That should probably tell you how far off you are.

In my opinions IEDs defined the combat environment in Iraq, primarily because it slowed everything down so much for US forces. As well as being a transporter, IEDs define my operations in so many ways. Where I can go, how I get there, when I leave, how fast do I drive, how far apart the trucks are, etc etc.

And if we consider IEDs as part of a wider guerrilla warfare strategy, than it also defined our conflict to win over the locals. They also had to put up with that constant fear and being asked to trust US forces for security while at the same time knowing the US couldnt protect them from everything was very difficult.

Now as for your 2nd paragraph, you're are talking about something completely different. I don't disagree in the least that drama sells, in fact that in my opinion is what the primary motivator was for many news outlets to talk about the war, along with with the fact that the war was also actual news.

HOWEVER, apdst was arguing the media was anti-war, not that they were drama loving or that they wanted to use the war for profit to sell papers and newstime. No, he said they were anti war and broadcast-ed so much news about IEDs because they had a topic "could blow out of proportion, so as to undermine the American war effort."

See the difference? Perhaps you should take a bit of time out of your self-righteous textual vomit figure out what people are talking about.

And lastly about Justbubba thanking me, I'm glad to see you two still believe in guilt by association.
 
In my opinions IEDs defined the combat environment in Iraq, primarily because it slowed everything down so much for US forces. As well as being a transporter, IEDs define my operations in so many ways. Where I can go, how I get there, when I leave, how fast do I drive, how far apart the trucks are, etc etc.

And if we consider IEDs as part of a wider guerrilla warfare strategy, than it also defined our conflict to win over the locals. They also had to put up with that constant fear and being asked to trust US forces for security while at the same time knowing the US couldnt protect them from everything was very difficult.

Now as for your 2nd paragraph, you're are talking about something completely different. I don't disagree in the least that drama sells, in fact that in my opinion is what the primary motivator was for many news outlets to talk about the war, along with with the fact that the war was also actual news.

HOWEVER, apdst was arguing the media was anti-war, not that they were drama loving or that they wanted to use the war for profit to sell papers and newstime. No, he said they were anti war and broadcast-ed so much news about IEDs because they had a topic "could blow out of proportion, so as to undermine the American war effort."

See the difference? Perhaps you should take a bit of time out of your self-righteous textual vomit figure out what people are talking about.

And lastly about Justbubba thanking me, I'm glad to see you two still believe in guilt by association.


That's why it's called a, "battlefield", bro. It doesn't matter if it's high-speed booby-traps, hyper-accurate arty, or bows and arrows, those weapons and tactics will dictate where you go, how you get there and what you do, while you are there.

The dynamics of the modern battlefield are infinite.
 
That's why it's called a, "battlefield", bro. It doesn't matter if it's high-speed booby-traps, hyper-accurate arty, or bows and arrows, those weapons and tactics will dictate where you go, how you get there and what you do, while you are there.

The dynamics of the modern battlefield are infinite.

So we agree they define/dictate the battlefield?
 
So we agree they define/dictate the battlefield?

Yes, but no morese than any other weapon/tactic--the use of IED's isn't a strategy, either, BTW.

My point, is that they in no way defined success, or the lack there of.

Hell, the scuttlebutt I've heard from Iraq vets, is that escaping an armored humvee, after it was hit, was the really dangerous part.
 
So we agree they define/dictate the battlefield?

Yes, but no morese than any other weapon/tactic--the use of IED's isn't a strategy, either, BTW.

My point, is that they in no way defined success, or the lack there of.

Hell, the scuttlebutt I've heard from Iraq vets, is that escaping an armored humvee, after it was hit, was the really dangerous part.
 
Debate Politics: UPDATE

N. Korea deploys SA-2 surface-to-air missiles near Yellow Sea border

SEOUL, Nov. 28 (Yonhap) -- North Korea has deployed SA-2 surface-to-air missiles to its west coast near the Yellow Sea border with South Korea as U.S.-led naval drills got underway in a show of force against the North's deadly artillery attack on a South Korean island earlier last week, government sources said Sunday.

"(The missiles) appear to be targeting our fighter jets that fly near the Northern Limit Line (NLL)," the source said on customary condition of anonymity, referring to the Yellow Sea border.

N. Korea deploys SA-2 surface-to-air missiles near Yellow Sea border

U.S., South Korea launch war games; N. Korea deploys missiles

YEONPYEONG ISLAND, South Korea — The United States and South Korea launched war games Sunday as North Korea deployed missiles and threatened another attack if military exercises violate its territorial waters.
China said it would join efforts to ease the "worrisome" situation.
An artillery round was fired from North Korea on Sunday, officials said, triggering an evacuation order on Yeonpyeong Island, where four people died Tuesday in the North's bombardment. The order was lifted when no shells hit the tiny Yellow Sea home of fishing enclaves and military outposts.

U.S., South Korea launch war games - World news - Asia-Pacific - North Korea - msnbc.com
 
Last edited:
 
Last edited:
This isn't the ancient world where the armies meet on the battlefield with equal weapons and have only their numbers to largely determine a victor. I don't know why people resort to this. American technology and training is more than enough to handle North Korea. If it came to a ground war, half their military and virtually all their support systems would be destroyed before the average American troop crossed the border.

Technology and training has always had an impact in war. The Hittites superior weapons, the superior command and formations of the Macedonian phalanx with their superior weapons as well, the Mongols lighning strikes, Spaniards armor and weapons... technology and training has ALWAYS had an impact in determining winner and loser...
 
You are welcome to set your emotions aside and actually introduce the grand practical solution to dealing with an irrational nuclear nation that is fond of launching missiles into its neighbors land and seas.

My emotions? You maybe have been through a few too many **** measuring contests with your fellow meat heads to understand that this is twice now I have seen you post nothing but defeatist crap. As for solutions, I vote sir, neither now, nor when I was in did I have a role that would have allowed me to as much as offer an opinion as to what should be done as a global response to a rouge nation with nukes that a former liberal president of the US made possible for him.

Every think tank in Washington has been without solution for the last 15 years, but maybe you have the magic wand. South Korea and Japan have been tormented by North Korean bullying.

Maybe if these think tanks weren't staffed head to toe with UN type career libs, and we weren't paid for by NK's big brother China we could exhibit a little backbone.

South Korea and Japan have been tormented by North Korean bullying. You think its cowardice that the U.S. and the UN has focused solely on writing strongly worded letters of condemnation with China ignoring it?

It sure ain't bold is it now?

You think China has the magic wand? What's your solution?

I think China carries a great deal of weight with Il, don't you? My solution? I have the luxury of not having to have a solution, especially one where I am not privy to everything surrounding the situation, oh BTW neither do you have these facts Sarge. But I do know this, If I still awoke every morning to don the uniform of this great nation, I would not be posting such weak kneed pap.

Oh, and before you vomit some rediculous scheme, keep in mind that we fought an entire nuclear Cold War with the rational Soviet Union and not once did either side engage against each other.

At least then the USSR knew we had strong leaders, not like today.

Do you know why? Because nuclear bombs have a way of obliterating militaries. So let's hear it. Besides a Army dog's desire to create more "Custer's Last Stands," "Mai Lais," or "Abu Ghraibs," what is your solution?

Maybe you should retire.

j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom