• 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

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.


Well, of course it was a part of the environment. But it was not the impact on military operations people think. They were a consideration just like any other. We adapted and the mission went on. Stronger trucks and IED detectors were developed. Food and ammo was delivered. It's like a sniper that spends days shooting at patrols. He is a consideration, but patrols go on. In 2003, the threat of gas atack had troops wearing NBC suits all the way to Baghdad, but the mission was not deterred. The only great impact IEDs had was on the civilian populace back home who was led to believe that every blast meant nuclear explosion and defeat. For troops on the ground it was merely a part of the war.


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."

Look at it this way. With FOX gloryfying everything about the war to cater to pro-Bush Republican ties and CNN chastizing everything in order to cater to anti-Bush Democrats, it is not a hard leap to accuse the media of being anti-war (all the rest may as well have been CNN disciples). No matter the media's political motives, no troop felt that the media was on his side (except for obnoxious FOX).


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.

I guess I deserved that. I am very arrogant.
 
My emotions?

Yes....your emotions. You immediately jumped out to attack the Marine Corps in sophomoric Army fashion.

You maybe have been through a few too many **** measuring contests with your fellow meat heads.......

And more emotions in typical sophomoric Army fashion. You conitnue to prove that you have an inferiority complex.

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.

Like what? You complain about the U.S. lacking a backbone for not rushing into invading an irrationally nuclear armed opponent.

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.

So...you have no solution. Merely criticizing others for not having one? Are we "great" or are we lacking a backbone?

Your "luxury" of not having a solution doesn't stop you from imagining that there is one that nobody's tried over the last couple decades. What I have is common sense and the ability to see a situation for what it is. It has nothing to do with defeatism or weak knees. Of course, you also have the luxury of not having to rush into North Korean nuclear blasts don't you? With half our military dead under a cloud you can have the satisfaction that we at least showed some backbone under our stupidity. And then you can pop a cold one and flip the channel.

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

Well, this is an opinion that doesn't address the North Korean situation. You still dismiss the difference between a rational Soviet Union and an irrational North Korea. North Koreans have nothig to slose. They would call our bluff in front of the whole world and then we would look weak for not launching. You aren't thinking any of this through, which is why you are relying on your emotions to merely criticize.

Maybe you should retire.

In 17 months. Got a year stint in Afghanistan to do first. Of course, retirement won't stop me from reading and understanding global situations and applying a bit of sense to it.
 
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.
 
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?

I'm sorry you are flat out wrong. We withdrew our last American forces in 1975 the year I graduated from High School.

Vietnam War Timeline : Vietnam War Statistics
 
Last edited:
What's all this hooplah about South Korea being our "ally" and we must do anything and everything to protect them?

Obligation. South Korea is an ally. They have allowed us to maintain bases in their country since the Korean War and we constantly train with their local force. Our allies all around the world trust us (despite the garbage they spew towards us for the public) to protect them because we don't simply run away. It's not "hooplah." It's global security and strength in numbers. We did the same for a divided Germany.

Also, the American history has proven that our security very much relies on the health of foreign regions. Were it not for Barbary Pirates in the Med, our trades would not have been disrupted. Were it not for an unhealthy Asia, we would not have had to launch into the Pacific. Were it not for the unhealthy region of Europe, we wouldnothave been involved in two World Wars. We have a 9/11 and a billion terrorist organizations to remind us of how unhealthy the Middle East is. And the unhealthy HOA (Horn of Africa) has produced international pioracy in a major water way hasn't it?

It's not as simple as hoping that the unhealthy environments of foriegn regions can't affect us. They always do and eventually they cause American deaths. World War II finally taught us that we canno longer secure our people and trades by isolating and keeping the world at arms length. They have proven far too irresponsible in their behaviors. In regards to North Korea, their nuclear threats and occassional missile launches (bullying) affect the entire region with a nervous China incapable of disciplining them properly. You think a nuclear attack from North Korea is in China's best interest?

This is no small event. This is exaclty the sort of thing that America has seen in the past and refused to get involved until it had to cost millions of American lives. Unable to trust anybody else, we simply have to be the responsible ones.
 
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. :mrgreen: 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.
 
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.

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.

Not a conspiracy, just a fact.

No an opinion.
 
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:
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:
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?
 
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:
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.
 
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...
 
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.


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.

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.

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:
"...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..."

That was a different American people. Americans today are not capable of united action against foreign powers. One side or the other will use a foreign war for domestic political purposes. That means America can no longer win wars.
 
That was a different American people. Americans today are not capable of united action against foreign powers. One side or the other will use a foreign war for domestic political purposes. That means America can no longer win wars.

What do domestic politics have anything to do with fighting and beating an enemy? I assure you, if North Korea killed an American citizen, or soldier, the crap would hit the fan, and China and the DPRK are going to get hit with a ton of flying sh*t. If anything, the American people have less tolerance towards acts of violence against us.
 
What do domestic politics have anything to do with fighting and beating an enemy? I assure you, if North Korea killed an American citizen, or soldier, the crap would hit the fan, and China and the DPRK are going to get hit with a ton of flying sh*t. If anything, the American people have less tolerance towards acts of violence against us.

Really?

What about when the took those American journalists as hostages? Or when Iran took those hikers as hostages and has yet to release most of them?
 
What do domestic politics have anything to do with fighting and beating an enemy? I assure you, if North Korea killed an American citizen, or soldier, the crap would hit the fan, and China and the DPRK are going to get hit with a ton of flying sh*t. If anything, the American people have less tolerance towards acts of violence against us.

Iran is murdering Americans as I write this post. It's happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. America does nothing about it.

Same with NK. The DPRK is under China's protection. That means America dare not attack NK, or the Chinese will pull the plug on America. America needs to come home and get it's head right.

If Obama tries to fight in NE Asia, we will sandbag him. NK is not my enemy. Leftism is. We will use uncertain military conflict against Obama when he runs for reelection in two years.
 
Really?

What about when the took those American journalists as hostages? Or when Iran took those hikers as hostages and has yet to release most of them?

Are they dead? No. If they died would we be pissed off, and would Iranians in our country die? Most likely.
 
Iran is murdering Americans as I write this post. It's happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. America does nothing about it.

There are two things you could mean by that. 1. they are financing terrorists who are killing American soldiers or 2. they are actually killing American citizens. For 1, we're killing their guys, and we most likely sent that new virus which messed with their nuke program. And if you want to say 2 is happening, back it up with a credible source.

Same with NK. The DPRK is under China's protection. That means America dare not attack NK, or the Chinese will pull the plug on America. America needs to come home and get it's head right.

Wrong. This means China has to make sure the DPRK doesn't piss us off, or we kill them, and they've lost a Communist friend, and a buffer from South Korea. And if they go to war with us, they can kiss the money we owe them good-bye, along with all the money they might make in the future.

If Obama tries to fight in NE Asia, we will sandbag him. NK is not my enemy. Leftism is. We will use uncertain military conflict against Obama when he runs for reelection in two years.

Hopeless hyper-partisanship is a waste of resources.
 
And where would that take place??

On the DMZ. Both sides are so close to each other there, in many cases air strikes etc will be undesired. You can't drop a bomb or fire a missle when both sides are that close. Once the **** hits the fan NK will make a mad rush to the other side.
 
If Obama tries to fight in NE Asia, we will sandbag him. NK is not my enemy. Leftism is. We will use uncertain military conflict against Obama when he runs for reelection in two years.

Who the hell is we? More malarky btw. Repeter coined it right: hyper-partisanship.

Dude you have some serious hate issues.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom