WWIII has begin?

Jiro said:
I'm sorry but how does 28,000+ American soldiers can serve as a deterrent against 1,700,000 North Korean soldiers? Let's face it... if the NK invaded us, you don't stand a chance. Your only option is to bomb bomb bomb at SK's cost.
Click to expand...
So you believe that SK alone can withstand the forces of NK? You don't think NK would overrun SK the way N. Vietnam did to S. Vietnam when the Americans pulled out of there?

again - they are free to leave at any time they want. And the Americans have the odd way of dictating itself on how we do it especially when they're in foreign country. We'll have UN to help the Koreans like in the past. Don't forget - MacArthur served in Korean War under UN, not US.

Currently - the US presence is being gradually reduced in Japan and Korea.
Click to expand...
"Several aspects of the U.S.-R.O.K. security relationship are changing as the U.S. moves from a leading to a supporting role. In 2004 an agreement was reached on the return of the Yongsan base in Seoul--as well as a number of other U.S. bases--to the R.O.K. and the eventual relocation of all U.S. forces to south of the Han River. Those movements are expected to be completed by 2016. In addition, the U.S. and R.O.K. agreed to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Korea to 25,000 by 2008, but a subsequent agreement by the U.S. and R.O.K. presidents in 2008 has now capped that number at 28,500, with no further troop reductions planned. The U.S. and R.O.K. have also agreed to transfer wartime operational control to the R.O.K. military on April 17, 2012."
South Korea


example - Potsdam Conference. The division of Korea. Did the Americans consult with the Koreans on that subject?
Click to expand...
Unfortuneately, those who win wars make the rules for those who lose wars. That's the way it has always been.

I guess they could have turned the whole country over to the communists instead. Would that be better?


the question is - who is hell-bent on that specific subject? The Americans? or the Koreans? and for who? Americans? or Koreans? :hmm:
Click to expand...
The S. Koreans have no problem with N. Koreans using nuclear bombs?

But you keep ranting about Americans wanting to "bomb, bomb, bomb." (Which is not true anyway but that's what you keep bringing up.)
 
Jiro said:
no. that's whole another different topic. I was referring to multinational talks, not some finger-pointing thing.

In the past, my parents have told me that North Korea and South Korea wanted to reunite together but the Americans aren't letting it to happen because it would make Korea a superpower in that region... which means the Americans will have to leave thus significantly reducing the American dominance in that region. I thought that was silly but... look at Israel in middle of multiple hostile countries :dunno:
Click to expand...
Reunite under which government? Would all Korean people be happy to live under communism, dictatorship, and poverty?
 
Earlier in this thread there was talk about bombing North Korea's Nuclear Production Facility.

I used the Israeli bombing of Iran's Nuke Facility as an example of how it deterred a major catastrophe in that region.

Interestingly enough, the wikileaks documents revealed that Israel is going to strike Iran again before 2010.

:hmm:


WikiLeaks- the Israeli Connection
November 29, 2010 - 6:44 AM | by: Yonat Friling

The documents:

Among the documents that were exposed last night, there were some that dealt with Israel. We’ll start by saying, that none of the documents revealed anything the Israeli public doesn’t already know. The documents reflect the Israeli government’s concern with the Iranian Nuclear race, and would like to strike before the end of 2010.

Among the documents, cables from The US embassy in Tel Aviv revealing a meeting between Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, and US officials where he presented a five stage program to topple the Iranian regime, starting with sanctions, and moving to recruiting liberal movements such as student’s organizations and ethnic groups.

Another issue that was exposed last night: Israel’s efforts to coordinate the Gaza War – “Operation Cast Lead” with Fatah the moderate Palestinian movement headed by President Abbas and Egypt. Israel asked both parties if they were willing to assume control of Gaza once Israel defeated Hamas. Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in a meeting with a US congressional delegation. "Not surprisingly Israel received negative answers from both."

The reactions:

Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israeli government was already aware of the leaks, and chose to hold important meetings in exclusive forums of 2-4 people. “The more people in the meeting, the greater the risk it will be leaked” Said Netanyahu.

Israeli Media analysts agree that Israel has no reason to be embarrassed by the leak, because there are no large gaps between what it said domestically and what it said for public consumption. There is no significant discrepancy among the statements made by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Mossad Chief Meir Dagan and others in speeches, before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, in background talks with media commentators and the diplomatic conversations they held.

All in all, WikiLeaks did not succeed in penetrating the most sensitive channels of U.S.-Israel relations.
Click to expand...


http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/29/wikileaks-the-israeli-connection/


What wikileaks could do to really help the world is to expose secret files to the public of .... hmmmm ... all world governments

Why just the U.S.? (there is a foreign entity behind this)
 
Jiro said:
oh to answer your question...

now that the secret's out cuz of WikiLeaks... here ya go -

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?_r=1&hp
Click to expand...
No, that doesn't answer my question because it's not the same statement or scenario.

This is about Americans recovering nuclear materials stolen by militants:

"The US army is training a crack unit to seal off and snatch back Pakistani nuclear weapons in the event that militants, possibly from inside the country’s security apparatus, get their hands on a nuclear device or materials that could make one.

The specialised unit would be charged with recovering the nuclear materials and securing them."


This is about removing enriched uranium before it gets into the wrong hands:

"A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.” "


My question is still unanswered.
 
From what I'm taking it, it seems that most who appear to be on a pro-USA imperialistic stance as the global world affairs manager might need to recalibrate their chain of logic.

Your thinking is too one-sided (ie, you are only arguing on one side and have not considered the other).

Have you ever sat and discussed with a person of Asian descent of all people you might talk to about war and global issues?

Pretty sure most if not all of you have yet to do so.


Just take a few minutes of your day getting to know someone who isn't American born but rather descended from the mainlands (Korea, Taiwan/China, Japan, etc) and eventually you'll learn really, really fast how most feel about the US.

If I could give a simple analogy, often discussions seem to revolve around how the USA is considered 'the meddler of affairs'. It's broadcasted on public radio, get an interpreter to listen or a transcript to see how these talk station discussions pertaining to warfare and such pan out with the public's feedback.

Like I said, just take some time actually reaching out to listen to a perspective that isn't someone from the USA. You'll probably be surprised how hostile they are to what they call, "imperalistic america"


Here, I have some outlines for your homework done.
You don't even have to read all the pages, just look at all the topics in the following google hits - there's way more search entries than you would ever bother to read. I'm just the messenger though. A lot of Asian studies courses during my undergrad really opened eyes.


american imperialism in asia - Google search

how do koreans feel about americans - Google search
 
With a foreign policy like Sakoku, it isn't surprising Americans would be viewed as meddlers.

Historically of course.
 
Reba said:
So you believe that SK alone can withstand the forces of NK? You don't think NK would overrun SK the way N. Vietnam did to S. Vietnam when the Americans pulled out of there?
Click to expand...
Do you believe we - Korea + USA can withstand the force of NK anyway?

Reba said:
"Several aspects of the U.S.-R.O.K. security relationship are changing as the U.S. moves from a leading to a supporting role. In 2004 an agreement was reached on the return of the Yongsan base in Seoul--as well as a number of other U.S. bases--to the R.O.K. and the eventual relocation of all U.S. forces to south of the Han River. Those movements are expected to be completed by 2016. In addition, the U.S. and R.O.K. agreed to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Korea to 25,000 by 2008, but a subsequent agreement by the U.S. and R.O.K. presidents in 2008 has now capped that number at 28,500, with no further troop reductions planned. The U.S. and R.O.K. have also agreed to transfer wartime operational control to the R.O.K. military on April 17, 2012."
South Korea

Unfortuneately, those who win wars make the rules for those who lose wars. That's the way it has always been.

I guess they could have turned the whole country over to the communists instead. Would that be better?
Click to expand...
But the war didn't even start when the Americans negotiated with the commies to create 38th Parallel.

Reba said:
The S. Koreans have no problem with N. Koreans using nuclear bombs?
Click to expand...
SK is not deeply concerned about it because NK is not going to use it. It's for you, not us :giggle:

Reba said:
But you keep ranting about Americans wanting to "bomb, bomb, bomb." (Which is not true anyway but that's what you keep bringing up.)
Click to expand...
what was American's solution for any conflict such as Afghanistan? Iraq? Vietnam? Germany? Japan?

Bomb Bomb Bomb.
 
Reba said:
Reunite under which government? Would all Korean people be happy to live under communism, dictatorship, and poverty?
Click to expand...

why the pessimistic thought? I guess being born from Cold War era is pretty ingrained in you just as much as it did to older generations of South Koreans who scream for retaliation with extreme prejudice.

in case of reunification of Koreas - it's going to be under South Korea. don't bother asking for source or why. It's something only the native people can understand.
 
Reba said:
No, that doesn't answer my question because it's not the same statement or scenario.

This is about Americans recovering nuclear materials stolen by militants:

"The US army is training a crack unit to seal off and snatch back Pakistani nuclear weapons in the event that militants, possibly from inside the country’s security apparatus, get their hands on a nuclear device or materials that could make one.

The specialised unit would be charged with recovering the nuclear materials and securing them."


This is about removing enriched uranium before it gets into the wrong hands:

"A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.” "


My question is still unanswered.
Click to expand...

you missed the point. see red bold print. that should suffice.
 
Jiro said:
you missed the point. see red bold print. that should suffice.
Click to expand...
Right. They are two different situations. The second one doesn't answer my question about the first one at all.
 
Jiro said:
u
SK is not deeply concerd about it because NK is not going to use it. It's for you, not us :giggle:
Click to expand...

what is this?

what do you mean exactly...dont you think you may be practisiing the very same double standards which you accuse of US miltary who actually have the resources to provide assistence but you dissaprove (just like the SKers)
I find your statement quite disturbing for it illustrate the level of arrogance to be quite high, showing disrespect for fellow americas and westerners alike...
moreso, you are living in USA and you're laughing about the nuke threat, whats wrong with you, i find your thoughts disturbing.
 
Grummer said:
what is this?

what do you mean exactly...dont you think you may be practisiing the very same double standards which you accuse of US miltary who actually have the resources to provide assistence but you dissaprove (just like the SKers)
Click to expand...
South Korea does not have a nuke. Japan does not have a nuke. So why does North Korea want to have a nuke? Because of America!

hence... the nuke's for USA, not South Korea. it's simply for their own protection.

Grummer said:
I find your statement quite disturbing for it illustrate the level of arrogance to be quite high, showing disrespect for fellow americas and westerners alike...
Click to expand...
oh? have you ever thought that maybe America is being quite arrogant in here?
 
Grummer said:
moreso, you are living in USA and you're laughing about the nuke threat, whats wrong with you, i find your thoughts disturbing.
Click to expand...
Nuke Threat. It's comical because it's full of empty threat. When's the last time we've had any nuclear attack?

FYI - we are the only country in the history who has used nuclear weapon on other country.... twice. aren't we being a hypocrite, eh?

Not a single "rogue country" nor "axis of evil" has ever used nuke. Not a single terrorist has ever detonated dirty bomb. Only us! twice!
 
Jiro said:
Nuke Threat. It's comical because it's full of empty threat. When's the last time we've had any nuclear attack?

FYI - we are the only country in the history who has used nuclear weapon on other country.... twice. aren't we being a hypocrite, eh?

Not a single "rogue country" nor "axis of evil" has ever used nuke. Not a single terrorist has ever detonated dirty bomb. Only us! twice!
Click to expand...

You do realize why we used them right?

Pearl Harbor was a bitch. I have an uncle buried there.


So was 9/11
 
Steinhauer said:
You do realize why we used them right?

Pearl Harbor was a bitch. I have an uncle buried there.


So was 9/11
Click to expand...

We all have relatives and friends buried somewhere in any armed conflicts. The only hypocrite here is the one who used nuclear weapon.

Omaha Beach was a beach... I mean bitch. why not nuke Germany?
 
Back
Top