N. Korea warns of nuclear war if attacked

Christy

b*tch rocket
Bustem' Down said:
Pretty much....no.

Well how do you expect to bring about world peace with that attitude? :confused:

Oh yeah! Piss and moan and hope someone does it for ya. :jet: :jameo:

Easy peasy. :peace:
 

Bustem' Down

Give Peas a Chance
Christy said:
Well how do you expect to bring about world peace with that attitude? :confused:

Oh yeah! Piss and moan and hope someone does it for ya. :jet: :jameo:

Easy peasy. :peace:
Where on earth did you ever get the idea that I'm trying to bring about world peace by pissing and moaning?
 

Christy

b*tch rocket
Bustem' Down said:
I was just playing the devils advocate and trying to explain it for you. I've been in the Navy for 10 years and deployed for Iraqi Freedom in 2003. So, I guess I'm doing the job for myself.

Why thank you, :huggy: I'm so glad I have someone out there smarder than me to splain these things. :jet:
 

SEABREEZE 1957

My 401K is now a 201K
Bruzilla said:
Willie's right, North Korea is not a problem for the US despite what the liberals and media are all saying to try to make it one. North Korea holds no strategic value to us, nor can they pose an economic threat. At best they have the potential to disrupt the far east so we keep an eye on them, but not much more. Hussein wanted to take over the Middle East, which constituted a severe national security problem for us. Kim Jong Il is just a horrendously-poor leader who wants to stay in power as long as he can.

I think that we should do everything we can to gode the North Koreans into firing as many missiles as they can. I would love to see Bush make a national address where he specifically forbids Kim Jong Il to fire any more missiles... just to make him fire more to be defiant. Everytime a missile goes up, the North Koreans just spent several million bucks that they can't replace. We collapsed the Soviets by getting them to run themselves bankrupt trying to put up a show, so why not do the same thing to the North Koreans?

You are so wrong; you don't even understand how much $$$$ the US spends to keep N. Korea in check....What about our Allies in the "far east"?
 

Bustem' Down

Give Peas a Chance
SEABREEZE 1957 said:
You are so wrong; you don't even understand how much $$$$ the US spends to keep N. Korea in check....What about our Allies in the "far east"?
You mean Japan? All they do is provide a homeport for 7th Fleet.
 

SEABREEZE 1957

My 401K is now a 201K
Bustem' Down said:
You mean Japan? All they do is provide a homeport for 7th Fleet.
Nope, I'm talking Australia, New Zealand. Granted they are not in the 'far east' but they need to be and are concerned about N. Korea....

I am a registered Republican voter in St.Mary's County.
 
Last edited:

Bustem' Down

Give Peas a Chance
SEABREEZE 1957 said:
Nope, I'm talking Australia, New Zealand. Granted they are not in the 'far east' but they need to be and are concerned about N. Korea....

I am a registered Republican voter in St.Mary's County.
Australia is not that much closer to N. Korea than the US and Zew Zealand is further. Plus, it would take a considerably larger missle to reach those countries because it would have to fly south across the equator, where as a missle to the US travels across the northern part of the globe, a shorter distance. That's just the Geography of it all. Politically, Australia could maybe make some impact, New Zeland almost none. There's really nobody left.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
SEABREEZE 1957 said:
You are so wrong; you don't even understand how much $$$$ the US spends to keep N. Korea in check....What about our Allies in the "far east"?

No, you don't seem to understand. The money that has been spent by the United States to keep NK in check has more and more to do with keeping the Republic of Korea (ROK) stable, and to keep US forces trained, than to keep the NK in anything.

As for our allies in the far east, the only one that NK poses a threat to is Japan, and even so it isn't much of a threat. NK lacks the power projection capability to threaten Japan. NK has always been a "jumping off" point for other countries, like China and the Soviet Union, and these countries are either wrapped up in their own problems, or gone, and aren't looking to project anything. During the Cold War Kim Il-sung got lots of respect and attention from the West because of his alliances with our greatest threats. Kim Jong il wants that same respect, but he doesn't have the buddies his Dad had. The only way he can get attention is with his missiles because outside of those his OOB is nothing but a lot of broke-down Soviet-era equipment that he can't afford to pay to fix and the Russians aren't fixing for free anymore.

What gets me is that the NK government lies about everything, even how Kim Jong il got seven holes-in-one the first time he ever played golf, yet when they lie about having nuclear weapons there's a huge panic. Good grief!
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
Bustem' Down said:
Australia is not that much closer to N. Korea than the US and Zew Zealand is further. Plus, it would take a considerably larger missle to reach those countries because it would have to fly south across the equator, where as a missle to the US travels across the northern part of the globe, a shorter distance. That's just the Geography of it all. Politically, Australia could maybe make some impact, New Zeland almost none. There's really nobody left.

A lot of people don't realize the distances involved out there in the Pacific. The first time I flew to Singapore we landed in Tokyo. I had looked at a WESTPAC map and saw how far Tokyo was from Singapore, so I was expecting a short flight... was I ever wrong! It took two hours longer to fly from Tokyo to Singapore than it did to fly from DC to Los Angeles. It looks like these countries are close to one another on the map, but they aren't.
 
Top