why are we wasting time in iraq - Page 4




 
--
Boots
 
May 8th, 2005  
7.62
 
 
If we invaded NK China would most likely send troops into NK to help their felloe commies. And numbers do not matter, America has the most potent Air Force in the world, we coulld bomb Kim Jong Il without him knowing it ever happened, we could destroy ant MBT they could throw at us with the Apache. We could defaet NK with reletave ease, much like we did Iraq, and Iraq again, and Bosnia. The only real reson we lost in Vietnam is we were outmauvered politically. We won almost every battle, but still lost. And, although I wasn't there ther to witness that war, (being born 2 days before Iraq invaded Kuwait) I have talked to several Vietnam veterans, one of whom, fought in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Shield. They have all said that we could've won if it had not been for the Politics in it.
May 9th, 2005  
Gunner13
 
 
OK, some of you seem to be missing a few points here:

1. The US could start a war with North Korea and win, but the cost may well be more than anyone is willing to pay unless we have no other choice. The fight could go nuclear as North Korea most likely has (or soon will have) nuclear weapons, which Iran and Syria do not have. Not yet anyway. Even a conventional fight would cause many casualties in South and North Korea and could spread to Japan and China. That's why the US government is working with South Korea, Japan, China and others to defuze this before it blows up and we have to fight it out. No one outside of North Korea's"Government" wants to start WW III, Locke.

2. The Iranian and Syrian Armed Forces are much smaller and nowhere near as dug in as North Korea (trust me on this, I have reason to know), but no military conflict is a sure thing and no sane person starts a fight if they have viable alternatives. Another relevant quote by Karl von Clausewitz "...War is the province of chance. In no other sphere of human activity must such a margin be left for this intruder. It increases the uncertainty of every circumstance and deranges the course of events....". So while I understand 7.62's bravdo, nothing is certain and North Korea is far from an easy target. As to Vietnam and politics, 7.62, I refer you back to my first quote from Clausewitz and Charge 7's discussion (I was trying to get them to Read it dude, but thanks for the support )

3. Locke, North Korea has considerable natural resources (anthracite, iron ore, magnesite, lead, zinc, tungsten, mercury, copper, phosphate, gold, silver, sulfur and manganese), but NO OIL! A quote from a US Department of Energy Study: "... North Korea lacks domestic petroleum reserves, but the West Korea Bay may contain hydrocarbon reserves, as it is considered to be a geological extension of China's Bohai Bay. Offshore exploration concessions previously held by Sweden's Taurus Petroleum, Britain's Soco, and Australia's Beach Petroleum have been allowed to lapse, having failed to find oil in commercial quantities...." (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/nkorea.html). Note that none of these companies are US controlled, so let's just dump the War for Oil nonsense right now Xm 8 .

And if the US did go to war with Iraq for oil, why is the price so high and why is the money generated by selling Iraqi oil going to the IRAQI Government You've been listening to Air America too much Xm 8, as you have bought the liberal anti-war, anti-Bush baloney
May 9th, 2005  
Locke
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunner13
North Korea has considerable natural resources (anthracite, iron ore, magnesite, lead, zinc, tungsten, mercury, copper, phosphate, gold, silver, sulfur and manganese), but NO OIL! A quote from a US Department of Energy Study: "... North Korea lacks domestic petroleum reserves, but the West Korea Bay may contain hydrocarbon reserves, as it is considered to be a geological extension of China's Bohai Bay. Offshore exploration concessions previously held by Sweden's Taurus Petroleum, Britain's Soco, and Australia's Beach Petroleum have been allowed to lapse, having failed to find oil in commercial quantities...." (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/nkorea.html).
thanks for that, very informative, i never knew that
--
Boots
May 9th, 2005  
CABAL
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xion
Someone in the above posts were speaking of N.Korea as a very weak nation with a small military force, I wanted to point out how thats not the case.
And numbers do matter, 900 thousand ppl defending such a small area as North Korea is a potent force against any invading armies.
America has the technology that others do not, but it doesn't mean that others are not well trained

Remember Vietnam?
Vietnam is not North Korea.

The reason why the NVA and the Vietcong was able to elude Technological Superior American Forces is because they were fully aware of their enviroment and taken every oppurtunity to turn the jungles of Vietnam into a deadly weapon. Plus unconvetional and radical ideals of conducting warfare often surprise armies that are primarily trained for Convetional means. As a result, militaries that are not fully prepared to counter the new threat would often fail in acheiving their goals.

Which leads to my final statement here, the North Korean Army is primarily trained for Conventional Warfare. If they continue to upheave the out-dated Soviet Doctrine, there is not doubt that so-called "Vietnam War" senerio would not be repeated. Unfortunetly, the very same senerio is being surfaced ominiously in Iraq.
May 9th, 2005  
Desert_Eagle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xion
Someone in the above posts were speaking of N.Korea as a very weak nation with a small military force, I wanted to point out how thats not the case.
And numbers do matter, 900 thousand ppl defending such a small area as North Korea is a potent force against any invading armies.
America has the technology that others do not, but it doesn't mean that others are not well trained

Remember Vietnam?
Back then we had to equip some of our troops with M-1s. Also, the M-16A1, although it might have been considered "superior", it was no match for an AK-47 in the dust and grime of jungle fighting.

And as a last note, the Vietcong knew there enviroment, and according to the teachings of Sun Zu the enviroment you know may be your greatest advantage.
May 10th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
America is in Iraq so bored people like me can volunteer to go blow something up.
May 11th, 2005  
7.62
 
 
No, redneck, that is NOT the reason we are in Iraq, we are in Iraq to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. The media wants you to think we are there for Oil and our "Empire". The Iraqi People have wanted these days for 20+ years.
May 11th, 2005  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7.62
No, redneck, that is NOT the reason we are in Iraq, we are in Iraq to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. The media wants you to think we are there for Oil and our "Empire". The Iraqi People have wanted these days for 20+ years.
lol he was useing sarcasm.
May 11th, 2005  
CABAL
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7.62
No, redneck, that is NOT the reason we are in Iraq, we are in Iraq to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. The media wants you to think we are there for Oil and our "Empire". The Iraqi People have wanted these days for 20+ years.
To Liberate people from foreign nations at the expense of American lives seems too unnatuaral for Washington to agree upon. Startling more high insurgency activity rates in the Middle East is not Washington's goals as well. Speaking of logic, Washington is not fully concerned with the people of Iraq. They are more concerned about US interests and its security situation within that region which would have likely convinced the US to invade Iraq.

I am quite definite about the US's infentions while occupying Iraq for the time being in the first place. It was surely a miscalculation and a misunderstanding.
May 11th, 2005  
Xion
 
Quote:
No, redneck, that is NOT the reason we are in Iraq, we are in Iraq to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein
^ BBB, Brainwashed By Bush

The mullahs use the same technique to train suicide bombers into believing in their cause.