WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines Why I think we don't invade Korea

Billybob

Gimmie Pwnies
Premium
929
16
207
#1
*sorry to offend some people, but I use "we" as Americans, not the world in general. Some countries are actually smart*
You know, after a lot of thinking, I've been thinking. Why are we spending all of our time in Iraq? We did what we intended to do. Remove saddam from power and establish democracy. No matter what your viewpoint of the war is, it's finished, done, complete. Now all we are doing is occupying a country that doesn't want us. If we were there to remove the WMDs, as our oh-so intelligent president tells us, then we should have been out of there a long time ago. If it was because of saddam being mean to his people, we should never have entered. My teacher told me an interesting fact the other day. Saddam killed 200,000 people in the course of 20 years. The U.S. had killed 100,000 in 3 years. A bit odd, don't you think? If we were there for oil, then I don't see the point of even going. We could have fixed the problem without invading Iraq.
Now look for a couple of seconds outside of Iraq. From what I see, Iran has a nuclear weapon program, and North Korea actually has nukes. So why aren't we there, where the real danger is? It's because we'll lose. Right now North Korea has some 2,000 rockets aimed at Seoul, if I remember correctly. The second we invade, all the rockets go off and in minutes the worlds 4th largest city gets wiped off the face of the earth. Not a good move on our part.
The way I see it, we are in Iraq simply because we can win. right now, Iraq has no formal army. All we are up against are suicide bombers, and urban warfare. So why are we going in with tanks, long range missiles, and unmanned aircraft? Because we can. If we were to go against more powerful countries, we would be in another Vietnam. bush would lose his 40% approval rating in an instant.
All bush wants is for us to think that America is the greatest country in the world with the best tactics, weapons, and control. All I see is a country not wiling to actually fess up, and take a place within the world. calm down Bush, you aren't the only country that is morally correct, and you sure as hell don't need to be another superpower. About 3,000 were killed on 9/11. 30,000 were killed in the first week in the "war on terror" you know, Bush, it's not only your people whose deaths matter. Everyone that you killed had family just like us. You wonder why everyone else hates us, when all we are doing are killing huge numbers of people who should be killed because they were taught that America is bad.
 
R

RedOctober

Guest
#2
You know kid, the frightening thing is that in politics there seems to be no rational thinking. But that's where the conspiracy theories come in.
People like to explain for themselves that things must have a meaning.
And believe me, they have.

Just look in the history books on the right page..
Also take a map, and put those things together.

You are a warlord, somewhere in history.
What do you want?
Power, wealth.
Where do you put your castle?
At the crossroads of trader routes, near a river.
That's called a strategic place.

If you want to control an entire nation, you step it up to a combination of castles and forts. That's called strategy.

Now what is Bush doing?
He is just a pawn controlled by corporate America.
The military-industrial complex already mentioned by President Eisenhower!

They seek to dominate the world, beginning with the main resource right now, and that is oil. It's not important to get actually oil, but to have access to it if it's needed. You need it in case of a war.

That's why the USA invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
Both are part of the same plan.
It's a power dance between the USA, Russia and China.

Afghanistan is important as the Eastern crossroad.
Both the British and the Russians have tried to bring Afghanistan under control. They didn't succeed. You may ask yourself, how long it is going to take that the Americans are kicked out of that country.

Here the "How the west was won" tactics come in.
They will place military bases on strategic points, and install the cavalry there to keep the neighbourhood under control.

And then the troops can be sent in...
 

Jiraffe

Domesticated Savage
3,388
2
202
#3
RedOctober said:
You know kid, the frightening thing is that in politics there seems to be no rational thinking. But that's where the conspiracy theories come in.
People like to explain for themselves that things must have a meaning.
And believe me, they have.

Just look in the history books on the right page..
Also take a map, and put those things together.

You are a warlord, somewhere in history.
What do you want?
Power, wealth.
Where do you put your castle?
At the crossroads of trader routes, near a river.
That's called a strategic place.

If you want to control an entire nation, you step it up to a combination of castles and forts. That's called strategy.

Now what is Bush doing?
He is just a pawn controlled by corporate America.
The military-industrial complex already mentioned by President Eisenhower!

They seek to dominate the world, beginning with the main resource right now, and that is oil. It's not important to get actually oil, but to have access to it if it's needed. You need it in case of a war.

That's why the USA invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
Both are part of the same plan.
It's a power dance between the USA, Russia and China.

Afghanistan is important as the Eastern crossroad.
Both the British and the Russians have tried to bring Afghanistan under control. They didn't succeed. You may ask yourself, how long it is going to take that the Americans are kicked out of that country.

Here the "How the west was won" tactics come in.
They will place military bases on strategic points, and install the cavalry there to keep the neighbourhood under control.

And then the troops can be sent in...
Unforunately I have to agree with you on this. :(
 

RetArt

A Rampant Vagitarian
1,025
0
0
#4
Seems like Afghanistan is where Poland was in the beginning of the 20th century. Superpower after superpower running over it. It is weird that there are actually no news from Afghanistan, like it would have vanished into oblivion.. No word about the millions that were near to death because of starvation when the war started. There has not been a word since.

Also look at the world map, and then compare it to the worlds oil production maps or statistics. You see many interesting things. Like that the no. 1 oil producer Saudi-Arabia is Iraqs neighbourg, and that no.3 oil producer, Iran, is right there between Iraq and Afghanistan.. Coninsidence that US has put troops (with stupid excuses) into these spesific countries..? Iraq produces four times less oil than the saudis.. But then again US companies are sponsored or owned greatly by the saudis...

Maybe somebody can fill me in with relations between Pakistan and US, and Turkmenistan and US?
Turkmenistan was formerly under Soviet control... They have authoritarian republican governement with no opposition.. Is this a US planted puppet? Like the many others that were planted by the CIA..? Fill me in if you KNOW.
 
139
0
0
#5
yeah iran has no nuclear weapons program to speak of. its just the US press trying to warp facts and make things seem like what they want.

there are no progams to speak of. period. iran even says send inspectors; we don't have anything. US does not comply.
 

UberSkippy

a.k.a. FuckTheBullShit
7,529
28
142
#6
We don't invade North Korea for a number of reasons. Mainly:
1. They don't have any resources we want
2. They have nukes
3. They have missiles capable of reaching the United States

Iraq had oil and had no way of defending itself. North Korea doesn't have oil and DOES have a way of defending itself.

We haven't brought democracy to Iraq. At least not a stable democracy. We had no reason or business going in there but we did.

Afghanistan is a bit of a different story. We did have a reason to go in and make a regime change. What we're still doing there is a bit vague. Partially the regime we kicked out is still there and still causing problems.
 
R

RedOctober

Guest
#7
UberSkippy said:
We don't invade North Korea for a number of reasons. Mainly:
1. They don't have any resources we want
2. They have nukes
3. They have missiles capable of reaching the United States
@1 You're right.

@2 So what? Nuke Seoul? Than they are toast too!

@3 They don't have that. They only can reach Japan if they are lucky. (huh?)
It will get them toasted in the same way by the Americans.
See point 2.

The only frightening thing is, the Bush junta must be planning to use nuclear weapons on a small scale already.
That's the same shift from strategic into tactic use like we in Europe were confronted with in the 1970's. Maybe you remember the Cruise Missile was also developped to carry nuclear devices.

And read my lips, the Yankees are going to use them on the North Koreans, because they don't give a damn what happens after that.

For a musical intermezze, I advice.. The buttonpusher, of The Dubliners ;)
 

stinkyfingers

retarted since 1979
62
0
0
#8
RedOctober said:
The only frightening thing is, the Bush junta must be planning to use nuclear weapons on a small scale already.
That's the same shift from strategic into tactic use like we in Europe were confronted with in the 1970's. Maybe you remember the Cruise Missile was also developped to carry nuclear devices.

this may be the only socially acceptable way to use a nuke in the future without fear of an international incident. a localized attack designed to destroy a specific target without causing mass destruction of a nations infrastructure. i am glad we are developing these techniques/technologies before someone else decides that it is a good idea.
 

morelos

lexicon incognito
1,952
0
0
#9
1) we haven't established anything in iraq but lower standards of living than during the ba'ath regime

2) we don't bomb korea because we already occupy both of them. in fact, it's widely understood now that the koreas want to unify for mutual benefit of the north (getting food, incomes) and the south (cheap labor, more agricultural resources and a better-rounded export package)

what redoctober said is right. read http://www.newamericancentury.org/ and if you're not scared afterwards, you have issues (and are therefore in the right place)

dr morelos (yeah it happened)
 
R

RedOctober

Guest
#10
Well...

Read this to spoil your appetite...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/china-20050808.htm


The report also details China's programs to upgrade its intercontinental ballistic missile force with new solid-fuel, road-mobile missiles and new sea-based, submarine-launched systems. The net effect will be a more survivable, more accurate, and more lethal nuclear strategic capability--aimed primarily at the United States. As General Zhu Chenghu, dean of China's National Defense University, not so subtly reminded American visitors recently: Should the United States intervene in a conflict between China and Taiwan, "the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of [their] cities will be destroyed by the Chinese" nuclear weapons.

Combine the PLA's fascination with "carrier killing," its ability to degrade severely the operational utility of U.S. air bases in Japan through missile strikes, its aggressive pursuit of space and counterspace capabilities, and its upgraded nuclear arsenal, and you have a military that believes it has or is close to having the means to make any American president think twice before going to Taiwan's rescue.
 
3
0
0
#11
It's called the balance of power. Iraq is a key peice in the vastly volitile Middle East, and Dubya would be damned if anyone but the US was going to own it. Unfortunately, his unilateral invasion cooled already chilly relations with Russia further, and his pro-Taiwan rhetoric has alienated us from China. Iraq is going to be one huge thorn in our side for years to come...whether we pull out or not.
Oh, and by the way, we'd smoke North Korea or Iran. There is no SINGLE army on the planet that we'd lose a major war to (it's the damned long, drawn out ones against enemies that aren't specified we can't win). Our military technology is leaps and bounds ahead of anything anyone else has....right now. Makes sense, though. We do friggin spend over 300 billion a year on defense.
 
10
0
0
#12
i do think u might loose for the same reason hitler did

u will eventualy piss enough people off and u will haveto spread ur army so thin u will b destoyed

trust me the u.s has few real friends and fewer people who will back u when the real shit hits the fan :)
 
R

RedOctober

Guest
#13
paragon202 said:
Oh, and by the way, we'd smoke North Korea or Iran. There is no SINGLE army on the planet that we'd lose a major war to (it's the damned long, drawn out ones against enemies that aren't specified we can't win). Our military technology is leaps and bounds ahead of anything anyone else has....right now. Makes sense, though. We do friggin spend over 300 billion a year on defense.
Well, Grasshopper... (Kung Fu series)
That's from your point of view.
You are glad if you can look in the future of let's say.. The next decade.
You have been programmed by TV series to believe that a bunch of Robocops are going to control the world. Soldiers that march in a biotronic armer, that pushes their strenght and speed to the limit.
Weapons as deadly as a ww2 tank had.
But the invincible Apache fighting machine went down in Iraq.

Let's face it. The army will be up against millions of poor equiped soldiers.
And Americans never had to fight a war on a massive scale.
They picked their time of battle, with a few exceptions like Pearl Harbor, and the war in Korea.
You should read how it was in Korea.
The Chineese pushed the American army back in such a speed, that it's only a miracle they weren't massacred.
All because of a bright idea of McArthur, he made the classical flanking assault.

Now, imagine the Americans going into China..
It will never happen.
The only thing what America can do, is to put a steel ring around China.
That's going to happen. And the Chineese already got that.
They will get a method to break that ring.

Another thing is the longer future.
Remember Kyoto.
The climate is getting warmer.
In 10-20 years, the (north) Polar Sea will have a period in a year that it will be possible to navigate between Russia, China, Canada and Alaska.

American troups will be stationed in the North of Canada, to watch out for incoming ships..
 

skully

GO BEARS!!!!
1,415
0
0
#14
RedOctober said:
Let's face it. The army will be up against millions of poor equiped soldiers.
And Americans never had to fight a war on a massive scale.
They picked their time of battle, with a few exceptions like Pearl Harbor, and the war in Korea.
You should read how it was in Korea.
The Chineese pushed the American army back in such a speed, that it's only a miracle they weren't massacred.
All because of a bright idea of McArthur, he made the classical flanking assault.
Agreed

They US army has hardly any skills. They rely(sp?) heavily on technology. You can see this from the fact that they never fail to get some of their ass kicked whenever they go to another country.

I am pretty sure that the next superpower is goingto be an asian country, namely China. Its only a matter of decades that the chinese economy will surpass the american economy, and another few decades till the indian economy comes close to tat of the us economy. The stock market is like a balloon, it can pop at any time and leave miliions of people in the rut.

The irony of th ewhole thing is that, USA doesnt want other countries to have weapons of mass destruction. WHY THE FUCK DO YOU HAVE THEM THEN? Clearly another plot for world domination and shit like that. The us government would be better off if they joined stewie griffin and collaborated with him
 

RetArt

A Rampant Vagitarian
1,025
0
0
#15
There is also an interesting point of view. Fighting motivation. USA hardly has any motivation, as they see themselves fighting for some inaccurate values, or some individuals at home, like Bush. They dont have the motivation. Iraqiis are fighting for their country. Korea fought fotr their country. The attacker almost always loses. Theydo not have such strong bonds with the land, they have not identified themselves on it. Losing your country is losing a great deal about youself.

Another point. US troops are arrogant. They have eaten up all the info and the propaganda, that practically shouts out they are invinsible. They look down on their enemies. That is the greatest mistake you can do in a war. Never underestimate your enemies.
 
R

RedOctober

Guest
#16
RetArt said:
There is also an interesting point of view. Fighting motivation. USA hardly has any motivation, as they see themselves fighting for some inaccurate values, or some individuals at home, like Bush. They dont have the motivation. Iraqiis are fighting for their country. Korea fought fotr their country. The attacker almost always loses. Theydo not have such strong bonds with the land, they have not identified themselves on it. Losing your country is losing a great deal about youself.

Another point. US troops are arrogant. They have eaten up all the info and the propaganda, that practically shouts out they are invinsible. They look down on their enemies. That is the greatest mistake you can do in a war. Never underestimate your enemies.
You're right.
And that's my point also.
I have been insulted of being hard for Americans, but I only do that to make them see reality. If anyone would have looked at my profile, he would have seen that the one American I really like is General Patton.
Americans need a man that tells them how it is.
That war is bloody, smells awfull, and you lose your friends because they are shot to pieces. That war is a stupid thing, but if you have no other choice, you have to fight it, and do it well.
In all other cases.. Stay at home with the kids and see them grow up.

Patton would have kicked the ass of those idiot chickenhawk idiots like Cheney and Rumsfeld. Don't you all agree? ;)
 

JLXC

WTF's Official Conspiracy Fanatic
Premium
7,550
264
302
#17
America wont attack Korea because it can fight back, that much is obvious. You're all right, the USA hasn't attacked anyone who could actually fight back in many decades. America has become a bloated corporate entity that will eventually (not too long really) fall apart because of the disparity of wealth. Then the rich will move into other countries leaving the poor to their "little revolution." All in all, America is a schoolyard bully who knows not to mess with kids who will fight back, and when any kid really does fight back (Iraq, Viet Nam, etc.) they run away, because they are just a bully.
 

Mr. Sandman

acidum arsenici
200
0
76
#18
America doesn''t need to attack north korea because if they did anything stupid...China would step in with all there waiting troops and destroy them.
 

mmm...cheese

Banned - What an Asshat!
2,240
0
0
#19
RedOctober said:
@1 You're right.

@2 So what? Nuke Seoul? Than they are toast too!

@3 They don't have that. They only can reach Japan if they are lucky. (huh?)
It will get them toasted in the same way by the Americans.
See point 2.

The only frightening thing is, the Bush junta must be planning to use nuclear weapons on a small scale already.
That's the same shift from strategic into tactic use like we in Europe were confronted with in the 1970's. Maybe you remember the Cruise Missile was also developped to carry nuclear devices.

And read my lips, the Yankees are going to use them on the North Koreans, because they don't give a damn what happens after that.

For a musical intermezze, I advice.. The buttonpusher, of The Dubliners ;)
Isn't there technology where you launch a rocket (armed with a nuke) into space, and it falls on the target spot?

Oh, and BTW, I agree with you about the "conspiracy theory," as you call it. I believe it is completely true, as I have looked into this as well as my father.
 

mmm...cheese

Banned - What an Asshat!
2,240
0
0
#20
JLXC said:
America wont attack Korea because it can fight back, that much is obvious. You're all right, the USA hasn't attacked anyone who could actually fight back in many decades. America has become a bloated corporate entity that will eventually (not too long really) fall apart because of the disparity of wealth. Then the rich will move into other countries leaving the poor to their "little revolution." All in all, America is a schoolyard bully who knows not to mess with kids who will fight back, and when any kid really does fight back (Iraq, Viet Nam, etc.) they run away, because they are just a bully.
I don't believe the above in bold is true! America may be in a LOT of debt... however, it's far from falling apart. Unless some other world power in the future causes America to crumble, we will sit. We do not control directly, rather indirectly. America influences many other countries in many other ways. Mainly by our big companies flying their way around the world. In any case, the only real competitor we have is China. China has an awesome potential for greatness. They have so many companies growing inside of them, because they have such a low fee for such things. Later on, if they raise this fee, they will become the new world power, due to their new found wealth, and already enormous population. If this happens, America will most likely attack them! Seeing as our presence would be threatened by them, and we would be relieved of a lot of debt by eliminating them. (WWIII+ will be started)