Is there some inconsistency... - ...with U.S. foreign policy

[Stormin Norman]

Well, do any of you morons believe there to be some inconsistency with the way we are handling the nations of N. Korea and Iraq? I have heard this charge made by many liberals, yet they do not present any coherent reasoning behind their position. I was hoping that the commie pinko scum sould chime in on this and help enlighten me. Of course right wing views are always welcome, since they offer the only semblance of reason on this web-site.

Thank You,

SN

[Sirion]

This is quite obvious. Iraq is threatened with war by the U$A (obviously for the oil), but does something noone expected them to do (at least not ush and his fellow terrorists). They follow every directive U$A pushes on them, to make IRAQ "provoke" to warfare.

North Korea, on the other hand, threatens U$A with war, yet nothing is done.

The reason? Iraq has loads of valuable oil, NK has not. They do, however, has a much better military than Iraq, and migth posses nuclear weapons.

The "war on terrorism" is a "war for profit", this explains the lack of concistency from U$A's side.

[Stormin Norman]

You're wrong, but I will let others chime in before I tell you why.

[Eastside Revolt]

Bush is a scared little baby, he knows N korea might woop his country so he ain't even gonna try until he's done pillaging the middle east.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from redcanada on 9:04 pm on Jan. 9, 2003
Bush is a scared little baby, he knows N korea might woop his country so he ain't even gonna try until he's done pillaging the middle east.

You are so full of it that its coming out your ears.

North Korea's Military is strong relative to Iraq, but compared to the US, it is still weak. Besides, 1/2 of military strenght is sustainability, of which NK has very little compared to the USA. North Korea would have trouble merely feeding its soldiers and maintaining its forces, let alone sustain combat and logistical operations.

Throw in the fact that they are fighting US technology, training, shock effect, and smart weapons, and one can easily see the NK forces deteriorate quickly to the lelvel of a turkey shoot.

A large part of war in not just the equipment you have, but the $$$ to keep it working.

So, not only are US forces much larger, more powerful, and more sophistcated than NK's from the outset of a theorhetical conflict, but the will be better employed and maintained through sustained combat operations as well.

The US has defeated north Korea in the past (even whe NK had China's help, and we could easily do it again.

Educate yourself on the economics of war before you make ludicrous statements, redcanada.

[Eastside Revolt]

I agree that America is the most potent military force that the world has ever seen. Never the less, they aren't even done in Afganistan, and look what they are fighting there. Imagine if they were fighting real soldiers. America loves to gloat, but they don't realize that those hungry little funny coloured people actually pose a threat.

[Moskitto]

Iraq is co-operating with weapons inspectors, and Bush is threatening war.
North Korea is expelling them, and what is Bush doing?

[Paratrooper]

There is no inconsistency between how the US treats North Korea and Iraq. In both cases the Bush administration bows to international pressure. In Iraq's case, we keep delaying and delaying while we let Iraq prepare better. In North Korea's case we let Japan and South Korea call for negotations when there is nothing to negotiate. About the strenght of the North Korean Army, people forget the South Korean Army is far superior. The South Koreans are afraid of losing people and wealth in a war, not of losing the war itself.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Moskitto on 9:31 pm on Jan. 9, 2003
Iraq is co-operating with weapons inspectors, and Bush is threatening war.
North Korea is expelling them, and what is Bush doing?


We will deal with NK soon enough.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from redcanada on 9:29 pm on Jan. 9, 2003
I agree that America is the most potent military force that the world has ever seen. Never the less, they aren't even done in Afganistan, and look what they are fighting there. Imagine if they were fighting real soldiers. America loves to gloat, but they don't realize that those hungry little funny coloured people actually pose a threat.


Afghanistan is not a conventional war, so a comparison to it is unfair. It is a specvail ops war that is supposed to take time.

As far as NK, I admit they are a greater military threat than Iraq, but still an easily manageable one.

[Eastside Revolt]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 11:30 pm
Afghanistan is not a conventional war, so a comparison to it is unfair. It is a specvail ops war that is supposed to take time.



Exactly, their special ops can't even get shit done.

[RedComrade]

Iraq denies having nukes and no evidence has been shown to the people to contradict this also inspectors have found nothing. North Korea admits to having nukes and is threatening war, they have expelled inspectors and made it clear that any action on the part of the us will result in a barren wasteland in present day south korea.North Korea lacks both strateic importance (the region is already home to strong us allies and military bases) and economic importance. Iraq however is located in a key position to continue stability and american interests in the richest oil region in the world. Oil gained from iraq will be important in setting prices and controlling economic growth from the competing euro and yen economic blocs. It is also a necessary outpost if we are to contain islamic fundamentalism and nationalism that are hostile to us petroleum companies interests i dont see one reason why north korea would prove useful to us strategically or economically...

[American Kid]

Exactly, I second what CI has to say in regard to why we're still "mopping up" in Afganistan redcanada.

What's going on over there is basically guerrilla warfare in someone else's backyard. Not unlike what we were up against in Viet Nam also.

Or what Batista's "military" was against our comrade Castro.
-AK

(Edited by American Kid at 9:57 am on Jan. 10, 2003)

[Dhul Fiqar]

There was actually a government spokesman who claimed the reason for the aparent double standard was that the US doesn't want to further destabilize the volatile Korean peninsula.

Yes, and we all know how incredibly peaceful the Mid East is, says it all really.

Oh, and in the spirit of your original post, FUCK YOU Stormin' Moron, try to ask a question like a civilized person.

--- G.

p.s. I never come to this corner of the boards, and I'm not sure I ever will again if this is what it's like

[Eastside Revolt]

Afganistan may not have been the best example. Though, as I'm sure even you'll agree it shows a weakness. Sort of for the same reason you don't like to mention how you LOST in vietnam. The only thing that I was trying to point out about; was that America can certianly be slowed, and there must be some reason George the 3rd doesn't go charging into Korea immediately.

[kylie]

nuyll

[Paratrooper]

In Afghanistan, there is some guerrilla warfare going on, but the "guerrillas" are incredibly uneffective. Since the actual fighting against the semi-regular Taliban ended over a year ago, the US (now mainly paratroopers from the 82nd, not special ops), have suffered less than 10 casualties. The stories are increasingly common: a small ex-Taliban group attacks an American base and ends up dead. I say, keep it coming.

[Don Amodeo]

The point about the americans army being too weak to take on N. Korea is just ridiculous. It is an undisputed fact that The US army is stronger than the world combined. As to the morals of this war in Iraq, why don't all of you try to get a grasp on how many people have died due to Sadams leadership in Iraq. Don't think about all of the oil in Iraq, and how Bush only wants Sadam for that reason, but realize that Hussein is an animal who has to go for the sake of Iraq's people. US non-intervention would doom so many more. Let's face it, if Canada and the US hadn't intervened in WWII, life right now would be under a murderous dictatorship, as it is now in Iraq.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from redcanada on 9:37 am on Jan. 10, 2003
Afganistan may not have been the best example. Though, as I'm sure even you'll agree it shows a weakness. Sort of for the same reason you don't like to mention how you LOST in vietnam. The only thing that I was trying to point out about; was that America can certianly be slowed, and there must be some reason George the 3rd doesn't go charging into Korea immediately.


RedCanada, neither you nor I have any inkling as to what is happeneing in afghanistan. Those special ops missions are mostly covert, and results are not publicized. To suggest that you have any idea how good the US is doing in afghanistan is pure, unadulterated conjecture.

As for vietnam, I suggest you read DC's post on "Myths about the Vietnam War".

If you suggest we lost our objectives in Vietnam as a function of military ability, you would be sadly uneducated about the conflict. Our military operations were highly successful. Most battles were victories. Our wepons and soldiers were highly effective. It was the management of the war and the politics involved that compromised our initiative in vietnam.

Besides, it is wholey transparent to see anti-american individuals grasp with every last fiber of their being at "Vietnam" to try to desperately point out a weakness in American military ability, while virtually ignoring every other success and victory we have acheived throughout our history.

Its is pathetic to see.

[Moskitto]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 11:25 pm on Jan. 9, 2003

Quote: from Moskitto on 9:31 pm on Jan. 9, 2003
Iraq is co-operating with weapons inspectors, and Bush is threatening war.
North Korea is expelling them, and what is Bush doing?


We will deal with NK soon enough.


Good

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from feoric on 12:04 pm on Jan. 10, 2003

Afghanistan is not a conventional war, so a comparison to it is unfair.
In both the main objective has been to remove those in control. In both there has been (or will be in Iraq's case) resitance afterwards.
The war in Afghanistan was not 'special ops', special ops would not have relied so much on air support. It is just that because the Taliban had so few soldiers(compared to the size of their country) that no huge attack forces were needed.


As far as removing those in power, US forces were highly successful, and afghanistan has for the most part been very satisfied with the taliban's removal.

The special op's I am referring to has to do with the current phase, not the initial airstrikes and rooting out of the taliban and al queda.

[Eastside Revolt]

If you suggest we lost our objectives in Vietnam as a function of military ability, you would be sadly uneducated about the conflict. Our military operations were highly successful. Most battles were victories. Our wepons and soldiers were highly effective. It was the management of the war and the politics involved that compromised our initiative in vietnam.

[/quote]

Your helicopters were like sitting ducks. And your officers were being murdered by your owm soldiers.

[Eastside Revolt]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 5:29 pm on Jan. 10, 2003[br

RedCanada, neither you nor I have any inkling as to what is happeneing in afghanistan. Those special ops missions are mostly covert, and results are not publicized. To suggest that you have any idea how good the US is doing in afghanistan is pure, unadulterated conjecture.
[/quote]
First of all I did not say that I knew what was going on in Afganistan. All I said was that they are still fighting there. You will have to admit that the fact that your media isn't constantly trumpeting about your victories says something.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from redcanada on 10:49 pm on Jan. 10, 2003
If you suggest we lost our objectives in Vietnam as a function of military ability, you would be sadly uneducated about the conflict. Our military operations were highly successful. Most battles were victories. Our wepons and soldiers were highly effective. It was the management of the war and the politics involved that compromised our initiative in vietnam.



Your helicopters were like sitting ducks. And your officers were being murdered by your owm soldiers.
[/quote]

Not really, Sir. The air cavalry did a great job of both inserting troops and withdawing them from both hot and cold LZ's. Door gunners provided good cover, and Huey choppers were extremely tough, reliable, and resiliant in combat. Of course there were some losses, as the NVA and VC could easily hide in the bushes and grass native to vietnam. However, many more helicoptors survived than were lost, and Vietnam established US helicopter employment doctrine in future conflicts. Hardly sitting ducks, they were one of our greatest assests and successes in the war.

As for officers being killed by our own troops, those occurances were few and far between, and were blown way out of proportion.