Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Would you support war with North Korea?
Hell yeah 17 11.04%
No way 107 69.48%
Undecided 30 19.48%
Voters: 154. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-18-2017, 01:08 PM
 
28,617 posts, read 18,647,663 times
Reputation: 30889

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rantiquity View Post
At least in the first Iraqi invasion the Generals were given a freer hand but Bush the Elder pulled the military out before they totally destroyed Iraq's ability to come back militarily. That was the reason for the second Iraqi invasion. The military was again hand stringed by the bad rules of engagement which has prolonged that war continuing now.
No, an invasion of Iraq in the early 90s would have turned out no better than it did in the early 2000s, and the US would still be fighting.

There are places in the world that are made simply "No Win Scenarios" for the US because of the politics of the local cultures. A big clue is whether a true concept of a Westphalian-style "nation" already actually exists in that culture. Trying to sit astride a bunch of warring tribes or clans, any people who don't already consider themselves a "nation" is the recipe for failure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-18-2017, 01:13 PM
 
12,883 posts, read 13,921,345 times
Reputation: 18449
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
The point is that we AREN'T evenly stacked. Not even close.

I don't know how you got that idea from what I said.

We'd lose umpteen thousands of soldiers. And for what?
If you think they aren't evenly stacked, then we're on the same page.

I specifically said that we should not go to war with them but that if we did, we would easily win and probably rather quickly. I stand by this. Realistically though, China would probably be involved, which would surely make the fight harder. But strictly us against NK? Yeah, we'd crush 'em.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2017, 01:54 PM
 
56,990 posts, read 35,077,833 times
Reputation: 18824
Quote:
Originally Posted by rantiquity View Post
Easy answer...the war in those countries were not fought with a free hand by the US military..they war fought by politicians making bad decisions.
You guys say this after every war we lose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rantiquity View Post
I don't recall or believe the US military lost a singe military battle during the Vietnam war. What beat us was the inability of both the America people and the politicians in Washington to have the courage to allow the military to run the war and to win.
If the military had a free hand I believe the war would have ended after about two years with three quarters less in the lost of lives. Still not good but we did have an obligation set forth by the SEATO treaties.
Lol... we lost plenty of battles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger View Post
You should stick to checkers and let the smart people play chess. If you cannot see the strategic importance in that area you should just stop.
Tell us the strategic importance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
There was not in any way "beat us BADLY!," not at all. The communist Vietnamese simply outlasted the US the way they had outlasted the French, and the non-communist Vietnamese weren't particularly committed to being non-communist.
We got our asses kicked. Who are you kidding? Spending over a decade trying to beat a third world nation and leaving with your tail between your ass IS losing badly! In every sense of those words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
If you think they aren't evenly stacked, then we're on the same page.

I specifically said that we should not go to war with them but that if we did, we would easily win and probably rather quickly. I stand by this. Realistically though, China would probably be involved, which would surely make the fight harder. But strictly us against NK? Yeah, we'd crush 'em.
Lol...no chance. Why aren't we crushing the so-called enemy in Afghanistan and couldn't do it in Iraq either!!!

Limits of power. Look it up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2017, 03:24 PM
 
76 posts, read 55,781 times
Reputation: 84
Only if it Kimmy is the aggressor and invades South Korea. I voted undecided because the question didn't include the scenario of North Korea invading South Korea. An attack on South Korea is pretty much an attack on the U.S. given the current situation. The South Koreans are allies and we have Military bases there. Those units would likely be involved in the fighting. The D.P.R.K. has no chance of winning a conventional war if its by itself. Its outclassed in the air. Other than mini subs and missile boats its Navy isn't much of a threat and would loose badly. The R.O.K. and the U.S. have better tanks and i.f.v.s. After an initial attack that will cause destruction to Seoul and cities that're within proximity of the border the D.R.P.K. will be in retreat. There will be numerous casualties in the Koreas yet the R.O.K. and the U.S. would prevail and there would be one Korea under the R.O.K.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2017, 03:43 PM
 
28,617 posts, read 18,647,663 times
Reputation: 30889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graystripe View Post
Only if it Kimmy is the aggressor and invades South Korea. I voted undecided because the question didn't include the scenario of North Korea invading South Korea. An attack on South Korea is pretty much an attack on the U.S. given the current situation. The South Koreans are allies and we have Military bases there. Those units would likely be involved in the fighting. The D.P.R.K. has no chance of winning a conventional war if its by itself. Its outclassed in the air. Other than mini subs and missile boats its Navy isn't much of a threat and would loose badly. The R.O.K. and the U.S. have better tanks and i.f.v.s. After an initial attack that will cause destruction to Seoul and cities that're within proximity of the border the D.R.P.K. will be in retreat. There will be numerous casualties in the Koreas yet the R.O.K. and the U.S. would prevail and there would be one Korea under the R.O.K.
What the strategy must be:

As the ROK and US forces move north, there must be a following corps of old guys with kimchee stands bringing up the rear. That will prevent any attacks to the rear from any entrenched DPRK forces and/or the populace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2017, 03:55 PM
 
76 posts, read 55,781 times
Reputation: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by i_love_autumn View Post
EXACTLY! America hasn't "WON" since WWII and we had to use NUKES to win, then!
The last time the U.S. armed forces had a clear win was 1991. The goal was to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait and the coalition did exactly that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2017, 04:07 PM
 
76 posts, read 55,781 times
Reputation: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
Has there been a country we've attacked/intervened (vs retaliated) that's turned out well? Korea? Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq? Libya? Our batting average hasn't been that good, and our inability to predict how much money, lives, years they'll take equally poor. Suggests we regularly don't know what we're getting ourselves into...
The U.S. preserved S. Korea. Its now a highly developed nation that makes decent cars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2017, 04:12 PM
 
8,924 posts, read 11,709,572 times
Reputation: 10842
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
No.

Why we are so entrenched in Korea is a mystery to me.

IMHO, having that huge military presence on the border only helps support the North's leadership.

Let's see here, Vietnam fell and South Korea didn't. How did that work out in the long run?
The US has to have an enemy always, it seems. Needs to keep the military industrial happy. Needs to justify military spending.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2017, 04:55 PM
 
20,955 posts, read 8,610,245 times
Reputation: 14050
Quote:
Originally Posted by CALGUY View Post
I say yes, but do it swiftly.

Do a "Harry Truman" and get the hell out.
Wipe NK off the planet once and for all.

Bob.
Uh, Harry Truman got us in and we never got out. IKE campaigned on at least stopping the way.

Let's get basic history correct here at least.....

We took the entire might of the US Military built up over WWII and threw it at N. Korea. We also learned a little geography lesson - that N. Korea abuts China. It still does and the Chinese are allies with N. Korea.

They will not sit by and allow us to just do what we we like there. It will get real complicated....really quickly.

S. Korea? You mean that fine place where the POTUS just had to step down due to corruption? The place owned and run by giant corporations? Well, I guess that is part of what we do now - protect Samsung the world over...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2017, 04:59 PM
 
20,955 posts, read 8,610,245 times
Reputation: 14050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graystripe View Post
The U.S. preserved S. Korea. Its now a highly developed nation that makes decent cars.
If the Korean war had never been fought - all of Korea would probably be a close ally of China and making great cars and consumer items.

Maybe it wouldn't have been as corrupt?....like didn't their POTUS just have to step down?

Lots of Americans and Koreans would still be alive...and their children too. Lots of money could have been put to better things.....

I see no upside to the Korean war. IKE didn't see one either which is why he campaigned on stopping it - and he did just that.

Whether they make a car or washing machine is not worth ONE American life to me. How about you? How many lives and limbs is a Samsung phone worth?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top