Iraq's provincial elections looking promising

[HoreTore]

Oh come on.

Who is we? It is certainly not you.

Actually, I still have 23 years left until I'm permanently retired as a soldier, so in theory, yes, it is.

[LittleGrizzly]

The main problem i have with your saddam overthrow idea is that after we abandoned them in the first gulf war why would they take the chance and rebel again, Saddam slammed his iron fist down and we never helped them, why should they have trusted us ?

[Jolt]

Actually, I still have 23 years left until I'm permanently retired as a soldier, so in theory, yes, it is.

Insta-pwn!

[Vladimir]

Actually, I still have 23 years left until I'm permanently retired as a soldier, so in theory, yes, it is.

Theory? Well everything is fine then. I'm glad you've become a Neoconservative and will join our efforts at nation-building and spreading Western values.

I'm also glad your military service has given you the opinion that it's only acceptable to support the wars you think are right. The time for open warfare in Korea is over. I don't care how strong their nuclear deterrent is, the still have the technology and the means to deliver it. The humanatarian suffering in Iraq would be nothing compared to that in Korea.

Let's finish up the jobs in the desert and mountains before we go raiding the coast again.

[Jolt]

Theory? Well everything is fine then. I'm glad you've become a Neoconservative and will join our efforts at nation-building and spreading Western values.

I'm also glad your military service has given you the opinion that it's only acceptable to support the wars you think are right. The time for open warfare in Korea is over. I don't care how strong their nuclear deterrent is, the still have the technology and the means to deliver it. The humanatarian suffering in Iraq would be nothing compared to that in Korea.

Let's finish up the jobs in the desert and mountains before we go raiding the coast again.

Wait. Didn't Bush invade Iraq because of nukes? Doesn't N. Korea have nukes?

The only problem with such a war would be S. Korea. Cause Japan is hardly hittable, having one of the best NMD's in the world. It would be a long while before a missile flew across the Pacific to the USA without interception. Problem is S. Korea which would be the only viable target, and the capital would be crushed without the need for any nuclear weaponry. It is in range of N.Korea's artillery, which would level the capital upon the declaration of war. So, N. Korea really can't do much with the nukes except threaten the USA and gain leverage for international deals.

[LittleGrizzly]

I'm also glad your military service has given you the opinion that it's only acceptable to support the wars you think are right.

So are you saying HoreTore should support all wars regardless of whether he thinks they are right or not ?

Wait. Didn't Bush invade Iraq because of nukes?

No, Weapons of Mass Destuction, a wide ranging title that includes plenty of things you certainly wouldn't think of as mass destruction, they certaintly hinted at a nuke to the public though, far too smart to come out and say saddam has nukes... far easier to subconcuisly slip it into the public's mind...

The only problem with such a war would be S. Korea. Cause Japan is hardly hittable, having one of the best NMD's in the world. It would be a long while before a missile flew across the Pacific to the USA without interception. Problem is S. Korea which would be the only viable target, and the capital would be crushed without the need for any nuclear weaponry. It is in range of N.Korea's artillery, which would level the capital upon the declaration of war. So, N. Korea really can't do much with the nukes except threaten the USA and gain leverage for international deals.

I don't think Japan has the ability to defend against nuclear missles... US missle defence shield is not yet fully operational i think...?

I think the nukes give them the ability to have something in reserve after levelling seoul, once you use nuclear weapons there is no turning back, even a pyhsco like kim nows thats...

[Vladimir]

Wait. Didn't Bush invade Iraq because of nukes? Doesn't N. Korea have nukes?

The only problem with such a war would be S. Korea. Cause Japan is hardly hittable, having one of the best NMD's in the world. It would be a long while before a missile flew across the Pacific to the USA without interception. Problem is S. Korea which would be the only viable target, and the capital would be crushed without the need for any nuclear weaponry. It is in range of N.Korea's artillery, which would level the capital upon the declaration of war. So, N. Korea really can't do much with the nukes except threaten the USA and gain leverage for international deals.

No. However, Desert Storm revealed an advanced and robust nuclear weapons program and Israel bombed a previous reactor. It's clear he wanted to develop them.

North Korea has demonstrated the ability to strike both Japan and South Korea with a ballistic missile. They also are a (minor) nuclear power. Put the two together and you have loads of fun.

So are you saying HoreTore should support all wars regardless of whether he thinks they are right or not?

Is this a rhetorical question? Of course I don't think anyone should support all or any war. None of us here get to choose which ones we want to start. However, one should stick with their friends and allies in any fight and not want to start another one while complaining we didn't finish the job in the first one. Anyway, chances are that if we go to war in the first place it means that we've already lost several battles along the way.

[HoreTore]

North Korea has demonstrated the ability to strike both Japan and South Korea with a ballistic missile. They also are a (minor) nuclear power. Put the two together and you have loads of fun.

So what you're saying is that the US army is too weak and incompetent to even deal with an impoverished nation led by a rabid lunatic?

[Vladimir]

So what you're saying is that the US army is too weak and incompetent to even deal with an impoverished nation led by a rabid lunatic?

Why do you hate freedom?

[LittleGrizzly]

It's clear he wanted to develop them.

As does any tinpot dictator, what is also clear is that he was nowhere near developing such weapons...

Is this a rhetorical question? Of course I don't think anyone should support all or any war. None of us here get to choose which ones we want to start. However, one should stick with their friends and allies in any fight and not want to start another one while complaining we didn't finish the job in the first one.

The wording onfused me, i agree somewhat with your assessment though, we broke it... we fix it...

[HoreTore]

Why do you hate freedom?

They tell me it's because I'm a dirty freedom-hating, baby-eating commie-terrorist....

[Crazed Rabbit]

So what you're saying is that the US army is too weak and incompetent to even deal with an impoverished nation led by a rabid lunatic?

The people of Seoul might not like us declaring war on the north. Do you know how much artillery he's got pointed at their city?

And it seems NKorea is more likely to use getting nukes as a bargaining chip for more aid, instead of handing them out to Islamic extremists.

And even assuming Saddam could be toppled by rebellion, what do you think would happen afterwards? Maybe a sectarian civil war, but with no US around to stop it?

CR

[HoreTore]

The people of Seoul might not like us declaring war on the north. Do you know how much artillery he's got pointed at their city?

So you do believe that the US army is too weak and incompetent to launch a successful war against a small impoverished third-world nation?

And it seems NKorea is more likely to use getting nukes as a bargaining chip for more aid, instead of handing them out to Islamic extremists.

You still believe Saddam vaxed OBL's backside every thursday night after supper, eh?

And even assuming Saddam could be toppled by rebellion, what do you think would happen afterwards? Maybe a sectarian civil war, but with no US around to stop it?

How many gazillions have you spent on the war by now? With that kind of money, you could've bought Saddam 10 times and still buy a third Hummer.

[Lemur]

And even assuming Saddam could be toppled by rebellion, what do you think would happen afterwards? Maybe a sectarian civil war, but with no US around to stop it?

Um, the sectarian civil war happened anyway, even with our troops around to stop it.

That said, I don't believe Iraqis would have overthrown Saddam anytime soon. These creaky petro-dictatorships are surprisingly hardy.

[Jolt]

No. However, Desert Storm revealed an advanced and robust nuclear weapons program and Israel bombed a previous reactor. It's clear he wanted to develop them.

True. But then again, Saddam had never said he had a nuke, nor did the UN Nuclear inspectors ever given the warning about he having anything closely related to a nuclear weapon. Korea on the other hand HAS WMD's, and is blatantly hostile to the USA, something that Iraq was not. It's people, when overcome, will join South Korea without any questions, and a threat to the world would be removed.

North Korea has demonstrated the ability to strike both Japan and South Korea with a ballistic missile. They also are a (minor) nuclear power. Put the two together and you have loads of fun.

There's the ability and the ability. They do have the ability of nuking Japan. But don't have the ability to nuke Japan since their nuke will be spotted by satelites, transmitted to the Japanese NMD, which will send an intercept missile to destroy it over the sea of Japan. South Korea is another story. One uncertain thing is how the North Korean army would react. Anything would be possible from fanatical defence of an impoverished nation which will go nowhere, making the war last some months, to deserting, along with the civillian population to the South Korean side, ending the war in a few days.

[Devastatin Dave]

Actually, I still have 23 years left until I'm permanently retired as a soldier, so in theory, yes, it is.

LOL!!! Go get em Rambo!!!