BF2S Forums You think U.S. is going to attack North Korea?

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

part of the country was, not the government... but on the North Korean matter... if they piss off the US... South Korean Marines go attack... maybe japan may help by using bombing runs and my math tutor here in taiwan(hes from florida) will join the Army (Military Police) again. but i doubt US will do sumthing to NK soon

are you saying part of Iraq was communicating with terrorists, but NOT Sadam Hussein?

I posted on another thread that I don't think NK is a threat because they don't seem to be suicidal. They know any attacks they make will mean their own destruction. The Middle East on the other hand, is insane and have no fear of dying ( basically, because they have n oreason to live ) and no fear of taking as many infidels as they can, with them. They think life doesn't start until you reach Mecca with their 70 virgins or what ever the hell it is.

This is only my perseption and I have no "wikipedia" articles to back it up. lol. But would you agree??

actually, I wouldn't. there are lots of middle eastern countries that are peaceful towards western nations ( the US calls a lot of them their allies, if I remember correctly ). Labelling a minority as madmen doesn't get us anywhere.

None of the middle eastern nation has the military potential to even touch one of the western countries, let alone conduct a successful military campaign. That was true for Iraq and is true for Iran.
The only reason to attack Iran now is to try to prevent them from getting nukes. Once they have nukes, the whole strategic picture would change dramatically, because no one knows where a military campaign against a nuclear power would end up. It just hasn't happened yet, and my guess would be that the US and Israel will go to great lengths to prevent it from happening.

Bottom line is, if Iran managed to develop nukes, the US would not be able to function as the hegemonial superpower in the middle eastern region any more.

Last edited by lowing (2006-04-11 08:17:49)

lowing wrote:

jonnykill wrote:

/\ /\ Great post !

LOL the cyber equivalent of..........of stomping your feet and screaming la la la la la la la I am not listening to you la la la la la la la....funny, I saw this very same thing on another thread, with one of your heroes. LOL

It must suck not to be able to back up your rhetoric with whole truth and facts. LOL

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

actually, I wouldn't. there are lots of middle eastern countries that are peaceful towards western nations ( the US calls a lot of them their allies, if I remember correctly ). Labelling a minority as madmen doesn't get us anywhere.

None of the middle eastern nation has the military potential to even touch one of the western countries, let alone conduct a successful military campaign. That was true for Iraq and is true for Iran.
The only reason to attack Iran now is to try to prevent them from getting nukes. Once they have nukes, the whole strategic picture would change dramatically, because no one knows where a military campaign against a nuclear power would end up. It just hasn't happened yet, and my guess would be that the US and Israel will go to great lengths to prevent it from happening.

Bottom line is, if Iran managed to develop nukes, the US would not be able to function as the hegemonial superpower in the middle eastern region any more.

I dunno I kinda thought the attacks in Washington DC, NY, and Pennsylvania seemed to be pretty "successful". and there is no disputing the fact that they did indeed "touch a western country". unless you are not considering, the US, Spain, England, Australia western countries" . The US has no Islamic allies. Any relationships we have with any Middle Eastern country is not set in the framework of friendship. It is set in the understanding that there is a threat greater than each other to deal with and they need our help to deal with it. Are you really gunna say Pakistan is a true ally? How about Yemen?


And if you don't think their behavior in the middle east is insane, I am more afraid of you than I am of them, cuz yer closer to me.

I just don't think NK would try something like this.

the attacks on 09/11 ( just like the bomb attacks in spain, england ) were performed by a terrorist organization, not a single middle eastern country or an alliance of middle eastern countries. Iraq did not pose a valuable threat to the integrity of US soil. You might argue that Iraq was in violation of various UN sanctions, or that Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed his own people. You might even argue that the US helped put Saddam in power and were therefore morally obliged in helping to bring him down. That is all true.

But you cannot tell me Iraq as a country posed a military threat to the US. That's just not true.
There are many reason why the US is engaged in Iraq, fear of a military invasion by that country surely ain't one of them.

You also say the US has no islamic allies. Strangely enough, GWB visited Pakistan just last month and said the exact opposite thing. Innocent pakistani civilians have died while their country supported the US-led war on terror. Some even died in a US airstrike. I don't know what more one can ask for.
Other middle eastern nations provide military installations.
Maybe the US has no true friends in the middle east, but they sure have allies.

I never said I condoned the behaviour of the Iranian government. I think their rethoric against the west and Israel is inexcusable and it is an outrage that their head of state is in denial of the holocaust.
Still, that is no grounds for a military operation against them. The matter is now before the UN security council.

I hope the US is patient enough to allow due process to go ahead and not decide unilaterally.

Obviously, the US as a sovereign nation on this planet has the right to take the action they consider necessary to ensure their security interests are taken care of. But the same is true for Iran.

Last edited by lowing (2006-04-11 10:36:57)

lowing wrote:

...the Soviets were not true allies...

lowing wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

I dunno I kinda thought the attacks in Washington DC, NY, and Pennsylvania seemed to be pretty "successful". and there is no disputing the fact that they did indeed "touch a western country". unless you are not considering, the US, Spain, England, Australia western countries" . The US has no Islamic allies. Any relationships we have with any Middle Eastern country is not set in the framework of friendship. It is set in the understanding that there is a threat greater than each other to deal with and they need our help to deal with it. Are you really gunna say Pakistan is a true ally? How about Yemen?


And if you don't think their behavior in the middle east is insane, I am more afraid of you than I am of them, cuz yer closer to me.

I just don't think NK would try something like this.

the attacks on 09/11 ( just like the bomb attacks in spain, england ) were performed by a terrorist organization, not a single middle eastern country or an alliance of middle eastern countries. Iraq did not pose a valuable threat to the integrity of US soil. You might argue that Iraq was in violation of various UN sanctions, or that Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed his own people. You might even argue that the US helped put Saddam in power and were therefore morally obliged in helping to bring him down. That is all true.

But you cannot tell me Iraq as a country posed a military threat to the US. That's just not true.
There are many reason why the US is engaged in Iraq, fear of a military invasion by that country surely ain't one of them.

You also say the US has no islamic allies. Strangely enough, GWB visited Pakistan just last month and said the exact opposite thing. Innocent pakistani civilians have died while their country supported the US-led war on terror. Some even died in a US airstrike. I don't know what more one can ask for.
Other middle eastern nations provide military installations.
Maybe the US has no true friends in the middle east, but they sure have allies.

I never said I condoned the behaviour of the Iranian government. I think their rethoric against the west and Israel is inexcusable and it is an outrage that their head of state is in denial of the holocaust.
Still, that is no grounds for a military operation against them. The matter is now before the UN security council.

I hope the US is patient enough to allow due process to go ahead and not decide unilaterally.

Obviously, the US as a sovereign nation on this planet has the right to take the action they consider necessary to ensure their security interests are taken care of. But the same is true for Iran.

the Pakistani US alliance, is the same as the US Soviet Union alliance was in WW2. that was only an alliance in the sense that they both had a greater threat to deal with than each other.  Stalin Churchill and Roosevelt sat together and discussed war plans in Tehran in 1943 but hey, the Soviets were not true allies. And only in speeches and public appearances were they considered as such.  Pakistan is not  truly allied to the US the same as England for example.

lowing wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

the Pakistani US alliance, is the same as the US Soviet Union alliance was in WW2. that was only an alliance in the sense that they both had a greater threat to deal with than each other.  Stalin Churchill and Roosevelt sat together and discussed war plans in Tehran in 1943 but hey, the Soviets were not true allies. And only in speeches and public appearances were they considered as such.  Pakistan is not  truly allied to the US the same as England for example.

well, maybe you can tell me the difference between "true" alliances and those that arise from strategical needs ?

What quality does England have that it is a "true" ally ? What quality does Pakistan lack ? Are british lifes worth more than Pakistani lifes ?

I am sorry, but all I see here is a classical double-standard, somewhere along the lines of: "you know, they are our allies in the war on terror, but they are not really allies since they are not good christians. Their lifes are worth shit, which is why we don't really care when some of them die accidentally in one of our airstrikes. I mean, who really cares, they are just a bunch of stinkin' muslims and they probably support Al Quaeda anyway..."

Of course, I am just guessing here, no offense...

Whoa whoa easy Tex. LOL ...I never brought race or religion into this. Since just before the turn of the last century England and the US has covered each others back in times of crisis. the war in Iraq is not popular right now but England is standing by her friends. All I am saying is the alliegance with Islamic countries are very fragile and can change with the blowing wind. Not 25 yrs ago Iran was a "friend" and Iraq was the enemy. Now we are trying to help Iraq and Iran is the enemy. In the 80s the US was "allied"  with the mujahadeen and wit hSadam. It is a very unstable region and alligences are as good as the moment and nothing more.

lowing wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

the Pakistani US alliance, is the same as the US Soviet Union alliance was in WW2. that was only an alliance in the sense that they both had a greater threat to deal with than each other.  Stalin Churchill and Roosevelt sat together and discussed war plans in Tehran in 1943 but hey, the Soviets were not true allies. And only in speeches and public appearances were they considered as such.  Pakistan is not  truly allied to the US the same as England for example.

well, maybe you can tell me the difference between "true" alliances and those that arise from strategical needs ?

What quality does England have that it is a "true" ally ? What quality does Pakistan lack ? Are british lifes worth more than Pakistani lifes ?

I am sorry, but all I see here is a classical double-standard, somewhere along the lines of: "you know, they are our allies in the war on terror, but they are not really allies since they are not good christians. Their lifes are worth shit, which is why we don't really care when some of them die accidentally in one of our airstrikes. I mean, who really cares, they are just a bunch of stinkin' muslims and they probably support Al Quaeda anyway..."

Of course, I am just guessing here, no offense...

Whoa whoa easy Tex. LOL ...I never brought race or religion into this. Since just before the turn of the last century England and the US has covered each others back in times of crisis. the war in Iraq is not popular right now but England is standing by her friends. All I am saying is the alliegance with Islamic countries are very fragile and can change with the blowing wind. Not 25 yrs ago Iran was a "friend" and Iraq was the enemy. Now we are trying to help Iraq and Iran is the enemy. In the 80s the US was "allied"  with the mujahadeen and wit hSadam. It is a very unstable region and alligences are as good as the moment and nothing more.

jonnykill wrote:

lowing wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

well, maybe you can tell me the difference between "true" alliances and those that arise from strategical needs ?

What quality does England have that it is a "true" ally ? What quality does Pakistan lack ? Are british lifes worth more than Pakistani lifes ?

I am sorry, but all I see here is a classical double-standard, somewhere along the lines of: "you know, they are our allies in the war on terror, but they are not really allies since they are not good christians. Their lifes are worth shit, which is why we don't really care when some of them die accidentally in one of our airstrikes. I mean, who really cares, they are just a bunch of stinkin' muslims and they probably support Al Quaeda anyway..."

Of course, I am just guessing here, no offense...

Whoa whoa easy Tex. LOL ...I never brought race or religion into this. Since just before the turn of the last century England and the US has covered each others back in times of crisis. the war in Iraq is not popular right now but England is standing by her friends. All I am saying is the alliegance with Islamic countries are very fragile and can change with the blowing wind. Not 25 yrs ago Iran was a "friend" and Iraq was the enemy. Now we are trying to help Iraq and Iran is the enemy. In the 80s the US was "allied"  with the mujahadeen and wit hSadam. It is a very unstable region and alligences are as good as the moment and nothing more.

Did you write that just for me because  ? I agree with everything you just you said .