Would you guys support a real war?
- Thread starter 24788
- Start date
GregCentauro
Banned
I'd support the war if North Korea wins it.
We tried a "real war" with North Korea once before.We won't try it again I bet.There may be some skirmishes initiated by the North for their own internal reasons but the powers behind the two Korea's the USA and China have no desire to relive the experience of the early 50's.
'zakly. That's the way to do it!
Legzman
what the fuck you lookin at?
If N. Korea has nuclear capabilities, then your country would be fucked! As would the world. So I'd support a war against N. Korea, no doubt!
StanScratch
My Penis Is Dancing!
Nope. We've tried that twice in the last ten years, only to find they were fakes in disguise.
Spleen
Banned?
So those who lost family members during WWII suddenly stopped supporting the cause? :dunno:
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Of course I'd support it. If Britain asked me to go as part of a British force I would, provided I had assurance I wouldn't get sent off to the mid-east afterwards.
There is absolute zero downside to taking out NK if we can use surgical strike to hit all their assets like WMD before they can utilise them.
In NK the people get shit, so there's no way they'd rise up to conduct an insurgency like NA, Vietnam, Iraq, the Ghan, Boer. Frankly, in a hard target "real war" NK wouldn't stand a chance against SK on its own, let alone with the multinational support SK SHOULD recieve.
Once the NK shackles were off, the NK peasants would be loving reunification with their SK bretheren, loving the freedoms and resist any attempts to persuade them into an insurgency.
Put it like this: No insurgency - no contest.
There is absolute zero downside to taking out NK if we can use surgical strike to hit all their assets like WMD before they can utilise them.
However in Vietnam we weren't actually freeing them; they'd freed themselves from the French empire and chosen Communism. At which point we ran in saying that they should do what we tell them.
In NK the people get shit, so there's no way they'd rise up to conduct an insurgency like NA, Vietnam, Iraq, the Ghan, Boer. Frankly, in a hard target "real war" NK wouldn't stand a chance against SK on its own, let alone with the multinational support SK SHOULD recieve.
Once the NK shackles were off, the NK peasants would be loving reunification with their SK bretheren, loving the freedoms and resist any attempts to persuade them into an insurgency.
Put it like this: No insurgency - no contest.
You don't think China would act if that happened?
Thats a big down side!!!!!!:eek:
Kill Kill kill yeeeee haaaaaaaw
In total agreement
The Allies did not stated WWII.
Why would USA start this war against north korea. Do you guys need really need to be at war all the time, alla over the globe.
After the real Viet-Nam, then Irak and Afghanistan, do you really need a 4th Viet-Nam ?
edirons22
...currently wanking!
Agree.
To answer your question of whether or not the US needs to be at war all the time I think the answer is resoundlingly YES!!
How else can we justify our spending 1/2 a trillion a year on defense and feeding whats called the "military industrial establishment" all those billions?
But we like to choose our wars as ones that are what some might call fake so as not to have them get out of hand or be too unpopular at home.
In a real war the whole country sacrifices and we have things like a draft for young men.Those kind of things would be very unpopular here and will not happen.
I don't think it's about support, it's about necessity. If the North stops posturing and decides to attack the South with as much might as it can muster the US would have to respond due to its interests in the region, whether it has our support or not. A nation that has significant interests in the region and has troops on the soil being attacked is going to respond no matter what and that goes for any nation that has the power to dictate on that scale. But lets be realistic a full scale war between those nations isn't going to be good for anyone no matter the result. Even if the North is toppled upwards of a million people (it's estimated) will have died in the process and that's not even taking into account what happens if China gets involved, or if it goes nuclear. And thoughts of creating a unified Korea (as I'm sure people are bound to do) aren't too productive either, given the complete polar opposites the two societies currently operate under and the generations of propaganda thrown back and forth. The South I would posit, probably don't even want to unify, it has a good thing going in its current situation taking on board another few million people is going to create havoc for its infrastructure.
Similar threads
