North Korea Quotes of note

[kosar]

All of those quotes are certainly disconcerting, but they are very similar to the rhetoric used in 1994, when we seemed to be on the brink of war.

I remember said rhetoric very well, because I was stationed 8 miles south of the DMZ(Camp Casey-Tongduchon for anyone familiar) at the time that Clinton brokered peace, even while he had plans to strike the nuclear facility if necessary. It was every bit as tense and seemingly close to war as it is today, if not more so. We were restricted to post for 3 weeks and on a 'must not drink, must report where you will be etc' for 6 weeks. We all thought for sure that is was going to happen.

I can assure you that it is easy for us to rattle our sabres from the comfort of our homes, without really considering what would happen if the balloon goes up in Korea. About 25,000 of our 37,000 troops in korea are north of Seoul and thus very close to the DMZ.

If they came across the line in force, at night, 2/3rds of our guys wouldn't be able to wipe sleep from their eyes before the North Koreans would be on top of them. They talk about Seoul being within range of 11,000 artillery pieces. Hell, most of OUR troops are within range of light mortar. The first part of the war would be an utter slaughter for US troops.

Air cover coming from the southern and western part of S. Korea would be relatively useless because of the mountainous terrain. It wouldn't be target practice like in Iraq. This was proven in the first Korean war. Our pilots had incredible difficulty in dropping supplies once the logistics chain got broken, let alone being somewhat benign in actually hitting N. Korean troops.

We had incredible air superiority back then, just like we do today. It made absolutely no difference. We didn't win that war, we just ended up right where we started, 45-50 thousand dead troops later.

Another major problem today, as back then, is the fact that we could never fully invade N.Korea, even if/when we turned the tide with re-inforcements. The moment we got anywhere near the Chinese eastern border, we would have to deal with Chinese troops as well. They are the reason we didn't eventually win that war, and there is nothing to suggest that they wouldn't get involved this time as well. MacArthur got fired because he denied that there were any Chinese involved in the war while at the same time our guys were getting massacred by hit and runs by enormous amount of Chinese troops in western N. Korea.

The Chinese knew the terrain, hiding places, the incredible cold didn't bother them in the least while half of our guys had frostbite, and they disappeared as quickly as they showed up. They just kept coming in waves, and despite the fact that we killed many more of them, than them us, they decided that war. Air and Naval dominance didn't, and could never have helped us up there.

Since 1994, N. Korea has been quiet, with their nuclear program dormant. Yes, they sell arms as that is their only viable 'industry'. Every country sells arms. Quiet, that is, until we lumped them into an 'axis of evil'. That was incredibly stupid considering Bush pretty much already knew we were going to go after Iraq. Now think about it: N. Korea hears the triad of 'evil'that they are a part of in our eyes. We invade one of the members of 'evil' in Iraq. Why in the hell would they not assume that they are next?

A war in N. Korea would not bear any resemblance to the coming war in Iraq. Frankly, it's debatable if we would 'win' the war, in the traditional sense. Would we destroy their nuclear ambitions? Sure. At what cost though? Seoul would be absolutely destroyed and we surely would lose tens of thousands of troops, at best, in a war that would surely drag on endlessly.

I sure as hell hope that this hawkish administration thinks through any plans to strike N. Korea, because I can assure everyone that all the enthusiasm for that war would subside in the first week or two as all the body bags are being flown home.

I for one pray that we are not doomed to repeat history on the Korean peninnsula.

 

[fatdaddycool]

I hate Korean food.
Which leaves me with absolutely no real use for Korea.
"poof"

 

[Stewy]

Kosar

Kosar

You have great insight on the situation. If North Korea did launch a surprise attack with their huge army our troops stationed there would be nothing more then a speed bump.

I do respect your knowledge and opinions, However this would be nothing like the first Korean War. For one, our generals wouldn't have their hands tied by political war micromanagement. Second, the North Koreans wouldn't have the support of China. Third, the Koreans don't have economic attrition to sustain a war with the United States. Fourth, if they do cross in to south Korea and attack we have every right to use tactial nukes to defend our soldiers. (I know all the pacifist will start the bickering now)

The Korean leader can barely feed his people right now, he is hanging on to power by a hair and this is a mere attempt to blackmail the United States.

 

[djv]

Kosar has it down very well. If they strike first and fast we will loose a ton of folks. Clinton did the right thing. Yes he almost pulled the trigger. Good that he did not have to. In the long run we win. Now this did not have to start again. Our folks in the White House and part of that staff don't have to be so dam war happy. And if your more carefull with what you say when running your mouth you can keep from starting trouble. Kosar I can tell from the age thread and just from some of the tone in these discussions here and another thread on same issues. Some these cats whould never leave home or there colleges to lift a hand. They talk but cant do the walk.

 

[kosar]

Re: Kosar

Re: Kosar

Stewy,

Of course the Chinese would get involved if we proceeded into N. Korea and particularly into western N. Korea. Why on earth do you think they wouldn't? That's exactly what our leaders thought last time. And although our relationship is better with China now than then, i'm reasonably certain that they would react swiftly to US troops advancing anywhere near their border.

Also, I have to disagree about the micromanagement comment. In fact, there wasn't enough micromanagement the first time around. MacArthur ran loose and caused the Chinese to get involved, all the while denying the obvious. If he would have listened to the war management group and stayed in eastern N. Korea or at the very least east of the Yalu river, things could have been different. Could have. At any rate, his charge towards the China border was incredibly reckless.

I agree with your comments about N. Koreas economic deficit, but that was true back then also and I sure wouldn't rule out China helping them financially if push came to shove.

You're absolutely right that our troops are just the trip-wire over there with units at 50-60 % authorized strength and about the same percentage of working equipment.

I agree that this is a blackmail attempt. This is what N. Korea has always done. So what do we do now that we have needlessly woken them up from an eight year slumber?

I also believe that although poor, they have the capacity to wage a fierce, bloody, long war that has no real 'endgame'.

Is China going to let us try to impose democracy, even if we force a total and complete surrender while letting us occupy the whole country? I don't think so.

What would be our goal after we destroy their reactor and find ourselves in a devastating, long war?

Most of my opinions revolve around the total stupidity of us striking first. If N. Korea actually does strike first (I find this highly unlikely...they have threatened the south for their whole existence), then things change, certainly.

Where would we drop/fire tactical nukes? The penninsula is so small and bombing so inexact, even with tactical weapons we are sure to kill plenty of our own troops, S. korean troops, civilians right along with some N. Korean troops. We couldn't stop a total advance with tactical nukes.

If I thought that use of tactical nukes would stop an advance, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to that, or would at least consider it. However, once that cat is out of it's bag, N.Korea would certainly respond with a nuke or two of their own (if we're correct that they already have two bombs). One of those finding it's way to Seoul, the second biggest country in the world, would surely hurt us more than ours hurt them.

We could nuke Pyongyang, sure. We wouldn't get any of our own guys, only a few N. Korean troops, destitute civilians and some dogs. Plus, i'm sure China would just love that idea of us nuking only hundreds of miles away.

Mostly I just believe that if there is anywhere to give peace a chance, this is it.

 

[loophole]

as kosar points out, tactical nukes are not an option in a scenario like korea where you have troops and friendlies on the ground. also, i'm not buying that china would blissfully ignore it if we start popping a few nuclear caps with a couple hundred miles of their borders. matter of fact, i think they would go high and to the right.

 

[djv]

Kosar and Loop can you see this. I can. We get started in Iraq. Then we need to start with N korea. China says ok Lets play with Taiwan. Where do we fine a army big enough to deal with all that at once. None of it is out of the question. We are already a little thin with our folks in Afgan. What If Iran wants to play a little. There is so many ways we can get hirt here we must use all of our smarts. Just sitting out in Wash DC talking tough will not get it done. We better keep the cool button on and get our self out of one at a time.

 

[theGibber1]

yes kosar a war w/ NK would cost many lives..

but what if they strike us first like they are threating..

you talk as if we should do nothing cause we might loose??

I can tell from the age thread and just from some of the tone in these discussions here and another thread on same issues. Some these cats whould never leave home or there colleges to lift a hand. They talk but cant do the walk.

like i said.. if NK strikes us or we go to war w/ them i will be the first to sign up.. this is one cat who will leave home and lift a hand..

 

[Stewy]

There are many moutains and passages that the North Koreans would have to pass in order to invade South Korea. It isn't hard to drop a tactical nuke in the middle of the mountains on 500,000 soldiera and avoid immediate collateral damages. It's either this or watch as the million man army destroys our soldiers and take over the South. Simultaneously we would destroy the N. Koreans nuclear capabilities. We have no desire to invade North Korea, but we do have a desire to protect our interest in the South. It is still a warzone and we will do what it takes to avoid the loss of 25000 soldiers. I for one don't beleive the North will go into the south but if they do they will lose 500,000 soldiers instantly. China won't like it, but they can't object to us defending our own soldiers from the North Koreans.

JDV, I understand your points and conerns. These are serious problems, and there isn't any one right answer. You have the right to pat Clinton on the back for paying off the North Koreans and then turning his back while they did exactly what they agreed not to do. I think most have us have realized that appeasment isn't the right answer, it was nothing but a temporary solution and problem to pass on to someone else. You also have every right to critisize Bush for ACTUALLY demanding they abondon their nuclear program before continuing ecomic aid.

Also, you have the right to cast stones at people because you don't agree with someones opinion. Just remember, if WW3 does break out, millions of young cats like myself will be the first in line to serve their country. You should be greatful for that, remember the military is voluntary and everyone doesn't see through the same glasses that you do.

 

[AR182]

IMO, loophole's first post hit the nail on the head. It is just a blackmail attempt by N. Korea's leader for us to over-pay for their weapons. The problem, as stated in a previous post is if you pay for the weapons, the money would not not go for aid to the N. Koreans, but instead it would go to keep building up weapons for the leader.

As Blazer said in a previous post, it's time for China & the other neighbors to step up to help in this problem. And I think that is the way the Bush Administration is thinking.

This problem with NK is one of the reasons Saddam has to be stopped. Imagine him having nuclear weapons & also blackmailing the world. Then we would all see a bigger mess.

DJV,

We all know your dislike for Bush. You have probably mentioned it about a 1/2 dozen times in the last few days. That is your right to not like Bush & voice your opinion about it. But to say that it would be refreshing to have a guy similar to Carter's thinking in office to run our country, IMO means that you think that Carter was a good president.If that is the case, you should re-think what you said. Jimmy Carter, who I voted for, was probably the worst president in American History. We had double digit interest rates, long lines for gas, & worst of all we had "no teeth" in our foreign policy. Of course you remember the Iran hostage crisis, during Carter's administration, where the US looked completely bewildered in dealing with those thugs. IMO, during that time we looked even worse than how we looked during the viet nam era.Even since he left office, Carter has looked bad in openly criticizing & showing up both Clinton & Bush. Former presidents don't criticize other presidents, especially when the former president was a weak leader. True he has done some good things, like the building for humanity program that he started. But that only shows that Carter missed his calling, he should have been a general contractor, instead of president.

 

[ferdville]

If North Korea attacked, our 35-37,000 soldiers stationed in South Korea would obviously be in dire danger. Then what? Do you think they have the capability to attack us here? What method of delivery will they use for their nukes? Blackmail and threats worked once before - Kim Jung Il is testing the waters for more extortion. Clinton sent Carter over to negotiate with NK and look what a fine job he did. They took our money and food and ignored everything they agreed to with Carter. I can't immediately recall if this was before or after Carter brokered the deal that put the Panama Canal out of our hands into that of the Chinese. Indeed the Nobel Peace Prize is a treasured honor - I believe past winners include such as Yasser Arafat, head of the very peaceful PLO. Another good friend of the U.S., Nelson Mandella is also a past winner. Carter fits well with this group.

 

[djv]

Stewy I been there long time ago. I was not draft I went in on my own. Yes if you want this that bad get your butt in there so you can do like many of us did shit your paints first time bullets go by your head.
Jimmy Carter I never voted for him. Said he has done much for peace. Much since he left office. Or at least tryed. Thought both he a Nixon and there policys sucked. The combination cause many problems. I voted for Nixon by the way. Then I started to think harder about the choices. Just stopped pulling the right handle as I had did before.
I dont dislike Bush. Just the way he runs his mouth. He talks then thinks later about what he just said. He's not the brightest guy we ever put in that office. And if he gets us in war. I back our country as I always have. I would do that no matter who is in that office. Does not mean I have to completley agree with his policy.
And Clinton was correct in how he handled NKorea at that time.
Remember we had no noise or problem coming from N korea till tha majic words came out of Bushs mouth. Last year. You have to understand they think Bush is nuts enough to start the war with them. They will push it harder then Iraq will. They will get more of what they want then you think. And we will never know the complete truth of what goes on behind the close doors. You must remember there are 80 year old generals in the North still think were fighting. They believe a cease fire is all that has been agreed to. In away they are right.
Bush is in a tough spot but he caused some of it. I can only hope he and all of his advisers find away to calm things down.
Folks want to mix NKorea up with 9/11. They had nothing to do with it. We all know it was bank roled by Saudi. And were giving them a pass.

 

[BADTODABONE]

Koreans, Japs & VC..............they are all , like fireants.

 

[ferdville]

djv - i do agree with much of what you have said. We probably are not as far apart as we may think. Certainly we have not had any presidents in recent past that haven't made many questionable calls. That seems to be the status quo today - politiciians simply have too many people they feel they have to please. I would guess that most of the people at MJ's that are suggesting a war is necessary, would prefer NOT to go to war. That should be a last resort. But I would again ask ALL of you who want to wait on Iraq, answer just one question for me. What would it take for you to support the decision to invade Iraq? What one act would change your mind? Because that is the bottom line, isn't it? Are we pro-active or re-active? If not now, when? I think it would help me and hopefully others to understand your reluctance in this matter. So - again...what would have to happen BEFORE you would support an invasion of Iraq?

 

[Eddie Haskell]

Ferdville:

We have known since the 80's that Iraq has had chemical weapons as evidenced in the 8 year war against Iran which began in 1980. The inspectors have found, argueably, evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq.

Why, know, 23 years later, does W find it necessary to INVADE, let me repeat that, INVADE, a country that has not attacked this country and has no links to what happened on 9-11-01!!! \

Knowing our fearless leader (Dick Cheney) as I do, I suggest to you that W is getting drawn into a conflict much the same way that Johnson (not my Johnson) got sucked into a war in southeast Asia in the 60's.

Read "Bush at War" by Bob Woodward. Very revealing. I know more left-wing liberal propoganda. I'll tell you what, based on what I know about the threat of Iraq as we speak, I would encourage my 12 year old son to visit Time to Make Money if he ever got to draft age.

If that sounds un-American to you, so be it. I remember Viet Nam. I wouldn't go then and I would hope my son would not go now. If it was a mission against Osama Bin Laden, I would be the first in line to fight for MY country against this religous fanatic wack job.

Ed

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

My My Eddie. Must be the father like son genetic thing.

"If that sounds un-American to you, so be it. I remember Viet Nam. I wouldn't go then and I would hope my son would not go now."

Let me tell you something about Vietnam and I think DJV will rearrirm this so you will get view from boths sides of the political spectrum. Countless times we all asked ourselves why are we over here fighting this war,especially risking our lives and watching our comrades get crippled and killed and for what.
---but you know why we were there?Of course you don't or you won't write what you do.It wasn't because we believed in the cause it is because our character contains three attributes that are going the way of the dinosaur in this day and age.
Duty,Honor and Courage.

I will not go into detail explaining these as they either exist from within or will be unable to comprehend.

I don't think you will find many who want to be in any war,just or unjust. I can not speak for DJV but I will tell you this.I did not hate the North Vietnamese, Some of the most emotional moments was going thru pockets of dead enemy and finding pictures of their family,and getting a sinking feeling in your stomach knowing they would never see their father again,but they and we were soilders and that is the cruelness of war.
You see,they like us had those same 3 attributes in common and I had 10 times the respect for them as I do for the spitters,protestors and word warriors I saw when I returned.

It is a shame it took 9-11 to change the attitude of those in New York. War and terrorism defies logic and is not something you can
define in rational terms from the confines of saftey in ones home till in becomes a reality as it did in New York.

I will use the movie "A few good men" as an example.
To most that watched it Tom Cruise was the white knight hero and Jack the villian, but if it came down to it and the shit hit the fan and you and your family are in your house knowing the enemy is approaching to kill you,which character portrayed,Jack or Tom, do you want on your doorstep covering your ass?
Oh,maybe your attitude changing?Nah, not till the fantasy you live in becomes a reality.
As Jack said "You can't handle the f--king truth"

 

[loophole]

oorah! dtb.

 

[kosar]

Out of town at a cafe and only have a sec, but want to mention and/or clarify a few things.

Gibber,

My overall point is that we should not strike at that reactor first. Obviously if they invaded the South I don't think we should 'do nothing'. I think we should 'do nothing' right now.

To others to keep repeating that N. korea violated everything in that agreement:

Up until last fall, they kept their word regarding the most important part of it: they kept their reactor shut down and allowed monitors to verify it.

In fact, we defaulted on a huge part of the agreement: the promise to promptly build two light-water reactors. 8 years later they are about 25% done when it was estimated that it would take a yr to 1 1/2 yrs. This is the Clinton administrations fault for not following up on our promise.

Only in response to our hawkish sabre-rattling towards N. korea (while already planning a large-scale war with Iraq and also fighting the Taliban in another sort of war) did they break the crux of the agreement. This was a huge mistake by the Bush administration, especially while we were/are more than a little bit otherwise occupied. It was unnecessary.

Good thread and good posts all the way around.

 

[djv]

I am rather proud in what is going on in here. This discussion sound much like our elected officials. But in here at least to me it's much differant. This is just us, no elected officials at least I dont believe so. This make it to me so much more real. It also says that in our own personal ways we are worried. It's not that were not good Americans. War is pure hell for those of you that never been there. So if there is any way to avoid it that is good. If we must do war. Then we must back our Amearican Troops. they must feal they have the suppot of all of us. The other way is just not fair to them. But lets make sure it is necessary.
DTB I hope eveything possiable is done to not have any of our men or anyone else have to look in those wallets. You are so right that is just terriable. I have not all the answers. Just hope what ever we do is right. I know lots of young guys here have seen the fancy rockets and laser bombs. But this time we will need more men on the ground going to Bagdad. I just hate to think of the body bags.

 

[ferdville]

I would say without doubt that there is more sense being made here on both sides than any congressional debate you will ever hear. I have profound respect for those that have stated sensible reasons for not invading Iraq, rather than the simple knee jerk reactions we see on the news, etc. I suppose the one thing we really need to know in order to make the best decision is exactly what is going on. For obvious reasons, we will never be privey to that kind of information. But I appreciate all the views here and am sure that none of us wouild advocate war simply for the sake of war.