Why don't we just attack North Korea first?

[MyLittlePony 340]

You mean he didn't get paid vacations?

I sure he did silly goose he on a salary.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

That article is a joke. Whoever wrote that, failed History 101. I'm not going to go through it point by point, because the whole thing is laughable. The 4th point that the war was/is between the DPRK and the U.S. is so off base. North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950.

ETA:

Here's a little about the author and the paper he worked for:

The National Guardian strongly opposed the Cold War, imperialism, and racism. It was against the Korean War, Vietnam War, and all the U.S. wars during the Cold War period. It generally supported the socialist countries of the time, though it was not explicitly socialist. True to its third party origins, the paper never backed a presidential candidate from one of the two ruling parties.

http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/jack-smith-my-life-and-times-with.html

You don't like the author or his politics or his magazine, ok that's fine. He is certainly no right-winger, and he is clearly an anti-interventionist.

But you didn't really specifically counter anything he said, except challenging his point #4:

4. The Korean War was basically a conflict between the DPRK and the U.S. That is, while a number of UN countries fought in the war, the U.S. was in charge, dominated the fighting against North Korea and was responsible for the deaths of millions of Koreans north of the 38th parallel dividing line.

However, this is factually correct (except for his casualty figures which are way off - as the total death toll on both sides is estimated at just over 1.2 million.) The US did provide the bulk of the fighting power, as you can see here:

The United States of America provided 88% of the 341,000 international soldiers which aided South Korean forces in repelling the invasion, with twenty other countries of the United Nations offering assistance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

South Korea didn't have even half the number of troops that the US deployed:

The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes. There were no large foreign military garrisons in Korea at invasion time, but there were large US garrisons and air forces in Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Comparison_of_military_forces

So the US provided the bulk of the troops - nearly 275,000 soldiers - as well as a massive amount of air power:

On 12 August 1950, the USAF dropped 625 tons of bombs on North Korea; two weeks later, the daily tonnage increased to some 800 tons.[247] U.S. warplanes dropped more napalm and bombs on North Korea than they did during the whole Pacific campaign of World War II.[248]

As a result, almost every substantial building in North Korea was destroyed.[249] The war's highest-ranking American POW, US Major General William F. Dean,[250] reported that most of the North Korean cities and villages he saw were either rubble or snow-covered wastelands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Comparison_of_military_forces

The US also threatened to nuke North Korea:

On 5 April 1950, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) issued orders for the retaliatory atomic bombing of Manchurian PRC military bases, if either their armies crossed into Korea or if PRC or KPA bombers attacked Korea from there. The President ordered the transfer of nine Mark 4 nuclear bombs "to the Air Force's Ninth Bomb Group, the designated carrier of the weapons ... [and] signed an order to use them against Chinese and Korean targets", which he never transmitted.

...

Truman stated during a 30 November 1950 press conference that using nuclear weapons was "always been [under] active consideration", with control under the local military commander.[257]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Comparison_of_military_forces

So indeed, the author is correct on his point that the war was primarily a battle between North Korean forces (along with those of its backers) and US forces.

The Vietnam model was not that much different.

I sense a pattern here.

A lot of similarities.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Not to mention Geography 101. I can't quite find a land border between North Korea and Russia.

Basically the whole article is complete rose-tinted carp.

You can't find the land border between North Korea and Russia ? Maybe you need glasses.

Russia and North Korea only have a 17-km long common border ...along the Tumen River

Thank you !

Simple. Let them die on the vine. What is our interest in attacking them? What do we gain? We have the ability to defend against what they do and we have nothing to gain by a war with North Korea. They don't have anything! Let them spin in the wind.

This is not 1950 anymore.

If they pour across the border again a few satellite guided "time on target" artillery barrages with cluster munitions and fuel-air bursts will finish that in a few seconds. Missiles launched will be shot down and the air force will be destroyed on the ground in less than 2 hours by bombs dropped from planes they will never see. The war will be over in a day. IF it comes to that. Otherwise we can just save the money.

I agree with this post.

[Tim/Mav 305]

The United States Military is known as Defense. Thus defender of power. We do not attack until we get our #### Kicked by terriorism and the United Nations approves our actions. Thats all screwed-up.. !

North Korea knows they can taunt the local enemies by stating they threaten the US and they fear us. Giving them Power.

The US is looking for a reason but we are Peacekeepers. This young mans life will not last long and will be assinated by his own people.

How long would his war last? Very shortly.. The fear is to us that his people will suffer even more. This man was never elected by no means what-so-ever.

The Scum - Bag will be taken out soon if he keeps his S__t-up.

Never underestimate Japan's power. They are watching you to dirt bag.....

I know that I would not get the US pissed off at me if I was a Leader shooting my mouth off, but yet, he's pissing everyone off. There comes eventually a price with that type of ignorance.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Tim/Mav

[ready4ONE 5,400]

You don't like the author or his politics or his magazine, ok that's fine. He is certainly no right-winger, and he is clearly an anti-interventionist.

But you didn't really specifically counter anything he said, except challenging his point #4:

However, this is factually correct (except for his casualty figures which are way off - as the total death toll on both sides is estimated at just over 1.2 million.) The US did provide the bulk of the fighting power, as you can see here:

South Korea didn't have even half the number of troops that the US deployed:

So the US provided the bulk of the troops - nearly 275,000 soldiers - as well as a massive amount of air power:

The US also threatened to nuke North Korea:

So indeed, the author is correct on his point that the war was primarily a battle between North Korean forces (along with those of its backers) and US forces.

A lot of similarities.

Let's not forget Chinese troops dwarfed all others combined. In many ways the war was more accurately viewed as the US vs China with Korea as the setting and excuse.

[Darnell 8,479]

Also I don't trust any foreign policy "think tank" with .ca internet suffix. What do they know about foreign policy? They have one unprotected border with their closest ally.

Agreed ! Lookie ! We agree on something ! Yay !

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Let's not forget Chinese troops dwarfed all others combined. In many ways the war was more accurately viewed as the US vs China with Korea as the setting and excuse.

One should also not underestimate the role of the Soviet Union in the war (although mostly covert.) That's why I said the US vs. North Korea and its backers.

China got involved as a response to the US getting involved, which itself was a response to North Korea's invasion of South Korea, which in turn was a response to the division of Korea by Allied forces after the World War II defeat of Japan (which had ruled Korea,) leaving half of the country under Soviet trusteeship, and half under US trusteeship.

The Chinese entered the war in October of 1950 with about 250,000 troops. By the armistice in July of 1953, China was estimated to have 3 million serving in the war - but that includes civilians as well as military personnel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Volunteer_Army

So that's why I look at the Korean War as yet another version of The Great Game. A quick glance at the map makes it all too clear why Korea was so strategically important to all 3 of the major players - the US, China, and the Soviet Union. Part of global supremacy is not just controlling territory for strategic purposes or to gain resources, but also to prevent your rivals from doing so.

Edited April 4, 2013 by wife_of_mahmoud

[Darnell 8,479]

But Bush couldn't pronounce nuclear.

Yes, he could ! No one recognized the accent , but it was pronounce-able-ish

[Karee 4,191]

One should also not underestimate the role of the Soviet Union in the war (although mostly covert.) That's why I said the US vs. North Korea and its backers.

South Korea and it's backers against North Korea and it's backers. FIxed that for ya. Don't forgot who started it and came rushing south across the 38th parallel.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

South Korea and it's backers against North Korea and it's backers. FIxed that for ya. Don't forgot who started it and came rushing south across the 38th parallel.

I don't have a problem with that equation.

As for "who started it," well you might say "The Allies." History did not begin the day North Korea invaded.

Do not misunderstand me: I am not a backer of North Korea's aggressive actions. But neither am I a backer of everything everybody else did, either. In order to understand conflicts, you have to take into account the events that lead up to the conflict, and what perpetuates the conflict.

I posted the article to answer the OP's question: why the US does not just attack North Korea right now, as well as why North Korea is suddenly making this seemingly bizarre display right now.

[MyLittlePony 340]

Kim is a psychopath.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bush didnt ride air fore one to Disneyland and to play golf at least bush went to his ranch on vacation time not tax payers time.

Wanna go into comparing vacation taken between these two? Bush is THE record vacationer among the Presidents.

[MyLittlePony 340]

Wanna go into comparing vacation taken between these two? Bush is THE record vacationer among the Presidents.

Did he abuse Air Force one to fly all over the world for vacation use etc? on tax payers dollars? Obama is a dumb asss he is destroying America as we speak after North Korea war goes down be like Iraq all over again.

Edited April 4, 2013 by big dog

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Did he abuse Air Force one to fly all over the world for vacation use etc? on tax payers dollars? Obama is a dumb asss he is destroying America as we speak after North Korea war goes down be like Iraq all over again.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/the-traveling-president/

But figures provided to FactCheck.org by the Air Force's 89th Airlift Wing show that Obama traveled less on Air Force One last year, and in his first two years, than President George W. Bush did.

To put Obama's use of Air Force One into context, we also asked for travel data for his predecessor, President George W. Bush. Bush took 89 missions and 259 sorties in 2002, his second year as president, according to the airlift group. And in his first two years, Bush took 148 missions with 416 sorties, compared with 126 missions with 324 sorties for Obama over two years.

Not that this has anything to do with your quest for more war. Just thought a healthy dose of facts would be beneficial. Questions?

[Karee 4,191]

http://www.factcheck...ling-president/

Not that this has anything to do with your quest for more war. Just thought a healthy dose of facts would be beneficial. Questions?

Are they comparing vacation trips, or trips in general?