Originally posted by truejedi"Liberating" is easy. Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that. "Reorganizing" and "Rebuilding" are the real challenge. The military capabilities of DPRK need to be obliterated. Every single installation, tank, jet, and human who refuses to put down his weapon, needs to be destroyed. The leaders need to be killed. The country's infrastructure, does not. Truly "freeing" the people doesn't require that their country be rendered Fourth World. Their factories, mines, schools, institutions etc. don't pose a threat in and of themselves.
You can't fight a war halfway without millions of casaulties. I hate war. I hate it beyond belief. It is a horrible ugly thing that has already claimed people I care about, but if you put handcuffs on your troops, you are making it uglier.In a war, you have to fight to win, and then pick up the pieces later. You can't fight for "liberation". If afghanistand and Iraq didn't teach you that, what will LL?
You may not have said the words, but your reverse Scorched Earth approach would cause more civilian deaths than would already occur. Korea may not have the suicidal fanaticism of Imperial Japan, but I know damn well that if my country's invaders/liberators are taken the time to absolutely destroy my country, my most minimal reaction would be unspoken hatred of the West. And considering North Korea's propagandist and Juche way of life, Western soldiers and bombs are only going to inspire more hatred and more zeal in the form of resistance. If, as you say you prefer, you want to prevent unnecessary civilian deaths, you extend to them an olve branch, and show them how much better they could have.
Not bomb their country to shit.
Originally posted by truejedi
EDIT: And you realize how large a percentage of the UN is supported by the U.S, right? And the UN did NOTHING in Darfur. It did NOTHING in Rwanda. Why would it do ANYTHING in this situation?Don't we already have a country-wide rebellion and well entrenched rebels? no way it could have made that WORSE.
You realise that practically every country in the world was Hitker's friend too right? Even Gandhi admired him. It didn't stop us from figting him.
Yeah it could. You could have the entire populace fighting you.
As Lucien said, fight those who fight back, arrest those that surrender, as we do in every war we fight. None of this 'line em up' scare tactic crap. Yes, we are rather shock n' awe in our opening strategies.
I would have supported the deployment of nuclear weaponry on Japan. Millions saved, the war shortened by at least five years. Horrible, yes, but necessary.
The world would turn on us if we started doing executions in the fashion you describe. We are the superpower but we can't take on EVERYONE.
Q
How do you propose to do this:
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
"Liberating" is easy. Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that. "Reorganizing" and "Rebuilding" are the real challenge. The military capabilities of DPRK need to be obliterated. Every single installation, tank, jet, and human who refuses to put down his weapon, needs to be destroyed. The leaders need to be killed. The country's infrastructure, does not. Truly "freeing" the people doesn't require that their country be rendered Fourth World. Their factories, mines, schools, institutions etc. don't pose a threat in and of themselves.
without doing this:
Not bomb their country to shit. [/B]
I mean, they aren't just going to stand back and let you.
Originally posted by Nephthys
You realise that practically every country in the world was Hitker's friend too right? Even Gandhi admired him. It didn't stop us from figting him.Yeah it could. You could have the entire populace fighting you.
please address: Darfur, Rwanda. Why would the UN do anything to stop a war in Afghanistan?
You're nothing if not delusional.
Well shit, I was certain that you'd be on my side in this Beefy. Wheres the love?
DE, what would you have done instead? (Did you catch my edit about the UN, I almost posted again, but that seems overly messy)
At least of given them a goddamn warning. Bomb the ocean or something. Find a goddamn battleship and bomb that ****er like no-ones business.
Also stop asking us what we'd do. Its no that simple and its kind of annoying.
Originally posted by REXXXX
As Lucien said, fight those who fight back, arrest those that surrender, as we do in every war we fight. None of this 'line em up' scare tactic crap. Yes, we are rather shock n' awe in our opening strategies.I would have supported the deployment of nuclear weaponry on Japan. Millions saved, the war shortened by at least five years. Horrible, yes, but necessary.
The world would turn on us if we started doing executions in the fashion you describe. We are the superpower but we can't take on EVERYONE.
seriously though, the world hasn't stood up against NK, and they murder people. The world didn't turn on China after Tianmen square, or Iran after the murders following this last election. Why would they turn on us in this case?
Originally posted by Nephthys
Well shit, I was certain that you'd be on my side in this Beefy. Wheres the love?At least of given them a goddamn warning. Bomb the ocean or something. Find a goddamn battleship and bomb that ****er like no-ones business.
Also stop asking us what we'd do. Its no that simple and its kind of annoying.
Quit asking me not to ask you what you would do.
THAT'S more annoying.
The simple answer is, you don't know, because the correct decision was made by a better man than you. Dropping the bombs was the only way. It saved half a million lives. You don't have a better solution because one didn't exist, and now you want me to let you off the hook on that.
I like discussing this, always have, but don't try to pull the "don't ask me" card while criticizing what someone else did. that's a cop-out.
please address: Darfur, Rwanda. Why would the UN do anything to stop a war in Afghanistan?
I don't know about those two events. I know very little about global events etc. But I'd assume we'd do something because you're committing mass excecutions of innocent civilians. Something in line with Gengis Khan, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin etc i.e. tryants who needed to be put down.
Originally posted by Nephthys
I don't know about those two events. I know very little about global events etc. But I'd assume we'd do something because you're committing mass excecutions of innocent civilians. Something in line with Gengis Khan, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin etc i.e. tryants who needed to be put down.
The UN does nothing in a lot of situations. YOu would need better than a "its bad" to convince me they would do anything in this situation.
Re: Q
Originally posted by truejediThe North isn't the Taliban, or Hamas, or Islamist insurgents. They have an identifiable and regulated million-man war machine. That's what we have to take down. If I had it my way, we wouldn't send a single western troop over the border. A blitz of missiles, smart bombs, unmanned drones, bunker-busters etc. at every known military installation and target. Let them pick up the pieces and decide if they should surrender. If they don't, do it again. If they try to go nuclear, a tactical strike to stop them.
How do you propose to do this:without doing this:
I mean, they aren't just going to stand back and let you. [/B]
Hundreds of thousands will likely die due to their Dear Leader's refusal to back down. Their cities will burn. But to do so purposefully as a stated goal, will turn the entire world against us. The "Korean Debacle" could be the first major stepping stone to the unraveling of NATO. American businesses and industries will face huge losses, our (Canada's too closely tied to be exempt) already tattered economy will re-collapse. And if China plays the smart card and stays neutral, say hello to the new solo Superpower 10 years from now. The social and economic consequences of what will be seen as a deliberate attempt to annihilate the North Korean people would be disastrous.
The simple answer is, you don't know, because the correct decision was made by a better man than you. Dropping the bombs was the only way. It saved half a million lives. You don't have a better solution because one didn't exist, and now you want me to let you off the hook on that.
I like discussing this, always have, but don't try to pull the "don't ask me" card while criticizing what someone else did. that's a cop-out.
No, its because i'm not aware of all the facts. I have no options available to me and it just leaves me with a feeling of stupidity and irritation. How the **** can I make a decision without any information on the situation? In short: I can't. Its an unfair question becuase none of us was alive at that point, we have very limited info on it and thus limited things we can say.