Go Yankies!

[CrimsonFrost]

I believe he was referring to the fact that Germany fought both the Russians and the British & French over two fronts and lost!

Whoah, wait a sec. The French were overrun pretty badly, lol! And the Russians only escaped being completely annihilated thanks to the Red Orchestra who essentially passed every secret from the German High Command to Stalin literally hours after they made it. If it weren't for that spy apparatus, there would be no Russian victory. (Even with that hourly knowledge they still suffered horrendous casualties.) Don't count those victories to some silly military prowess or mistake.

why doesn't that surprise me in the slightest? i'm sure you wouldn't consider the environmental ramifications for the whole world!

Yeah thats fantastic, remind every country at war to consider the enviormental impact of it. Use your common sense man, lol

I am not. Omega are hated because they are powerful, America is hated for the same reason. Both use there power to expand there own interests and this goes against the interests of others. I can garuntee that all other world powers were hated when they were at there peaks e.g. The British Empire in the mid to late 19th century

That is pretty true. No matter what people say, every country will act in the interests of itself and it's people, but the dominant power of that time period will be the one that is noticed the most on the international stage.

1> American forces in Iraq do not have a good reason for being there the war was sold (atleast in england) as an attack against a nation that wanted to use and develop WMDs. Many statistics were fabricated to provide evidence for this (Example, in england it was said that Iraq could fire long range missiles in 45mins, it was completely wrong). Also, Saddam did not have anywhere near the links to alquaida (sp?) that they claimed and this war has done nothing to stop terrorism, merely fueled hatred in both directions. The only viable reason for invading would be saddam is a malicious dictator- He'd been there for over 10 years even after using bio weapons, conducting genocide of his own people and other atrocities, why wait till now? Having found that these inconsistencies were underpinning the war, nothing was done, 50 years ago virtually all the top figures would have been forced to resign, not anymore. It seems to show complete lack of accountability. Based on this I think America would be forced to think very hard about starting another war.

You have touched on a few reasons for going to war. Of course it is tougher to back up, but it is my belief that Saddam did have chemical and biological weapons, but managed to ship them to Syria while the US kept giving him more and more time to "come clean." I would like to touch on two important reasons for the US to go to war with Iraq.

1) Food for Oil Scandal- When the 1991 Gulf War was finished a program was set into place to help the Iraqi's get back on their feet and put Saddam's oil to work. Essentially he would trade his oil for food, medicene, etc to help people get back on their feet. This program is an excellent idea in theory, however, many of the countries that oversaw and even agreed to that deal decided to abuse it instead. Saddam sold oil at discount prices to countries such as Russia, Iran, China, France, etc. Let those names sink in for a minute.. Before the newest war in Iraq, who voted against the war in the UN Security Council? You guessed it: Russia, China and France. The same countries that all have permanent seats in the UN Security Council whom could veto a war with Iraq were the very same countries that were padding their pockets with Iraq's oil and were re-arming and supplying Saddam with weapons, cash, equipment and basically bringing the country to an even worse threat before the Gulf War. The US saw this as well as our close allies the British and decided something had to be done about it. Of course this is rarely talked about, people would prefer to call it a "war for oil." Well, in a sense it is, because the US is stopping countries such as China, Russia and France from taking advantage of cheap oil despite a deal that THEY brokered to help the Iraqi people get back on their feet. Whoops.

2) The peace agreement signed at the end of the first Gulf War stated that there were certain rules that Saddam must follow or there would be consequences. Well, thanks to the above 3 countries, the UN route guranteed there would be no war with Iraq. Of course they weren't betting on "cowboy tactics" of George Bush whom surprised everyone with his invasion because of the unwillingness of the UN to stand by and enforce the rules they put down on Saddam.

Say it how you will but these 2 reasons alone is enough to justify a war with Iraq. (The whole damn Security Council is in on the back deals!) That isn't including supposed training havens provided to Al-Qaeda, entire lengths of paper of supposedly destroyed chemical weapons/biological weapons "disappearing" and Saddam, while living in an impoverished country was still sending money to those "great martyrs" the Palestian suicide bombers families. (Huge amounts, like $20,000+)

2> America has great responsibilty in the world currently due to their use of fossil fuels, short-sightedness and dependancy on oil is causing great damage to our environment, and America- one of the largest polluters, by not facing up to this is directly causing deaths. The question to ask is: Would Katrina have happened if America (and the rest of the world) had not polluted so much. The reason America is being blamed is because it is one of the most important states, yet has done very little to lower emmissions in favour of profit making.

I hate to break it to you, but nearly every industrialized nation save Brazil is dependent on oil! (lol) China, Russia, France, Germany, the Brits, Australia, EVERYONE needs oil or their country literally stops. Even small countries like the Philippines need oil to power their cars. The US is by no means the only major user of oil. I'd like you to cite a source as well declaring America to be the greatest polluter. What type of pollution would be nice as well since that is a rather blanket term. Your statement regarding Katrina does not even deserve a response. Your going to blame a massive natural disaster to pollution? Tell that to the people who survived the massive earthquakes in Iran recently, or to the tsunami victims in Thailand. The reason America is being blamed is because as was mentioned earlier. At this point in time the US is the strongest nation in the world. (This of course can and will change eventually.) Everyone blames the strongest, because it is just convienant. The same happened to the Babylonians, the Romans, the Chinese and so forth.

3> Iran has the same people, same style of government as Iraq had. What on earth would cause America to cause such a catastrophe such as Iraq again, even when they haven't even left Iraq.

not sure if you know, but that area of the middle east has something like 1/3 of the worlds oil reserves, an excellent reason for oil guzzling America to move in.

No, Iran does not have the same government. Go study Iranian and Iraqi history and try to tell me that the goernment is the same style. Iran may have a president, but the clerics clearly hold power there. Saddam was what we call a "dictator" and essentially did whatever the hell he wanted. Iraq isn't nearly the catastrophe you make it out to be, and you can't say it is because you have never been there and I'm sure are basing what you know off of heresay and the news. I've been to Iraq multiple times and know many buddies who have been to Afghanistan and Iraq. Where are all the sob stories about that "catastrophe" Afghanistan?

As for the oil comment, let me interject with my favorite comment. Kuwait currently controls about 10% of the worlds oil supplies, or about 2.4 million barrels per day. Iran produces about 3.9 million barrels per day. (CIA Factbook.) We have had troops in Kuwait for quite some time, why not throw our collective hands up and say, "Hey we win." take over tiny Kuwait and keep it's oil? Why did the US stop in the first Gulf War instead of taking over the oil reserves there to? There would be next to no resistance in Kuwait, with 10% of the worlds oil supply.

Because it's ridiculous reasoning that we would attack a country simply for it's oil. It sound's tidy and nice, but easy to debunk upon further looking things.

Btw, I haven't forgotten about you El TC! (lol) Regardless if I believe the source is very good, I'm consulting with some of the US and NATO guys, and even getting some advice from a local General. The response will be large, but I want it to be precise and thorough.

[The Xeno]

I believe he was referring to the fact that Germany fought both the Russians and the British & French over two fronts and lost!

Aye, I know what he was referring to. I was referring to the fact that the United States also fought on two fronts (supplied a third)... and won.

Same war. Different results. No comparison.
(A valid lesson, just bad example.)

American forces in Iraq do not have a good reason for being there the war was sold (atleast in england) as an attack against a nation that wanted to use and develop WMDs. Many statistics were fabricated to provide evidence for this (Example, in england it was said that Iraq could fire long range missiles in 45mins, it was completely wrong).

Fabrication is a heavy word. If Bush were doing such things, the United States would be holding National Puppy Murdering Day (NPMD) by now; as such a man would not stop with invading a country solely for oil.

He'd been there for over 10 years even after using bio weapons, conducting genocide of his own people and other atrocities, why wait till now?

Because no one would buy that either. If the United States cannot even act upon reports of WMD ('fabricated' or no) without massive protests, how on earth can we move based on 'bad-dictator-removal'.
Do you realize how many thousands of Americans refute all the genocide evidence? Let alone the ones that would simply stick to isolationism.

Having found that these inconsistencies were underpinning the war, nothing was done, 50 years ago virtually all the top figures would have been forced to resign, not anymore. It seems to show complete lack of

You know why he is still in office? Because there are still quite a few Americans, myself included, who do/did not believe it was a blatant fabrication.

America has great responsibilty in the world currently due to their use of fossil fuels, short-sightedness and dependancy on oil is causing great damage to our environment, and America- one of the largest polluters, by not facing up to this is directly causing deaths.

Have you ever superimposed an image of a scaled earth to a small solar flare? Did you know that scientists cannot accurately measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
I'm all for pollution control... but please, we should be more concerned with nukes, starvation, and the poor than global warming.

The question to ask is: Would Katrina have happened if America (and the rest of the world) had not polluted so much.

I completly agree with sgt.johnkeel.
It wouldn't have mattered. So yes, it would have.
Now, what would have made a difference, is the governor and Negan getting on the same bloody page and actually using their office for the good of the people.

2. Why don't u start us off with your opinion on this:

The Xeno wrote:
... First we should decide if Iran with such potential weapons is a good or bad thing

I would say it's a bad thing.
If Iran needs energy, let them burn oil. Better yet, let them be the first nation on earth to go completely eco-friendly. In fact, that’s a great idea… Iran can be the proving ground for such, and lead the world in emission reduction!




-----------------------

Because it's ridiculous reasoning that we would attack a country simply for it's oil. It sound's tidy and nice, but easy to debunk upon further looking things.

Unless we see the world through an entirely different lens... say Hegel.

[Come_Forth]

Sadam was a bastard any way you look at it. He was a butcher who had to be removed from power. I do not think we should have gone to war like we did, but we have created the black hole and must fix it somehow. The Iraqi government needs to get strict since the people are used to a harsh leader now they have a push over. I also do not think that democracy is the best answer for Iraq, look at how bloody the early years of the United States were from the wild west, to the butchering of the Native Americans, or the Mexican war. A country has to be ready for a democracy, there is nothing wrong with other forms of government (as long as the leaders are good) and I believe that something else should have been set up in Iraq. The government should have no religion in it. In Afganistan an atheist was put to death for not being a Muslim. We should be teaching them rationalism not warped metaphysics.

We should be more worried about people starving though than going to war. The money that we spent in Iraq could have been better spent in other programs.

As for the matter of Iran getting nuclear power I would have to say no. I do not like Israel and am all for Palestine, but Iran cannot say that they are going to wipe Israel off of the face of the earth. Religious governments are dangerous and I fear that Bush is leading us to a conflict based on his views of Revelation........

[LBWMTE- D4rk S1de]

I'm not gonna argue over the raesons for going to war- I know I simply won't convince you and vice-versa.Too much evidence both ways.
However, I think I can provide ample evidence simply from the world around us to show global warming. You say we can't measure accurately how much CO2 is in the atmosphere- that doesn't matter, what we can measure is all the industrial purposes that are giving off CO2 and take into account, 100 years ago virtually none of those processes were being used, by simple reasoning there must be considerably more CO2 in the air, combined with the fact large amounts of deforestation is occuring, I accept that deforestation has always occured to some degree, but we are much better at it now . Simply it's fact that there must be more CO2 in the air. Unless you'd like to explain where it is all going.
Also take into account, the average temperature is climbing- we can measure this accurately, we can also see types of fish moving further north to stay in colder climates.
Also, I was not saying that other countries are not oil consumers, of course they are, we all are, but other countries are starting initiatives like off shore wind turbines as a source of renewable energy. You then hear in america about people trying to create synthetically ethanol in order to use it as a fuel, it was a major thing recently when George Bush officially recognised there was some form of global warming, something other governments had done 3-5 years ago.

[CrimsonFrost]

I'm not gonna argue over the raesons for going to war- I know I simply won't convince you and vice-versa.Too much evidence both ways.
However, I think I can provide ample evidence simply from the world around us to show global warming. You say we can't measure accurately how much CO2 is in the atmosphere- that doesn't matter, what we can measure is all the industrial purposes that are giving off CO2 and take into account, 100 years ago virtually none of those processes were being used, by simple reasoning there must be considerably more CO2 in the air, combined with the fact large amounts of deforestation is occuring, I accept that deforestation has always occured to some degree, but we are much better at it now . Simply it's fact that there must be more CO2 in the air. Unless you'd like to explain where it is all going.
Also take into account, the average temperature is climbing- we can measure this accurately, we can also see types of fish moving further north to stay in colder climates.
Also, I was not saying that other countries are not oil consumers, of course they are, we all are, but other countries are starting initiatives like off shore wind turbines as a source of renewable energy. You then hear in america about people trying to create synthetically ethanol in order to use it as a fuel, it was a major thing recently when George Bush officially recognised there was some form of global warming, something other governments had done 3-5 years ago.

You provide none of the sources I requested regarding your allegations of the US causing all this "pollution." What on earth do you mean, there is "too much evidence either way?" People ask why we went to war in Iraq, I listed some major reasons.

I give logical and straightforward reasons about why we went to war, then you respond with a paragraph on global warming..?

I'd say we can end our discussion on things on that note.

[The Xeno]

I'm not gonna argue over the raesons for going to war- I know I simply won't convince you and vice-versa.Too much evidence both ways.

Only if you are accepting evidence based upon the assumption that the leader of America is the most vile thing since Hitler -- is there anything close to parity.

what we can measure is all the industrial purposes that are giving off CO2 and take into account, 100 years ago virtually none of those processes were being used, by simple reasoning there must be considerably more CO2 in the air

I'm not denying that, I'm questioning whether or not human produced CO2 is causing drastic climate change of the sort that will melt the earth in eight years and 354 days.
The ‘science’, puts our actual, human produced CO2 on a scale of anywhere from 5.36%, to a meager 0.28%. From all I’ve seen, I put it right at 0.30%.
Not nearly enough to cause baking…

Also take into account, the average temperature is climbing- we can measure this accurately, we can also see types of fish moving further north to stay in colder climates.

We do not.
Mean Global warming is still not confirmed. It is still not a fact: let alone the issue of whether or not humanity is to blame. Now, I personally do believe we may be experiencing minor warming as part of a global cycle; but not because I drive a car, or the neighbor doesn't clean up after his dog.
After all if NASA can't make up their minds, (to busy with love triangles I suppose ), I simply cannot raise my hand and do a pro-Kyoto dance.



Now, if you are going to start into global warming, we/I can split this.
So...Back Ontopic.

[CrimsonFrost]

After all if NASA can't make up their minds, (to busy with love triangles I suppose ), I simply cannot raise my hand and do a pro-Kyoto dance.



Now, if you are going to start into global warming, we/I can split this.
So...Back Ontopic.

lol, that topic still makes me laugh

[LBWMTE- D4rk S1de]

Yeh, I was coonsidering replying to each and everyone of these comments, but I know that I will also acheive nothing in this arguement. Just bare in mind, ALOT of the research provided that comes up with the information are paid for by large oil companies, and companies that pollute- However I would not be naive enough to beleive that some of the research for global warming isn't provided by biast sources too.

[Londo Mollari]

I believe he was referring to the fact that Germany fought both the Russians and the British & French over two fronts and lost!

Whoah, wait a sec. The French were overrun pretty badly, lol! And the Russians only escaped being completely annihilated thanks to the Red Orchestra who essentially passed every secret from the German High Command to Stalin literally hours after they made it. If it weren't for that spy apparatus, there would be no Russian victory. (Even with that hourly knowledge they still suffered horrendous casualties.) Don't count those victories to some silly military prowess or mistake.

indeed, the French were overrun, however the D-day landings were (for the British at least) well planned and executed with very little loss of life (not the case in the American landings). The Russians may have had intel from the GHC but then again so did the british who had cracked the Enigma codes, however the british used this intelligence subtly allowing German attacks to take place but ensuring minimal damage was done, this was to ensure that the Germans did not suspect that the Enigma had been cracked. Also, the brutal conditions of the Russian winter had horrendous repercusions for the invading German forces who suffered huge losses. Frozen tanks, frostbite etc. Compared to the well prepared Russian troops.

why doesn't that surprise me in the slightest? i'm sure you wouldn't consider the environmental ramifications for the whole world!

Yeah thats fantastic, remind every country at war to consider the enviormental impact of it. Use your common sense man, lol

well obviously in the heat of the moment this goes out of the window!

You mention Saddam being a jerk and butcher. Wasn't Hitler? Wasn't Stalin? Chairman Mao? We must consider that the actions that these people made were -in there minds- not only justifiable, but good. Yet we consider them to be "evil". It is often said that "History is written by the victors". If Germany had won WW2 Adolf Hitler would be one of the greatest hero's recorded in human history, instead he is hated. Who knows how GWB will be remembered?

[CrimsonFrost]

indeed, the French were overrun, however the D-day landings were (for the British at least) well planned and executed with very little loss of life (not the case in the American landings). The Russians may have had intel from the GHC but then again so did the british who had cracked the Enigma codes, however the british used this intelligence subtly allowing German attacks to take place but ensuring minimal damage was done, this was to ensure that the Germans did not suspect that the Enigma had been cracked. Also, the brutal conditions of the Russian winter had horrendous repercusions for the invading German forces who suffered huge losses. Frozen tanks, frostbite etc. Compared to the well prepared Russian troops.

The point is that Germany fought a multi-front war and did quite well. The French were destroyed, the Russians barely survived thanks to the Red Orchestra, (Btw, you should read the book on them one day. There was a VERY big difference between the Brit's getting random intel from captured communications and from when the Red Orchestra was passing information literally hours from the Chief's of the Abwher, Luftwaffe, etc. The Red Orchestra provided intelligence of an unprecedented value, far beyond what Enigma was providing at the time.) The Russian's were not "well prepared" , where did you read that at? Stalin actually didn't believe he was going to be invaded despite what the Red Orchestra told him, and didn't begin setting up defensive positions hastily until he was actually attacked! (lol) But that is all extra conversation, the major point of my post was that if it was based solely on military prowess and not well placed intelligence, the German war machine would have been much more devastating despite fighting a multi-front war. (With the support of the Italians and assorted allies of course.)

well obviously in the heat of the moment this goes out of the window!

You mention Saddam being a jerk and butcher. Wasn't Hitler? Wasn't Stalin? Chairman Mao? We must consider that the actions that these people made were -in there minds- not only justifiable, but good. Yet we consider them to be "evil". It is often said that "History is written by the victors". If Germany had won WW2 Adolf Hitler would be one of the greatest hero's recorded in human history, instead he is hated. Who knows how GWB will be remembered?

I would agree with you to a point. History is indeed written by the victor, however, with the advent of the Internet, that is not necessarily so. We are in the "Information Age" without a doubt. You may recall that to this day the country of Japan now denies the "Nanking Massacre" of the Chinese back in WWII, yet you can easily look it up on the net and see the truth. The same goes for falsehoods perpetrated by intelligence agencies, propaganda, etc. Things can change, etc, but I think there are a few things that George Bush will be remembered for:

Positive points:
Willing to do what he felt was right despite political consequences
Man of action
Felt more a duty to himself and his countrymen feelings the the feelings of everyone else in the world
Decisive

Negative points:
Notoriously bad speaker
Disliked by most world leaders
Extremely hated by liberals
Bad management of borders with Mexico

Those points are up for debate of course, just my thoughts I'd like to say that George Bush has made plenty of mistakes as any world leader can, but definiately not evil or a butcher. (I can see the responses to this coming up, and I don't want vitrol filled angry responses. This is a neutral standpoint taken by myself. Although I do agree with the war in Iraq, I'm not necessarily the biggest fan of President Bush, ala his border policies and "Amnesty Program" for illegals. That really fires me up.)

[Londo Mollari]

From the perspective of a Brit GWB will be remembered as the man who was Tony Blairs puppet master. The man who dragged Britain into war. Blair will also be remembered in this way and as the man who has failed the NHS amongst other things!

From a purely historical point of view the USA excells in all out war, however they have never fared as well when fighting a guerrila war, which is probably the most likely tactic which would be employed by a foe.

@ CrimsonFrost by "well prepared Russian troops" i meant that they were accustomed to the conditions of a Russian winter. Which caught the German forces off guard. I evidently didn't explain that very clearly.

It would be interesting to see which countries would accept an American war as being acceptable. I am sure countries such as France, China and especially Russia would condemn such a war. I am pretty sure that the current UK government would support the US in such an event. When Blair steps down however, that could change.

Your thoughts on the possible political responses to an American war please. Also what of the possible environmental and health issues caused by dropping nuclear warheads?

[The Xeno]

From a purely historical point of view the USA excels in all out war, however they have never fared as well when fighting a guerrilla war, which is probably the most likely tactic which would be employed by a foe.

I would suggest that that flaw is not limited to the USA. Further, I would suggest that comparing one nation's success versus another's failure in dealing with guerilla actions depends to a great extent, upon the partisans themselves.

If we look at it that way; adding the opponent’s strength to the equation, I think the US has done quite well; though I must tip my hat to Australian SAS for their astounding Vietnam record.

Also what of the possible environmental and health issues caused by dropping nuclear warheads?

I wouldn't worry about it. Given that any nuclear devices used (if we use them at all) would be on the level of a tactical warhead, and that we need not carpet the entirety of Iran, or even the majority of Iran's hardened structures... I doubt we will see any great swathe of land irradiated, or any great amount of pollutants.

No Global threat at least. Obviously, it will be quite horrendous at impact-point, but the same would hold true for conventional bombing.

[CrimsonFrost]

From the perspective of a Brit GWB will be remembered as the man who was Tony Blairs puppet master. The man who dragged Britain into war. Blair will also be remembered in this way and as the man who has failed the NHS amongst other things!

From a purely historical point of view the USA excells in all out war, however they have never fared as well when fighting a guerrila war, which is probably the most likely tactic which would be employed by a foe.

@ CrimsonFrost by "well prepared Russian troops" i meant that they were accustomed to the conditions of a Russian winter. Which caught the German forces off guard. I evidently didn't explain that very clearly.

It would be interesting to see which countries would accept an American war as being acceptable. I am sure countries such as France, China and especially Russia would condemn such a war. I am pretty sure that the current UK government would support the US in such an event. When Blair steps down however, that could change.

Your thoughts on the possible political responses to an American war please. Also what of the possible environmental and health issues caused by dropping nuclear warheads?

Yeah, I'd agree with you on that. Stalin and Hitler both knew that who would win depended on the winter, and of course what was expected to happen did.

I'd agree with you again about other countries accepting an American war. Typically the US always has the support of certain allies, (and vice versa) such as Australia, the Brits and Israel. Many other countries tend to be more concered with checks on American power. I think there is a distinct difference between American companies moving abroad to make more money and the US government actually trying to take over other countries. I don't think that the American people would ever support the US simply going to war to expand our country. I guess we'll see what happens, eh?

If we went to war with Iran, this is what I feel would happen:

The British and Australians would probably openly support the US, including other smaller countries that are looking to have a more favorable view with the US Government.

China would probably play both sides, wanting Iranian oil but also wanting to gain favor with the US government. They would show vocal support for Iran, maybe some small shows of favor but nothing really serious.

The Middle Eastern would be alarmed, and probably show support for Iran. Whether they actually care about Iran or not is irrelevant, they believe that the US is now without a doubt looking for oil or to spread our brand of democracy. They would probably send troops, training, etc to support Iran. (Possibly only at a covert level because they aren't looking to get bombed to the stone ages.)

Most of Europe will probably talk a lot, but do quite little. The French and Russians may attempt to show tacit support for Iran simply because of current good relations along with possible gurantee's of discounted oil. (ala Iraq)

Venezuela will probably begin a type of oil embargo against the US to show "solidtary" with the Iranian people. Financial support will follow I'm sure.

North Korea is the nation that worries me at this point. With another attack on the next member of the "Axis of Evil" Kim Jong may view this as the Americans will be moving to get him soon. With forces in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, North Korea may take the opportunity to move in and try to overrun South Korea. Whether they succeed or not is up for debate, but one thing isn't: A lot of people are going to die on both sides.

Although I believe we would win a war in Iran, I would be very worried about the fallout of such an attack and the reasoning behind it. If we were to simply take out Iranian nuclear facilities, covert / Special Forces solutions along with bunker busters would seem to make much more sense to me. (Or perhaps the new Rail Gun that will be out on US Navy ships soon.)

As for dropping nuclear weapons, it would most definiately wreck the enviorment. But if a country that has nuclear weapons is on the ropes, none of them care about the enviorment. (ala North Korea or Iran.)

[CrimsonFrost]

Okay, after a few days of some information gathering and conferring with colleagues, I have finally completed my response to this quite lengthy article.

I just want to extend my previous points a bit more with some data here,
hope it doesn't get too boring

NK is about the only nation which can engage the US in a TOTAL war. They simply cannot be called a weak nation or impoverished nation purely because they are the only mation to face down a military superpower as the US.

You are 100% wrong, and I doubt many military analysts would come to the same conclusion. North Korea would definiately offer a devastating first strike, that is only because they have been placing artillery all over the border for around 50 years. I'm not speculating that NK is weak or impoverished, it's a fact. If you need more convincing, read this recentl article about North Korean border guards running across the border.
http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk00400&num=1645 In NK they are consider pretty well paid as well. Kim Jongs isolationist policies while constantly antagonizing the international community, especially China, have left it in even more a desolate position. The only nation's that could really be on par with a pitched battle against the US would be China, maybe Russia (If they get their funding problems and collective acts together and the British. Btw, as dramatic as it sounds it would not be "total war" to the US. I doubt North Korean naval fleets will be sailing to the US, or ballistic missiles will be flying all over the place in the US. Think of North Korea like Mike Tyson, he'll throw a few hell of a good punches and then will lose steam. North Korea simply can NOT fight a pitched battle, it's a fact that any reputable military analyst will agree with. (Without outside help.)

NK's war plan in case of US attacks is total war with the US, not a regional conflict. NK expects no help from its allies China and Russia and I doubt Russia or China would get involved in this war if it ever happened to begin with. NK's war plan further calls for TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the USA. If the US uses a preemptive strike against NK's nuclear facilities they will answer with WMD's against US targets.

You almost sound like an NK mouthpiece there. There isn't really much of a NK navy to speak of, how exactly will North Korea expand this beyond a regional conflict? They have China above them and South Korea below, it will not be "total war" as you put it. The will inflict horrendous casualities at the DMZ without a doubt because of a 50 year military buildup there, but once the US begins fighting back it will end pretty fast. How praytell will the North Koreans strike back against the US? I'll be liberal and say they have 100 nuclear bombs, how many of those actually have the engines to reach the US? How many of those will be shot down by our missile defense systems? The North Korea will never cause "total destruction" of the US, that's a farce of a statement. If North Korea does decide to use nuclear weapons, the US will be hurt for sure. (Nuclear weapons is a big deal.) But I can guarantee you that there will be no North Korea on the map as the US will either strike with it's nuclear weapons at Kim Jong Il or at the entire country. There will be no international outcry against the US either as NK will be the ones to use it first. Either with WMD attacks or a conventional war, North Korea will always be defeated.

All nations keep their military capabilities a secret. It is nearly impossible to make out NK's capabilities simply because it is nearly impossible to plant any US agents in NK for obvious reasons and since all their comms is underground, no US spy plane or satellite has ever reached a conclusive result about their capabilities.

Is this speculation, or are you basing this on sources of yours? If sources, I'd like to hear them. I kind of laughed when you said it is, "impossible to make out NK capabilites.." They are still using old Soviet doctrine to train up their troops and buying whatever meager scraps that can get from Russia, Iran and occasionally China. If they didn't have WMD's, they wouldn't even really rank as much a threat. Who told you their comm's were underground anyways? I work in communications / computers and I'm curious how you came to that conclusion. (Only VLF waves travel very well underground with an incredibly slow bandwith and I seriously doubt that North Korea would invest in much fiber optic cabling except for important Command Centers.) On a curious note, your long analysis message you quoted is full of statistics and numbers but no "about's" or "around" guesstimate figures. With that said, how did you come to the conclusion that we have no accurate knowledge of their capabilites? Questions, questions..

Apart from that, it is however possible to draw some general conclusions from information obtained.

1. NK makes its own weapons

North Korea has annual production capacity for 200,000 AK automatic guns, 3,000 heavy guns, 200 battle tanks, 400 armored cars and amphibious crafts. North Korea makes its own submarines, landing drafts, high-speed missile-boats, and other types of warships. Home-made weaponry makes it possible for North Korea to maintain a large military force on a shoestring budget.

Did you read the entirety of this article? About a paragraph or two up you were saying that we do not know the bounds of North Korea's power, yet here we are seeing near exact statistics as to their production. Id also like to question the authenticity of this person you have quoted. I haven't found a single article (Except this one) on multiple websites, yet I can't find any others plus I can't find the office he says he is from either. Try http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/index.html instead. The North Korean doctrine is based on previous Soviet and Chinese training as they have no other wars to learn from save the Korean conflict really. I'd really like to know where the author got HIS information from.

2. NK soldiers are highly motivated

North Korean soldiers are taught to fight to the bitter end. In September 1996, a North Korean submarine got stranded at Kangrung, South Korea, and its crew abandoned the ship. Eleven of the crew committed suicide and the rest fought to the last man except one who was captured. In June 1998, another submarine got caught in fishing nets at Sokcho and its crew killed themselves. Such is the fighting spirit of North Korean soldiers.

Fighting spirit? If you go out and commit suicide, I wouldn't call that a "fighting spirit" , lol! At least when the Japanese were using the same theory they at least did a suicide ATTACK, not just killing themselves. That's just stupid. Not to mention that if this author can only cite 2 occasions of this happening, each case years apart (And 9 years later I still haven't heard of another instance) then I wouldn't put much stock in that. Btw, those were sailors / submariners, not soldiers. 2 cases of self-sacrifice does not make a "highly motivated" force. (That's a submariners spirit in my opinion, I was a submariner for 2 1/2 years )

3. NK is combat ready

North Korea's militias consist of 1.6 million self-defense units, 100,000 people's guards, 3.9 million workers militia, 900,000 youth guard units. These militias are tasked to defend the homeland. The militias are fully armed and undergo military trainings regularly.

Just more numbers designed to impress.

4. Artillery

North Korea's 170mm Goksan gun and 240mm multiple-tube rocket launchers are the most powerful guns in the world. The big guns are hidden in caves. Many of them are mounted on rails and can fire in all directions. They can rain 500,000 conventional and biochemical shells per hour on US troops near the DMZ. Gen. Thomas A Schwartz, a former US army commander in Korea, stated that the US army in Korea would be destroyed in less than three hours.

What is his source for this? I've seen his entire article and read it through and through, but I see not 1 single source cited. As any reputable scientist or researcher will tell you, (Or college student) cite, cite, cite! Otherwise this whole article is just conjecture. (Not to mention it is still at odds with your "we don't know the extent of their forces" arguement at the beginning.) The milita's and youth guard are only as good as their training which is still pretty dated. The only thing they have going for them is numbers and artillery. The militas can be trained all day, and the numbers look impressive, but US training is superior which is an immediate force multiplier, technologically superior, superior Navy, and just about everything else. Numbers are impressive for sure, but there are simply to many force multipliers the US has that the North Koreans do not. (ie the "Black Hawk Down incident. Sure, the troops were reatreating and faced losses, but I would point out that out of about 160 Delta operators they killed over *1,000 enemy combatants*. Like I said, training and technological force multipliers. As a side note, yes, they could rain conventional and biochemical shells on the US, but then the entire country of North Korea would be saturated with nuclear fire.

5. Tanks

US tanks are designed to operate in open fields.American and Western tank commanders do not know how to fight tank battles in rugged terrains like those of Korea. Tank battles in Korea will be fought on hilly terrains without any close air cover, because North Korean fighters will engage US planes in close dog fights.

Any sources for this? Of course not. I'll say right out that this paragraph is bullcrap. North Korean fighters can't reach up to bomber height to engage in "dogfights" and most US figher planes could destroy NK fighters before they even see them. Read the following article instead:

Air force

As of 1992, the North Korean Air Force comprised about 1,620 aircraft and 70,000 personnel, with roughly twice the number of aircraft as the South. Most of its aircraft are obsolete Soviet models and Chinese copies, but it has been modernizing since the 1980s. Aircraft holdings include 190 MiG-21s, thirty MiG-29s, sixty MiG-23s, forty Q-5 Fantans, plus an additional 250 or so of older MiG-19s, MiG-17s and Su-7s. Since the 1980s, the air force has expanded its inventory of helicopters from 40 to 275. This inventory includes Mi-24s, Mi-2s, Mi-4s, and Mi-8s. In 1985, North Korea circumvented U.S. export controls to buy eighty-seven U.S.-manufactured civilian Hughes H-6 model helicopters. North Korea does not manufacture its own aircraft, but it does produce spare parts. The air defense is also equipped with old Soviet SAMs, including many batteries of SA-2s, SA-3s and SA-5s. An assesment by US analysts GlobalSecurity.org is that the air force "has a marginal capability for defending North Korean airspace and a limited ability to conduct air operations against South Korea." http://www.en.wikipedia.com/wiki/North_Korea

North Korean would get demolished in an air assault. And this stupidity about "American and Western tank commanders do not know how to fight tank battles in rugged terrains like those of Korea." is just absoloute garbage. This entire article seems more propaganda then real news to me.

North Korea has developed tanks ideally suited for the many rivers and mountains of Korea. These tanks are called "Chun-ma-ho", which can navigate steep slopes and cross rivers as much as 5.5 m deep. North Korea's main battle tanks - T-62s - have 155 mm guns and can travel as fast as 60 km per hour. The US main tanks - M1A - have 120 mm guns and cannot travel faster than 55 km per hour. North Korean tanks have skins 700 mm thick and TOW-II is the only anti-tank missile in the US arsenal that can penetrate this armored skin.

"M1 Abrams have Chobham composite armor which can shed most enemy weapons, including ATGM's, hitting from the front save at point-blank range, while a 125mm APFDS (Armor Piercing, Fin, Discarding Sabot) round can go through that 700mm of steel like a hot knife through butter, out to several kilometers range. This is the _other_ reason why Abrams generally killed Pact tanks without suffering any losses in reply." [1] I'd love to see American tanks go toe to toe with NK tanks.

Further more, North Korea began to make anti-tank missiles in 1975 and has been improving its anti-tank missiles for the past 30 years. North Korea's anti-tank missiles are rated the best in the world and several foreign nations buy them. The US army in Korea relies on 72 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters to kill North Korean tanks. Each Apache has 16 Hell-Fire anti-tank missiles. As shown in the recent Iraq war, Apaches are fragile and can be easily shot down even with rifles.
The US army has A-10 attack planes to counter North Korea's mechanized units. In case of war, the skies over Korea will be filled with fighters in close dog-fights and the A-10s would be ineffective.

Give me a moment.. HAHAHAAH!!! Apaches are easily shot down with rifles?! Are you smoking crack? "As shown in the recent Iraq war, Apaches are very tough helicopters in terms of armor protection (the only tougher ones in the world are probably some of the armored Hind variants), and it usually takes concentrated point-blank _machine-gun_ (not "rifle") fire to shoot them down." [1] What exactly constitutes "improving for the last 30 years?" The author says that they are the best rated in the world, yet, the very type of anti-tank missile he mentioned earlier (TOW) can penetrate any known tank armor in the world. Whoops. Btw, who decided that it is the best rated? Which nations are buying them? When people are looking for weapons, I dobut North Korea is on top of their list. (Unless you are looking for some cheapass AK-47's.) They also forget about surgical assaults from CIA/ Special Forces, Tomahawks from ships and submarines, ground forces, bomber strikes, and soon: Rail guns from Naval ships. But hey, let's dont sweat the small stuff, start off with only chewing. (ROTFL) This entire article is so full of holes it's like swiss cheese.

6. Underground tunnel systems

North Korea is the world most-tunneled nation. Tunnel warfare is conducted by independent company-size units. Tunnel entrances are built to withstand US chemical and biological attacks. Tunnels run zig-zag and have seals, air-purification units, and safe places for the troops to rest. It is believed that North Korea has built about 20 large tunnels near the DMZ. A large tunnel can transport 15,000 troops per hour across the DMZ and place them behind the US troops.

The part about the tunnels is true, although I would venture that the US knows where at least some of these tunnels are. They would be collapsed as soon as the troops are moving through them to invade. (Or if we were to attack first.) I also very seriously doubt that NK can move 15,000 troops in a SINGLE HOUR through a tunnel. Again, no sources cited for this paragraph.

7. Special Forces

North Korea has the largest special forces, 120,000 troops, in the world. These troops are grouped into light infantry brigades, attack brigades, air-borne brigades, and sea-born brigades - 25 brigades in total.North Korea has the capacity to transport 20,000 special force troops at the same time. North Korea has 130 high-speed landing crafts and 140 hovercrafts. A North Korean hovercraft can carry one platoon of troops at 90 km per hour.

How good are North Korea's special forces? Well, remember the submarine that got stranded?. The sub had two special forces agents who had finished a mission in South Korea and were picked up by the sub before the sub ran into a rock. The two men fought off an army of South Korean troops and remained at large for 50 days, during which they killed 11 of the pursuers.

They only killed off 11 out of an "Army of South Korean troops" out of nearly "50 days?" Thats a pretty pitiful Special Forces if you ask me. I refer again to the "Black Hawk Down" incident where 160 US Army men killed over 1,000 fighters and wounded over 3,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu Anyone can create a group of soldiers and call it "Special Forces." This quoting seems more to say how CRAPPY their Special Forces are then well trained. I'd like to see their training compared to others of world class reknown. (SAS, SEAL's, etc)

8. WMD's

North Korea is a nuclear state along with the US, Russia, China, the Great Britain, France, India, Pakistan, and Israel. North Korea has succeeded in weaponizing nuclear devices for missile delivery.
North Korea can produce about 100 missiles a year. It began to make missiles in 1980 and has about 1,000 missiles of various types in place, about 100 of which have nuclear warheads. These missiles are hidden in caves and underground launching pads. At present, the US has no fool-proof defense against North Korean missiles, and in case of war, North Korean missiles can do serious damages: several hundreds of thousands of US troops will die, and scores of US bases and carrier battle groups will be destroyed. The Patriot anti-missile missiles are deployed in South Korea but as shown in the recent Iraq war, the Patriots are not 100% accurate or reliable even under ideal conditions.

Yet again, 0 sources cited. What the heck is this guy getting his information from? As for the production of 1,000 missiles a year, what type of missiles are you talking about? If you produce 1,000 bazooka missiles a year, that doesn't mean much. As for the 100 nukes, thats just blatant garbage. A few nuclear bombs perhaps, but not 100. As for a fool-proof defense, I'd like to see anyone that *does* have one. There isn't a such thing, so such a statement is quite silly really. Stating the obvious, you know? I'd also point out that with the Korean War ending in 1953, why did it take 27 years for North Korea to start developing missiles? So much for the advancement of technology, haha!

9. NK's defense against US attacks

North Korea began to build fortifications in 1960s. All key military facilities are built underground to withstand American bunker-buster bombs. North Korea has 8,236 underground facilities that are linked by 547 km of tunnels. Beneath Pyongyang are a huge underground stadium and other facilities. About 1.2 million tons of food, 1.46 million tons of fuel, and 1.67 million tons of ammunition are stored in underground storage areas for wartime use.

Most of the underground facilities are drilled into granite rocks and the entrances face north in order to avoid direct hits by American bombs and missiles. he B-61 Mod 11 is the main bunker buster in the US arsenal. A recent test showed that this buster could penetrate only 6 meters of rock. The latest GBU-28 laser-guided bunker-buster can penetrate to 30m. North Korean bunkers have at least 80 m of top-cover of solid rocks. North Korea has many false caves that emit heats that will misdirect unwary GBU-28/37 and BKU-113 bunker-busters.

These are pretty exact statistics. Of course, yet AGAIN not a single source to back up or verify what this guy is saying. And as for being safe from our bunker busters, we'll just see about that. Or as my favorite source has written, "How well would these facilities survive direct atomic bombardment, which is exactly what they would be getting given Kim's declared war plan?" [1]

Air defense

North Korea has reengineered US shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles captured in Vietnam, and designed its own missile, wha-sung. North Korea began to manufacture wha-sung missiles in 1980. Wha-sung comes in two models: SA-7 that has an effective range of 5 km and SA-16 with 10 km range. North Korea has more than 15,000 wha-sung missiles in place.

In addition to the missiles, North Korea has 12,000 anti-aircraft guns, including 37mm twin-barrel guns, 23 mm automatics, 57mm, 87mm, and 100mm heavy guns. These are mostly manually operated and thus not subject to electronic warfare.

Anti-aircraft GUNS? Are you really serious? Any bombers that fly over North Korea will be out of range completely, so that is a moot point ot make. (Except sound good.) The SA-7 is about the only really effective weapon they have, but I'm again curious where this guy is getting his information.

Air
North Korea has three air commands. Each command has a fighter regiment, a bomber regiment, an AN-2 regiment, an attack helicopter regiment, a missile regiment, and a radar regiment. Each command can operate independently. North Korea has 70 airbases, which are fortified against US attacks. Underground hangars protect the planes and have multiple exits for the planes to take off on different runways. North Korea has several fake airfields and fake planes to confuse US attackers.

Korea is 100 km wide and 125 km long, and so US air-to-air missiles would be of limited use and effectiveness, because North Korean MiGs would approach the US planes in close proximity and commingle with US planes, and air-to-air missiles will become useless and machines guns will have to be used. MiG19s have 30mm guns, MiG21s have 23mm guns, and F-14s have 20mm Valkans. North Korean pilots are trained to hug the enemy planes so that air-to-air missiles cannot be used. In contrast, US pilots are trained to lock on the enemy at long distance with radar and fire missiles. US planes are heavily armed with electronics and less agile than the light, lean MiGs that can climb and turn faster than the US planes

What the.. Are you kidding? It's like this guy pulls statistics out of his butt, then begins to go against any viable logic and simply keep's saying that the US will lose. The MiG-19's were introduced in get this, * 1953* Yes, you read that right, 1953. But we should definiately be worried about a plane that was created over 50 years ago. MiG-21's were introduced in *1959*. As for F-14's, the US just decommed it's last F-14 not too long ago. I'm curious how well NK has been able to maintain this "highly sophsiticated equipment" when it can barely feed it's people, continually taking what it can from China and international aid. (Btw, unless your country is literally falling apart you don't typically get international aid, hint hint.)

11. Electronic warfare

The United States excels in electronic warfare and no nation comes anywhere near the US capability. North Korea began developing its own electronic warfare methods in 1970. It is believed that North Korea has advanced electronic warfare ability. It has numerous counter measures for US electronic warfare. During the recent war in Iraq, the US dropped e-bombs that disabled the Iraqi electronic devices. North Korea relies heavily on non-electronic command and control means, and hence US e-bombs will have limited impacts in North Korea.

Who says North Korea has Advanced Electronic Warfare abilities? Define "Advanced" Again, no sources. As for the boorish comment about non-electronic C&C that is just false. So this author is literally stating that none of, or most of the C&C facilities have no source of power, air purification, water purification, network cabling, or anything reliant on electricity at all? Yeah, sure. Those are all affected by EMP bombs, and it will not be "limited impact" even if viewed in strictly positive frame of mind. This is just wishful thinking.

North Korea trains about 100 hackers a year and has computer virus battalions in place. These hackers are capable of interrupting US communication networks. In a war game conducted in 1991 by US war planners, North Korea came out the victor with and without nuclear weapons.

North Korea was training hackers back in 1991? Where are the sources? "Computer virus battalions???" Are you kidding me? Go talk with some real hackers and tell that to them. They will laugh their asses off, because I know as well as them that only people who don't know much about computers talk like that. Patches are issued, problems are fixed, and software changes. One virus that is good today won't necessarily even work tomorrow. I'll give the benefeit of a doubt and say yes, they could disrupt US communications. The US military's C&C infrastructure has no connections with the Internet. Sure, we have NIPRNet providing us access, but there is not a direct link to the information that really matters, ala SIPRNet. Not only that, but most of the real operational stuff is passed by internal radio communications and direct sattelite feeds, not the INTERNET. Give me a break. I would spit in this guys face if I could meet him, this entire article is full of fabrications, wishful thinking, and mostly propaganda.

Kim Jong Il has no doubt that his army can beat the US army.

Data from Han Ho Suk, A Strategy Of Massive
Retaliations Against US Attacks

Well, I hope not! Because he will be in for a big surprise when he does, and we will lose much less troops that way. I've basically spoke my mind in refuting this hideously large article that you have cited. It's much easier to copy and paste then research multiple articles and consult multiple people to argue it back, lol! Feel free to copy and paste my response and email it to that sorry person that wrote it. Of course if you'd like you can turn around and refute my responses, I'd be interested in seeing how you reply. If you would like to read some more pwnage, go the the article I quoted a few times as listed below. Man that article was a mouthful to respond to, lol!

[1] http://militaryminds.tribe.net/thread/8 ... fe190231ac

[Come_Forth]

This video is similar to this thread, this is a cnn video which is a liberal US news station http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHnXrU5JzU. It is only like 4 minutes long. Whatever happened to separation of church and state? Towards the end of the video it mentions how a lack of religious belief in Europe is destroying it. Only 7% of the National Academy of Sciences believe in God, the other 93% of the smartest people in the United States belong to the most hated minority group atheists....