North Korea Declares War On The United States

[It's me hello]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/07/28/north-korea-united-states-relations/87659264/

 

Well, how is this going to work out for them?

[Gaius I. Caesar]

Not too well, but they (North Korea ) have China's support.  Problem is, Chinese -Korean relationships are strained at the moment. 

[Mohammadi_follower]

I have no other word than "lol".

[Hijab al-Zahra]

Funny thing is I found out North Korea declared war through memes. What a time to be alive

[Hidaren]

3 hours ago, It's me hello said:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/07/28/north-korea-united-states-relations/87659264/

 

Well, how is this going to work out for them?

It might be looking too funny in the beginning but when we look back to the history of the US army, we see that most of the time they had no real enemy, and when they face real enemies such as Vietnam, it appears US is the looser, now a nuclear country such as North Korea, their power cannot be compared with Vietnam, Vietnam had nothing and won the war, or if we look at Alqaeda, USA the first and greatest army of the world, failed to destroy a small group like that. in my opinion if any war occurs between North Korea and USA, North Korea won't be the looser.

By the way USA is making too many enemies for itself, and for all of them at the same time, ALL OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE. if any war happens USA enemies might unite.

[Soldiers and Saffron]

38 minutes ago, Hidaren said:

It might be looking too funny in the beginning but when we look back to the history of the US army, we see that most of the time they had no real enemy, and when they face real enemies such as Vietnam, it appears US is the looser, now a nuclear country such as North Korea, their power cannot be compared with Vietnam, Vietnam had nothing and won the war, or if we look at Alqaeda, USA the first and greatest army of the world, failed to destroy a small group like that. in my opinion if any war occurs between North Korea and USA, North Korea won't be the looser.

By the way USA is making too many enemies for itself, and for all of them at the same time, ALL OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE. if any war happens USA enemies might unite.

I agree with you when you say NK wont be the looser but I dont think they will be the winner either, both will lose but US has more to lose and they cannot afford this.

[Hidaren]

8 minutes ago, IbnSina said:

I agree with you when you say NK wont be the looser but I dont think they will be the winner either, both will lose but US has more to lose and they cannot afford this.

USA has surrounded China, by the fall of NK, China will be in danger, for it's own sake China will aid north Korea and as we know China has the greatest number of soldiers in the world s well as technology, it means China will help North Korea in this war at least to destroy South Korea and Japan, and securing China, besides 27 countries attacked Iran including the whole Europe, USA, Soviet Union, Arab lands and ... during the 8 years of war with Iraq, Iran had nothing, Iraq was about to be given Nuclear bomb, yet Iran won the war. North Korea helped Iran on those days, it means, Iran will help them in a way to make sure North Korea won't loose, it will work because the Whole Europe, USA, and Arab lands attacked Syria, Iran helped Syria and Syria is winning. The situation of USA is like a drum, loud in sound but nothing in power.

[Nataly]

maybe it's not something so serious, that they're going to be in war, however I'd pray in that situation, it's the only thing I can do. 

[Gaius I. Caesar]

1 hour ago, Hidaren said:

It might be looking too funny in the beginning but when we look back to the history of the US army, we see that most of the time they had no real enemy, and when they face real enemies such as Vietnam, it appears US is the looser, now a nuclear country such as North Korea, their power cannot be compared with Vietnam, Vietnam had nothing and won the war, or if we look at Alqaeda, USA the first and greatest army of the world, failed to destroy a small group like that. in my opinion if any war occurs between North Korea and USA, North Korea won't be the looser.

By the way USA is making too many enemies for itself, and for all of them at the same time, ALL OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE. if any war happens USA enemies might unite.

You forget that the US also has some nuclear weapons too but no matter who North Korea fights, they will always have the technology disadvantage. Even Hezbollah could easily defeat North Korea in their sleep. 

By the way, Vietnam had "something" that allowed them to defeat the United States. An ancient book that comes out only during times of war, and the Vietnamese were also able to defeat Kublai Khan with the same book in the 1200's.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Gaius I. Caesar

[coldcow]

1 hour ago, Hidaren said:

It might be looking too funny in the beginning but when we look back to the history of the US army, we see that most of the time they had no real enemy, and when they face real enemies such as Vietnam, it appears US is the looser, now a nuclear country such as North Korea, their power cannot be compared with Vietnam, Vietnam had nothing and won the war, or if we look at Alqaeda, USA the first and greatest army of the world, failed to destroy a small group like that. in my opinion if any war occurs between North Korea and USA, North Korea won't be the looser.

By the way USA is making too many enemies for itself, and for all of them at the same time, ALL OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE. if any war happens USA enemies might unite.

Please read up your history and show me where the US lost the Vietnamese war.

18 minutes ago, Hidaren said:

USA has surrounded China, by the fall of NK, China will be in danger, for it's own sake China will aid north Korea and as we know China has the greatest number of soldiers in the world s well as technology, it means China will help North Korea in this war at least to destroy South Korea and Japan, and securing China, besides 27 countries attacked Iran including the whole Europe, USA, Soviet Union, Arab lands and ... during the 8 years of war with Iraq, Iran had nothing, Iraq was about to be given Nuclear bomb, yet Iran won the war. North Korea helped Iran on those days, it means, Iran will help them in a way to make sure North Korea won't loose, it will work because the Whole Europe, USA, and Arab lands attacked Syria, Iran helped Syria and Syria is winning. The situation of USA is like a drum, loud in sound but nothing in power.

27 countries did not attack Iran during the Iran-Iraq war.  And Iraq wasn't about to be given the nuclear bomb.  China has a large military, but it pales in comparison to the operational capabilities of the American military.  Syria isn't "winning" because they got help from Iran.  They were barely able to cling on for dear life with just Irani help.  The counter offensives by American backed Kurds against ISIS has helped Syria immensely.  Additionally, Russian and American air strikes have helped destroy ISIS supply lines and cut their sources of funding, forcing them to cut pay to their soldiers.  As a result many soldiers are deserting.

If there was truly a military engagement between North Korea and the US, it would be over before it even got started.  Our military could functionally reduce the North Korean offensive threat to only their land army of inferior tanks and poorly fed soldiers and their rifles.  The South Koreans train day and night for essentially one threat, and that's North Korea.  Even without the American forces on the Korean peninsula, they could easily hold off a North Korean offensive.  We would immediately dispatch a carrier battle group to the area, if one wasn't already there.  Cruise missiles would rain down on North Korea with precision not seen in the Korean War.  Air Craft would be fllying continuous missions from our AF base in the South and from our carriers against any attempt at a land invasion.  Our land and sea based missile defense systems would knock down anything the North Koreans could shoot that we hadn't already destroyed.  We wouldn't have to put a single soldier on the ground that wasn't already there.  And our superior tanks would take out any North Korean armor before they even saw us.

The goal of a war with North Korea wouldn't be to destroy their army, it wouldn't be to route out all the communists, it would simply be to destroy its offensive capabilities and decimate its military command and control structure.  

[Hidaren]

8 minutes ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

You forget that the US also has some nuclear weapons too but no matter who North Korea fights, they will always have the technology disadvantage. Even Hezbollah could easily defeat North Korea in their sleep. 

By the way, Vietnam had "something" that allowed them to defeat the United States. An ancient book that comes out only during times of war, and the Vietnamese were also able to defeat Kublai Khan with the same book in the 1200's.

What will happen if Vietnam lends that book to North Korea, between US and NK, Vietnam will definitely choose NK, HizbolAllah can defeat US too, to kill a man shoot at his Heart, to kill USA shoot at Israel, if NK announces that we will launch nuclear missile to Israel, what will happen? will USA continue the war? or they will retreat? the safety of Israel is the most important thing to USA, even more important than the safety of American.

[repenter-gone4awhile]

11 minutes ago, coldcow said:

Please read up your history and show me where the US lost the Vietnamese war.

27 countries did not attack Iran during the Iran-Iraq war.  And Iraq wasn't about to be given the nuclear bomb.  China has a large military, but it pales in comparison to the operational capabilities of the American military.  Syria isn't "winning" because they got help from Iran.  They were barely able to cling on for dear life with just Irani help.  The counter offensives by American backed Kurds against ISIS has helped Syria immensely.  Additionally, Russian and American air strikes have helped destroy ISIS supply lines and cut their sources of funding, forcing them to cut pay to their soldiers.  As a result many soldiers are deserting.

If there was truly a military engagement between North Korea and the US, it would be over before it even got started.  Our military could functionally reduce the North Korean offensive threat to only their land army of inferior tanks and poorly fed soldiers and their rifles.  The South Koreans train day and night for essentially one threat, and that's North Korea.  Even without the American forces on the Korean peninsula, they could easily hold off a North Korean offensive.  We would immediately dispatch a carrier battle group to the area, if one wasn't already there.  Cruise missiles would rain down on North Korea with precision not seen in the Korean War.  Air Craft would be fllying continuous missions from our AF base in the South and from our carriers against any attempt at a land invasion.  Our land and sea based missile defense systems would knock down anything the North Koreans could shoot that we hadn't already destroyed.  We wouldn't have to put a single soldier on the ground that wasn't already there.  And our superior tanks would take out any North Korean armor before they even saw us.

The goal of a war with North Korea wouldn't be to destroy their army, it wouldn't be to route out all the communists, it would simply be to destroy its offensive capabilities and decimate its military command and control structure.  

Still living in the Arnold commando and Rambo era are we? You did well in Iraq.......with your "superior" tech. And you didn't and still aren't doing jack in Syria or Iraq other than "misplacing supplies that somehow mysteriously end up in ISIS scum hands....every time. Russia on the other hand are and effectively. 

[Hidaren]

1 minute ago, coldcow said:

Please read up your history and show me where the US lost the Vietnamese war.

Lol, if US won that war then cows fly, donkeys speak, people harvest their children after planting them in a farm and ....

3 minutes ago, coldcow said:

27 countries did not attack Iran during the Iran-Iraq war.  And Iraq wasn't about to be given the nuclear bomb.  China has a large military, but it pales in comparison to the operational capabilities of the American military.  Syria isn't "winning" because they got help from Iran.  They were barely able to cling on for dear life with just Irani help.  The counter offensives by American backed Kurds against ISIS has helped Syria immensely.  Additionally, Russian and American air strikes have helped destroy ISIS supply lines and cut their sources of funding, forcing them to cut pay to their soldiers.  As a result many soldiers are deserting.

If there was truly a military engagement between North Korea and the US, it would be over before it even got started.  Our military could functionally reduce the North Korean offensive threat to only their land army of inferior tanks and poorly fed soldiers and their rifles.  The South Koreans train day and night for essentially one threat, and that's North Korea.  Even without the American forces on the Korean peninsula, they could easily hold off a North Korean offensive.  We would immediately dispatch a carrier battle group to the area, if one wasn't already there.  Cruise missiles would rain down on North Korea with precision not seen in the Korean War.  Air Craft would be fllying continuous missions from our AF base in the South and from our carriers against any attempt at a land invasion.  Our land and sea based missile defense systems would knock down anything the North Koreans could shoot that we hadn't already destroyed.  We wouldn't have to put a single soldier on the ground that wasn't already there.  And our superior tanks would take out any North Korean armor before they even saw us.

The goal of a war with North Korea wouldn't be to destroy their army, it wouldn't be to route out all the communists, it would simply be to destroy its offensive capabilities and decimate its military command and control structure.  

As I see you are unaware of what's going on in the world.

France wanted to donate a nuclear bomb to Iraq, Iran captured soldiers from Iraq's army which were not Iraqi, they were from various nationalities including European countries, Soviet union's T72 tanks were shooting at Iranian soldiers, SU missiles were showering Iran's cities, and ... read the memory books of European Generals, they reveal their presence in that war.

USA drops weapons for Iraqi soldiers but they land on ISIS forces, when Iraqi forces took those weapons once mistakenly ( you read right mistakenly) those weapons were the weapons that are needed weapons to destroy Iraq's forces, not suitable to shoot at ISIS. 

USA bombed defenders various of times and always claim ops we made a mistake, In Syria the army was destroyed sunni soldiers left the army and all Syria had were Shia forces and Iranians who went there, every day we bury the bodies of our martyrs here.

USA marines wet their pants when they were captured by Iranian forces in Persian Gulf  few months ago, USA solders are only good to kill women and children, like Chris Kyle who shoot at women and children in Iraq just to make his record. 

And recently Hilary Clinton has confessed that USA made ISIS:

Watch her at the middle of the page click play and see:

http://www.mashreghnews.ir/fa/news/572301/فیلماعتراف-هیلاری-کلینتون-به-ایجاد-القاعده-و-داعش

 

[Gaius I. Caesar]

1 minute ago, Hidaren said:

What will happen if Vietnam lends that book to North Korea, between US and NK, Vietnam will definitely choose NK, HizbolAllah can defeat US too, to kill a man shoot at his Heart, to kill USA shoot at Israel, if NK announces that we will launch nuclear missile to Israel, what will happen? will USA continue the war? or they will retreat? the safety of Israel is the most important thing to USA, even more important than the safety of American.

No, the Vietnamese distrust the Chinese and by extension, the North Koreans, that book is for Vietnamese eyes only. It is a national treasure, they wouldn't just give it to anyone from what I understand. 

Yeah, as long as there are Zionist and Evangelical lobbies, the US will continue to support Israel as a top priority, Hidaren. 

[coldcow]

4 hours ago, repenter said:

Still living in the Arnold commando and Rambo era are we? You did well in Iraq.......with your "superior" tech. And you didn't and still aren't doing jack in Syria or Iraq other than "misplacing supplies that somehow mysteriously end up in ISIS scum hands....every time. Russia on the other hand are and effectively. 

Please provide evidence that our supplies end up consistently "misplaced."  Also, please provide evidence of how we are not "doing jack" in Syria or Iraq.  The Kurds would beg to differ with you.  The Russians have so far killed far more civilians in Syria than the US (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/15/russian-airstrikes-in-syria-killed-2000-civilians-in-six-months).  

And again, the aim of a war with Korea, should they initiate one, would be to

1) eliminate their nuclear threat
2) decimate their command and control abilities rendering their generals detached from their army
3) Deploy additional missile defense platforms like AEGIS
4) Take out their air fields and land based radar and establish complete air superiority 
5) Defend against a ground attack

All of that is conventional warfare.  Something we are very good at.  I mean if you want to cheer on the North Koreans to start launching suicide attacks, then that would make things harder, but the objective wouldn't be to roll into the North and hold it like we did in Iraq.  And remember, military analysts around the world expected the first Gulf War to be a long drawn out slug fest with what was the 4th largest army in the world at the time.  An army they said was battle hardened after their war with Iran.  Well, we all know how that turned out.

4 hours ago, Hidaren said:

Lol, if US won that war then cows fly, donkeys speak, people harvest their children after planting them in a farm and ....

As I see you are unaware of what's going on in the world.

France wanted to donate a nuclear bomb to Iraq, Iran captured soldiers from Iraq's army which were not Iraqi, they were from various nationalities including European countries, Soviet union's T72 tanks were shooting at Iranian soldiers, SU missiles were showering Iran's cities, and ... read the memory books of European Generals, they reveal their presence in that war.

USA drops weapons for Iraqi soldiers but they land on ISIS forces, when Iraqi forces took those weapons once mistakenly ( you read right mistakenly) those weapons were the weapons that are needed weapons to destroy Iraq's forces, not suitable to shoot at ISIS. 

USA bombed defenders various of times and always claim ops we made a mistake, In Syria the army was destroyed sunni soldiers left the army and all Syria had were Shia forces and Iranians who went there, every day we bury the bodies of our martyrs here.

USA marines wet their pants when they were captured by Iranian forces in Persian Gulf  few months ago, USA solders are only good to kill women and children, like Chris Kyle who shoot at women and children in Iraq just to make his record. 

And recently Hilary Clinton has confessed that USA made ISIS:

Watch her at the middle of the page click play and see:

http://www.mashreghnews.ir/fa/news/572301/فیلماعتراف-هیلاری-کلینتون-به-ایجاد-القاعده-و-داعش

 

I never said we won, but you were the one who said we lost.  Again, please read your history and show me how the US lost Vietnam.  I will await some proof.  I'll give you a hint: South Vietnam fell years after the Vietnam war ended.  

And in regards to everything else, please produce evidence of the following:

1) The French wanted to give Iraq a nuclear bomb (not a reactor)
2) That Iran captured any foreign troops working with Iraq during the war
3) That Soviet T72 tanks were shooting at Irani soldiers (unless they were those bought by Saddam)
4) That European generals admit any involvement in the Iran-Iraq war
5) That the weapons that Iraqi forces got from a US supply drop were wrong weapons to shoot at ISIS
6) That Hillary Clinton confessed that the USA made ISIS (hint: that video talks about the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan that turned into Al Qaeda, not ISIS.  She mentions ISI, not ISIS.)
7) You're just making stuff up or trying to be inflammatory about the "captured" sailors.  But FYI, they weren't Marines.  

I will give you the following:
1) On rare occasion we have mistakenly dropped supplies that ended up behind enemy lines and in the hands of ISIS (please provide evidence of it happening more than 2 or 3 times)
2) Or rare occasion we have bombed friendly forces on accident (again, please provide evidence of it happening on a consistent basis).  For the record, we've bombed our own forces American forces on accident before too


You can't just make stuff up like that and not provide evidence to back it up.

Edited July 29, 2016 by coldcow

[repenter-gone4awhile]

30 minutes ago, coldcow said:

Please provide evidence that our supplies end up consistently "misplaced."  Also, please provide evidence of how we are not "doing jack" in Syria or Iraq.  The Kurds would beg to differ with you.  The Russians have so far killed far more civilians in Syria than the US (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/15/russian-airstrikes-in-syria-killed-2000-civilians-in-six-months).  

And again, the aim of a war with Korea, should they initiate one, would be to

1) eliminate their nuclear threat
2) decimate their command and control abilities rendering their generals detached from their army
3) Deploy additional missile defense platforms like AEGIS
4) Take out their air fields and land based radar and establish complete air superiority 
5) Defend against a ground attack

All of that is conventional warfare.  Something we are very good at.  I mean if you want to cheer on the North Koreans to start launching suicide attacks, then that would make things harder, but the objective wouldn't be to roll into the North and hold it like we did in Iraq.  And remember, military analysts around the world expected the first Gulf War to be a long drawn out slug fest with what was the 4th largest army in the world at the time.  An army they said was battle hardened after their war with Iran.  Well, we all know how that turned out.

There are plenty of youtube clips from resistance fighters in iraq witnessning and complaining about it. But i'm not going to spend time translating it for you, for you to deny it later, just not worth my time. 

In regards to Korean war. I have said this before and i say it again. There is no doubt in US firepower. No one ever doubts that.
But there is a famous saying: If you could make God bleed, people would cease to believe in Him. There will be blood in the water, the sharks will come. All I have to do is sit back and watch as the world consumes you.

This is the reason why US never will attack anyone that is capable of fighting back. There is no reason to have even firepower. Make one US ship sink, or one "stealth" plane crash and the whole Superpower notion goes away. Not to mention the amount of turmoil it will cause in the world and not least US citizens.

In regards to the first Gulf war, most analysts agree that Iraqi army was worn out, in debt beyond recognition and demoralized. Being in a long war and then starting another one doesn't always make you battle hardened, it sometimes makes you weak and tired and demoralized as we saw with Saddams army. While Saddams army didn't even give a sign of resistance in the first one, the Badr brigades in the second invasion demoralized american troops so much that they left with their tails between their legs. 

[repenter-gone4awhile]

But if you want some western media coverage on US dropping stuff for ISIS:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/10/21/u-s-accidentally-delivered-weapons-to-the-islamic-state-by-airdrop-militants-allege/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/us-syria-rebels-ammunition-airdrop-isis-assad-regime
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-10/caught-tape-us-plane-allegedly-drops-weapons-isis-militants-iraq

And plenty more if you google it yourself. Allthough many of the "accidental" drops are left unreported. 

[David66]

Hello,

The United States did not achieve it's objectives in Vietnam.  It was unwilling to expend the resources necessary to protect the near universally recognized Republic of Vietnam.  So, I guess it was a loss. 

But, the reason for this loss is not some magic book located in the North.  The poor throughout French Indochina were hungry for opportunity and independence after French colonial rule.  They saw communism as a way to gain these things.  Noble sentiments but the communist simply used the poor to gain power.  The Communist Party, and the socialist programs and controls it introduced, failed, as they always have throughout history.  Vietnam has been steadily moving to a more market based, capitalistic society since the early nineties. It has morphed into a capitalist country controlled by a "communist" elite who tolerate the changes as long as they get their cut of the proceeds.  I have been told you can ask the average Vietnamese and they will tell you the wrong side won the war.  Also, they love Americans and essentially,  Vietnam and the United States have become allies.  The Communist party will fall eventually.  But, the Vietnamese people are not letting the party get in the way of becoming an Asian economic powerhouse.

As far as North Korea.  I assure you the major players have met behind closed doors and formulated planes for multiple scenarios.  China does not want a millions of refugees flooding it's border.  Nor does it want South Korean/American troops on it's border.  South Korea and the United Stated do not want the loss of life and damage to infrastructure even a minor conventional engagement would cause.  And, North Korea, they have the nuke card but poor delivery systems.

I do see one wildcard.  China attempting a Putin-esque take over of North Korea.  The nukes are a problem.  But, I think if they saw a window of opportunity where they could control the nukes, take out the ruling family and neutralize military command and control they would take it.   Then, after stabilizing North Korea, South Korea and China could negotiate a re-unification strategy for the Korean peninsula.   Or, China could pull a Putin and say "I think we will keep it.  We kinda like it."  But, they would face enormous international pressure if they went this route.

By the way,  you guys arguing about "who can beat up who" are starting to sound like two little boys on the playground fighting over who's Daddy is the toughest. 

All the Best,

David

[repenter-gone4awhile]

What the heck is this magical book? Sounds fishy.....

[It's me hello]

7 hours ago, coldcow said:

Please read up your history and show me where the US lost the Vietnamese war.

Well, you should take a look at how the government of Vietnam was structured after the Vietnam war. It's pretty obvious that the U.S. lost the war.

[coldcow]

1 hour ago, repenter said:

There are plenty of youtube clips from resistance fighters in iraq witnessning and complaining about it. But i'm not going to spend time translating it for you, for you to deny it later, just not worth my time. 

In regards to Korean war. I have said this before and i say it again. There is no doubt in US firepower. No one ever doubts that.
But there is a famous saying: If you could make God bleed, people would cease to believe in Him. There will be blood in the water, the sharks will come. All I have to do is sit back and watch as the world consumes you.

This is the reason why US never will attack anyone that is capable of fighting back. There is no reason to have even firepower. Make one US ship sink, or one "stealth" plane crash and the whole Superpower notion goes away. Not to mention the amount of turmoil it will cause in the world and not least US citizens.

In regards to the first Gulf war, most analysts agree that Iraqi army was worn out, in debt beyond recognition and demoralized. Being in a long war and then starting another one doesn't always make you battle hardened, it sometimes makes you weak and tired and demoralized as we saw with Saddams army. While Saddams army didn't even give a sign of resistance in the first one, the Badr brigades in the second invasion demoralized american troops so much that they left with their tails between their legs. 

Yeah, I've seen videos, I know it happened, but again, it's mistakes that happen in a war zone.  Like I mentioned, we've bombed our own troops on accident before, we've had soldiers shoot on each other before, it's war, mistakes happen.  Anecdotes exist, but there's no evidence that it's a systematic thing with more supplies going to the enemy than to the Kurds or IRaqi forces.  

We won't attack any country that can fight back for the same reason they won't attack us - we've both got nukes.  

Saddam's Army was rendered essentially ineffective in Gulf War one because they were a top heavy military.  You sever communications and everything below collapses.  Those that tried to fight were quickly neutralized.  And please, left with their tail between their legs?  Sure.  Keep telling yourself that.

[coldcow]

6 minutes ago, It's me hello said:

Well, you should take a look at how the government of Vietnam was structured after the Vietnam war. It's pretty obvious that the U.S. lost the war.

I'll spell it out I guess.  As David66 pointed out, we didn't meet our objectives in Vietnam, so by that metric we did not win.  But neither did the North Vietnamese win their objective of a communist South Vietnam at the end of the war.  We sat down with them in Paris and signed the Paris Peace Accords in 1973 because the American public and politicians couldn't deal with a number of factors pertaining to the war, including increasing numbers of casualties, the draft, and public opinion in general.  In 1975 the North invaded the South over 2 years after US forces had withdrawn.  The South could barely slow them down, had no chance of defeating them.  And so began a a campaign by the north to torture and kill any former south vietnamese soldiers.

I know many, many Vietnamese families.  I'm assuming most of you don't.  

[repenter-gone4awhile]

50 minutes ago, coldcow said:

Yeah, I've seen videos, I know it happened, but again, it's mistakes that happen in a war zone.  Like I mentioned, we've bombed our own troops on accident before, we've had soldiers shoot on each other before, it's war, mistakes happen.  Anecdotes exist, but there's no evidence that it's a systematic thing with more supplies going to the enemy than to the Kurds or IRaqi forces.  

We won't attack any country that can fight back for the same reason they won't attack us - we've both got nukes.  

Saddam's Army was rendered essentially ineffective in Gulf War one because they were a top heavy military.  You sever communications and everything below collapses.  Those that tried to fight were quickly neutralized.  And please, left with their tail between their legs?  Sure.  Keep telling yourself that.

It happens very frequently.....even though your news agencies don't report it. It gets reported in arab and middle eastern news very often. 

In regards to Iraq, it's 2016......we all know what happened. 

 

[coldcow]

32 minutes ago, repenter said:

In regards to Iraq, it's 2016......we all know what happened. 
 

Yup, the incompetent Iraqi military couldn't get it done. British and American veterans have joined up with the Kurds, the only legitimate fighting force in Iraq apparently.  And veterans here are angry the areas they fought over have been ceded to ISIS and want to go back.  To be fair to the Iraqis our planning of the post-2003 invasion was poor and, combined with Arab tendency to gravitate towards tribalism and sectarianism, set them up for a hard time.

[repenter-gone4awhile]

You can hate him all you want................but it's hard to refute him. No one buys the fairly tales that is created by western politicians and corporate news anymore. 

[It's me hello]

Just now, repenter said:

You can hate him all you want................but it's hard to refute him. No one buys the fairly tales that is created by western politicians and corporate news anymore. 

This is a great video.

[coldcow]

Not sure why you're posting this, but my thoughts are below:
-I don't understand the admiration for Putin when he's killed more civilians in Syria than the US, and he does it intentionally because they aren't on the side of Assad. There was also a time when Muslims I know would have hated him for what him and his people did to Chechneya.
-But he is a smart guy.  Ex-KGB, if that tells you anything about his tenacity, and how much you can take what he says at face value
-Yes, he makes a good point about ISIS fighters.  They're just drugged up and paid.  Right now many are abandoning ISIS because their pay has been cut.
-Yes, our idiots in the white house made an erroneous decision to supply rebels that they thought were on our side
-If he had any evidence of our allies buying ISIS oil, he'd have made it public.  The only one I can think of is Turkey.  And Erdogan is an idiot anyways - here's an interesting piece on oil smuggling: http://ig.ft.com/sites/2015/isis-oil/
-Do we really want to blow the oil fields and then be blamed for the environmental disaster to follow?  Those wells won't cap themselves.  We've been bombing their trucks.  However we usually drop leaflets because we know the truck drivers are civilians forced to drive for ISIS.  When Russia bombs, they just kill the drivers.
-Lybia was on European powers, and we went along for the ride.
-Interesting that he accuses us of imperialism when he invaded Urkaine

American foreign policy is messed up.  I won't argue that.  But people here seem to get giddy with the idea that there's some vast American conspiracy to create ISIS and contribute to our own undoing by supporting them.  Some studies suggest the less in control you feel about a situation the more inclined you are to believe in conspiracy theories.  

http://time.com/3997033/conspiracy-theories/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories/

[hasanhh]

I didn't hear DPRK's declaration on the news...because it would detract from Hillar's coronation.

11 hours ago, coldcow said:

Please read up your history and show me where the US lost the Vietnamese war.

27 .  

The US dropped 3X the tonnage of bombs on SEAsia than in all of WW2. At "the height" of the War, 1967, the US alone had 540,000 ground troops plus another half million in-area support personel (Philippines, Thailand, etc)

6 hours ago, David66 said:

Hello,

The United States did not achieve it's objectives in Vietnam.  It was unwilling to expend the resources necessary to protect the near universally recognized Republic of Vietnam.  So, I guess it was a loss. 

David

We loss that "oil war" (then, off shore)

6 hours ago, repenter said:

What the heck is this magical book? Sounds fishy.....

Giap had Chinese advice and counsel.

 

Adding:

With the DPRK, caution is necessary. One mid-level example: if war breaks out, 55,000 artillery shells will begin to impact Seoul every hour.

Edited July 30, 2016 by hasanhh
Forgot to Add:

[baradar_jackson]

I don't even see how this is news. The Korean war is still going on. South Korea, judging by its US military presence, can be considered an extension of the US. Therefore,  for all intents and purposes, the DPRK and the US were already at war. 

 

As for the decision, let's be honest with ourselves: the DPRK is a nation which knows how to survive. They haven't survived all this time (and this last 20 years in particular) by being stupid. 

[Praetorius]

For those clueless dimwits in this thread who still haven't gotten the memo about who created, runs, funds, and coordinates with ISIS, please garner some patience and go through this extensively researched article by independent reporter James Corbett - https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-295-who-is-really-behind-isis/

Seriously, it's the most in-depth article I have ever read examining the roots of ISIS, and its major backers and contributors.

Or you can watch the video, upon which this article is actually based.

Here's an interesting quote from his article, which discusses history dating back decades:-

Quote

For example back in 2003 it was reported that Zarqawi was killed in a bombing raid in Iraq, but in 2004 it was also reported that he was arrested in Fallujah so apparently miraculously resurrected from the dead and then arrested. Then in 2005, without reports in the meantime indicating how or when or why he was released from – or escaped from – custody in Fallujah, or how he was never arrested in Fallujah in the first place he was arrested again in Baquba. Then later in 2005 he was reported as being evacuated from Iraq altogether. By whom and to where I’m not exactly certain, but at any rate he was evacuated from Iraq, supposedly, but then in 2005 he wasreported as being killed in fighting in Iraq once again and then in 2006 he was killed in fighting once again! Presumably for the last time this time.

 

Edited July 30, 2016 by Praetorius

[hasanhh]

lt is getting more complicated --and hopefully not deadly:

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-falls-into-a-nightmare-of-a-us-japan-south-korea-alliance-2016-8