Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

North Korea detonates Nuke

Discussion in 'Non-World War 2 History' started by smeghead phpbb3, Oct 9, 2006.

  1. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Manchuria wasn't bombed until after the Chinese crossed the border and attacked UN forces. China came into the war on her own volition and wasn't attacked. Your comparison of Macarthur to Hitler is spurious at best and odious IMO. Macarthur didn't not seek a nuclear holocaust nor was there the remotest possibilty for one to occur since the Chinese weren't capable and the Russians were at an extreme disadvantage in that respect and wouldn't consider it anyway. According to them(at the time) they had nothing whatever to do with the conflict in Korea.
     
  2. Anton phpbb3

    Anton phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    majorwoody10 in your reply you state that north-korea wasnt crushed because of war with red china. Please allow me to correct you, north korea has an army capable of fighting back unlike iraq.
    This army has enough firepower to wipe out all sout-korean and us forces near the 38th line. Above all it is not likely that in case of war north korea will be defeated by south-korean and us forces.
    The principles of war; economy of force, concentration, surprise, security, offensive action, movement and co-operation of the combined arms, can not be employed in favour of south korea and us.
    In other words: the cost of war is too high.
    Unlike iraq were the iraqi forces at the time of the us invasion had nothing serious to oppose the us forces. Iraq was a soft egg.

    About the strategic control of resources: within two weeks after the us invasion specialist on oil installations were working in the southern oil fields protected by special forces and dedicated units.
    Really if it is not about the oil why would you secure this so heavily?
    above all if you invest so much in these oilfields wouldn't you want to see something in return?
    It is bull that the us doesn't profit from iraq oil, what happens with iraqi oil is still not clear and nobody can say for sure how many oilbarrels there have been produced and who took delivery.

    Conspiracy theory? about two years ago we had the same discussions, in these two years about every argument we, those who oppose us official story, made have proven to be true and about nothing brought in by pro us forum members has proven to be true.

    Please give good arguments or a comprehensive, well thought, vieuw.
    This makes the discussion interesting and gives us new insights in each others thinking.
    The standard story with bull arguments is already been told too much.

    Kind regards,
     
  3. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    In the first Gulf War the Iraqi army on paper was the 4th largest army in the world and we know what happened then. To say that the NK could wipe out all SK and US forces ignores the fact that they wouldn't only be fighting the forces that are presently in Korea.
    The small number of US forces in Korea are a garrison force only and not what would be employed in the event of a war. The US Airforce and Navy carrier battle groups would secure control of the air very quickly and any large NK forces making incursions into the south would be hard pressed indeed before any US or UN troops were even deployed.
    Unlike the first Korean war the US survelliance capibilities make it impossible for large military forces to even make ready to deploy much less launch a large scale surprise attack without the US being aware of it in advance.
    What about the most important thing in a war i.e.e logistics? Amateurs discuss tactics and strategy whereas professionals discuss logistics, it is said. Do you seriously think that a country as poor and destitute as NK can feed and equip a single army in the field without outside help?


    For a very good reason. If the new regime (and democracy) is to succeed then the country must have a source of income in order to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq. If the Iraqis have no resources then the US would have to shoulder the entire burden. Since more than 80% of Iraq's income comes from those oilfields it was very much in the interest of the US to secure those fields from terrorist or insurgent attacks and to assist the Iraqis in getting them producing again.

    If we are to beleive your words that nobody can say what has happened to Iraqi oil then where have you obtained information that the US has profited in any way from Iraqi oil? Do you claim to have secret inside information?
    I would dispute your assertion that loads of Iraqi oil is missing. The amount of Iraq oil put on the open market isn't a secret and can be obtained.
    I can assure you that if the present administration was stealing and importing Iraqi oil to the US it would soon be uncovered and exposed in the American media much less the world news media.
    Speaking of bull, that kind of unsupported charge is what I would call bull.

    What does that mean? I have been here for 2 years I imagine and I don't know what you are referring to.

    Where is your good argument, well thought out rational and logical argument? You state that something is bull and that is it?
     
  4. majorwoody10

    majorwoody10 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    ca.usa
    via TanksinWW2
    anton ..in the us conspirecy to controll all the middleastern oil reserves is there a timetable for when we begin to benefit ? ..will we also have to invade the saudies ,kuwaities and uae...as near as i can tell , us oil companies are buying arab oil at the market price...i mean we are really going to have to steal a lot of arab oil before we even break even on our war costs to date...voter support for the occupation of iraq is erroading rather quickly now...when our troops come home will we still somehow be controlling all that arab oil ?...when is this great oil consirecy supposed to pay off with actual oil...in 10 years , 20 years, 40,50 ?...please ,how is this diabolical plan supposed to work?...perhaps we are even now building a giant secret pipeline that runs through the very center of the earth...could that be it ?
     
  5. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    I don't see how the "America went to war for oil" theory stands, either. Since the war in Iraq oil prices have risen unprecendentedly, and the US is still buying it for its high market price instead of siphoning it off to their factories. There is no official or informal 'control' over the oilfields by American troops or American companies. In short, no American advantage resulting from resource control becomes apparent from the facts of history since 2003.
     
  6. Anton phpbb3

    Anton phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Grieg, interesting to see that when you ask for arguments you yourself throw with mud.
    The first gulf war was between iraq and iran, a slight detail giving insight in what you know of the gulf region.

    You could consider to look at the book I referred to, it is written in the us by us authors so it is not from the terrorist lovers from europe = not an argument to ignore it ;-)

    princeton paperbacks 0-691-02764-1

    Looking forward to see a comment.

    (btw my last post has disappeared for some reason)

    Kind regards,

    [/i]
     
  7. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    What I said is a well known saying in military circles and not mudslinging at all. Try Googling it if you have never heard it before.
    The Iran/ Iraq war is most often referred to as the Iran/Iraq war whereas the first Gulf War usually refers to Operation Desert Storm.

    As to derogatory remarks about what I know or don't know about the Gulf region what would that be if not mudslinging?

    As to the book you are quoting; one can find all kinds of nonsense that gets published whether it be in the US or elsewhere. Every kind of conspiracy theory or so called psychic phenomenon gets published somewhere. More illuminating would be citing the authors references or footnotes for their claims.
    Independent verifiable claims that can be scrutinized for validity and reliability.
     
  8. Anton phpbb3

    Anton phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Grieg, one of the co-authors is Condoleezza Rice. It's not nonsense.
    Please read it.

    I am sorry if you feel offended. Please accept that when you stand for something someone might oppose it. I am not bashing you or something like that but I oppose your view and give arguments it would be nice when you would not overreact.

    Now let's discuss the topic again.

    Kind regards,
     
  9. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I will happily discuss any topic you like. I don't think I'm overreacting. I'm not the one hurling insults after all.
    I have no intention of purchasing the book you refer to just to refute your unsupported statements. What could this book possibly say about the US stealing Iraqi oil if it's co-author is the Secretary of State? That makes no sense.
    I haven't seen arguments advanced by you yet that can be debated, just unsupported claims
     
  10. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    Well i was around in the 80's when it was going on. War between Iraq and Iran was allways reffered to as Gulf war. Deserst shield/storm was first war in the Gulf directly and openly involving large US ground forces (US navy was very active during 80's Gulf war - operation praying mantis...).

    About N. Korea.
    They have completly defensive strategy. They know that incursions in the south would be stopped by reinforced US and S. Korean forces. For this reason they have massive concentrations of artillery near the border.

    Who said that you as US consumer would benefit from that oil. There are few others that will fill their pockets.
    US has large presence in Saudi Arabia, Kuvait... so they don't have to send army in as it is already there. :grin:
     
  11. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I was around too. In the US the Iran/Iraq war is generally called the Iran/Iraq war and the first Gulf War generally refers to the first US Gulf War. Your perspective may be different but it doesn't make mine incorrect.

    Since N. Korea is a closed society you have no way of knowing what war strategy they endorse, do you? If you know, how do you know?

    Do you have any evidence to suggest that any particular individual is profitting from Iraqi oil or are you just speculating?
    Yeah, I thought so :wink:
     
  12. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    Well Haliburton & co are rebuilding oil industry. Only problem is that insurgents are realy succesfull in blowing things up ( UPS. I beleive that was not part of original plan ). Just think how much they earned by building things that Iraqis are blowing up. And about earning on oil, did they pay back money they owercharged to US military?
    Yeah i thought so :grin:

    BTW
    Venezuelan cue documentary was Irish not French as i wrote somewhere (i watched it in German and i assumed that is French). You have it on google vodeo here:
    The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (documentary)
     
  13. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    So what? That is the business they are in. Many European companies have contracts with Iraq also. Haliburton is no different. As far as what they charged the US military that isn't really a concern to anyone not a US taxpayer. I am one and I'm not that concerned because they will be made to pay back any overcharges, I'm confident, because there are so many people and organizations scrutinizing their every move.
    We are getting far afield from what the US government's motives were in liberating Iraq in any case unless one wishes to indulge in conspiracy theories sans evidence. That appears to be a popular pastime with some here but it doesn't interest me much.
    Anyone with evidence of wrongdoing or dishonest motives please save time by producing it now and we can address it squarely without speculation and inuendo.
     
  14. Anton phpbb3

    Anton phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Well if you are so confident of your view Grieg why don't you give evidence yourself?


    You could at least look at evidence we give like the book I mentioned, but if you don't want to look at it or hear the evidence, it is useless to give evidence.

    About north-korea, like I said the us and the south-korean forces around the 38th line will be wiped out because of the artillery masses. Please read carefully what I say AROUND THE 38TH LINE! and not the whole korean peninsula. North-Korean strategy in case of war is to liberate the south before the us can bring in sufficient troops. That was the lesson from 1950-1953. That is why a large part of the army is concentrated within 70 miles of the 38th line, for the defence North-Korea is depending on its nuclear deterrence. This is the only language that the us neo-kolonial government understands, it is no wonder that countries being threat by the us develop a nuclear power.

    North-Korean strategy and tactics is based on Juche (freely translated: self-reliance). Juche is the ideology were the north-korean society is based upon, to learn and understand something of north-korea you first need to know Juche.

    Kind regards,
     
  15. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    Well not realy, ex-CEO of Halliburton Dick Chaney was and still is a leading figure in Iraq fiasco.

    Like FOX news :grin:
     
  16. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    So what? He is, as you point out, no longer associated with Haliburton and there is no evidence that he stands to profit in any way from the conflict in Iraq. When pressed for evidence of the claims made I notice that none is forthcoming.

    Fox News, yes among many others.
     
  17. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Because I'm not the one making unwarranted charges that cannot be supported, am I? Show me where I did so and I will endeavor to provide the evidence.

    It would be foolish to rush out to purchase a book on your recommendation when you have not been able to quote any relevant passages from the alleged book nor provide any of its surely listed sources. One is left to ponder whether you have read the book that you claim supports your charges.


    North-Korean strategy and tactics is based on Juche (freely translated: self-reliance). Juche is the ideology were the north-korean society is based upon, to learn and understand something of north-korea you first need to know Juche.

    Kind regards,[/quote]

    Juche is an idealogy, a political and philosophical ideology one might say but nowhere can I find any evidence that it represents a military strategy that Kim Jong (mentally) Il is committed to following.
    I must say though that it is a joy to debate such well informed people that are not only knowledgable but indeed privy to the highest level of military strategy in the most closed society in the world. I can only marvel.
    Are you perhaps a relative and (mentally) Il as well? :grin: (only joking, of course)

    Here you cross the line from opinions to insults. If you have been around as long as you say surely you know that the mods don't tolerate that kind of thing.
     
  18. Anton phpbb3

    Anton phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Grieg said:

    Look Grieg, Juche is the basis of all north-korean thinking if you don't know the meaning of Juche don't pretend you understand it.

    You are not serious, asking evidence but unwilling to look at it when mentioned.

    Kind regards,
     
  19. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I'm certainly no self-proclaimed expert on North Korean thinking and military strategy(unlike some) however what leads you to suppose that I don't know the meaning of Juche? Is it just more hurling of insults to no purpose?
    I have been presented with no prima facie evidence that would warrant further investigation of the charges and claims that you have made.
    My time is valuable (at least to me) and I don't squander it on pursuing frivolous investigations suggested by posters with no apparent support for their claims except an obvious bias against a particular nation.

    If you have nothing of substance to add to this debate I see no point no continuing it.
    If others wish to submit their opinions or facts now would be a good time to reinvigorate this topic before it degenerates further :grin:
     
  20. Anton phpbb3

    Anton phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Grieg, in one your posts in the tibet subject you post the following:

    This author disagrees:

    History: Mao by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday
    REVIEWED BY SIMON SEBAG MONTEFIORE



    MAO: The Untold Story
    by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday

    Cape £25 pp814

    How about incoherent posting!

    You give the title of a book but when somebody else does you claim it is not good enough.

    Yeah right..


    So for the other members who are serious open minded people I would like to know if you think the chances of a us attack have been increased or decreased since the nuclear test.

    What do you think?

    Kind regards,
     

Share This Page