A little full of yourself aren't you. You know what happens when you ASS-U-ME don't you? Guess not...or you would not have made such a ridiculous post. My reply was aimed at Poppy. Seeing as he posted this just above my response Since you lack knowledge in the recent goings on in North Korea... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10272953/Kim-Jong-uns-ex-lover-executed-by-firing-squad.html http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/ex-girlfriend-north-korean-leader-kim-jong-executed-firing-squad-report-article-1.1440186 http://world.time.com/2013/08/29/kim-jong-uns-former-lover-executed-by-firing-squad-after-making-sex-tape/ http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-north-korea-kim-girlfriend-executed-20130829,0,640219.story http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/north-korea-leader-kim-jong-uns-2235131 Yes, English is my first and only language. Sorry, but I never saw your post that I am "supposedly" responding to... PS Who pissed in your Cheerios today?
GS, Takao is one the most respected members on the forum. I understand why you thought that it was directed at you, but your response was completely uncalled for -- especially [falsely] implying that Takao is Japanese and as such has a poor understanding of the English language. Anyways, rant over. I'll go back to my proper place in this thread as one of the pundits...
In my opinion, its not just the DPRK nuclear program. China has in the past been very protective of the North. There's a couple of possible reasons for this, but I think that having a 'buffer zone' between the South Koreans (and its affiliated 30,000+ US troops) is paramount. Any US/ROK war with North Korea would undoubtedly result in the destruction of the Kim regime as we know it (and most likely the end of North Korea as a sovereign state as well). How would this change the shape of the peninsula? Instead of a several hundred mile 'no mans land', US/ROK forces would be right on the border of the PRC. Keep in mind that the PRC and US have had a tepid relationship at best. This is almost certainly something the Chinese want to avoid. Look at how Russia complained about having NATO anti-missile defenses within range of its borders -- this would be much more of a threat than that. How would you feel with strong, modern and well-trained nuclear armed forces within 20 minutes flying time of your major cities? IMHO, the North Koreans serve no other major purpose to China, unless they really have a big of a demand for counterfeit US bills, crappy nylon and phony medications. (See Victor Cha's book for more on those two -- fascinating stuff). Add to that North Korea's 7+ million strong standing army (even if its armaments are hopelessly outdated), 20+ million strong 'reserves', massive artillery arm ready to hammer the DMZ and make ground combat costly (1950s-1970s-vintage Soviet artillery can still do very serious damage) and large and air defense network (not modern by anyone's standards, but to engage it would certainly not a cakewalk like it was in Libya), and you are looking at a serious deterrent to any type of foreign intervention. On top of that, Seoul is just 35 miles south of the DMZ, and is targeted by hundreds of DPRK rockets and long range artillery pieces. Despite what you might think about their rocket program given the news coverage, the short range ones (<200 miles) are nothing to scoff about and work quite well seeing as how they're license-built copies of good Soviet ones. The 'serious fighting' in North Korea wouldn't last long (maybe a few months at most) under a prolonged, full-force assault, but in that time it can cause the South Koreans serious grief and bring the Asian economic sector to a complete halt. Even after the fighting is over, reunification (that is, South Korean occupation) would be very costly. Look at the economics of the East/West German unification in the late 1980s, and multiply that cost by at least 10 times to account for the level of political indoctrination, destroyed infrastructure and massive gap in the standard of living. By cutting off the North Koreans, I think the international community is hoping that they will just wither off and the regime will die. Its [slowly] working, and this is probably the best solution to a very difficult problem. Any form of major direct engagement is simply impossible without serious consequences. You can thank the good ol' IAF for that. *cough* *cough* Think back to 2007 *cough* *cough*. Israel is quite capable of defending itself, and has the best military in the region (in no small part due to its undeclared, but estimated, 80+ nuclear warheads which ready to be delivered via the jet and missile 24/7). Their biggest threat, Iran, has numbers going for it, but that's about all. The highly-trained and well-equipped contingent of the Iranian military is actually pretty small in comparison to its entire armed forces. A nuclear deterrent works pretty well, and being under the protective wing of the US and NATO makes attacking it essentially suicidal. Once Iran gets a nuke of their own, and more importantly a small enough warhead and a reliable delivery system for it (at least one - likely both - of these the DPRK does not have, by the way), the situation might significantly change.
The British parliament vote last night, was more likely that individual mp's actually listened to the military family rather than the public as a whole... The family is buzzing. Hence many internet forums, and respected millitary commentators have influenced them for once. A token look on any Brit military forum or fb page will tell you just what the armed forces family think of Mr.Cameron at this present time. You'll find it difficult to find a single comment in support. Although forces do as they are told, vetrans organisations now at least have a direct line to mp's. This present lot push the military here as their favourite British item since 1066...The mp's reputations are on the line with the military after their last few years of hypocracy and meaningless words on serving and ex serving folk. They cannot get away with cut and burn and then praise in same sentecnce...Their is no support for Syria in today's military. They'll go as they always do...But it will be the end of the line for the govt with the armed forces family.
Well, then I apologise if I came over as a bit overbearing. Perhaps the whole misunderstanding could have been avoided by the use of quotes in your post, then it may have been slightly more obvious to whom you were replying? I try not to keep up with celebrity gossip. I really could care less about which Kim killed which girlfriend at this stage. I never kept up with the killings of Uday either. I don't really see how its world news. It didn't make the BBC's mobile app ticker, nor CNN's. Nor the nightly news where I live. Can't be aware of everything.
From my reading most of the Syrian rebels are not well described as being on a Jihad. That's actually a fairly small portion all be it some of the more effective fighters. Of course the "secular" regime is also employing a known terrorist force as well as accepting considerable aid from a nation that can hardly be considered secular.
Well the "special relationship" is a bit threadbare these days but if the Americans and French go ahead together in direct action, it could be the final nail in the coffin. I just have a feeling that we are about to see a major change in the perception of the UK as an Ally by Americans.
The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
I doubt that very much mate...the papers may cry for a while..but nothing will change...Unless of course the Americans are prepared to remove all their bases from UK and end their signals int network worldwide in one move. Mutually beneficial is the word....And forgo their satelite base at Oakhanger and find another comms network for relaying their drone network comms. Menwith Hill would go and so too would all elint and Sigint staff in RAF bases wearing American uniforms. Hot seating with our own guys...And of course the USAF microwave network including GCHQ traffic would have to be removed too...
After being saddled with Gordon Ramsey, Simon Cowell and all the other obnoxious Brit's flooding our television this will seem like a tempest in a teapot. Besides, support is tepid here at best for military action, so we can't be too critical about British.
Not quite single digits, but abysmally low none-the-less: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/polls-americans-attack-syria-support-limited-action/story?id=20118605 I think that even at the height of the Iraq War's unpopularity there was more support than there is now for a potential Syria campaign. EDIT: It appears that the lowest support was in 2007; "On August 6–8, CNN polled 1,029 adults nationwide. 33% said they favored the war in Iraq, 64% opposed, and 3% was undecided. (Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq#August_2007).
Fair enough. I must have mis-heard the stat that was being reported. Interestingly, from the poll you cited are the results of two questions: Q10 Is taking military action against the Syrian government in our national interest or not? If you do not know enough about this to have an opinion, please just say so and we will move on. Yes, in our national interest ........................ 21 No, not in our national interest ................... 33 Don’t know enough to have an opinion ...... 45 Not sure .................................................... 1 Q11 Do you feel that the use of U.S. military force against the Syrian government will improve the situation for civilians in Syria or not? If you don’t know enough to say either way please just say so. Yes, will improve the situation .................... 27 No, will not improve the situation ................ 41 Don’t know enough to have an opinion ...... 31 Not sure .................................................... 1 So, the thought process is: It's not in our interest. It's not going to help. Let's go drop some bombs on Syria. Swell foreign policy.
It also makes for good TV ratings -- I imagine that the news networks already have talking points prepared and stock footage of Tomahawk launches ready to go. In other news, Raytheon stock has been trending upwards and reached an all-time high (ignoring inflation) last Friday.
Dropping bombs might be a little inaccurate Tommy. ..Maybe "launching million dollar missiles" is better- and literally more accurate than iron bombs. People should be reminded that they have to pay for war. It's not free. And- isn't the US broke? ..GP has already brought up Ratheon. And thinking GE may do well also- manufacturing the lights [munitions/war] in order to make a good show [networks/ broadcasts]...Ask David Letterman what he thinks of GE.
We all heard so much about 'what Tony's Legacy would be' back in the day. David Cameron just found out ................................
