US Deploys Two More Carrier Groups to be Directed to Korean Penninsula

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, OneLight said:

I agree that he is more than just talk.  Not only is he arming his country for what I think are all the wrong reasons, but ff I remember correctly, he is also selling what he knows to Iran, another rogue nation, which is just as bad.

The problem I am having with all this is what actions from Kim wold be enough to actually put a stop to his developments if we have to stand alone?

 

 

Destroy his capabilities to develop the nukes, militarily, as well as his ability to test and launch.  Also destroy his ability to mount an immediate retaliation.

[OneLight]

5 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

Seems we invaded Iraq based on off them saying they had WMDs and talking trash to us.  It is not like they were actually a threat to our nation. 

I am still out on this one.  We know that Saddam had WMD's as he used them against Iran.  My question is, what did he do with them?  I don't believe he used them all and never rebuild his arsenal.  He did have enough time to move them to someplace else as his intelligence probably saw Bush II getting ready with his all his talk.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, OneLight said:

I am still out on this one.  We know that Saddam had WMD's as he used them against Iran.  My question is, what did he do with them?  I don't believe he used them all and never rebuild his arsenal.  He did have enough time to move them to someplace else as his intelligence probably saw Bush II getting ready with his all his talk.

Iraq is not really comparable.   Iraq did not have nukes and Iraq was already contained.   The WMDs were moved to Syria and part of those WMDs were used by Assad on his own people.

The war in Iraq was an unnecessary war, I think, Saddam was fully contained and posed no threat.   That cannot be compared to a rogue nation like N Korea that poses a far greater potential threat, which we cannot allow to grow.

[Running Gator]

4 minutes ago, OneLight said:

I am still out on this one.  We know that Saddam had WMD's as he used them against Iran.  My question is, what did he do with them?  I don't believe he used them all and never rebuild his arsenal.  He did have enough time to move them to someplace else as his intelligence probably saw Bush II getting ready with his all his talk.

Either way, Iraq was no threat to our nation, or really any other nation at the time we invaded.  Saddam's military never fully recovered from the beating he took in the first gulf war and relied on tough talk and his reputation.  I do not think he rebuilt his WMDs and instead put his resources in to tanks and such.  

[OneLight]

Just now, shiloh357 said:

Destroy his capabilities to develop the nukes, militarily, as well as his ability to test and launch.  Also destroy his ability to mount an immediate retaliation.

Yes, that would be the overall plan, but that still does not answer the when.  I also don't see this as just dropping a few well placed bombs here and there.  Perhaps, with or Navy approaching, and the satellites above, we can pinpoint most of what he has and where he has them, but I believe that the method of think he seems to have, they won't be easy to find, especially the nukes.  In order to ensure all was found, there wold have to be boots in the ground.

Saying all this, what would be the line Kim has to cross before we say enough is enough?  Just about everything he has tried lately has been a disaster.

I also really wonder just how loyal his troops are?  I am sure you have the special guards that are true loyal military personal, but I wonder about the regular Army he has.  They march very well, but is their heart really in it or are they fearful and just obey?

[OneLight]

3 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Iraq is not really comparable.   Iraq did not have nukes and Iraq was already contained.   The WMDs were moved to Syria and part of those WMDs were used by Assad on his own people.

The war in Iraq was an unnecessary war, I think, Saddam was fully contained and posed no threat.   That cannot be compared to a rogue nation like N Korea that poses a far greater potential threat, which we cannot allow to grow.

Basically what I think, but I have not follow this close enough to see this as a real fact.  I also agree that the second time we went into Iraq was a mistake, though I don't think it was because of what Saddam said.  George Bush wanted to complete what he thought his father did not finish.  But all his talk gave Saddam enough notice to move what had to be moved.

[Running Gator]

2 minutes ago, OneLight said:

Yes, that would be the overall plan, but that still does not answer the when.  I also don't see this as just dropping a few well placed bombs here and there.  Perhaps, with or Navy approaching, and the satellites above, we can pinpoint most of what he has and where he has them, but I believe that the method of think he seems to have, they won't be easy to find, especially the nukes.  In order to ensure all was found, there wold have to be boots in the ground.

Saying all this, what would be the line Kim has to cross before we say enough is enough?  Just about everything he has tried lately has been a disaster.

I also really wonder just how loyal his troops are?  I am sure you have the special guards that are true loyal military personal, but I wonder about the regular Army he has.  They march very well, but is their heart really in it or are they fearful and just obey?

I think most of his troops would fall all over themselves to surrender just like Saddam's did.  The damage NK could do would all be in basically the first couple of days.  By that time pretty much 100 miles south of the DMZ would be nothing but a smoking ruin.  

[OneLight]

6 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

Either way, Iraq was no threat to our nation, or really any other nation at the time we invaded.  Saddam's military never fully recovered from the beating he took in the first gulf war and relied on tough talk and his reputation.  I do not think he rebuilt his WMDs and instead put his resources in to tanks and such.  

I am not sure I fully agree as his scud missiles alone, without chemical warheads, did very little damage as they were not accurate.  More of a point and shoot weapon and a surgical  strike.

[OneLight]

3 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

I think most of his troops would fall all over themselves to surrender just like Saddam's did.  The damage NK could do would all be in basically the first couple of days.  By that time pretty much 100 miles south of the DMZ would be nothing but a smoking ruin.  

I would hope that any action taken would remove this threat first as they are our allies  and our own troops.  Even I can see the damage NK could do if this threat was not first removed.

[The_Patriot21]

1 hour ago, Running Gator said:

Seems we invaded Iraq based on off them saying they had WMDs and talking trash to us.  It is not like they were actually a threat to our nation. 

Well, first they did find evidence of WMDs and chemical weapons, but even then let's assume you have a point, there is a difference. Saddam wasn't threatening to launch nukes at us or our allies, north Korea has, and they do, beyond any shadow of a doubt, have nukes.