N. Korea. Serious Issue at hand

SEOUL, South Korea - A North Korean foreign ministry official defended
North Korea's missile tests as a matter of national sovereignty, a Japanese TV report aired in
South Korea said.
ADVERTISEMENT


The footage, by the Japanese TBS network and broadcast by South Korea's YTN, showed Ri Pyong Dok, a researcher on Japanese affairs at the North's Foreign Ministry, saying no one can interfere in Pyongyang's missile program.

"The missile launch is an issue that is entirely within our sovereignty. No one has the right to dispute about it," he said. "On the missile launch, we are not bound by any agreement."

The report did not name the official or provide further details.

The confirmation would be the first by the North, which is believed to have launched at least six missiles, including a long-range Taepodong 2, early Wednesday morning. The long-range missile failed shortly after launch, and the others fell into the Sea of Japan, according to U.S. officials.

Link

For some reason, I don't think the Bush adminstration will take this all seriously. Even though we talked the talk already.

Boy Was I Right.

Nothing new since I am a betting man. I should of entered the 10K buy in at this years WSOP.:dance: :dance:

Well, the problem is...what can the U.S. really do? If we attack North Korea, Seoul is history. There are more guns, cannons and missiles aimed at Seoul than probably any other city in the world, from fairly close range. If we're willing to sacrifice Seoul and start a new war with North Korea, we would ultimately win, but it'd be a bloodbath, and I doubt the U.S. population would be real happy with death on that scale. Certainly South Korea would be quite unhappy. At least those left alive in the end would be unhappy. I'd rate the odds of conflict with North Korea as being around 5 percent or less, and only that high because their ruler is a nutjob and you just can't predict what crazy people might do.

Iran is a different story. I could easily see us attacking Iran, and doing so before November. And if Israel attacks Iran unilaterally, which is definitely not beyond the realm of possibility, then we'll get dragged into it too. I'd rate the odds of some conflict arising with Iran at around 50/50. (They probably don't have nuclear weapons yet, their air force and especially navy are weak, they don't have a huge standing army like North Korea, and they're causing problems in Iraq.)

Let's see ..... we're potentially gonna be involved militarily with NKorea, Iran, and in Iraq .... The dreaded axis of evil.

I'm starting to get tired of being the world's police force. Let somebody else worry about these two bit regimes.

I read recently that a couple of B-2 stealth bombers have been relocated to the base closest to Iran that has the necessary facilities to handle B-2 needs (it's in England). This could be routine, or it could be that the flight crews are starting to get familiar with flying into and out of that base so that they can be ready to go when/if we attack Iran. Since it's doubtful that we'd use ground forces in Iran, and would instead just use our air and naval superiority against them, there won't be a whole lot of indicators of an impending attack (like giant ships traversing the oceans laden with tanks and troops), but B-2 relocation is potentially one indicator that preparations are now underway. Another one would be carrier groups edging closer to Iran, which so far as I know isn't happening yet, but since that can happen in a matter of days, that's something they'd leave until the final week or two.

If we are going to attack Iran, it'll probably happen in October, shortly before the mid-term elections. This would allow Bush, Inc. to televise footage of obliterated nuclear research facilities and the like, which would probably help the Repugnicans do better in November.

I think Iran is imminent.

I saw a documentary on the Military channel about WW2 and the battle plans used.

The reason the US is building so many bases in Iraq is to change the factor known as the Force Ratio.

In a nut shell its the ability to provide force more effectivly than the enemy.

Putting air bases so close to Iran decreases refuel and rearm times on jets, and cuts react times. Also increases the likelyhood that pilots will be recovered if shot down over Iraq airspace.

I really dont see the difference between what we are doing and what other invaders have done thru history. Take your pick of conquerers, the US is doing the same thing.

Relate this to WW2, Iraq is poland, Iran is France and North Korea is Great Britain, the US part in WW2 to be played by China.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marlboroman

Relate this to WW2, Iraq is poland, Iran is France and North Korea is Great Britain, the US part in WW2 to be played by China.

---

I agree, the drama in Gaza has been planned to link Iran even closer to Hammas. We're essentially using the Jews to make the case for invading Iran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by graymatter

I agree, the drama in Gaza has been planned to link Iran even closer to Hammas. We're essentially using the Jews to make the case for invading Iran.

---

Ya it gets scary real fast dont it :eek:

What really brings it home for me and what we will be up against should the US continue this path, is China's space program.

I know that sounds a bit out of wack but hear me out.

At the start of the cold war there was a huge race to the moon, then allot of the technology was then used in a military fashion in the arms race with Russia under Reagan.

To be blunt about it, China's space program makes the US look like a bottle rocket and a plastic space man taped on the top.

Nough said.

Funny how Bush will invade Iraq when they had nothing to defend themselves with, but North Korea has publically threatened the US with nukes if it attacks them and Bush will not invade them.

Eh its common sense for bullies to go after the weaker prey.