[Angus_D]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If you are going to post anti-American diatribes, it helps to at least know the chronology of what you are writing about. The Taliban are much more recent than you are apparently thinking. They were also mainly created by Pakistan.

Well I do apologise for being a young 'un with a foggy (at best) knowledge of events before I could speak, but hey. The problem I was trying to point out was that AFTER that happened, the world (not just the US) forgot about it, moved on, and look where that got us. Nobody thought that events over there had any relevance on their lives, but they were proved wrong. As far as I can tell, Americans generally have a very narrow outlook on the world, and think it's everybody else's problem until they are proven wrong (see WWII for an example). North Korea is very much America's problem, as it is a problem for the world community. That was meant to be the main point of my post.

The rest of your post is as stupid. For example: can't fight on two fronts? What do you think the US did in World War II? You are underestimating US military capabilities.

I am not forgetting about WWII by any means, but that was a long time ago and times change. Was it just your regular army back then or did you have regular joes called up? And anyway, the reaction to the threat is wrong... Having a "come then, we can take you all on!" attitude is not going to avoid conflict. Maybe conflict is unavoidable, maybe not, I don't have any answers there.

I have the greatest of respect for the British Army, but Britain had to strain to send the Task Force to the Falklands and is straining now to send 20,000 to the Gulf. The US already has 50,000 deployed and the number will almost certainly double or quadruple just like it did in the last Gulf War. Even post Cold War, the US has a big and very deployable Army.

I think you'll find the Russians had a much larger force in WWII, and that got them nowhere. Of course, they were a completely disorganized mess and the is much better prepared, I'm sure, just making an irrelevant comment to pass the time. The Falklands war was a complete waste of time (the Argentinians can have a bloody rock in the middle of nowhere for all I care).

I'm also baffled why you think it matters whether or not Saddam is captured.

I'm baffeld why you think I think it matters whether or not Saddam is captured.

[Atef's corpse]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
I think you'll find the Russians had a much larger force in WWII, and that got them nowhere.

It got them to Berlin, just in time to see Hitler's body smoking from a ditch. I think that was far enough, despite being what you call a 'disorganized mess'.

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by Atef's corpse:
It got them to Berlin, just in time to see Hitler's body smoking from a ditch. I think that was far enough, despite being what you call a 'disorganized mess'.

With millions dead and international help. They didn't have enough boots for one pair to a soldier, IIRC, which I would call a "disorganised mess".

[Ozmodiar]

The U.S. most certainly could fight a war on two fronts. Simey would know better than I, but I do believe we have a standing army of some 500,000 people? Combine that with tactical strikes from the Navy and Air Force, and you've got a fight on your hands.

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by Ozmodiar:
The U.S. most certainly could fight a war on two fronts. Simey would know better than I, but I do believe we have a standing army of some 500,000 people? Combine that with tactical strikes from the Navy and Air Force, and you've got a fight on your hands.

Quite possibly, but my main post originally was in response to the "North Korea is none of our business" attitude, which thanksfully seems to have been lost somewhere later on.

[Atef's corpse]

Originally posted by Ozmodiar:
The U.S. most certainly could fight a war on two fronts. Simey would know better than I, but I do believe we have a standing army of some 500,000 people? Combine that with tactical strikes from the Navy and Air Force, and you've got a fight on your hands.

Admiral Yamamoto, commander of Japan's Navy before war in the Pacific and during its first 16 months, told the Empire of Japan that he could only guarantee six months of victories against the US. If Japan had not eliminated the US ability or will to fight by that time, he said that the war would turn. Six months later, with the carriers still intact, the battle of Midway was won by the American infidels, and the Pacific front turned in America's favour.

The US might not be able to fight fully on two major fronts immediately, but the power and anger of the Great Satan would crush one enemy, keep another at bay, then turn to destroy the second insolent enemy with all the brutality of a man stomping a roach under his shoe.

[PB2K]

note : so many countries have nukes, the USA is the only one that actually used it against another country thus far.

North Korea is a real mess, malnutrition is supposed to be so bad, people eat roots and grasses.. I wonder if their 1.1 million soldiers are morally stable enough to take action.

What can we expect at most? Bush' fantasy "axis of evil" joining forces to bug around.

hmm.. writing this stuff down, things get clearer to me now

[Atef's corpse]

Originally posted by PB2K:
I wonder if their 1.1 million soldiers are morally stable enough to take action.

Considering that most of them have been severely indoctrinated since birth, with no access to countering influences or information, I think that, yes, they are ready and willing.

[Ozmodiar]

Yes, China's big army is scary. But so is a Stealth Bomber.

Speaking of nuclear nations, how many are we up to now? Officially it's USA, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, and Pakistan (right?). Israel obviously has nukes but it's not known if they're from their own programs or from the U.S. Same with Iraq: we don't know if they made em or bought em.

Not to mention the failed nuclear programs, like Brazil.

[Atef's corpse]

Originally posted by Ozmodiar:
Israel obviously has nukes but it's not known if they're from their own programs or from the U.S.

Israel did not receive nuclear weapons or know-how from the United States. It got a lot of help from the French early on--they actually exchanged some nuclear tech (yes, the Israelis had developed some good techniques that the French wanted), and from an early date in Israel's history (post 14.05.1948), it had begun extensive nuclear research and development, particularly in the Negev desert.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ozmodiar:
The U.S. most certainly could fight a war on two fronts. Simey would know better than I, but I do believe we have a standing army of some 500,000 people? Combine that with tactical strikes from the Navy and Air Force, and you've got a fight on your hands.

It's somewhere around that number. I'm a little out of date since there has been some reorganization since I got out in 1995. I think the US Army is still organized into 10 active duty combat divisions, with each kept pretty much at warfighting strength and which are roughly twice the size of a World War II division. There are also a number of separate brigades that are probably add up to another couple of divisions. And of course there are also a number of reserve divisions that are kept fully manned and equipped, but which would require a few months to fully bring up to qualification standard.

All in all, the Army is probably about half its Cold War peak, but still pretty potent and far more deployable than before. On that note, it is worth mentioning that most Army units took no part in Afghanistan at all. I understand that V Corps (my old outfit) out of Germany is now in Kuwait, but I Corps, which has responsibility for Korea, is unaffected. If the North Koreans think that all our forces would have to go to Iraq giving them free rein to act stupid, they would be mistaken.

In addition to the above there are also about another 200,000 US Marines as well as the Air Force and Navy. I'm not the best person to comment about those forces, but my impression is that they are up to strength, well equipped and ready.

Another thing about North Korea is worth mentioning. If North Korea moves across the border it isn't just a US problem. Obviously, South Korea is a sovereign country and several countries are pledged to come to its aid. I believe that would include all of the ASEAN countries, including such well-equipped armies as Thailand, Australia, and New Zealand. In addition, the ceasefire in effect in the Korean Peninsula isn't with the US, it is with the United Nations. That could potentially bring in other major powers such as Russia and China. North Korea isn't part of a communist bloc any more. Kim Jong Il can't get a nod and a wink from Uncle Joe Stalin and Chairman Mao as his father got before invading in 1950. They really are on their own now.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Powerbook:
One could think you never left your country. But wait, you 'know' something about Canada or Mexico. Hm, so you crossed the borders south and north. Wow.
Widening the own horizon is not one of your daily interests.

PB.

You must be mistaking me for somebody else. Or you're just a 13 year old child that couldn't enter the discussion at its current level of intellect.

It may surprise you to know that I have spent time in dozens of countries other than the United States. Canada and Mexico included.

and NEW JERSEY - for the dolt in that other thread that suggested I couldn't comment on New Jersey unless I lived there.

carry on.