[BengalTiger]

The general rule of thumb when dealing with an enemy many many times weaker than you is to trump up their abilities so going to war with them seems like a good idea.

Iran is not Germany. They aren't.

There are a few things Nazi Germany and Iran today have in common.

Comparisons to Nazi Germany and death camps and the like will get you ridiculed, not taken seriously.

My point was that talking doesn't always work, and I used Camberlain's appeasement policy, which lead to war and death camps as an example.

Second major point: The world is not recovering from a major world war. Quite the opposite, we have plenty of nations with tons of soldiers and defense budgets and nothing to do with them.

I never wrote the world is recovering from a major world war, but an economical depression (2001-2003, and 2008-...).

Do you really think the American people are going to accept a war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran with the possibility of war in North Korea AND keep US soil safe AND hold troops in reserve for disasters/unforseen wars?

There are a few SSBN's out there that guarantee peace in terms of conventional invasions, but are useless against acts of terrorism (unless someone thinks nuking Afghanistan as a response to 9/11 is a good idea). There also are US soldiers in South Korea and Japan already, so I don't think there would be a serious need for more if North Korea declares war.

[karajorma]

My point was that talking doesn't always work, and I used Camberlain's appeasement policy, which lead to war and death camps as an example.

It's a poor example then cause Chamberlain didn't talk. He just stuck his fingers in his ears and hummed loudly.

While we're sticking to British examples take a look at how The Troubles in Northern Ireland ended instead.

[MP-Ryan]

While we're sticking to British examples take a look at how The Troubles in Northern Ireland ended instead.

You might want to elaborate on that because most Americans know precisely squat about Ireland in general.

What karajorma is driving at is that the IRA/Loyalists continued their mutual campaigns of wanton destruction all the while Thatcher was trying to clamp down and refused to talk to them.  Meaningful progress on the mess in Ulster only came after a PM was willing to talk to all sides in the conflict to try to reduce the violence.  The situation is by no means resolved, but it's leaps and bounds ahead of where it was after the last iron-fisted PM had it.

Point being - most acceptable solutions are arrived at through compromise, which requires communication.  Believe it or not, even the Second World War ended with a compromise - the surrender (both in Germany and Japan) wasn't quite as unconditional as survey history books would have you believe.

[NGTM-1R]

We don't have to stay there. Clamping down on the nation is great for pushing numbers down, but it's not the same as fixing the country. When we leave, they will do what they want, period. If it's violence, it's violence, and years of US occupation won't fix that.

Beg differ. If we were talking about Vietnam, there would be truth to that...although then again, there wouldn't.

Eventually, somebody's gotta wear out. Given the will to remain in the fight by both sides, the simple truth is that the US has greater staying power. Kara has something of a point, but on the other hand you can argue that Thatcher's clampdown demonstrated there was a reason to sit down and talk because the IRA and the loonies from Ulster realized that they weren't going to win the way they were fighting. They could go on for probably a few more decades but the exercise would have been pointless.

The same situation prevails in Iraq. As it stands they can keep fighting on and on for maybe another forty years if they want, but as long as the US is there, it's a pointless exercise. And they're pissing off more and more of their own people in the process. The US has already been willing to sit down and talk to some of them, but they apparently haven't yet seen the point in the bargining table; they aren't yet willing to recognize that this struggle has failed, because people here keep holding out the possiblity of withdrawal.

[karajorma]

Of course the real irony is that the troops would have been out of Iraq a couple of years ago had the insurgents been smart enough to simply sit on their enormous cache of stolen weapons for a couple of years.

They actually gave the Americans a reason to stay.

[General Battuta]

...that's an excellent point, and I'm surprised I never thought of it myself.

[Blue Lion]

There are a few things Nazi Germany and Iran today have in common.

Hating Jews doesn't make you Hitler. If that were true, Steve down the street would be on the news every day as the next Hitler. He's not cause he works at Walmart and is an idiot.

Subscribing to the same political belief does not make you the same. It can't. If Obama and I agree on a topic, that doesn't make us the same.

My point was that talking doesn't always work, and I used Camberlain's appeasement policy, which lead to war and death camps as an example.

And I can show you war doesn't always work. You're trying to say if you talk you can end up with death camps, if you go to war you can end up with death camps. Talking doesn't automatically lead to death camps, this was a heart strings argument.

There are a few SSBN's out there that guarantee peace in terms of conventional invasions, but are useless against acts of terrorism (unless someone thinks nuking Afghanistan as a response to 9/11 is a good idea). There also are US soldiers in South Korea and Japan already, so I don't think there would be a serious need for more if North Korea declares war.

There are 33,453 US troops in Japan right now, and there are about 30,000 troops in South Korea. There are about 150,000 US troops alone in Iraq and they aren't able to keep the peace well. Imagine them against North Korea's huge army and potential Chinese backing.

You seriously underestimate their forces or overestimate the US troop numbers.  If war breaks out there, we WILL need to send troops. A lot of them.

[Blue Lion]

Eventually, somebody's gotta wear out. Given the will to remain in the fight by both sides, the simple truth is that the US has greater staying power. Kara has something of a point, but on the other hand you can argue that Thatcher's clampdown demonstrated there was a reason to sit down and talk because the IRA and the loonies from Ulster realized that they weren't going to win the way they were fighting. They could go on for probably a few more decades but the exercise would have been pointless.

So you're going to spend billions of dollars, more US lives, increased agitation in the Middle East AND decreasing our chances of engaging in a real conflict should it come along because maybe we might outlast the insurgents, and if we do, maybe the country will come together? There is no reason to believe that it will ever stop anytime soon.

The same situation prevails in Iraq. As it stands they can keep fighting on and on for maybe another forty years if they want, but as long as the US is there, it's a pointless exercise. And they're pissing off more and more of their own people in the process. The US has already been willing to sit down and talk to some of them, but they apparently haven't yet seen the point in the bargaining table; they aren't yet willing to recognize that this struggle has failed, because people here keep holding out the possibility of withdrawal.

If we stay, we agitate them and cause trouble, if we leave, we let them do whatever they want. So get them out, let the Middle East decide what it wants to do with this mess in their backyard and stop the drain on our budget and such. We may really need it at some point.

[Scuddie]

If we stay, we agitate them and cause trouble, if we leave, we let them do whatever they want. So get them out, let the Middle East decide what it wants to do with this mess in their backyard and stop the drain on our budget and such. We may really need it at some point.

Not entirely true.  The reason they are pissed of, and continuing to do so, is because more fuel is being added to the fire.  Iraq being all too similar to a war zone will do nothing but prolong this effect.  Likewise, pulling out of Iraq will have the same result because we left without cleaning up a mess.

Really, if we want to quell the sectarian violence, the occupation must cease to be a military one.  Nobody is going to adopt a revised culture if everyone has a gun to his head.  Stockholm syndrome doesn't work if people are in great fear for their lives.  The only way to get around the situation is to disarm (for the most part) and get the people to work with each other, rather than against each other.  So long as you always see a heavily armed soldier on every street corner, the populace will not be at peace.

[Mefustae]

If we stay, we agitate them and cause trouble, if we leave, we let them do whatever they want. So get them out, let the Middle East decide what it wants to do with this mess in their backyard and stop the drain on our budget and such. We may really need it at some point.

Not entirely true.  The reason they are pissed of, and continuing to do so, is because more fuel is being added to the fire.  Iraq being all too similar to a war zone will do nothing but prolong this effect.  Likewise, pulling out of Iraq will have the same result because we left without cleaning up a mess.

Really, if we want to quell the sectarian violence, the occupation must cease to be a military one.  Nobody is going to adopt a revised culture if everyone has a gun to his head.  Stockholm syndrome doesn't work if people are in great fear for their lives.  The only way to get around the situation is to disarm (for the most part) and get the people to work with each other, rather than against each other.  So long as you always see a heavily armed soldier on every street corner, the populace will not be at peace.

Exactly. And it had better be done fast, before the situation reaches such critical mass that the only way to bring the region under control would be to do something rather drastic, like decimate the population.

[Turambar]

[Snail]

Of course the real irony is that the troops would have been out of Iraq a couple of years ago had the insurgents been smart enough to simply sit on their enormous cache of stolen weapons for a couple of years.

They actually gave the Americans a reason to stay.

The insurgents want the Americans to stay. Mr. Osama (not Obama) himself said that he wanted to start a war of attrition that would bring down the US from the inside out.

[Turambar]

The insurgents want the Americans to stay. Mr. Osama (not Obama) himself said that he wanted to start a war of attrition that would bring down the US from the inside out.

oh wow.  mission accomplished.

[karajorma]

The insurgents want the Americans to stay. Mr. Osama (not Obama) himself said that he wanted to start a war of attrition that would bring down the US from the inside out.

Which is pretty stupid really. The actual goal of the Muslim fundamentalists has always been to install fundamentalist regimes in charge of their own countries. They only started to even care about the West when the Western governments (especially the US) helped prevent that happening. Fighting a war of attrition in Iraq did little to achieve their goals. Doing nothing until after a US pull out would have been a big help.

Which only goes to show that the leaders on both side of this conflict haven't got a ****ing clue.

[Snail]

Yeah, destroying the World Trade Center buildings actually did them a lot more harm than it was worth. The American counterattack on Afghanistan destroyed most of their military force... I guess Osama is like the Bush of the insurgency.

[TopAce]

Maybe not. It's not that expensive to organize another 9/11-scale attack. It takes thorough planning and a very reliable group of people to make sure nothing gets leaked.

[BengalTiger]

There are 33,453 US troops in Japan right now, and there are about 30,000 troops in South Korea. There are about 150,000 US troops alone in Iraq and they aren't able to keep the peace well. Imagine them against North Korea's huge army and potential Chinese backing.

You seriously underestimate their forces or overestimate the US troop numbers.  If war breaks out there, we WILL need to send troops. A lot of them.

Well in conventional warfare the front line is a line- you know where the enemy is, and who's friendly. You can be much more trigger happy, use much deadlier weapons and worry less about roadside bombs or shooting civilians.
That means the 60+k US soldiers would do much more damage to N K, than the 150k do to terrorists in Iraq.
I also admit that such an open war could cost millions per day, but less manpower is needed when you have a thin line to hold than when you need to police a whole county.

[Snail]

Why would you want to go to war with North Korea, anyway? Just because they're an isolated thing? Want more liberation? Their missiles can't even hit the west coast of the US. Let alone the UK.

[Flipside]

Chances are, a War with North Korea would be a bigger waste of manpower, money and resources than Iraq. Not only that, but China are not going to react well to it, the last thing they want is the US setting up an occupation in a country on their border. And when it comes to throwing resources into a conflict, the US is not going to match China, whose standing army is, iirc, several times the population of the US.

[BengalTiger]

I never wrote that I want war with NK, someone just wrote that they could be the aggressor.
Although Kim could use a little spanking for all the starving people in North Korea.


Also- China's army ain't really that much bigger than the US's armed forces. And I'll bet someone else's life that the US are far more technologically advanced, enough to even out the odds. Also- South Korea has a big military with good equiptment.