|
| Thread: the "black list" poll |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted April 16, 2003 10:51 AM |
|
|
Dear dear, shot yourself in the foot there mate.....
Quote:
Fact: The United States military is much larger than North Korea's. It is also more advanced and is better trained. Both China and NK are very inexperience in modern day combat also. Advantage US and SK
Not so, quick thought for you ok? How many NK troops are deployed in other countries? Yeah, that's right, ours may be larger, but the US and UK are deployed all over the world. Take the british forces, total armed forces trained strength of (roughly) 140,000. Of that 45,000 are in Iraq, and though I do not have exact figures at least as many are going to be in the combined areas of Sierra Leone, Kossovo, Afghanistan, Gibraltar and the Falklands (to name but a few) that gives you 90,000 or well over half our trained army, and that's before you add those defending the UK! Try again hey? Though I don't know american stats I imagine likewise they have committments elsewhere which would alter this "lets look at the total army stregnths and see who's got more" argument.
I merely did not quote NK army numbers as I do not know them exactly.
Quote:
China is about a decade behind the United States as far as weapons and technology goes
It has nuclear weapons does it not? 10 years is more up to date than Iraq! And they also posess radar capable of guiding SAM's to bring down your precious stealth planes.
Quote:
Like I said before, you don't know what the hell you are talking about
Whereas you rely on jingoistic and simplistic rhetoric to win arguments I tend to offer facts at least when I know them.
Quote:
I was expecting friendly intelligent discussion, but using the word "BS" on your fellow HC member, humm, that sounds neither friendly, nor intelligent.
I wasn't  From the moment he opened his mouth it was clear he's decided that my arguments are rubbish. He offers no real evidence to back his remarks about previous arguments and the quotes he offers for this are to say the least simplistic. Why expect reason?
Quote:
If USA does invade NK, she will most likely win, but the war will be very costly. We are talking about a country that neither denied the existance of weapons of mass destruction (definitely chemical weapons, possibly nuclear ones), nor the willingness to use them.
Precisely, America doesn't fight wars of high casualties anymore, it's bad publicity.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
kaiser
Tavern Dweller
für das Vaterland
|
posted April 16, 2003 05:03 PM |
|
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted April 16, 2003 08:24 PM |
|
|
loool@chubbs
not that i agree with him in any way but his posts are sure fun
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 16, 2003 11:47 PM |
|
|
Some things and people here never change do they? 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
chubby051
Promising
Known Hero
King of All That Are Fat
|
|
posted April 17, 2003 04:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I tend to offer facts at least when I know them.
You gonna post these facts anytime soon? or just continue to scratch at thin air?
Quote:
From the moment he opened his mouth it was clear he's decided that my arguments are rubbish.
Another Sherlock moment for you. Why would I post if I thought otherwise?
Quote:
He offers no real evidence to back his remarks about previous arguments and the quotes he offers for this are to say the least simplistic.
LMAO, the're your quotes. Pretty obvious who the simplistic one here is.
Quote:
And they also posess radar capable of guiding SAM's to bring down your precious stealth planes.
LOL. Lets see your proof of this.
Quick FACT for you, ok?
Total Armed Forces:
United States = 1,500,000
South Korea = 600,000
Total = 2,100,000
vs
North Korean = 1,100,000
Subract your so called "occupied" troops, and do the math.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 17, 2003 11:08 AM |
|
|
And how many of them are Naval personnel? Air Force? 2nd Line admin and supply Troops? How many are in other areas? You have at least 300,000 of your most highly trained troops sitting in Iraq including a fair few of your most famous divisions. You can't simply quote simplistic generalised facts and expect them to work.
Quote:
Another Sherlock moment for you
How ironic, my surname is holmes
Quote:
LOL. Lets see your proof of this.
Don't need to, in the last gulf war the first few air strikes by the RAF tornado bombers were targetted specifically at the 3 or 4 such radar the Iraquis possessed BEFORE the stealth bombers were sent in. It was in such operations that 30% of the tornado planes were lost within the first week, flying low and raiding radar stations and airfields to enable the skies to be safe for the slower flying planes like the B52s and Stealth planes.
Quote:
You gonna post these facts anytime soon? or just continue to scratch at thin air?
No time nor care on this subject to dig out specific facts. Try looking around, say the historical alternatives thread by bort
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted May 03, 2003 03:38 PM |
|
|
Well, no matter the circumstances in the 'interesting' US vs. NK debate, I still belive that Syria will be the next. NK and the US seem to have become quite close in the last weeks, as far as I've picked up the mood. But NK still isn't unlikely.
But Syria is still the most likely. The US and UK are trying to provide 'evidence' that Syria have some of the Iraqi 'WMD's' and that Saddam and his sons are there. So, in light of these facts, and others, I belive Syria will be next.
But as I said in my last post in this thread, they'll hopefully solve this in a peaceful and reasonable way.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Draco
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 26, 2003 04:58 PM |
|
|
well if you think about it, even if the US has 2.1 Million man/woman army do you honestly think they will send ALL of them leaving nothing at home? nothing in Iraq? nothin in Afganistan? at most i imagin they could send to a war without a very serious fear of retaliation (china could take the us if they had no army left not that they would, but the could) is from 40-50% so from 2.1 million with SK they now have close to 1 million, NK has 1.1 you said i believe so now they have fewer men and dont know the terrain, nor do they have the same will to win, if the US loses anywhere over 1000 men then Bush will not be re-elected and therefor he would not allow the attack of NK he'll distract us with little country's like iraq who never had anything (except vans that 'could' have built WMOs). He wants to be re-elected and generaly speaking americans like seeing them win wars. these wars are only fought for the chance to win another election and you will see things like "during our time in office we have won 2/3/4 wars and saved the world from the evil forces --Vote Bush"
____________
|
|
grendal
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2003 06:04 AM |
|
|
When dealing with countries that have nuclear weapons(with NK, being friends of china and the former soviet union, i believe they do), does it really matter how many men one country has over the other. We all lose when the bombs go off.
Who should the americans invade next? NO ONE!!!
Why? To answer this we should look at what motivates the americans to invade countries. (i honestly believe britain had good intentions for invading iraq).
Was it weapons of mass destruction? Well, it started out that way, but changed somewhere during the war. Prior to the war, we saw huge amounts of propaganda with respect to WMD. Old outdated photos and intel info that has proven nothing except they dont exist anymore. Even the american inspectors say this now. Also u have to ask yourself why arent the un arms inspectors allowed in to verify any findings (if they do at all) of WMD. If the americans say they have found WMD, i for one will believe that they were planted. Until they justify why they dont want independant corroboration of the u.n. inspectors, they just cannnot be trusted to tell the truth.
Was it to liberate and save the iraqi people from an evil dictator? (which sadaam was of course) You would think that if this was the case, they surely wouldve started with other countries such somalia, zimbabawe, congo, or just pick an african nation that has hundreds of thousands of people being masacred. Of course we havent seen them protect any of them, or save any of them. So one has to ask himself, why iraq and not the others. Add to this, the only thing the americans protected after the fall of the iraqi regime was the oil wells. No protection for the museums, the banks, the mass graves. Nothing of significance to the population of iraq was protected. Again i gotta ask why? It seems that american companies now have control of the oil in iraq. They will refurbish the oil wells, get them producing, and sell the oil on behalf of the iraqi people. But like all corporations these days, they have to make that 15% return on there investment for there shareholders. So iraq will get money from the oil sales.....minus the american oil companies 15%.
The main reason for the muslim hatred of the united states, imho is the meddling the americans have done for decades into the business of foreign countries. There are many countries that they have done this to...successfully i might add. I know the republicans sent a bunch of campaign strategists to ontario, canada to help get the conservatives elected there. They won in a landslide in 1995 and are still there. If much of what they have done to influence the politics of foreign countries, was done on their government, war would be called or treason charges would be levied. I belive some neo-conservatives wanted to charge al gore for iliciting contributions from china to the democrats in the presidential election.
So who will the americans invade next? Just look at what will advance there foreign interests the most and that will be the next target. Iran has lots of oil, so my guess is it will be them. If a country doesnt have anything to advance their interest, then they dont care.
Bottom line is america already dominates the world militarily, the only thing left is economically. And they are working towards that.
p.s when i say americans i refer to the bush regime mainly. Not all americans think like him. After all they consider themselves as the most democratic country in the world, yet bush didnt even win the majority of the vote in the last election.
____________
Life is full of frustrations, heroes should help release it!
|
|
allu
Known Hero
the supreme heroe
|
|
posted June 26, 2003 12:21 AM |
|
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted July 02, 2003 11:22 PM |
|
|
I've been reading the debate in this thread about US v. NK. I say North Korea doesn't stand a chance (this is if we actually do use military action to get rid of the North Korean tyrants) against the US. North Korea has weapons of mass destruction, that's generally agreed upon. I don't see why that is such a big deal. The North Koreans know full well that if they use them then France, Russia and the rest of Europe will side with the US and Britain without a doubt. The reason NATO didn't want to eradicate Iraq is because they didn't do anything yet. If North Korea decided to make use of its weapons, then they would be ganged up on and would be destroyed in a matter of weeks. China wouldn't be stupid enough to come to their aid since they don't want to bee any more crippled than they already are. *gasps for breath, then continues* North Korea is all talk if you ask me, they wouldn't dare attack anyone. Syria however would. The Middle East ( I mean no offense to anyone of Middle Eastern origin mind you, I'm going to take a shot at their governments ), anyway, The Middle East seems to think that since they have oil, no one can do anything to them, and they're free to do whatever they want. Well they're in for a surprise if they keep housing terrorists like the Syrians. My vote goes for Syria. Sorry for such a long post. Hope you were not TOO bored. *Phew*
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 03, 2003 12:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I've been reading the debate in this thread about US v. NK. I say North Korea doesn't stand a chance (this is if we actually do use military action to get rid of the North Korean tyrants) against the US.
That, strangely enough is what most people said about Vietnam. NK doesn't have to militarily defeat the US, it merely has to inflict heavy casualties and draw out the conflict until it becomes a political disaster in the west.
Quote:
North Korea is all talk if you ask me, they wouldn't dare attack anyone
Agreed, they're not insane, unlike what has sometimes been suggested as the motive for developing WMD's there.
Quote:
Syria however would. The Middle East ( I mean no offense to anyone of Middle Eastern origin mind you, I'm going to take a shot at their governments ), anyway, The Middle East seems to think that since they have oil, no one can do anything to them, and they're free to do whatever they want. Well they're in for a surprise if they keep housing terrorists like the Syrians. My vote goes for Syria.
Hmmm interesting, firstly Syria has been harbouring terrorists for a long time, as yet no-one bar Israel has made a serious attempt to stop them with an invasion though. As for their options of invading someone, I find it unlikely unless under an alliance of nations, they themselves have never fought even Israel without backing of a country like Egypt. And on top of all this Britain does a nice trade in arms with Syria atm, which is making Blair nervous about suggestions to invade them.....
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted July 03, 2003 12:26 AM |
|
|
Out of curiosity, Private Hudson, which country did you vote for? I don't want to fish through the thread looking for your post, sorry.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 03, 2003 12:38 AM |
|
|
Iran at the time on the basis that unless Blair actually bothers to install this so called "ethical foreign policy" he's been banging on about since 1997 he's unlikely to wish to loose a valuable customer in Syria. Britain's great really, we still have a world role, it's as a blood sucking mercenary nation that will sell planes, tanks, guns and pretty much anything else to anyone who can cough the money up, hell we'll even use tax payers money to pay the company should the deal fall through after the arms have been built....
What wonderful allies Bush chooses
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted July 03, 2003 12:41 AM |
|
|
Britain does benefit from the sales though and I''m sure you've recieved some of the benefits. Tax cuts, maybe?
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 03, 2003 12:47 AM |
|
|
I'd rather pay slightly more in tax than have my country selling Jets to Indonesia and tanks to Nigeria at which point they are then used to maim and kill thousands of innocent civilians and keep millions under oppressive regimes.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted July 03, 2003 12:54 AM |
|
|
Third world countries shouldn't be buying weapons in the first place, they should be buying food and medicine for the people. Maybe they should establish an economy before worrying about if they are on the same military level as the world powers.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 03, 2003 01:06 AM |
|
|
That would be the perfect world yes. The point could be turned on it's head though, they would not be able to buy anything if we did not sell it to them....
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted July 03, 2003 01:12 AM |
|
|
|
What I'm saying is that the money that Syria uses to buy the weapons from Britain should be used to buy food from Britain. The Brits don't lose any money and the third world countries don't pay any extra, the only difference is that they now have food and medicine. Why do they feel they need weapons. The Middle East has their oil. If someone attacks them, NATO will defend them because NATO needs that oil. Not all third world countries have dictatorships. The democratic ones still buy weapons though. These are the countries I'm referring to when I say they should buy food rather than weapons. The dictatorships buy the weapons for a reason. So I don't think there is any way to change their minds.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 03, 2003 01:17 AM |
|
|
And if it's nato doing the attacking? Every country needs an army, and therefore every country needs arms, the difference is, advanced nations should not be selling these arms, and if they do then they can drop this benevolent ethical FP idea because it's clearly utter rubbish.
So my point still stands, whether they want the arms is irrelevant, we should not be selling them any, then it becomes harder for them to use their money on arms. They can't buy anything if we don't sell it to them, WE can do something as well. We don't though, and that says much for the attitude of Blair.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
| |
|
|
