Guest Posted February 6, 2003 brgnorway posted this topic in the Iraq thread, but I think it deserves a thread of its own. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">North Korea has warned the United States that any decision to send more troops to the region could lead the North to make a pre-emptive attack on American forces. <span id='postcolor'> Full BBC Article Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longinius 0 Posted February 6, 2003 Well, it was just a matter of time. The US set the standards for what can and can't be done in their actions against Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course the "bad guys" will use the same arguments. Hopefully its just a bunch of bull intended to piss westerners off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Col. Kurtz 0 Posted February 6, 2003 To me it sounds like NK is playing Americas own game of waving threats of premptive strikes around....... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Col. Kurtz 0 Posted February 6, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 06 2003,21:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hopefully its just a bunch of bull intended to piss westerners off.<span id='postcolor'> I agree, I'm not really in the mood to have a nuclear device dropped on me departing from North Korea. So hopefully they are just playing a war of words, as per usual. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 6, 2003 I am certain that it is empty rethorics, but it is still very dangerous. NK is not a very stable country and if a coup'd tat would take place, nobody knows what extremist can come into power. Bush has set the political justification for NK attacking the US. I think "in your face" is a good expression at this point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Col. Kurtz 0 Posted February 6, 2003 They'll probably have to come out with Bush Doctrine 2.1 that says that only the United States of American and/or her allies are allowed to use premptive strikes to eliminate potential threats to their nations so they can continue to be holier than thou. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leone 1 Posted February 6, 2003 Nahhhhhhhh...they'll just change it to read "This only applies to Terrorists and/or Axis of Evil countries. Not the United States. That's what Daddy told me to say". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted February 6, 2003 This is what I ment when I said multiple times that the preemptive strike will be adapted by any nation on this planet for their own reasons. Nobody took me serious, but now you see what it already causes. By now it is 1000000 NK soldiers vs 37.000 US soldiers in the region. Have fun. Edit : forgot 900000 soldiers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joltan 0 Posted February 6, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 06 2003,15:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By now it is 100000 NK soldiers vs 37.000 US soldiers in the region. Have fun.<span id='postcolor'> You forgot a 0 there - it's 1 million NK agains 37 thousand US - well, plus 660 thousand SK troops. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blake 0 Posted February 6, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 06 2003,16:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is what I ment when I said multiple times that the preemptive strike will be adapted by any nation on this planet for their own reasons. Nobody took me serious, but now you see what it already causes. By now it is 1000000 NK soldiers vs 37.000 US soldiers in the region. Have fun. Edit : forgot 900000 soldiers  <span id='postcolor'> Are you deliberately forgetting ROK Army which has at least million reservists? They have conscription you know. I think NK could bloat it's army to 1.5m-2m but anyway they wouldn't stand a chance attacking SK. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted February 6, 2003 NK has been talking trash for a long time, this isn't anything new. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DarkLight 0 Posted February 6, 2003 Only difference is, now they seem to be more serious and this time they've made it very clear... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longinius 0 Posted February 6, 2003 "NK has been talking trash for a long time, this isn't anything new." The new thing is actually that the US cant very well object to it, since they started the whole trend... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ale2999 0 Posted February 6, 2003 I am on tylenols so I am not thinking straight (i love the US btw). The US are gonna attak iraq because it is placed in a strategical place in the middle east. US is gonna put their bases there and with Israel start a big war. from there it isnt to far to send their Soldiers directly to NK. US takes over NK. but this could be only a fake Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted February 6, 2003 It doesn't matter who can object to it, they've always been talking trash like this. And it doesn't matter who started it, but NK did. They violated the treaties and so forth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
E6Hotel 0 Posted February 6, 2003 Who the hell is running North Korea, Ernst Stavro Blofeld? It's pathetic. We'll see who's laughing when our army of ninjas assaults The Great Leader's hidden volcano fortress. Semper Fi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted February 6, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Who the hell is running North Korea, Ernst Stavro Blofeld? It's pathetic. <span id='postcolor'> He only used the words and patterns shown by the "Man with the golden gun" G.W. Bush Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badgerboy 0 Posted February 6, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NK has been talking trash for a long time, this isn't anything new.<span id='postcolor'> I hope your right. N Korea is capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to any major city in Korea or Japan, and their leadership has a rep for being paranoid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badgerboy 0 Posted February 6, 2003 Just for fun I've equipped the N Korea forces in Falcon 4.0 with 3 atomic devices. Lets see how the dynamic campaign plays out..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted February 6, 2003 look, this is just North Korea's latest attempt to up the ante and regain attention. Iraq started to heat up again, NK slipped from the headlines, so what do they do? Come up with a new wacky scheme to gain attention. I would expect nothing less from a man who has a huge 1930's style film crew following him around 24/7. Unfortunately, you can only go so far with this brinksmanship before you eventually have to put your money where your mouth is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr. Duck 0 Posted February 6, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Feb. 06 2003,17:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NK has been talking trash for a long time, this isn't anything new.<span id='postcolor'> I hope your right. N Korea is capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to any major city in Korea or Japan, and their leadership has a rep for being paranoid.<span id='postcolor'> Even if the DPRK launched a couple of warheads (assuming that they, DPRK, strikes first) wouldn't the whole world be quite angry? This would give the coalition a good reason to invade it (maniac has nukes and he used them blablabla...). Perhaps the U.S. would level pyongyang with her own nukes? Damn... What's going on in this world? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Necromancer- 0 Posted February 6, 2003 HAH... I bet at least 80% of the NK troops will defect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 1 Posted February 6, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ Feb. 06 2003,21:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I bet at least 80% of the NK troops will defect.<span id='postcolor'> The problem is that somewhere within the other 20% are the guys that control the nukes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted February 6, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 06 2003,14:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ Feb. 06 2003,214)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I bet at least 80% of the NK troops will defect.<span id='postcolor'> The problem is that somewhere within the other 20% are the guys that control the nukes. <span id='postcolor'> All of the above is nonsense. I'll bet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 1 Posted February 6, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 06 2003,21:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All of the above is nonsense.<span id='postcolor'> What you mean? 1. You mean 80% won't defect? 2. You mean they would never press the button? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
