"Now what are you gonna do about it?"

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
he's a nice prof. one m in his name.

tad liberal, though--he'd probably make an extremely liberal estimate.

The estimate is the Pentagon's. He's just the source for it.

[Drake Tungsten]

The estimate is the Pentagon's. He's just the source for it.

He's obviously under the control of the neo-cons then. I'll never trust a mouthpiece for Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle and the rest of the evil chickenhawks.

[Q Classic]

bruce cumings, under the control of neo-cons?

you should have heard how vehemently he was against the iraq war...

[Drake Tungsten]

you should have heard how vehemently he was against the iraq war...

It's all a trick. The neo-cons made him look like a liberal by telling him to oppose a war in Iraq. In the future, they're going to use his liberal credentials to sell a war with North Korea. It's so obvious.

I bet Cumings has ties to Halliburton and Bechtel as well.

[Q Classic]

read "korea's place in the sun", written before bush and co came to power. that liberal bit...

you're quite amusing.

what surprised me, sorta, was that realist thinker mearsheimer was against the war too... although he said it was mainly because he didn't think a regional hegemon like the us could effectively project its power over the ocean. damn convincing in person.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
what surprised me, sorta, was that realist thinker mearsheimer was against the war too... although he said it was mainly because he didn't think a regional hegemon like the us could effectively project its power over the ocean.

I thought that it was because he didn't believe that Iraq was a big enough threat to justify military action. According the what I've read, he never bought into the WMD excuse for the invasion.

[Q Classic]

hm. i never read his article "the case for war has not been made", even though i've tried to track it down.

i'm going off of one of his guest lectures in a class, and he very specifically mentioned that no regional hegemon can effectively surpass the barrier of the ocean.

i don't quite buy this, because of the case with england, but that's all i remember from my notes. ^^;

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
hm. i never read his article "the case for war has not been made", even though i've tried to track it down.

This is probably what your refering to: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/wwwboard/walts.html

[Drake Tungsten]

i'm going off of one of his guest lectures in a class, and he very specifically mentioned that no regional hegemon can effectively surpass the barrier of the ocean.

America isn't just a regional hegemon; we're a global hegemon. I don't see how anyone can believe that the US can't project power across an ocean.

[Q Classic]

ah, yes! i'd been looking for this. thanks.

[Q Classic]

drake, that's why i said i didn't quite buy it. in the case of britain, it fails because britain was able to do so with its heavy technological edge. in the case of america, it's sheer economic power coupled with a strong technological edge.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
America isn't just a regional hegemon

Yes, we are. We're the only one at the moment though.

[Drake Tungsten]

I bet this Mearsheimer fellow is under the control of the neo-cons as well. They're trying to confuse and disorient the next prospective victims of America's bloody warmongering.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yes, we are. We're the only one at the moment though.

I don't see how you can say this. America is the dominant military power in regions outside of North America. We're far more than a regional hegemon.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

The US should strike NK. Right now. Real hard.

'There you go - that's what we'll do about it'.

Now, what could NK do about that. Nothing. There crappy missile systems could not hit ANY part of the US, I would be willing to bet. Make an example out of them I say. Hit them so hard right at the start that they are not even capable of returning fire. And you could do that. they wouldnt even see it coming.

Yeah yeah yeah... some of you tell me how wrong I am. No one would have agreed if someone said before iraq that the US would only had 120 something killed and take the country in 20some days. Even I thought the US would take more like 500 dead doing Iraq.

NK would fold faster the Iraq.

[chequita guevara]

It's easy to play Russian roulette when the bombs will fall on the RoK and Japan. Plus, they have a missile which might very well be able to hit Alaska and Hawaii, and maybe even the mainland.

[Giancarlo]

Chegitz, you forget to mention they don't even know if these missiles have half decent tracking devices... chances are they will drop off into the pacific ocean.

[Q Classic]

nobody lives in alaska, and in hawaii, it's only more koreans, chinese, and japanese. it's all keeping it in the family, of sorts.

most of mine might not end up surviving, but hey, doesn't matter when the honor and glory of america is ensured, nee mwhc?

did the relatively easy victory of iraq make you confident and uppity? that's good. you'll need that confidence, because nkorea won't fold faster than iraq. our tanks and our mechanized infantry won't be as effective in nkorea--nkorea isn't, how shall we put this...er...flat. our planes and our navies won't be as effective because we don't have as good intelligence.
perhaps the only thing we have going for us is that everybody hates kim jong il...

[Q Classic]

that is, except the nkorean military themselves.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Fez
Chegitz, you forget to mention they don't even know if these missiles have half decent tracking devices... chances are they will drop off into the pacific ocean.

Nice of you to take chances with Honalulu and Ancorage. Maybe they will fall into the Pacific, and maybe they'll hit they're target.

The only thing we know for sure is, that stupid missile shield sure ain't gonna shoot it down. I just hope the Administration rememers it doesn't work yet. But I can see those ideologues thinking we're immune to DPRK retaliation.

[Giancarlo]

Just an interesting link:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/index.html

Probably doesn't say too much but it provides background.

[Q Classic]

the us might well be immune to it.

not so them yellow-skinned/bellied people.

that was a sarcastic comment.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

if they even have a nuke. which they probably do not. i would think if they did they would test it as soon as possible. just to show the world they really do have the capability.

i'm saying hit them so hard in the first 15 minutes that they CAN'T respond. If they do manage to launch any kind of missile than the US would knock it down.

why wait?! why wait for a NK with dozens of bombs?? remember - iraq and saddam are no longer an issue. taken care of forever.

[chequita guevara]

Neither Pakistan nor India tested their bombs. Pakistan traded reprocessing technology to the DPRK for missile tech.

What was it about Hussein giving away WMDs? Idjits run my government.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

iraq never had WMD. probably will never find any. the real reason for that war was to send a single and take some central land in the middle east. worked out pretty good i think.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by My Wife Hates CIV
i'm saying hit them so hard in the first 15 minutes that they CAN'T respond. If they do manage to launch any kind of missile than the US would knock it down.

Within minutes of a US strike, downtown Seoul would start raining shells. Even if the US could shoot down the nukes, a million dead Koreans are nothing to pooh-pooh.

[Q Classic]

paki and indi did both test their bombs.

nkorea won't fall in the first 15 minutes... with so many hardened arty installations that we don't know of...

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I thought that it was because he didn't believe that Iraq was a big enough threat to justify military action. According the what I've read, he never bought into the WMD excuse for the invasion.

Mearshimer felt that the WMD threat did not warrant the costs of the war in terms of diplomatic broken eggs and unintended consequences in the region vis a vi the terrorist threat.

i'm saying hit them so hard in the first 15 minutes that they CAN'T respond. If they do manage to launch any kind of missile than the US would knock it down.

The only minor (read..HUGE) problem with this notion is that it would take months to move all the airpower needed to even attempt such an act, and the North Koreans would not be blind to the immense buildup. Plus, the NK is much better prepared than the hapless Iraqis.

The NK would be unlikely to aim for the US: just hit Japan. Closer and a big fat target: think how many would die with a hit on downtown Tokyo...

Fez:
you are correct: China is now South Korea's biggest trade partner and China has been imporving relations with them drastically in the last few years. China has 0 interest in any war in the Korean peninsula, since they only lose from such a situation (lose money invested in SK, lose SK investment, scares away other investors, flood of NK refugees into Manchuria).

[Giancarlo]

Is it right to say $40 billion? That is the number I heard... China might end up doing a joint invasion with the US of North Korea... now that will be something. China could face a devastating economic hit with any war between the Koreas.

[GePap]

Well, that might be the amount of trade between them..I don't know how much money China invest overseas, I do know the South Koreans do invest heavily in China.

I think China wants a tight lid on the whole Korea situation since they only can lose if anyting happens there.