Re: O/T North Korea V South Korea : Fri May 21, 2010 8:04 am  

morleys_deckchair wrote:

why?

its an informative thread..... I have already learnt about north koreas 1967 activities.

because as said before if I want to read about world politics/news I would either go to the appropriate forum, buy news paper or listen to the news, there isnt much media coverage of our great game so I come on here for all things rugby not south V north vietnam, for what its worth I dont want our soldiers being dragged into another conflict putting their lives on the line whilst the rest of the world just Postures and false promises, let some one else sort it out, our lads have more than done their bit

Re: O/T North Korea V South Korea : Fri May 21, 2010 8:07 am  

stubblesteve wrote:

because as said before if I want to read about world politics/news I would either go to the appropriate forum, buy news paper or listen to the news, there isnt much media coverage of our great game so I come on here for all things rugby not south V north vietnam, for what its worth I dont want our soldiers being dragged into another conflict putting their lives on the line whilst the rest of the world just Postures and false promises, let some one else sort it out, our lads have more than done their bit

fair enough... lots of topics im not that interested in... i simply dont click into the thread and read them.

Re: O/T North Korea V South Korea : Fri May 21, 2010 8:21 am  

The All New Chester Wire wrote:

What about attacking their own citizens with chemical weapons? Just turn a blind eye, eh?

Plenty of countries treat their people terribly. China being a good example. We can't solve all the world's problems.

The issue with Iran is that it threatens Israel and upsets Jews. Jews hold an inordinate amount of power in the US.

Re: O/T North Korea V South Korea : Fri May 21, 2010 8:41 am  

The uproar over the nuclear issue in Iran is because of the threat it poses to Israel and thus the US' interests in the Middle East. But the US will never attack Iran directly, only really by backing up Israel with weaponry and personnel - not that Israel would necessarily need the support of the US but it would be there nonetheless. The USA has a history of rightly or wrongly getting involved in other peoples' wars when it seems to suit them as "leaders of the free world" and almost universally screwing up that involvement; Korea in the 50's, Vietnam, Afghanistan in 79, Grenada, Colombia, Libya, Lebanon, supporting Saddam in the 80's against Iran, Iraq twice, Afghanistan again, the list goes on and every time the USA will not attack those they see as their true enemy (Russia/China/Iran) due to their fear of unleashing the unspeakable war...

Re: O/T North Korea V South Korea : Fri May 21, 2010 9:51 am  

Unlike many of these other states in the region (Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, Egypt), Iran has not attacked any of its neighbours. The reason there is such a furore about Iran getting nuclear weapons isn't because they think Iran will start attacking its neighbours, its because they will then become untouchable like North Korea are, and so it removes the option for the US to attack it when it becomes politically opportune to do so. They have wanted an attack on Iran for a long time because Iran does have a significant portion of oil reserves which are going to become more and more strategically important as oil supplies run out. Up until 1979 US owned companies owned about 50% of the Iranian oil industry during the Shah's era, but Khomeinei put an end to all that.

An attack on Iran in the short term is unlikely because the US has its hands full in Afghanistan and Iraq and doesn't have the spare capacity to launch what would be a far more complicated military operation than those were due to the size and difficult geography of Iran. A war on Iran isn't something which could be done half measures, it would have to be all or nothing, because the day after they first launched air strikes on Iran, the Iranians would respond by proxy through Hezbollah launching rockets (probably including chemical weapons) into heavily populated civilian areas in Israel. Israel would no doubt react rapidly and start bombing Iran itself, and this would put the governments of Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia in a difficult position, they wouldn't support Iran but within their countries lots of people would and they would risk being overthrown. If a non-friendly government came to power in Saudi Arabia and turned the oil taps off to the US then the country would grind to a halt, so the US would have to be in a position to rapidly take control of the whole Middle East and assure the stability of all friendly governments.

War on Iran is too difficult at the moment whilst Afghanistan is still going on, hence a swift exit strategy is needed to free up military resources. If they wait too long then there will be added problems as China and Russia are starting to build up business interests in Iran and it becomes a more dicey situation if a US attack on Iran represents a threat to Chinese and Russian interests.

Re: O/T North Korea V South Korea : Fri May 21, 2010 10:19 am  

As I said the Americans will not attack Iran for reasons we both said - in addition the "War on Terror" banner is wearing a bit thin around the world and with the disappearance of Presidents Bush (both) & Blair from the world scene some of the West's proponents of aggression are taken from the scene. Obama and Cameron have enough issues on their respective plates than to launch further wars on nations who would respond with terror attacks and guerrilla tactics...

Re: O/T North Korea V South Korea : Fri May 21, 2010 11:49 am  

sally cinnamon wrote:

They have wanted an attack on Iran for a long time because Iran does have a significant portion of oil reserves which are going to become more and more strategically important as oil supplies run out. Up until 1979 US owned companies owned about 50% of the Iranian oil industry during the Shah's era, but Khomeinei put an end to all that.

Sally, Canada has the world's 2nd largest oil reserves after Saudi, and ahead of Iraq, Kuwait and Iran.

Can we expect a US naval assault across Lake Michigan and ground assault through North Dakota any time soon?

In closing some stats have the US as running out of known reserves in 8 years time.

Re: O/T North Korea V South Korea : Fri May 21, 2010 12:50 pm  

Wires71 wrote: Sally, Canada has the world's 2nd largest oil reserves after Saudi, and ahead of Iraq, Kuwait and Iran. Can we expect a US naval assault across Lake Michigan and ground assault through North Dakota any time soon? The Americans dont need to launch an "Assualt" the Canadians are doing a fine job.....all they have to do to exctract these tars sands containing the oil is to rip up a few forests and turf off some indigenous people..... http://www.co-operativecampaigns.co.uk/toxicfuels/beavercreenation.php anyway back on topic someone

Wires71 wrote: Sally, Canada has the world's 2nd largest oil reserves after Saudi, and ahead of Iraq, Kuwait and Iran. Can we expect a US naval assault across Lake Michigan and ground assault through North Dakota any time soon? The Americans dont need to launch an "Assualt" the Canadians are doing a fine job.....all they have to do to exctract these tars sands containing the oil is to rip up a few forests and turf off some indigenous people..... http://www.co-operativecampaigns.co.uk/toxicfuels/beavercreenation.php anyway back on topic someone

Re: O/T North Korea V South Korea : Fri May 21, 2010 1:31 pm  

I've really enjoyed the balanced debate on this thread and I, like many others, like South Korea and it was very naughty of North Korea to blow up that ship. However, North Korea aren't a bad lot, but which is better???????

There's only one way to find out .................................................

Re: O/T North Korea V South Korea : Fri May 21, 2010 2:37 pm  

magic piano wrote:

The uproar over the nuclear issue in Iran is because of the threat it poses to Israel and thus the US' interests in the Middle East. But the US will never attack Iran directly, only really by backing up Israel with weaponry and personnel - not that Israel would necessarily need the support of the US but it would be there nonetheless. The USA has a history of rightly or wrongly getting involved in other peoples' wars when it seems to suit them as "leaders of the free world" and almost universally screwing up that involvement; Korea in the 50's, Vietnam, Afghanistan in 79, Grenada, Colombia, Libya, Lebanon, supporting Saddam in the 80's against Iran, Iraq twice, Afghanistan again, the list goes on and every time the USA will not attack those they see as their true enemy (Russia/China/Iran) due to their fear of unleashing the unspeakable war...

Don't forget the Yanks have deployed millitary assets in Cuba, El Salvador, Cambodia, Iran, Panama, Philippines, Liberia, Haiti, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Côte d'Ivoire, Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Pakistan, to name a few.

Big bullies.