Scratch

S65 wrote:

I'll post news article links below but in summary North Korea finally staged an attack on South Korea by firing hundreds of shells over the border, killing some people and wounding others. Everyone got mad at North Korea, and now the US is starting to get involved. Note that North Korea has been claiming to have nuclear weapons facilities for years now.

North Korea shells South in fiercest attack in decades
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101123/india_nm/india530928

Obama sends U.S. warship to Yellow Sea in show of strength as two Koreas teeter on the brink of all-out war
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332800/North-Korea-attack-Obama-sends-US-warship-Yellow-Sea-strength.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Might be the beginning of WWIII. Or maybe Korean War II. Or hopefully nothing at all.

The beginning of world war 3 was 1948.

svinnik wrote:

S65 wrote:

I'll post news article links below but in summary North Korea finally staged an attack on South Korea by firing hundreds of shells over the border, killing some people and wounding others. Everyone got mad at North Korea, and now the US is starting to get involved. Note that North Korea has been claiming to have nuclear weapons facilities for years now.

North Korea shells South in fiercest attack in decades
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101123/india_nm/india530928

Obama sends U.S. warship to Yellow Sea in show of strength as two Koreas teeter on the brink of all-out war
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332800/North-Korea-attack-Obama-sends-US-warship-Yellow-Sea-strength.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Might be the beginning of WWIII. Or maybe Korean War II. Or hopefully nothing at all.

The beginning of world war 3 was 1948.

That was World War 2.

Unless you're trying to be clever or something (some say that the Seven Years' War was the real first world war but I'm just going by the popular naming).

EDIT: wait no World War 2 had ended by 1948. What are you trying to say then lol

Last edited by S65 (2010-11-24 19:45:06)

PlayWithFire wrote:

well that is baaaaaaaaad news.

hopefully it doesn't lead to that because then we're all screwed.

+1

S65 wrote:

svinnik wrote:

Nothing. That is so offensive. 1948 was the formation of Israel, which led to the middle East crisis.

I don't think the Middle East crisis has spread to an all-out declared war yet, with China, Russia, etc. specifically fighting other countries.

Terrorism isn't a world war either. The groups aren't countries, they're rapidly changing organizations. As a result, these radical groups are much harder to fight than normal countries, which have economic centers, exports, imports, economies, etc. Terrorists don't have specific cities where all of them gather, or the need to feed anybody but themselves.

The Middle East is Israel against everyone else.

The deployment of USS George Washington was scheduled before any of this happened FWI.

We shouldn't go to war with N. Korea yet for several reasons:

1: We can't afford it. We only have 25,000 ground troops on the peninsula, with everyone else busy in Afganistan, and the North has 1,000,000 standing men. We would be incredibly outnumbered on the ground.

2: The terrain. North Korea is one giant mountain range which has been dug out and fortified. If you know anything about WW2, think of it as a giant Iwo Jima. We sould be smoking each other out of holes with flamethrowers.

3: Civilians. There's just to many. Our initial goal we be to free the North Korean people, but we would probably kill a lot of them in the process. 

The danger is the North wants to conquer the south. But why is that bad? Can't we just leave them alone to deal it out? The answer is simply, no we can't. Unlike in the Vietnam war, where it was more of a colonial war, South Korea is a highly developed and free nation, and they play a vital roll in the world economy. Kim Jon Il is a real threat, but trying to take him out right now is a really bad idea. I would wait until South Korea makes a big push, then we would have a better reason for fighting them. South Korea is really mad about something that isn't a large deal. Granted, North Korea shouldn't attack anyone at all, but only 2 or 3 people died. It isn't 9/11.

Last edited by militarydudes (2010-11-24 19:35:49)

PW132 wrote:

I thought talking about politics was against the rules... 

no, it's not. As long as no one flames, it's legal.

militarydudes wrote:

The deployment of USS George Washington was scheduled before any of this happened FWI.

We shouldn't go to war with N. Korea yet for several reasons:

1: We can't afford it. We only have 25,000 ground troops on the peninsula, with everyone else busy in Afganistan, and the North has 1,000,000 standing men. We would be incredibly outnumbered on the ground.

2: The terrain. North Korea is one giant mountain range which has been dug out and fortified. If you know anything about WW2, think of it as a giant Iwo Jima. We sould be smoking each other out of holes with flamethrowers.

3: Civilians. There's just to many. Our initial goal we be to free the North Korean people, but we would probably kill a lot of them in the process. 

The danger is the North wants to conquer the south. But why is that bad? Can't we just leave them alone to deal it out? The answer is simply, no we can't. Unlike in the Vietnam war, where it was more of a colonial war, South Korea is a highly developed and free nation, and they play a vital roll in the world economy. Kim Jon Il is a real threat, but trying to take him out right now is a really bad idea. I would wait until South Korea makes a big push, then we would have a better reason for fighting them. South Korea is really mad about something that isn't a large deal. Granted, North Korea shouldn't attack anyone at all, but only 2 or 3 people died. It isn't 9/11.

"Whoever saves a life saves the world: Whoever destroys a life destroys the world" - The Talmud.

PW132 wrote:

I thought talking about politics was against the rules... 

I'm not sure if this is about politics or war. Nobody's not arguing though, so I guess it's okay...

The USA is going to be nervous, NK will be going wild.

cheddargirl wrote:

PW132 wrote:

I thought talking about politics was against the rules... 

Yes, that's my concern, too. It is often like this that an uncontrollable argument can erupt and hard to handle by moderators (which is why they're usually discouraged from the Miscellaneous forum and such topics encouraged to be discussed elsewhere).

This topic hasn't seem to have erupted yet, but I've asked the other mods and the Scratch Team for their opinion on this particular topic.

We can control it.

Is screwed.

svinnik wrote:

cheddargirl wrote:

PW132 wrote:

I thought talking about politics was against the rules... 

Yes, that's my concern, too. It is often like this that an uncontrollable argument can erupt and hard to handle by moderators (which is why they're usually discouraged from the Miscellaneous forum and such topics encouraged to be discussed elsewhere).

This topic hasn't seem to have erupted yet, but I've asked the other mods and the Scratch Team for their opinion on this particular topic.

We can control it.

You never know about that - the same could have been said of the religious-based topics of the past.    So we'll see.