| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
CNugent
Korea (South)15 Posts
On November 23 2010 18:39 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: Well lets not forget 46 people died in March when a SK ship was sunk and SK believes it was sunk by an NK torpedo. It is much more serious than the incident in March. NK fired at the island and civilians are injured. | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
On November 23 2010 18:41 Benshin88 wrote: I don't think war is going to happen. SK is a country that DOES NOT WANT WAR. NOBODY wants it. They want reunification but in a peaceful way. SK has worked hard to become a leader in the world economy. War would bring the country a decade or two back. That's how World War 2 began. With nobody wanting war. Fortunately, North Korea is not in a position to take on both the United States, as it is a direct ally to South Korea, nor is it in a position to expand towards China. As for the tragedy itself, I hope my folks are doing all right over there :[ | ||
|
Pyrrhuloxia
United States6700 Posts
On November 23 2010 18:41 FabledIntegral wrote: Can you say it's a provocation when NK completely denies it though? Literally a question, not rhetorical. Can you..? Yes, "provocation: something that causes indignation, anger, etc." (thefreedictionary.com) it certainly fits that particular definition. | ||
|
Shigy
United States346 Posts
An agent group attempted to assassinate President Park in Janu- ary 1968. Seven North Koreans at- tempting to penetrate the southern boundary of the Demilitarized Zone in September 1968 were intercepted and killed, the largest number of casualties up to that time in any single incident in the Demilitarized Zone since the end of the war.5 Some 120 North Korean commando agents landed on the east coast of the Republic of Korea between 31 October and 2 November 1968, Source: Military Affairs, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Oct., 1972), pp. 96-99 some other shit happened out there that was pretty serious, lots of people died in the late 60s, including some american pilots | ||
|
Bshad
120 Posts
On November 23 2010 18:38 FabledIntegral wrote: Besides the retarded misquote on your part, if you refuse to acknowledge the difference you're either trolling or just blatantly stupid. There's a reason the US can go in somewhere with less manpower and come out with less casualties. US soldiers were insanely effective in comparison to Iraqi soldiers, who often didn't even have sufficient training because they didn't want to waste ammunition supplies. US soldiers are also better equipped, overall more prepared, more hardened, etc. Utter joke to even consider otherwise if you're comparing to something like NK. Hey if only NK had such an awesome analyst like yourself maybe they wouldnt have attacked at all. | ||
mustaju
Estonia4505 Posts
On November 23 2010 18:40 dinmsab wrote: Soldiers attacking soldiers is one thing but when you start attacking civilians that's just crossing a line... Not to forget that civilian casualties could have been much higher. There are 1200 people living on that island. | ||
|
SecretUnexplorerUse
13 Posts
;Meanwhile any debate to find what so ever would be a discussion about teachers and school progress unrelated to the situation ofc. Sitting and watching: http://www.livestation.com/channels/3-al_jazeera_english Anyone else in a simular situation, i sugest that link. Its to a news chanel | ||
|
Lunares
United States909 Posts
On November 23 2010 18:42 Pika Chu wrote: You don't seem to understand that the power of US soldiers don't come from individual training, it comes from logistics. They have better reckon, better communications, better organization. It's not like the soldiers are individually better. It isn't so much that the logistics are better (which is true) but is that the US soldiers have more advanced equipment. Yes a lot of that is in the support and communication area, but things like our guns, the protection that our soldiers wear, UAV's and other robotics etc also provide the US soldiers quite an edge over NK soldiers. however NK soldiers have also been an active warfront for 60 years so. | ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
Yep, every american soldier is a silvester stallone who alone manages to take on and kill 100 russian soldiers. | ||
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
On November 23 2010 18:34 DystopiaX wrote: Not comparing the qualities of soldiers seems even worse to me. To even suggest 1 NK soldier could compare to 1 US soldier is utterly ridiculous. Pure manpower means less in today's age than ever before. This is right to an extend. However what does mean more today than ever before is willingness to take casualties. And it that most important regard NK certainly has the edge over any regular army on the planet. What is still completely meaningless is comparing hardware in a situation like this. It's not like there is doubt that the US military is better equipped and trained. This had hardly any impact on the decisions on North's side though. | ||
|
lagmaster
United States374 Posts
| ||
|
TzaTzers
United States589 Posts
On November 23 2010 18:45 Pika Chu wrote: Yep, every american soldier is a silvester stallone who alone manages to take on and kill 100 russian soldiers. the U.S military does have better recon and communications and all that good technological stuff, but the individual soldier is also better than other soldiers because of these assets and they are just better overall, easy as that | ||
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
| ||
|
yandere991
Australia394 Posts
Thats a rather bold statement. When your fighting in another persons country all that goes out the door. Despite the supposed superiority Vietnam, the Middle Eastern wars, and the first Korean war did not show America winning (which didn't happen in 2/3 of the list) with ease. To all you people crying for war and thinking it's going to be similar to something of a steamroll please be realistic, the Koreans would have home ground advantage and that advantage is quite deadly. | ||
|
Siffer
United States467 Posts
On November 23 2010 18:47 konadora wrote: people being evacuated into bunkers Just people on the island I hope? | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On November 23 2010 18:42 Irrelevant wrote: Care to tell me what the Iraqi troop uniform looks like? It's okay, I'll wait. That's right because you haven't ever seen an iraqi soldier, because we aren't over there kill soldiers we're killing kids in bath robes, with flip flops and a farmer's hat. Thanks for the 100% irrelevant comment when it comes to combat effectiveness. I wasn't attempting to debate our legitimacy in the region, merely the combat prowess. On November 23 2010 18:42 Pika Chu wrote: You don't seem to understand that the power of US soldiers don't come from individual training, it comes from logistics. They have better reckon, better communications, better organization. It's not like the soldiers are individually better. No, they definitely are better. On an individual basis they could easily handle themselves better. I fail to see how organization wouldn't fall into having better soldiers either. However, the point I'm making is after the training this soldiers go through, they are then intrinsically better (not sure if I can actually use the word intrinsic since it's after the training, but you get the point). On November 23 2010 18:48 yandere991 wrote: Thats a rather bold statement. When your fighting in another persons country all that goes out the door. Despite the supposed superiority Vietnam, the Middle Eastern wars, and the first Korean war did not show America winning (which didn't happen in 2/3 of the list) with ease. To all you people crying for war and thinking it's going to be similar to something of a steamroll please be realistic, the Koreans would have home ground advantage and that advantage is quite deadly. We dominated the Vietcong in terms of combat effectiveness and kill-death-ratio (assuming that's an actual term and not just some video game term, although there are numbers to back that up). There's just a difference "when you're fighting for a cause you're willing to die for." So they just kept sprouting up and resisting. Doesn't mean our soldiers weren't literally kicking their asses. Which they were. | ||
|
sym
United States58 Posts
i believe so edit; watching the stream, that's what it seemed like | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
Today they are trying to fast track Kim Jong Ill's son into power so they have to do this hyper aggressive crap for domestic purposes, reminding everyone how dangerous everything can be and why the North has to unite behind the Kim family. And for foreign states its an important reminder that they have to keep giving NK rice and whatnot or else. | ||
|
Moonling
United States987 Posts
On November 23 2010 18:35 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: You are making things up. Al Jazeera is talking about Kabul now. Please stop. I am not making things up would you like me to link the CNN article that stated this? It was 1 hour ago exactly that they returned fire not "hours" i understand your trying to downplay the situation and i respect that somebody asked and i was just replying with information that i had read just like everyone else is doing - trying to figure whats going on | ||
|
Lefnui
United States753 Posts
On November 23 2010 18:45 zatic wrote: However what does mean more today than ever before is willingness to take casualties. And it that most important regard NK certainly has the edge over any regular army on the planet.. Absolutely no idea where you got that from. | ||
| ||
|
|
Afreeca Starleague
Sharp vs Shinee
Action vs Shine
GSL
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
BeSt vs Paralyze
Jaedong vs Speed
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
