Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
world

Army chief says U.S. able to fight N Korea if necessary

59 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

59 Comments
Login to comment

“This is a combat-seasoned force” that can pivot quickly, Casey said."

Which is quite honestly what I think the two wars in Iraq were really about, namely getting a military that hadn't seen any appreciable combat in 20 years back into fighting form.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Republicans will LOVE this - pour more money into the coffers of defence companies lol! Who cares about ordinary Americans?

The GOP would much rather brand people like the current president - who is pumping billions into the US economy and peoples' pockets - a "socialist."

Go figure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Republicans will LOVE this - pour more money into the coffers of defence companies lol! Who cares about ordinary Americans?

Republicans are out of power - remember?

Obama and the Democrats control Congress and the Senate.

Time for them to stop campaigning and start leading.

North Korea doesn't care about hope, change and unicorns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is stating the obvious. Only a fool would believe that the US could not successfully operate on the Korean Peninsula. Whether they should or not is an entirely different matter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

China holds the key here.

What is their endgame?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter - "Republicans are out of power - remember?"

Heh, ironicaly, in no small part because people like yourself supported silly invasions based on nothing but bad propaganda, lol!

Unlike Iraq, NK has real weapons - do you support an invasion?

If not, why not? You should do but I bet you'll find a list of reasons as long as Bush's list of lies you believed as to why invading North Korea would be a "bad" idea, :-)

Moderator: Please stop posting in a belligerent manner. This is a forum for mature adults to exchange views. Do you wish to leave us?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Any excuse is a good excuse for Republicans as long as it means they don't have to take responsibility for their actions and they can blame the other guy. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The United States could fight an old-fashioned war"

Why not a 'short' war like in Iraq? But seriously another front, make the deficit even bigger?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think America getting involved in NK is a good idea, neither do I think they have nukes.

The international press seems to have already decided NK set off a nuke, despite experts saying they won't know for a few weeks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not the smartest guy on the block (probably why I ended up serving in the infantry), however, having nuclear weapons and being able to deliver them successfully are two different issues. Although North Korea has been harping on about joining the nuclear club, it has yet to successfully demonstrate that it can marriage these warheads to some sort of delivery system. Only when that happens will S truely hit the F.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do any of the Nork`s Million Man Army have any real combat experience?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No. They probably have even less food. One report I read late last year mentioned that NK soldiers were stealing food to eat from farmers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan all within striking range of NK, why would the US need to get involved on the ground?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So the North Korean People's Republic Liberation Super Dooper Army does have combat experience after all; they have battled malnutrition for years. What a formidable opponent indeed. I wonder how many of them would desert in an event of a conflict?!? Little Kim must really be scratching his head now as what to do next...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I for one, welcome our new North Korean overlords.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Only a fool would believe that the US could not successfully operate on the Korean Peninsula."

Well, you have more confidence than do I. I was in the Army for a short time and from what I seen, it was hard trying to think that I could or should throw down with them and the s hits the f.

I think NK would give us one hell of an old fashion fight. While the average NKean is starving, the army is well kept and highly disciplined.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Norks set off another nuke and threaten S Korea.

Where is the outrage from the eco crowd? Why aren't the "pacifists" here to call Kim Jong Il a "warmonger"?

North Korean commandos tried, in 1983, to assassinate the entire South Korean cabinet, visiting Burma at the time.

They have supplied Syria with nuke materials.

Where are the charges of "international outlaw" ???????

Instead, we just get the usual lame attempts at explaining away the demented actions of a failed state that, like Cuba, started socialist and then quickly went Stalinist. Or we get silly exercises in denial:

The international press seems to have already decided NK set off a nuke, despite experts saying they won't know for a few weeks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Recently saw some old B&W footage of the Korean War. When the Chinese joined in on the NK side, no amount of modern equipment could deal with the swarms and swarms of soldiers sweeping south. The enemy died and they died, and eventually the allied guns grew hot and jammed or ran out of ammo. Allied tanks got trapped in narrow defiles. Surrounded soldiers surrendered en masse.

Now NK has all kind of clever stuff like Alsatians strapped with explosives trained to run underneath enemy tanks. Built deep into the mountains they are rumored/rumoured to have vast underground complexes packed with materiel, and warrens of tunnels.

Let's hope the S.K. and US generals have read the old Chinese Annals of War, the Warring States etc., and have prepared a few surprises for the NK army if ever it gets too eager and jumps the fence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

doubt it'd be much of a fight..the norkies would be gone in less than a week

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'd like to see how thousands of soldiers marching through a stadium in unison, while a crowd of brainwashed comrades hold up colored plackards and manipulate them into dramatic scenes, hold up against a barrage of Joint Direct Attack Munitions being fired by US F35s.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is not about if SK and USA can win the war, is about if they can do it enough fast for avoid that Elvis destroy SK cities with artillery and WMDs. I wonder how chickenhawks that dont live in SK can show so much confidence but never explain how they plan to avoid that Elvis kill millions of civilians before lose the power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

stirfry: "doubt it'd be much of a fight..the norkies would be gone in less than a week"

I believe they said something along the same lines about Iraq II, only they said about 4 days, and that they would be welcomed with rose petals. No, it would not be over quickly -- you would see something the likes of which the world has never seen, and COULD also involve nuclear weapons. Regardless, Seoul would be wiped out by conventional artillery, and the guerilla tactics would probably put Afghanistan and Iraq to shame.

In other words, it was be a horrible disaster, and I pray it can be avoided. Kim is pushing, pushing, pushing, and part of me knows that that time of person WANTS to go down in a blaze of glory (in their mind) and doesn't give a rat's a$$ about others that go down with him/her, but I'm hoping it is indeed just show to cement his dynasty for another generation.

And despite the statements to the contrary, I don't think the US would be ready to go into this. To begin with, perhaps, but if it really weren't over in a VERY short time with and with NKorea doing no damage, it would be far too costly in all respects.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan needs nukes. So does Taiwan. Simple as that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan needs nukes. So does Taiwan. Simple as that.

No they don't. Simple as that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No one needs nukes,especially the nuked! NK is like a child throwing it's toys out of the pram! Children that play with fire get burned and so will they.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seoul is about 40km from the DMZ, right? How far can NK artillery reach?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Opposing NK's 950,000 soldiers, SK are said to have an army of about 560,000 men, BTW, before you count the US troops. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8073129.stm#map

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Seoul is about 40km from the DMZ, right? How far can NK artillery reach?"

If one North Korean artillery shell reaches Seoul, that will be the end of North Korea. Guaranteed.

From someone who has been to the DMZ.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Casey says:

That doesn’t mean it would take 90 days for the U.S. to effectively fight the North’s million-man army, he said.

Casey substantiates what I've been saying. He even says that it's not going to be something that we can just deal with immediately. In this 90 days he talks about preparing to react to any advancement by North Korea.

In that 90 days North Korea isn't going to wait for us to react. Sure we would eventually be there and take them on. But in that 90 days, North Korea's damage could be devistating.

North Korea isn't going to sit there and wait for us to attack like Saddam and Iraq did. They sat there and watched us amass an army and then attack with our "Shock and Aw", North Korea will be on the attack.

This is all if North Korea was to attack their neighbors. Kim still has to order an agressive action, not just this idiotic stuff he's doing right now. Right now he's pissing off the world, but he hasn't attacked anyone, yet. He's doing as lot of saber rattling, but he still knows that eventually he'd have to take on his enemies with force, not just words. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think so

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Korea and Japan should unify their forces to wipe out North-Korea.

Japan basically with the navy and air force. I don't think Korean will be happy to have Japanese solider on their soil again.

China should just keep quite. Same for the Russia.

The US should back both.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

memyselfl - "I don't think so"

What makes you think that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seoul is about 40km from the DMZ, right? How far can NK artillery reach?

Answer:

...According to one report, a South Korean security analyst suggested that DPRK artillery pieces of calibers 170mm and 240mm "could fire 10,000 rounds per minute to Seoul and its environs." The number of Koksan guns is not publicly reported, but it is reliably reported that North Korea has about 500 long-range artillery tubes within range of Seoul, double the levels of a the mid-1990s. Large caliber self propelled artillery pieces typically have a sustained rate of fire of between four and eight rounds per minute. This suggests a total rate of fire of artillery alone of between 2,000 and 4,000 rounds per minute. The DPRK's two hundred 240mm MRLs fire either 12 or 22 rounds, providing a maximum single salvo of no more than 4,400 rounds...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/m-1978-170.htm

Seul Population: 10,456,034.

Let's suppousse for a moment that these report is exagerated and the reality is only 10% of that. Even these optimist calculation means 1000 rounds per minute.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Like I've stated before, this is something that China, Russia and Japan are going to have to take the lead and be prepared for any action. They or anybody else shouldn't expect the US to be the defensive force to meet the agression head on.

Of course the US will eventually get there. Of course the US will meet any North Korean agression with a response. So nobody should be expecting the US to be the initial buffer against them. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream

They or anybody else shouldn't expect the US to be the defensive force to meet the agression head on.

Of course the US will eventually get there. Of course the US will meet any North Korean agression with a response. So nobody should be expecting the US to be the initial buffer against them. < :-)

Again, get an education on the subject before you post.

During Phase 1, US-ROK forces would conduct a vigorous forward defense aimed at protecting Seoul. Their campaign would be dominated by combined-arms ground battles waged with infantry, artillery, and armor. US air and naval forces would conduct close air support, interdiction, and deep strike missions. After Phase 1, US-ROK operations in Phase 2 would probably focus on seizing key terrain, inflicting additional casualties on enemy forces, and rebuffing further attacks. Phase 3, to start when the US ground buildup was complete and ROK forces were replenished, would be a powerful counteroffensive aimed at destroying the DPRK's military power. The war plan envisions amphibious assaults into North Korea by US Army and Marines at the narrow waist of North Korea. The entire resources of the US Marine Corps would flow there to establish a beachead, with substantial Army resources quickly conducting over-the-shore operations.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5027.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists.” Ernest Hemingway, “Notes on the Next War: A Serious Topical Letter”, 1935.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin.

Thats only if they lose. If they win, it brings a sustained prosperity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind, yeah those are the plans. And I took a look at your link. That is fasinating. But most of the report consist of old...old plans and we've been, and are still, ingaged in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Since some of that, we've pulled troops out of South Korea and relocated them in the middle east.

I repeat, those are the plans. I still say that China and Russia and Japan better be ready to take the lead on taking out North Korea before any situation last 90 days. If North Korea is still standing after 90 days, after attacking an ally of the US, this could turn into a disasterous mess for all.

Kim is taking advantage in the fact that we're heavily involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. He knows we can beat our chest but it's all rheteric because we're stretched so thin.

sailwind, where are the troops coming from? We're scraping troops up as fast as we can just to fulfill the operations we're involved in. If we just leave to take on North Korea, the Taliban and Al-Quaeda will run all over Afghanistan and Pakistan like never before.

Where will all these troops come from? Do you think that we can recruit from the current level of 11% of the population serving in the armed services to at least, a guess of 17%, to get the troops required to take on this challenge? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would hope that all the posters above would prefer a peaceful outcome to this,some of you sound like you want more mass slaughter to entertain you during your tv dinner. Why is it less acceptable for North Korea to possess nuclear weapons?,than Pakistan,India or Israel(who has a proven track record of trigger happiness) ..double standards are the things that piss people off most, and lest we forget, the nation that helped to invent the bomb and deems itself the worlds policeman is thus far the only country to have used(tested) them on populated areas, a fact that will not be lost on the North Koreans as they are informed by that country "i'm sorry you can't have them only we can"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kim is taking advantage in the fact that we're heavily involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. He knows we can beat our chest but it's all rheteric because we're stretched so thin.

You're angry about Iraq and Afghanistan so you're using North Korea as a vehicle to express your anger. You're also afraid of US military power so any situation you present always has us losing.

Now you can go away.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We would all prefer a peaceful outcome but we don't expect it any longer.

If NK would just leave well enough alone and join the modern world there wouldn't be a problem. But that would involve the dear little leader giving up his perks. That's not going to happen.

You don't have a good handle on how meglomanical dictators operate, do you? I suggest you pull out a history book or two.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Being against the Iraqi war doesn't change the facts. It still means we're involved militarily in Iraq. We're still involved in Afghanistan militarily.

Where is the Rapid Deployment Unit that was created over a decade ago? Could we react against North Korea like we reacted against Kuwait when Saddam attacked them? NO!!!!! We couldn't, we can't and you just don't have any idea what you're talking about. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think it’s wrong to chastise other posters for wanting a war, they don’t, but they are trying to see where this mess the dear leader has created is going to go. I really don’t think that a conventional war with NK is winnable in the normal sense, its military could be destroyed & given that they have no combat experience I can’t see them lasting very long as an integrated army. That isn’t to say that they would stop fighting, I suspect that they are already trained to fall back & become a guerrilla army. And a very well indoctrinated guerrilla force would be a monster to fight against while on it’s own territory. An indoctrinated populace would support its guerrilla army against the “invaders”.

All of that is to reason that an attack of NK would be a mistake, but if no choice were given because the North attacks the South this idea of America taking 90days to get there is a nonsense. It might take 90 days before substantial numbers of troops arrived, but the air force could be there in hours & the navy within a few days, maybe less. As for this massive artillery attack on Seoul that seems to worry so many, do you really imagine the US air force & the South Korean air force & artillery are just going to let that happen? And don’t for a moment imagine that “article 9” would last for more than a day or two. American & South Korean pressure & Japan’s own self interest would have that changed faster than you could believe.

North Korea is not a sissy fit child & it is wrong to see it that way, it is a very dangerous monster that could do horrendous damage to South Korea & Japan. It has a standing army of one million but can put up seven million men (& women) under arms & even if they are a parade army with no experience they can still kill a lot of people before they are forced to back off. They may have no chance of “winning” a war, but that in itself doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t start one & it doesn’t mean that anybody can take their actions as being something to not be worried about. A lot of people would be dead by the time this army backed off.

And what happens this time when they back off? Will China again step in to stop NK from being taken over? Will the allied forces again settle down to another 60 year state of doing nothing but sending in food & fuel?

It would also be a good idea to stop thinking of this as being SK, America & Japan against NK, there is Australia, New Zealand & Canada, & maybe others that could get to SK within that 90 day period. Let us all just hope that NK see this picture as being as complicated as it is & not as some posters here believe it to be.

And, yes, the key really is China. With out China stating its position in advance nobody can be sure where any of this madness might lead. And who in their right mind would ever trust China?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Where is the Rapid Deployment Unit that was created over a decade ago? Could we react against North Korea like we reacted against Kuwait when Saddam attacked them? NO!!!!! We couldn't, we can't and you just don't have any idea what you're talking about. < :-)

Why do think all those Marines are in Okinawa and all those Amphibious Transport Ships are stationed in Sasebo Japan, adaydream. Just Hanging out around Japan instead of the Middle East all this time the past 9 years and now, just Sightseeing?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

30061015,

Nice post at 12:32 AM JST - 30th May

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

"You're angry about Iraq and Afghanistan so you're using North Korea as a vehicle to express your anger. You're also afraid of US military power so any situation you present always has us losing.

If you want to be taken even remotely seriously here, try not posting this kind of idiocy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How many artillaries mounting at the south from the north of 38th parallel? And how many US troops stood on ROK soil? You will have a clue, the fight which Casey means was a a fighting to get out of the peninsula!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

superlib: "You're angry about Iraq and Afghanistan so you're using North Korea as a vehicle to express your anger. You're also afraid of US military power so any situation you present always has us losing."

Well said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

America should really called back the draft and brough their young men,young women to fight north Korea and their entire populations, that will causing a huge national political chaos and protest under the present dire economy! And that will be worst than Nixon-era! I hope US will be stuck in the third vietnam!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You wish North Korea and the US to fight each other so that the US will be weakened, dragonczar? Then China will be stronger, right?

So you wish to go down the very same path that you see the US taking? You have the same aim, political hegemony for China, no? That's like the pot calling the kettle black.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain

Thanks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ca1icprat..Pray remind me which countries North Korea has invaded under the current dictator?,and then compare that list against the list of countries the worlds greatest democracy has invaded in the same time frame..you will find one list a great deal longer than the other..i'll pull out a history book if you pull out one on fluid mechanics,i know who'll learn more.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well said, Bento. North Korea's list is much shorter than the US's list. And Canada's. And the UK's. And France's. And Germany's. And Spain's. And China's. And Iraq's. And Russia's. And...well, you get the point.

And to think all this time we've been directing criticism at North Korea. Give me your crayons and the menu and I'll get started on my own list ASAP!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bento,

You're either poorly informed or willfully avoiding this point, but North Korea has been pursuing a policy of nuclear brinkmanship for as long as Kim has been in power. As entertaining and vindicating it may seem to contrast US military exploits with North Korea extorting food and fuel from the world with threats of nuclear attack, the truth is they are two dynamics that aren't even remotely on the same page, no matter how creatively you tweak the facts to reach your predetermined conclusion, namely, that the US is somehow the bad guy here. Just ask South Koreans or the Japanese who they believe is the greater threat to their security right now, the DPRK or the USA. The answer might disappoint you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bento

“Pray remind me which countries North Korea has invaded under the current dictator?”

It’s obvious where you want this to go & although I am no lover of the US you are way too far away from reality with your reasoning, or lack of it. Let’s try another comparison that might give a clearer picture, for you. How many people have died because of US & NK policy over that same period? The US may have been involved in wars that are disputed & as such may be seen as having caused many deaths, but NK have, without being at war with anybody, caused far more deaths. Perhaps that could be seen as a better indicator of what is & what isn’t a good country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The leadership in Pyongyang is clever and psychotic. Six-party "talks", "denuclearization", "sticks and carrots" . . . these are games that Kim Jong-Il knows how to play. I don't understand how we can continue to persist with methods that have only allowed NKorea to beef up its strike capability, starve its people and rattle the region. And sanctions, however harsh, don't work. They didn't work in Iraq. Sanctions merely starve an already deprived population and harden its leadership. . . . The NKoreans have suffered enough. War with them would result in a horrible humanitarian crisis. Refugees would pour into China and a region that has only recently gained solid footing in the world would wobble dangerously. The world economy needs a solid, ascendant Asia. We cannot afford to risk even the partial destruction of a promising but still fragile SKorea. . . . The only way to manage and ultimately neutralize the NKorean threat is overwhelming, demonstrable technical superiority. A new generation of weapons is needed. Laser technology may be the answer. The civilized world cannot afford to continue to be pinned down by the antics of troglodytes like Khameini, Kim Jong-Il and the Taliban. Old school nuclear weapons will fail to extort concessions only once they are superceded by far superior weaponry. . . . Sanctions and all modes of punitive isolation only make regime change virtually impossible. More ambitious covert ops and radically superior weapons are the only real answer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is ALOT of ((speculation)) but very few facts being posted here. Some people think that the U.S. is fully prepared to fight the DPRK. haha Again the title of this article states "Army chief says U.S. able to fight" LOL that is totally different from fully prepared or able to fight,defend,and Win. The fact of the matter is the U.S. doesn't want to defend S.Korea. I'm not saying the U.S. won't give some support but the U.S. is not preparing to do anything significant.

Fact: The U.S. is currently on a time-table to hand over Defense Command Authority to S.K forces by 2011. This includes troop withdrawal from Seoul

There has already been a slow reduction in troops from originally about 40,000 to presently about 28,000.

This is why : "American defence officials no longer believe that either country should be devoting major resources to a replay of the first Korean war. The US contends that North Korea would employ its missiles, long-range artillery and special forces to bypass traditional invasion corridors and directly target major cities and military facilities throughout the southern half of the peninsula. The redeployment of US forces is therefore designed to limit potential American vulnerabilities in a future conflict, and – in conjunction with vastly strengthened South Korean forces – to exploit US technologies and operational concepts to degrade North Korean capabilities."

http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/past-issues/volume-9---2003/volume-9---issue-5/american-forces-in-south-korea/

There have been official statements that increasing troops in S.korea is "NOT Needed" because there is has been no significant change on the peninsula. This is simply false and mis-leading.

Reported 2.23.2009 Fact: "...The report also said Pyongyang has increased its special forces by about 60,000 to 180,000, apparently to help facilitate infiltration of the South with improved firepower and mobility.

The total number of North Korean troops increased to 1.19 million, an increase of 20,000 from 2006, it said.

``North Korea has put great effort into increasing its special operations at night, in mountainous areas or for street to street fighting, given the operational environments on the Korean Peninsula,'' said Brig. Gen. Shin Won-shik, deputy of the ministry's policy planning bureau.

The North's navy has added one combat squadron and 10 submarines, as well as new torpedoes and ground-to-ship/ship-to-ship missiles, it said. Its air force has upgraded its radar detection capabilities and upgraded launch pads for SA-5 and SA-2/3 long-range missiles, it said.

North Korea's army could have war reserves, including gas and ammunition, enough for it to engage in war for about two months, it said. "

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/05/205_40116.html

I would think 2 months is all the DPRK would need to get the job done. And apparently 3months is what the U.S.would need to get there.

Now What do you think the U.S. is preparing to do for S.korea?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A country(in this case NK) is being told by another country(in this case US) that it is not permitted to develop the weapons that the US itself deems absolutely essential to its own security/prosperity.."we need them and are allowed them but sorry,you can't have them" NK has every right to feel slightly aggrieved by this glaring double standard(not withstanding how i may feel about the US,are you from the GWB school of intelligence "either with us or against us?" Japan may indeed feel very threatened by a nuclear NK but this feeling is so high because and only because it was attacked by the US with atomic weapons in the past..get it? Superlib..send me your address i'll buy some crayons and deliver then to you,though why you can't use a pen is interesting,is it a phobia? Grafton..so we ignore the facts that don't support your theory and cherry pick the ones that do,and you talk of flawed reasoning. I am no friend of dictatorships whether benign or malignant but i can understand how rules and their arbitrary application to one country/community whilst others ,for one reason or another,consider themselves immune from the self same law,and indeed on occasion are helped to break these laws by the same authority that enforces them elsewhere, can lead to frustrations boarding on the crazed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I hope US will be stuck in the third vietnam!" Dragonczar, do you really mean that? That is a horrible, heartless statement. I could understand if you wished the American government to fall but another Vietnam where innocent people on both sides are tortured and killed? Do you realize the cruelities that NK inflicts on its own people much less what it would do to an enemy? Do you really wish for families and lives to be permenantly destroyed while government officials sit in their offices happily eating bon bons and steak? Many men sent to Vietnam went there against their own wishes and are still paying the price today. It mentally destroyed many strong, healthy young men. WWII vets returned from the war changed but mentally whole but Vietnam was a different story. The homeless, mental wards, alcohol and drug abusers are filled with Vietnam vets, and the parents, wives, friends, and children of these vets have had to suffer too. Why would any human being wish something so horrible on another human? Remember that the military are often just used as pawns by the government leaders. If you have something against America, then direct your anger at the leaders not the people. Im an American and I dont wish the horrors of war on anyone including the NK people. And I don`t wish such cruelty on you either. I think surely you just wrote rashly without truly considering the impact of what your wrote.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites