Republicans love war- Bush gave us Iraqi disaster- Trump will give us Korean nuclear war

[wt1531]

Elect Republicans to the White House, and you are guaranteed at least, a recession (which is coming) and unnecessary, costly wars.

Trump jokes about Korean war like it is a picnic. Loss of lives of a million people (at least) and nuclear war fall out awaits the world if he is allowed to start something with North Korea. And that Mrs. Baghdad Bob (Sarrah Huckabee Sanders), stands on that White House podium every day and dispenses with her bull shit every day, arguing with reporters that they should really not believe their lying eyes about the reality of this administration full of certifiable nuts.

[dlk]

1. War is the Ultimate Distraction from Republicans Redistributing American Wealth Into Their Pockets

Works every time.

[Wounded Bear]

2. Of course...

1. Lots and lots of money to be made in war.

2. It's the one thing left they can do without any of those pesky environmental regulations.

[Girard442]

3. More accurately, WWIII, beginning with the battle of Korea.

[Irish_Dem]

4. I had the same thoughts. Iraq redux.

Millions killed and wounded.

Bush dropped depleted uranium bombs on Bagdad, a city whose inhabitants were 50% women and children.
Destroyed the country and created the terrorists we have been fighting.

[Victor_c3]

9. Look at Fallujah

The birth defect rate and cancer rate is higher in this city 10 years after the November 2004 operation than it was in Hiroshima and Nagasaki After we nuked those cities.

A potential Korean conflict would be substantially worse than Iraq. They have a large standing military and I’m not sure how quick they would be to surrender. In Iraq in 2003, many of the Iraqi Soldiers stayed home and didn’t even show up the the fight. The memory of their massive losses from Operation Desert Storm was fresh in their mind. In Korea, they’ve been brainwashed for generations to fight the Americans. I don’t doubt our military superiority, but the loss of life would be staggering.

... not to mention the fortified artillery positions the North Koreans have been building for decades. 155 mm HE might be an old munition, but it easily can range targets 15-20 miles out. Historically speakers, artillery is the most casualty producing weapon in use. This war wouldn’t upset that trend.

Iraq would look like a trading exercise in comparison to a Korean conflict.

[Irish_Dem]

12. What the US did to those countries is a crime. We should have much shame about it.

I agree with your assessment.

But I am thinking Trump would do an air assault, not a ground war?
He sounds like he is trying to send a "message," not engage in an all out war?

And what do you think about China?
Beijing and Shanghai are located only some hundreds of miles from NK.
Certainly China would not be happy with nuclear weapon use so close to their
politcal and financial centers?

[Victor_c3]

14. Im looking at perspective mostly of civilian casualties

As with any war, the civilians get the brunt of the death and carnage. Historically speaking, it averages that for every soldier killed, 9-10 civilians were killed in war during the 20th century.

Here is a sobering article I found about the North Korean artillery capabilities:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/10/02/why-the-north-korean-artillery-factor-makes-military-action-extremely-risky-infographic/amp/

In the event of an air assault, I think NK would retaliate in the only real manner they can - artillery barrage on the south. Given that the center of Seoul is only 35 miles nearly south of the DMZ, it would be safe to bet that thousands of people could die in a retaliatory artillery barrage.

I believe China would be a stabilizing force in the area. If I’m not mistaken, they are North Korea’s primary trading partner and the closest thing to an ally they got. China wouldn’t want to do to much to piss off its primary market for its manufactured goods (the US) so they would urge restraint from NK.

I think a nuclear weapon is much more useful as a threat than actually used. Other than as a last resort or a death throw of their regime, I don’t believe they’d actually use one.

[Irish_Dem]

15. Yes, a very serious situation in terms of civilian casualties.

The entire Korean peninsula would be affected.

China is a close ally and trading partner of NK, but did vote against NK in a recent UN security council vote.

China hates the thought of Korean refugees flooding its borders.
If there is one thing China hates, it is the thought of more mouths to feed.
Feeding its population of 1.3 billion has been a horrendous task for them.

And Beijing and Shanghai are too close for comfort in terms of Korean nuclear fallout.

China is most likely getting very tired of NK antics which endanger the Chinese political and
financial centers.

[Victor_c3]

16. For what its worth...

My knowledge is nearly 10 years old, but I served in the Army as an Infantry Officer. When I was promoted to Captain in 2006, I was given a temporary duty assignment to work on a staff training exercise that would simulate a war involving ground forces on North Korea. Basically we sat in front of computer monitors and pretended to be different subordinate units reporting to a division command staff so the staff could practice working and directing a major combat operation.

It was a very sobering experience. The weapons, units, and capabilities of the North Koreans was based on our estimates at the time. Using the knowledge that we had of them at the time, they were able to do a lot of damage and hurt our forces significantly. Granted, it was a simulation and I’m sure things were skewed in the effort to make the staff struggle and work, but it was still insightful.

Actually on a personal note that simulation upset me deeply at the time. I had gotten back from Iraq where I served as an Infantry Platoon Leader about 9 months earlier and I was on the fence as to whether I should get out of the army or stay in (I hated that war, but I loved the people I served with and I honestly gave a damn about making the world a better place). I was involved first hand in some pretty intense combat in Iraq and I actually lost 5 Soldiers under my command. I personally drug one of the five out. During the simulation a lot was going through my head and I realized I was done with the Army. I couldn’t lead troops in combat. Flashbacks and whatnot were very real to me. This was about 2 years before I actually got a diagnosis of PTSD.

I’m sure it’s not an uncommon position on this forum, but I’m very against any conflict with North Korea.

[Irish_Dem]

18. Your knowledge is valuable.

You have direct military experience regarding boots on the ground.

You have officer combat infantry experience and were also involved in simulated
combat with NK; the results are quite sobering. I am totally against
military action against NK as well.

I would think Trump would just go with an air assault.
There would be no need for ground forces?
Do you think he would send in the Army?
I don't know if he would use the AF or Navy for the air assault.

I am so sorry to hear about your PTSD and your combat experience.
And yes it sounds like the simulations aggravated the condition.

People don't really understand how damaging war is in terms of mental health.
I simply cannot begin to understand how it would feel to lose men under my command
and to actually drag their bodies out. It is beyond comprehension.

My father was active duty AF, flew combat in three wars.
He was up in the air, not on the ground.
But something happened in Korea, he came back changed significantly and not in a good way.

I hope you are able to get treatment for your PTSD.
You are so brave, so courageous.

[Victor_c3]

19. Thanks for that

I’m actually totally disabled from PTSD. I collect SSDI and the whole shebang and haven’t worked in 3.5 years. For about 3 years I was going to groups and appointments 4-5 days a week at my local VA hospital.

I’m finally doing better and I decided to use part of my veteran education benefit to go back to college full time with the goal of seeing if I should try going back to work. I’m 37 years old and I’m too young to not be able to work again.

If war appears to be on the horizon, I’ll be on the front lines of the protest and I plan to be very vocal. As a veteran, I’ve found that conservatives at least listen to me when I talk about war and the consequences.

[Irish_Dem]

20. Yes, you have total standing to speak out. I dare anyone to challenge you.

In terms of your PTSD, you have had long term, intensive treatment which also took a lot of courage.
The tendency with PTSD is to deny or escape. But you faced all of it, which is not easy by any means.

I think it is a very good decision to go back to school. If you can go back full time it bodes well for
future employment. I also agree that you are so young, you cannot pack it in.

It is good to use your talents. Your description of events in combat reflect a person with leadership ability, a work ethic, and a strong sense of responsibility. You also keep going in the face of adversity and do the right thing.
These are traits that will allow you to make a strong contribution to society and at the same time
help you to continue to heal, and put the pieces back together.

Thank you for sharing and best wishes to you in school.

[Orrex]

5. I heard a little something about this on NPR this morning

Apparently the military will initiate training for "tunnel combat," to prepare for the maze of tunnels honeycoming North Korea.

Given Republicans' fondness for ignoring the conventions of war for the sake of political expedience, how many US personnel do you think will have to be massacred before Trump authorizes the use of poison gas to smoke out the tunnels?

[Victor_c3]

10. I hate to point this out, but Democrats arent immune to political expedience

Look how many voted to authorize the war on Iraq. Given the climate after September 11th, voting against this was seen as political suicide.

[Orrex]

13. Certainly true, but Dems don't typically create wars out of nothing.

[Orrex]

6. Further, although one would hope that it goes without saying...

[D_Master81]

7. Reagan was the last Republican Pres w/out a major war while in office

[Victor_c3]

11. Thats not a comforting thought. n/t

[gratuitous]

17. Skirmishes in Central America don't count

And the arms-for-hostages deal was a pretty black mark against Republican governance, as well. Luckily, that got all tidied up by President HW Bush with his lame duck pardons of the Iran/contra defendants issued in the dead of night on Christmas Eve 1992.

[Initech]

8. This unhinged lunatic will destroy the world if we let him.