What do you guys think about the war thats about to break out in North Korea? (which of course we are going to get involved) It going to be tough for the US to fight a war on two fronts if we do get involved. (refering to the war in Afgahanstan)

I really don't think a war's going to break out in Korea anytime soon... I actually find the idea of a peaceful reunification more likely than another war.

I really don't think a war's going to break out in Korea anytime soon... I actually find the idea of a peaceful reunification more likely than another war.

I don't think that it will be a peaceful unification when one side has nuclear weapons and the other side has nothing compared to the North Korea. Plus do you think that the South Korea want to be taken over by a country where their are massive starvation because they give all their food to the miltary. Plus the North Koreas don't have any freedoms. They have a closed border policy which means no one gets in or out. Who wants to live under those conditions? Not to meantion that they are Communist.

A reunification doesn't necessarily require that North Korea assume control of South Korea, it can be other way round too, you know.

Where exactly did Sabre write that North Korea would take over South Korea? How do you know it wouldn’t be South Korea absorbing North Korea? Plus doesn’t peaceful reunification suggest a mutual decision?

Do you really believe those in Germany today live under the same conditions of the former East Germans?

Where exactly did Sabre write that North Korea would take over South Korea? How do you know it wouldn’t be South Korea absorbing North Korea? Plus doesn’t peaceful reunification suggest a mutual decision?

Do you really believe those in Germany today live under the same conditions of the former East Germans?

I meant no disrespect to her, but do you honestly think that the leader of South Korea would give up his position of power so another country can have his land? Now, you said, " that South Korea might absorb North Korea" that would mean that South Korea would rule over North Korea; that means that the North Korea dictator would lose his power over his people, do you think he wants that. Kim Jong II (I think is his name) could easily take over South Korea and unify it under his rule. Which one do you think he would prefer losing his position of power or gainning even more power.

If you look at the facts more than 60% of his people are in the miltary and he is building nuclear weapons what is the point of having that big of a miltary force if no one is going to attack you or your not going to attack someone.

I... really don't think the leader of South Korea would give up his position of power, and I made that clear before.

That South Korea might absorb North Korea refers to the fact that the Republic of Korea will take over, resulting in democratic rule across former North Korea, possibly retaining the capital at Seoul, or setting up a twin-capital system of sorts.

Power isn't only obtained by being and remaining a dictator - a lesson Musharraf will tell you as he campaigns for his party in Pakistan. But the point is moot, seeing as even though the fact that reunification under Kim Jong-Il is unlikely, it is even less likely that he will take up open war like his father. Besides, he's going to keel over in a decade or two, and his son will take over - we don't know what he will be like.

Actually, the facts tell me that "20% of men aged 17–54 [are] in the regular armed forces". (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm) North Korea has a bulked up army because they're (or he is, to be more precise), paranoid about the US, South Korea and Japan launching a surprise invasion on them. Nations are, unfortunately, required to have militaries for self-defence and this is true for NK as well.

Kim Jong II (I think is his name) could easily take over South Korea and unify it under his rule. I was under the impression that it would not be easy to do that with the US forces defending South Korea. You know the same US that does have working nuclear weapons and an assortment of ways to deliver them anywhere in the world. Guess I’ve been terribly misinformed and I will have to inform my uncle that those frostbites on his fingers and toes from walking the DMZ were completely unnecessary as North Korea could have easily taking over South Korea if they wanted to. That does lead to the question why North Korea has not taking over South Korea in the last 50 years. Lack of ambition?

Sabre and mimartin have handled this sufficiently, I think. GODKING, have you studied US history at all? Or the history of modern Korean politics? Not light reading, but it will help inform your opinions with a little facticity.

@Sabre - your first post was the most interesting, to me. It was stated simply and rather matter-of-factly, or casually maybe. Peaceful reunification seems likeliest to me as well, although I think there will be burps and hiccups.

@reunification - Reunification :to reunify. Reunify: bring back together two halves that were once whole. What part of reunification says that one party gets to "rule" the other? Seems like it would be a unified government?!?

First Kim Jong Il MAY be crazy, but he's not a moron. The reason he won't invade S Korea is that the US would come in immediately. That would likely result in him losing NK, or at the very least lose him negotiating points.

The reason S. Korea won't go into NK is that there's this other country in the area with a few billion in the armed Forces(China) that would step in to defend NK.

So unless either China or the US abandon Korea, there won't be an armed conflict. Essentially, Sabre's point is more valid in that there may at some point come a peaceful reunification. Though in Germany it took the collapse of an empire to do it.

Kim Jong II (I think is his name) could easily take over South Korea and unify it under his rule.

Take it over, perhaps.

I can't see the South Koreans giving up their free press, electrical goods and internet cafes, though.

EDIT: Oh, and their Freedom.

Just to add to the peaceful reunification fire, rumour has it China wouldn't mind North Korea evaporating (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/11/30/wikileaks-china-korea.html).

North Korean forces have a substantial numerical advantage over the South (around 2 to 1) in several key categories of offensive weapons--tanks, long-range artillery, and armored personnel carriers. The North has one of the world's largest special operations forces, designed for insertion behind the lines in wartime.
The North deploys the bulk of its forces well forward, along the demilitarized zone (DMZ).

Sabretooth that is from the same website where you got your information from. It was right under it so even if i got my facts wrong they can easily take them over. Do you not think that another country might step in a join North Korea things like that have happen in the past...

Plus the US may step it, but no one has considered that the US then would be fighting a war on two fronts Afghanistan and Korea how do you think that will look for President Obama. We are already having enough problems with the ecomony and stuff of that nature and our debt is in the trillions do you think that the US will want to put us in even more debt? A lot of the debt came from the Afghanistan and Iraq war how much support do you think the US people will have behind this war. It will be like the Vietnam war all over again.

South Korea is right now having drills getting ready for a war and this is what the North Korean government said in responds with this and i quote

"A similar exercise a month ago provoked a North Korean barrage that killed two civilians and two soldiers on the island. The North Korean government had warned that if Monday’s drill was carried out, its response would be “deadlier” this time “in terms of the power and range of the strike.”

That doesnt sound like unification to me

IF and that's a big IF a war breaks out in Korea...just say goodbye to North Korea for good.

North Korean forces have a substantial numerical advantage over the South (around 2 to 1) in several key categories of offensive weapons--tanks, long-range artillery, and armored personnel carriers. The North has one of the world's largest special operations forces, designed for insertion behind the lines in wartime....Please read more about the Korean War and the US obligation to South Korea. If South Korea is attacked it isn’t a question if the US decides to get involved. The US will be involved.

The only region the US may be faster in helping to defend would be the United Kingdom.

North Korean forces have a substantial numerical advantage over the South (around 2 to 1) in several key categories of offensive weapons--tanks, long-range artillery, and armored personnel carriers. The North has one of the world's largest special operations forces, designed for insertion behind the lines in wartime.
The North deploys the bulk of its forces well forward, along the demilitarized zone (DMZ).

You realize that most of their tanks are outdated and from the old Soviet Union era? The people there also live in poverty, starvation, and in terrible living conditions? Believe me, the US and South Korea may not have "numerical" advantages over North Korea, but they certainly have technological advantages and a population that doesn't fear their own country...which in this day and age...is really all that matters for a large scale war like this could become.

You realize that most of their tanks are outdated and from the old Soviet Union era? The people there also live in poverty, starvation, and in terrible living conditions? Believe me, the US and South Korea may not have "numerical" advantages over North Korea, but they certainly have technological advantages and a population that doesn't fear their own country...which in this day and age...is really all that matters for a large scale war like this could become.

That was a quote from the www.state.gov) website so the government obviously thinks that they arent too outdated.

Please read more about the Korean War and the US obligation to South Korea. If South Korea is attacked it isn’t a question if the US decides to get involved. The US will be involved.

The only region the US may be faster in helping to defend would be the United Kingdom.

We may have obligation to help them, but nothing says to what extent. Our help maybe giving them guns. If we do supply soldiers if cant be that many because of all the troops in Afgahanistan and whats left in Iraq

We may have obligation to help them, but nothing says to what extent. Our help maybe giving them guns. If we do supply soldiers if cant be that many because of all the troops in Afgahanistan and whats left in Iraq

Yer young, so I'm not gonna beat you up too much, BUT our obligation to S Korea is pretty well defined. Please take the time to read the cease fire agreement(we're still at war with N. Korea, just in a Cease Fire) and the defense agreements we have with countries in the region. One of whom is Japan who we would also have to be there to defend.

We may have obligation to help them, but nothing says to what extent. Our help maybe giving them guns. If we do supply soldiers if cant be that many because of all the troops in Afgahanistan and whats left in Iraq

We have an obligation to defend them with full force. They're an ally of the United States and that's a benefit of being an ally. South Korea would be gone by now if it wasn't for that fact.

You still don't understand we can't use our "full force " because our full force is in another country fighting our war. (just so you know we are going to fight our war before someone elses) and any defence pact is for US to help defend a country if it is attack. Helping defend comes in many ways not just by sending our troops to do their dirty work. Now you find the Pact that says we have to defend them all our force and i'll submit after i read over it. and make sure you point out were it says we have to go full force

You still don't understand we can't use our "full force " because our full force is in another country fighting our war.

I don't know too much about US Military numbers, but doesn't the Army number over 500,000 personnel (and I realise not all of that number would be frontline troops)?

EDIT: And I thought US involvement in any war was a given, seeing as the North would likely end up killing numerous US servicemen in the event of an invasion.

I don't know too much about US Military numbers, but doesn't the Army number over 500,000 personnel (and I realise not all of that number would be frontline troops)?

EDIT: And I thought US involvement in any war was a given, seeing as the North would likely end up killing numerous US servicemen in the event of an invasion.

I think its more like 523,000 in the army, but thats everything in the army rangeing from cooks, medics, etc like you said, but we do always have a majority of our troops at home in case of a attack on the US

Not to meantion that they are Communist.

And what do you define as Communist?

I for one am under the impression that Communism is the idea in which the people govern equally and everything is shared. It was more appealing than democracy since a majority of the Asian nations were once colonies under world superpowers like England. What N. Korea is under is Facism. From my understanding.

Anyone who knows about political systems please feel free to correct any errors that I make.

If war does break out in Korea, I am hoping that this war will be a legal one as opposed to the illegal invasion of Iraq. As an optimist, I am hoping that some sort of compromise will come out of this conflict. It seems lately that the solution to any of our problems has been to shoot first and ask questions later. Now where has that gotten us?

I know in the US we have a huge deficit that is more than half owned by China, another "Communist" nation and a majority of that is in military spending. Not to mentioned bankrupted states within the United States. The United States seems to be under the impression that only they are the ones allowed to have nuclear weapons. Should another nation decide to start a program it is automatically assumed that they are going to use it to attack us and therefore we must attack first.

I am aware that the two nations that are in question are countries that have a history of strongly disliking our policies. Heck the Tehran embassy was held hostage under Jimmy Carter's administration. However by being quick to condemn, we only aggravate the situation. In fact I am wondering what changed between N. and S. Korea. They were unified during one of the Olympics, the first time since the armstice after the Korean war. I still think diplomacy is always the best choice and that one should not raise the weapon until there is absolutely no option left.

You still don't understand we can't use our "full force " because our full force is in another country fighting our war. (just so you know we are going to fight our war before someone elses) and any defence pact is for US to help defend a country if it is attack. Helping defend comes in many ways not just by sending our troops to do their dirty work. Now you find the Pact that says we have to defend them all our force and i'll submit after i read over it. and make sure you point out were it says we have to go full force

I'm thinking you are the one not understanding how the US military operates. We have stretched our military thin fighting wars on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan however they are not as depleted as you seem to be implying. Perhaps while reading about the Korean War you should also read about Selective Service and the fact that America has fought a war before on two fronts with forces way more depleted and nowhere near as modern (for its time) as the our military is today.

I'm thinking you are the one not understanding how the US military operates. We have stretched our military thin fighting wars on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan however they are not as depleted as you seem to be implying. Perhaps while reading about the Korean War you should also read about Selective Service and the fact that America has fought a war before on two fronts with forces way more depleted and nowhere near as modern (for its time) as the our military is today.

You maybe right, but back then we didn't have to worry about terrorist attacks and stuff of that nature. Plus the ecomony during those wars wasn't as bad as it is now. On top of that we are trillions of dollars in debt and another war would put our ecomony a but us soooo deep in the hole we would never get out.

You maybe right, but back then we didn't have to worry about terrorist attacks and stuff of that nature. Plus the ecomony during those wars wasn't as bad as it is now. On top of that we are trillions of dollars in debt and another war would put our ecomony a but us soooo deep in the hole we would never get out.

Hey, just look at it this way...it wasn't The New Deal that got us out of the Great Depression...it was World War 2. I don't think the economy should be the focus.

Hey, just look at it this way...it wasn't The New Deal that got us out of the Great Depression...it was World War 2. I don't think the economy should be the focus.

I get what your saying, but back in those times they would open factories and stuff to make stuff for the war effort. We even used hemi engines to power our landing vehicles when landing in normandy things back then were different than now. Today we don't have to open factories and stuff like that to produce stuff for our war efforts we already have all the tanks and guns we need, however we are always creating more.

Plus the ecomony during those wars wasn't as bad as it is now. You really need to read a little and don't make remarks like this that are factually inaccurate. It makes it really difficult to take anything you write seriously. The economy was better in the Great Depression than it is today?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/US_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif)

Would you like to try again?

You really need to read a little and don't make remarks like this that are factually inaccurate. It makes it really difficult to take anything you write seriously. The economy was better in the Great Depression than it is today?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/US_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif)

Would you like to try again?

something seems fishy about that oh wait maybe the part that says estimated. And do you not know that unemployment stastics are based off how many people file for unemployment. Where i live we are suspose to have the 3rd highest unemployment rate in NC (the last time i checked) and that was like 30 or 40% ,but i know for a fact that more than that is/are unemploy. A lot of people don't file for unemployment because they just don't or they don't think they will get approved for it. So umemployment stastics are faulty.

Would you like to try again?

Would you like to try again?

No, because you do not have a clue.

The Great Depression was not just NC, but the entire country and most of the world. :rolleyes: BTW NC unemployment rate for Nov 2010 is 9.7% not the 20% to 40% you estimated. US Department of Labor (http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm)

Before you ask, I'm way over 16 and have Bachelors in Finance and Accounting and a Masters in Finance.

Do you even have a clue why the unemployment rates during the Great Depression and before is an estimate?

There are no motion picture of George Washington either. Something really fishy there. He must have been an Alien.

No, because you do not have a clue.

The Great Depression was not just NC, but the entire country and most of the world. :rolleyes: BTW NC unemployment rate for Nov 2010 is 9.7% not the 20% to 40% you estimated. US Department of Labor (http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm)

Before you ask, I'm way over 16 and have Bachelors in Finance and Accounting and a Masters in Finance.

Do you even have a clue why the unemployment rates during the Great Depression and before is an estimate?

There are no motion picture of George Washington either. Something really fishy there. He must have been an Alien.

Why would i ask how old you are? It has nothing to do with what where talking about? If I had all of these degrees I probably wouldn't be spending my time on a lucas forum website chatting, but thats just me

And another thing I was using an NC as an example an if you would have read I said my county. My County microecomony was based off industry. Like a year ago we had maybe 16 factories in my county now we are down to like 2- or 3. And i personally know how bad unemployment because a lot of my family members worked in these factories and now they are jobless so i don't care what the states website is because I know my county. I was just proving a point that unemployment stastics are based off how many people get unemployment.

So your reply is no I do not have a clue why unemployment rates during the Great Depression and before are estimates. Got it :thmbup1:

From your reply I also guess you are conceding the point that the economy was worse during the Great Depression than it is today.

So your reply is no I do not have a clue why unemployment rates during the Great Depression and before are estimates. Got it :thmbup1:

From your reply I also guess you are conceding the point that the economy was worse during the Great Depression than it is today.

The reason is that the current sampling method of estimation was not developed until 1940, which means anything before that is based off of estimation.

Was that what you are looking for...??? or is that wrong?

And you didn't denied the fact that the unemployment rates in the United States are a lot higher than what is recorded as the unemployment rates

Was that what you are looking for...??? or is that wrong? Nope there was not Unemployment Insurance across the entire United States at that time. It was not introduced until 1932 and most state finally adopted the idea in 1936. However, to get unemployment insurance benefits, you must first work at a job that provides unemployment insurance. So you will understand it took awhile to implement the system and then get people qualified for benefits. First thing someone had to do would find a job that actually provided insurance for the benefits and then work at that job. Since most Americans were out of work at the time, it took the reopening of factories due to the World War for them to qualify.

And you didn't denied the fact that the unemployment rates in the United States are a lot higher than what is recorded as the unemployment rates Why would I deny something that is true? However, you are way over estimating the margin of error if you believe the unemployment rates are higher now than during the great depression.

Nope there was not Unemployment Insurance across the entire United States at that time. It was not introduced until 1932 and most state finally adopted the idea in 1936. However, to get unemployment insurance benefits, you must first work at a job that provides unemployment insurance. So you will understand it took awhile to implement the system and then get people qualified for benefits. First thing someone had to do would find a job that actually provided insurance for the benefits and then work at that job. Since most Americans were out of work at the time, it took the reopening of factories due to the World War for them to qualify.

Why would I deny something that is true? However, you are way over estimating the margin of error if you believe the unemployment rates are higher now than during the great depression.

Wow, this went from war starting in Korea to unemployment.
I understand that it took a while to implement that plan. So tell me this were do the experts get their data on how many people were unemployed in the great depression? I was just wondering because from what i have seen their is a lot of conflicting percents

Actually, Godking isn't far off the truth, according to Geopolitics, when he talks about waging war in two or three fronts. Overstretching is an usual cause attributed to the fall of empires.

N. Korea has realized its nuclear potential and can now use it as a tool to obtain advantages on bargains and negotiations. Other than that, nukes are useless. Foreign Affairs Advisor Brzezinski said, back in Carter administration, that the Cold War would not be won militarily but it would be a dispute to see which side would prevail on the test of time and which would crumble. What made him say that was exactly Nuclear Deterrence. So, nuclear potencies do fight in wars against each other, but it's a very delicate and specific kind of war: It's indirect, it's long and it's costly. And a country that has just re-activated its IV Fleet, established numerous military bases along South America (not to mention the ones in Europe and especially Germany) and is militarily present in every continent may be stretching its current capabilities.

Plus, I have little wish to engage in an economics discussion but it should be noted that while WWII was fought during a time that the US economy was in bad waters, it was the only war in US history to result in positive monetary effects.

Thanks for agreeing with most of what i said, you said that i'm not far from the truth, what parts of my agruement did you see was off?

When you say that an unification will likely mean that Jong-Il's team will be in charge.

Other than that, and if we're still using the geopolitical perspective, there's little to criticise in your early posts (not addressing the latest ones since they derailed a bit, as did the debate). I'm by no means an expert on the Korean case but I've studied as much to know that it's a very delicate and dangerous place. As it's the case with most places directly touched by the Cold War.

When you say that an unification will likely mean that Jong-Il's team will be in charge.

Other than that, and if we're still using the geopolitical perspective, there's little to criticise in your early posts (not addressing the latest ones since they derailed a bit, as did the debate). I'm by no means an expert on the Korean case but I've studied as much to know that it's a very delicate and dangerous place. As it's the case with most places directly touched by the Cold War.

Well, i understand what you mean? The debate did get off track and i did say something about a few post before this one. I do appreciate your criticism.

What he means to say is that you were mostly right except for the fact that it being likely for Kim's administration to take over in the event of a reunification.

What he means to say is that you were mostly right except for the fact that it being likely for Kim's administration to take over in the event of a reunification.

That is what i started to agrue about if their is a unification and Kim see thats he wont be in power anymore it wont turn out to be so peaceful. Personally i would rather Korea to be under the control of South Korea because North Korea is a dangerous country (theres no doubt about that) and if they control the whole country of Korea thats a lot more soldiers for them and more room to make nuclear weapons and factories to make a massive arsenal of weapons.

Not to meantion what his leadership would do to the South Korean people

I can't see anyone who'd disagree with that, but that really is moot because the South Korean people aren't so meek as to allow Kim to take over them under some guise of peaceful reunification. Remember that the reunification can only occur if both countries are willing to agree to mutual terms - it will either happen, or not happen, and status quo will be maintained. North Korea taking over South Korea is really the least likely scenario.

I can't see anyone who'd disagree with that, but that really is moot because the South Korean people aren't so meek as to allow Kim to take over them under some guise of peaceful reunification. Remember that the reunification can only occur if both countries are willing to agree to mutual terms - it will either happen, or not happen, and status quo will be maintained. North Korea taking over South Korea is really the least likely scenario.

North Korea taking over South Korea maybe less likely, but not impossible. However what i think will happen is that they will get close to a peaceful unification and something will spark a outroar between the two government.
Hopefully, a war want break out even though it is unlikely; if it does it wont turn out pretty for either side. It may end in a unification but i doubt ethier side will fill like what they gain is worth what they lost. <--- that is refering to if a war does break out.

Hopefully, a war want break out even though it is unlikely; if it does it wont turn out pretty for either side. It may end in a unification but i doubt ethier side will fill like what they gain is worth what they lost. <--- that is refering to if a war does break out.

Which is really why the war isn't taking place - there's nothing to gain. Morals, politics and so on are really just hogwash. It all comes down to whether someone has something to gain or not, even if it's just a little security. North Korea does not need the power of assimilating South Korea at the risk of a pyrrhic victory (not to mention that North Korea is well aware that South Korea's power and economic prowess is purely because of their democratic, capitalist inclination).

The scary part is that there may never be a reunification at all, and the two countries will end up developing their own ethnic identities, not unlike India and Pakistan or China and Taiwan.

Which is really why the war isn't taking place - there's nothing to gain. Morals, politics and so on are really just hogwash. It all comes down to whether someone has something to gain or not, even if it's just a little security. North Korea does not need the power of assimilating South Korea at the risk of a pyrrhic victory (not to mention that North Korea is well aware that South Korea's power and economic prowess is purely because of their democratic, capitalist inclination).

The scary part is that there may never be a reunification at all, and the two countries will end up developing their own ethnic identities, not unlike India and Pakistan or China and Taiwan.

Well, i'm not against them not unifying if they both can stay at peace with each other and start to tolerant each other. And eventually start to trade.

Hmm, I wouldn't be so keep on North Korea trading... they're going for autarky - i.e. complete economic independence. Whether they achieve it or not is a question, but South Korea, with the economic motherload it's sitting on, probably won't mind losing one trade partner of two hundred.

But yes, the (sad?) fact really is that the two countries will just settle down and there won't be a dramatic finale that everyone seems to expect out of two rivalling nations. :p

Hmm, I wouldn't be so keep on North Korea trading... they're going for autarky - i.e. complete economic independence. Whether they achieve it or not is a question, but South Korea, with the economic motherload it's sitting on, probably won't mind losing one trade partner of two hundred.

But yes, the (sad?) fact really is that the two countries will just settle down and there won't be a dramatic finale that everyone seems to expect out of two rivalling nations. :p

Well, I see what you mean by a dramatic finale. It would be cool for these two rival nations to come together in our lifetime, but at the moment i think it is unlikely i guess one can only hope.

Actually, Godking isn't far off the truth, according to Geopolitics, when he talks about waging war in two or three fronts. Overstretching is an usual cause attributed to the fall of empires. I wasn’t saying that a war on two fronts was good. I was disputing assertion that it is not possible for the US to fight two wars on two fronts and I was disputing that the US could disregard treaties forsaking its allies.

Will also not dispute the fact that the war was not what finally got the United States out of their part of the Great Depression, but I stand by the fact that the United States economy and military is by far better off today than it was on 12/08/1941. However, I will not dispute that the current generations of American citizens are not as capable as the greatest generation at making the scarifies necessary to fight to a war on two fronts.

I don't think it will come to two fronts at all - isn't America going to get out of Afghanistan next year (they keep saying that every year :xp: )? Assuming a Korea war takes place, America would, in my opinion, beat retreat from Afghanistan and leave it under care of the democratic government there.

but I stand by the fact that the United States economy and military is by far better off today than it was on 12/08/1941.

I never said that the military isn't far better than it was during WWII because everyone knows that the US has advanced the farest in Military Technology.

However, I will not dispute that the current generations of American citizens are not as capable as the greatest generation at making the scarifies necessary to fight to a war on two fronts.

I agree completely with that. We may have the strongest army in the world, but we don't have the patriotic spirt that we did during WWII. Don't get me wrong people are still patriotic, but you didn't see the same amount of people join when 9/11 happened as when pearl harbor was bombed. I honestly think that the US isn't capable of fighting on two fronts because of what this new war would cost us in lives and how it would effect the ecomony.

I don't think it will come to two fronts at all - isn't America going to get out of Afghanistan next year (they keep saying that every year :xp: )? Assuming a Korea war takes place, America would, in my opinion, beat retreat from Afghanistan and leave it under care of the democratic government there.

America isn't pulling from Afghanistan we actually just sent troops 30,000 i think when Obama got into office. His admistration told everyone that we are pulling out of Iraq, but didn't tell everyone they planned on sending troops to Afghanistan. The reason behind this they said is that Afghanstan is now harbouring terrorist because they moved out of Iraq including Americans most wanted terrorist his name not need to be meantion because we all know him. And plus they said that Iraq government is now capable to stand on it owns.