The draft was instated Dec. 1, 1969 and it was done because of abuses to Selective Service in which people who were eligible for selective service were getting out of their duty. Of course, the lottery probably would not come into play until all other resources had been employed.

About learning from Vietnam, we obviously have not learned enough. We still have trouble fighting a war that isn't on our terms. We have trouble combatting an enemy that hides among civilians very well. Yes, we've learned but there are still issues. My main concern would be the war turning into a Russian Afghanistan scenario with ambushes that kill hundreds every day.

what possible war could we /have we ever fought "on our terms" though? you don't go "aww man north korea isn't convienent enough to fight" and just let them build nukes.

There have been a few... Kosovo, the first Iraq war, and the Korean War was until the Chinese got involved.

Secondly, I didn't say "convenient", I said on our terms, there is a difference. On our terms means with momentum that we set, at places where we want to fight, etc.

War isn't the answer to their building of nukes, not unless we want a lot of dead American boys. Our press should actually be China. We should be pushing them to enforce even heavier sanctions, maybe military blockades, or something of the like. We didn't use force with the Russians and both us and them came out of the Cold War without a third World War. That's what I would consider this, a second Cold War. The difference is that North Korea is probably more willing to enter into a full blown war.

okay, here's my opinion on the matter....




This is korea on the whole, not too bad, the map was found randomly, btw and should hold no bearing on what i assure you is a sound argument.





Now, as you can see, when we flip and rotate the picture of Korea, we get the image of a powerful flaming penis, symbolizing their phallic power the likes of which the world should tremble over, but as we know, the wang is a giver of life, not to be confused with warmongering rapepillaging and prison shower rendezvous.




Now, as you can see, Without south korea, north korea is wangless, and only a nutsack. The balls themselves have retreated into china to incubate dissent and yet, all power, political and otherwise, lies with south korea, which, unfortunately, has no balls at all.

Thanks you for your time.

but why the hell would china give a crap if NK builds nukes? they're allies

the sad truth is, there's not many countries out there that'd shed a tear if we got hit with nukes.

We learned a valuable lesson in vietnam, being a superpower with big guns and talk does not win a war. Modern Americans will not stand for heavy casualties like we saw in vietnam. The people dying in iraq, as bad as it is to say, are a simple statistic compared to the loss of human life in vietnam or even world war 2. Even with our smart bombs and technology we can not defeat a roving band of fighters in the jungle. Have we forgoten so quickly how we defeated the british in the revolution? We fought them the same way, picking off their soldiers. And like vietnam, it will not matter if we take a capital city. The same thing happened in Iraq in 2003, we may have conquered baghdad and all the major cities, but the enemy continues to harass us with "terrorist" tactics. The fact remains that a war in North Korea, like Iraq and vietnam before it, can not be won in any traditional sense. I would agree with you Impala if we had devised a way to fight these tactics, but the war in Iraq prooves that we have not done any such thing. You would think that the most sophisticated nation in the world would have cleaned up it's skeletons, unfortunatly this is not the case. The only possible way to win in North Korea is to nuke the fuck out of it, destroying the entire state. This of course is not possible, because of the international implications. A nuclear world war would not be good for anyone. And destroying the northern country would only anger south koreans who have family in the north and desperatly want to reunite at some time. This is a complicated matter, and ALL matters into solving it must be carefully and cautiously examined before we commit our manpower to this desperate war.

well obviously it's complicated, but war isn't always inevitable. yes, modern americans won't stand for casualties like in vietnam but the thing that bugs me the most is all the people who want the impossible. there are some very simple truths people can't seem to figure out:

1) 6 billion people will never all get along
2) #1 will result in wars
3) wars result in death

the important thing i think most don't seem to understand is that not only do wars result in death, they also result in life. as in people who didn't die at the hands of a dictator, nations that are built, corrupt governments that are overthrown, murderous people who have been removed from our society, and terrible weapons removed from the hands of murderers.

if it ever came down to it and the decision was mine, and NK was within hours of being capable of launching a nuke and was threatening it, I'd press that button in a heartbeat.

Naturally war is inevitable sin of the human race, but it should be averted at every chance we get. I actually see the possibility of an invasion of North Korea under this administration both unliikely and political suicide for the republican party. Fighting a war like this would be like what johnson did to the democractic presidency, he destroyed it and eventually congress as well when it was finally taken over in '94. Lets face it we are already fighting two wars in Iraq and afghanistan, and the invasion of Iran is inevitable. Why we would invade a nation that has yet to test a nuke and let North Korea off the hook baffles me (even though we should not invade because it would be suicide). Let's face it, we invaded a country under the assumption that it WMDS, when it did not we said a lot of bull shit about dictators, democracy and terrorism but not much else. And yet we will not invade a dictatorship with a known human rights violation past and HAS AND TESTED nukes. The logic of this administration does not exist.

how can you not assume someone has WMDs when they break sanctions allowing WMD inspectors in for five years? and the logic of invading iraq or iran vs NK is easy, you pick fights you know you can win. i personally think we'd have no problem taking NK, but if the chinese sided with them that'd change things considerably.

How can you say it would be easy to take NK. We can not even take a divided country like Iraq and you think we can take a nation with the fourth largest army in terrain similar to vietnam that has NUKES. Give mea break. And I will continue to say this over and over again, They may not have let the inspectors in (I guess hans blix does not count??) yet where are the nukes, bio weapons and all the other shit that we gave them? (whoops!). I guess they destroyed it all per treaty. I guess we fucked up, better make up ties to terrorism and democracy bullshit to lull weak minded people into our republican dick sucking trance! yay

And where is the Iraqi army now? How can you say we haven't taken Iraq?? Sure there's still killing over there, but it's not like wars have an immediate cut off of "killing starts on this date, ends on this date". The point in NK would't be to attempt to occupy the whole country, it would be to destroy their ability to make and deploy nuclear weapons, as well as their ability to bully other countries (if they decide to try).


Hans Blix went in in 2002, there was still a five year period where WMD inspectors were not allowed in. You're as naive as it gets if you think they never had them. Iraq broke UN sanctions, and the UN was too pussy to call them on it, so we did.

This is almost exatly the situation we're headed into with NK, they're about to get some UN sanctions, and I guarandamntee you they will break them... i guess we'll see if the UN has the nutsack to pony up to their own sanctions this time.

China cares because even though they are allies with NK they depend on the U.S. for their economic power. They want to grow and in order to do that they need money, that's where the U.S. comes into the equation.



I doubt we'll invade Iran. The president has taken a quiet stance lately and though he was the only one to support their nuclear test he hasn't said much more than that. If Iran is put under the same sanctions as NK we could see them buckle or we could see them get extremely pissed off and try to invade Israel.

What gets me is that we won't help in a situation (we being the UN and the US) where there will be a small need for troops and a massive saving of lives. We all sit back and ignore Darfur, Somalia, the Congo and the rest of Africa thinking that these problems will just go away.

whoa the triple quote heheh

Yeah, weird... Fixed.

I agree that something needs to be done in Africa, Unfortunatly the United States and the world does not give a fuck about Africa (cept south and north africa) because they do not have any vital resources or provide any real threat to the international community. Until they find diamonds in somalia, we will not go in.