PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues North Korea mobilizing army


petegz28
05-24-2010, 11:33 PM
Was just reported on Bloomberg....North Korea is mobilizing their army. Probably chest puffing but I don't trust the sick and dying Kimmy Jong.

ForeverChiefs58
05-24-2010, 11:51 PM
jenson or orange will prob be by to say the north just needs a hug, not everyone in the north is an extremist, so don't judge them. whatever.

petegz28
05-25-2010, 12:05 AM
Also being reported is South Korea and the US are getting ready to carry out joint Naval exercises

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 07:28 AM
This administration cannot seem to get it. Reacting after the fact is the norm as opposed to our policy since WW2 of having the strength an will that keeps crap like this happening.

Obama has degraded our deterrent ability by being weak, anti military, handing over terrorist intel to Holder, not being willing to identify an enemy or a threat and taking steps to be out front.

We are in an unsafe world being led by a man who has no respect with enemies or allies.

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 08:45 AM
We are in an unsafe world being led by a man who has no respect with enemies or allies.

Wow. A Republican suggesting that a Democrat is completely unable to lead the nation in national security areas. We've NEVER heard that before.


President Truman must be impeached and convicted. His hasty and vindictive removal of Gen. MacArthur is the culmination of series of acts which have shown that he is unfit, morally and mentally, for his high office. . . . The American nation has never been in greater danger. It is led by a fool who is surrounded by knaves. . .

patteeu
05-25-2010, 09:29 AM
Wow. A Republican suggesting that a Democrat is completely unable to lead the nation in national security areas. We've NEVER heard that before.

[/I]

That may be true and I don't know whether Obama is up to the task or not (I certainly have my doubts), but Obama's incredible display of weakness over the past 16 months has done nothing but encourage these types of dangerous situations, IMO.

Donger
05-25-2010, 09:32 AM
I guess Biden's prediction was accurate, albeit not with regard to the timeframe.

petegz28
05-25-2010, 09:39 AM
North Korea just announced they are severing all ties with Seoul and deporting the South Korean workers that work in some factory.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 09:42 AM
Wow. A Republican suggesting that a Democrat is completely unable to lead the nation in national security areas. We've NEVER heard that before.

[/I]


Just simple observation. Not an attack on democrats. FDR, Truman both managed well but they also listened to military, not something this nutsack has been shown to do.

Rain Man
05-25-2010, 10:28 AM
In a sick way, it'd be kind of interesting if they did attack, as long as China stayed out of it. I suspect that their army is a big Potemkin village that would melt in about two days, and then maybe they'd shut 'er down and reunify with the South.

The Mad Crapper
05-25-2010, 10:30 AM
I guess the one on one talks aren't working out after all.

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 10:32 AM
Just simple observation. Not an attack on democrats. FDR, Truman both managed well but they also listened to military, not something this nutsack has been shown to do.

First, the military doesn't direct our foreign relations, last I knew. I certainly hope not at any rate.

Second, you have no idea if Obama listens to the military or not, unless you've seen leaked reports or whatever that indicate otherwise. It's not like he's cut their funding (which he should), or done anything I'm aware of to piss them off. The Rules of Engagement are always a problem in situations like Afghanistan and Iraq, where you're campaigning to win hearts and minds, and not just trying to wipe out a clearly defined enemy.

You want to put every head in Afghanistan on a spike? Great, you go for it. The f'ing Russians tried that. How'd that go?

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 10:33 AM
In a sick way, it'd be kind of interesting if they did attack, as long as China stayed out of it. I suspect that their army is a big Potemkin village that would melt in about two days, and then maybe they'd shut 'er down and reunify with the South.

Frankly, I"m a bit stunned that China isn't keeping a better leash on that dog.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 10:38 AM
First, the military doesn't direct our foreign relations, last I knew. I certainly hope not at any rate.

Second, you have no idea if Obama listens to the military or not, unless you've seen leaked reports or whatever that indicate otherwise. It's not like he's cut their funding (which he should), or done anything I'm aware of to piss them off. The Rules of Engagement are always a problem in situations like Afghanistan and Iraq, where you're campaigning to win hearts and minds, and not just trying to wipe out a clearly defined enemy.

You want to put every head in Afghanistan on a spike? Great, you go for it. The f'ing Russians tried that. How'd that go?


Im sure you have some basis for that nonsense. Clearly the military does not and has not directed foreign relations. Thats Obama's job and the main reason we are perceived globally as weak and poorly led and directed. Rules of engagement in Obamas peoples own words were that its better for our soldiers to be at risk than any risk of civilians getting hurt. Nice unless you are the kid with the gun. Its hogwash. Win hearts and minds after you win the war.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 10:40 AM
Frankly, I"m a bit stunned that China isn't keeping a better leash on that dog.

Why would China do that? Are we so weak we need to have little hope and handholding around the campfire that China will keep SK from being taken by NK? You do know NK and China were the enemy in the Korean conflict, or maybe you didnt.

Rain Man
05-25-2010, 10:43 AM
Why would China do that? Are we so weak we need to have little hope and handholding around the campfire that China will keep SK from being taken by NK? You do know NK and China were the enemy in the Korean conflict, or maybe you didnt.


I'd think that China would have an incentive to keep North Korea in existence. If North Korea attacks, one of two things is going to happen. China ends up getting sucked in to keep North Korea in existence, or China now has a unified Korea on its border, which probably isn't in their best interest in the ultra-long term. I think the odds of a unified Korea under northern control are miniscule at best.

Would China rather have a 14th-century backwoods recluse next door or a strong and growing western power? I would bet on the first one.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 10:48 AM
I dont think North Korea's existence is even in consideration. Its South Korea who was attacked . They are in to their eyeballs and always have been

alnorth
05-25-2010, 11:09 AM
I'd think that China would have an incentive to keep North Korea in existence. If North Korea attacks, one of two things is going to happen. China ends up getting sucked in to keep North Korea in existence, or China now has a unified Korea on its border, which probably isn't in their best interest in the ultra-long term. I think the odds of a unified Korea under northern control are miniscule at best.

Would China rather have a 14th-century backwoods recluse next door or a strong and growing western power? I would bet on the first one.

There is a 3rd option. If we reach a point where it is clear that North Korea is going to try to wipe out South Korea (which we obviously wont allow), I could see this happening. We go to China and say "look, if this was Mexico threatening your allies, everyone would expect us to do something. This is your backyard, we would prefer to stay out if the S. Korean people are protected, so you have a couple days to do something before we are forced into a war."

China, basically given a blank check, invades North Korea for the good of the world, and we end up with China taking over what used to be North Korea, a fairly peaceful neighbor to Korea (used to be South Korea). I think we'd probably prefer to let China just take it to avoid nuclear war.

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 11:17 AM
Its hogwash. Win hearts and minds after you win the war.

You don't even understand the war we're in. Some wars aren't won just by being the guy with the biggest gun, no matter what your John Wayne movies taught you when you were 18.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 11:19 AM
You don't even understand the war we're in. Some wars aren't won just by being the guy with the biggest gun, no matter what your John Wayne movies taught you when you were 18.

What war are we in? Enlighten us with this wisdom.

The Mad Crapper
05-25-2010, 11:20 AM
China, basically given a blank check, invades North Korea for the good of the world

And under this scenario Kim Jong Mentally Il doesn't launch a single nuke?

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 11:21 AM
There is a 3rd option. If we reach a point where it is clear that North Korea is going to try to wipe out South Korea (which we obviously wont allow), I could see this happening. We go to China and say "look, if this was Mexico threatening your allies, everyone would expect us to do something. This is your backyard, we would prefer to stay out if the S. Korean people are protected, so you have a couple days to do something before we are forced into a war."

China, basically given a blank check, invades North Korea for the good of the world, and we end up with China taking over what used to be North Korea, a fairly peaceful neighbor to Korea (used to be South Korea). I think we'd probably prefer to let China just take it to avoid nuclear war.

The UN has to engage sometime after all the treaty ending the Korean conflict is their baby. But we know the history of the UN and basically it sucks. Obama will move even slower than the UN thus it will be all over but the photo ops and grandstanding by the time anything is done.

patteeu
05-25-2010, 11:21 AM
First, the military doesn't direct our foreign relations, last I knew. I certainly hope not at any rate.

Second, you have no idea if Obama listens to the military or not, unless you've seen leaked reports or whatever that indicate otherwise. It's not like he's cut their funding (which he should), or done anything I'm aware of to piss them off. The Rules of Engagement are always a problem in situations like Afghanistan and Iraq, where you're campaigning to win hearts and minds, and not just trying to wipe out a clearly defined enemy.

You want to put every head in Afghanistan on a spike? Great, you go for it. The f'ing Russians tried that. How'd that go?

Just a week or two ago there was a Obama-friendly puff piece posted here bragging about how Obama doesn't listen to his generals the way Bush did. You can be certain that that was a message crafted by Obama's communications team so I think it's fair to criticize him on that count if you think listening to generals is a good thing.

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 11:21 AM
Why would China do that? Are we so weak we need to have little hope and handholding around the campfire that China will keep SK from being taken by NK? You do know NK and China were the enemy in the Korean conflict, or maybe you didnt.

Wait, we had a war there before? We fought hte Chinese?!?! No way.

And who was the f'n nutbag that got the Chinese into the war? Douglas DumbAss MacArthur. One of the worst political decisions made by the US in the 20th century, because the political leadership let the military make it for them.

The Chinese probably aren't behind this play by NK. Myopic views of a consolidated Communist bloc marching arm in arm wasn't even correct in 1960, much less 2010.

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 11:25 AM
What war are we in? Enlighten us with this wisdom.

Depends on how you define "war", doesn't it.

In Korea, none. In Iraq and Afghanistan it's a war, whatever the politicos want to call it, and whether Congress has declared it one under the Constitution or not. When you've got tens of thousnads of US troops on foreign soil shooting bullets, getting shot at, killing people and getting killed, and trying to determine a country's direction, I think you're at war.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 11:27 AM
Wait, we had a war there before? We fought hte Chinese?!?! No way.

And who was the f'n nutbag that got the Chinese into the war? Douglas DumbAss MacArthur. One of the worst political decisions made by the US in the 20th century, because the political leadership let the military make it for them.

The Chinese probably aren't behind this play by NK. Myopic views of a consolidated Communist bloc marching arm in arm wasn't even correct in 1960, much less 2010.

You think NK makes moves that China is unaware of of the magnitude of submarine attacks on a ship? Really?

Im sure old Doug McArthur is pertinent to todays situation. Do you feel he alone should be blamed?

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 11:28 AM
Just a week or two ago there was a Obama-friendly puff piece posted here bragging about how Obama doesn't listen to his generals the way Bush did. You can be certain that that was a message crafted by Obama's communications team so I think it's fair to criticize him on that count if you think listening to generals is a good thing.

Didn't see it.

Generals are advisers, like any others. They present the range of options and the consequences of actions within the best of their ability. Bush shut out the State Department. It's why Colin Powell left. Diplomacy was just an adjunct to his adolescent testosterone fueled foreign policy approach. I'm confident that very, VERY few Presidntns have listened to his generals the way Bush did.

alnorth
05-25-2010, 11:31 AM
And under this scenario Kim Jong Mentally Il doesn't launch a single nuke?

If North Korea starts to bomb South Korea, we are beyond caring what North Korea will do. In that situation, we hold nothing back, millions of north koreans are killed, and we try to shoot down whatever they fire.

I didn't make one thing clear, I don't necessarily mean we or China have to pre-emptively attack. If China publicly announces to North Korea that if they attack, then China invades, that would probably be good enough for us to hang back and focus on just protecting S. Korea and let China run the show in the north.

Right now though, we have no promises of anything. If China stays aloof and vague right up to the point when the missles start flying, then its too late to decide who does what, we pretty much have no choice but to immediately level North Korea ourselves.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 11:31 AM
Depends on how you define "war", doesn't it.

In Korea, none. In Iraq and Afghanistan it's a war, whatever the politicos want to call it, and whether Congress has declared it one under the Constitution or not. When you've got tens of thousnads of US troops on foreign soil shooting bullets, getting shot at, killing people and getting killed, and trying to determine a country's direction, I think you're at war.

I was not defining it I was asking you since you seemed to feel rather confident in your position.

Wars are generally started when the aggressor feels confident he has the upper hand and can win. Or they are purely based on some misguided fundamentals.

In Korea's case if they felt they have little or no opportunity to achieve their military objective, he stands down. Thats the essence of a strong deterrent force and position. And that Obama has sold down the river. Thus we are and will be late to the game and in a bad position every time under this assclown

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 11:32 AM
You think NK makes moves that China is unaware of of the magnitude of submarine attacks on a ship? Really?

Does Israel do everything we tell them to?

If you asked hardcore Muslim what he thought, would he say they did?

Pyongyang has a notorious independent streak. They may have pre-cleared this with China. Certainly possible. But certainly not definite.

petegz28
05-25-2010, 11:33 AM
North Korea most certainly makes moves without consulting China as long as they are smaller moves, such as sinking the ship. That being said, Kimmy Jong is going to push his luck too far I am afraid.

The Mad Crapper
05-25-2010, 11:34 AM
If North Korea starts to bomb South Korea, we are beyond caring what North Korea will do. In that situation, we hold nothing back, millions of north koreans are killed, and we try to shoot down whatever they fire.

I didn't make one thing clear, I don't necessarily mean we or China have to pre-emptively attack. If China publicly announces to North Korea that if they attack, then China invades, that would probably be good enough for us to hang back and focus on just protecting S. Korea and let China run the show in the north.

Right now though, we have no promises of anything. If China stays aloof and vague right up to the point when the missles start flying, then its too late to decide who does what, we pretty much have no choice but to immediately level North Korea ourselves.

Fair enough.

Do you think it's in China's best interest to take control of NK?

Radar Chief
05-25-2010, 11:35 AM
Frankly, I"m a bit stunned that China isn't keeping a better leash on that dog.

China has been building an arsenal of weapons meant to take out our Navy, particularly carriers. Maybe they’re closer to ready for a direct conflict with us than we’re being told.

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 11:35 AM
In Korea's case if they felt they have little or no opportunity to achieve their military objective, he stands down. Thats the essence of a strong deterrent force and position. And that Obama has sold down the river. Thus we are and will be late to the game and in a bad position every time under this assclown

Were you signing this same song when North Korea sunk a ship under Bush in 2002?

"Before those recent incidents, the last time the two Koreas traded gunfire at sea was in June 2002, when a North Korean patrol boat crossed the maritime border in the Yellow Sea and fired against two South Korean patrol boats. It sank one South Korean boat, killing six South Korean sailors and injuring 19 others."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704100604575145683306658178.html

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 11:37 AM
China has been building an arsenal of weapons meant to take out our Navy, particularly carriers. Maybe they’re closer to ready for a direct conflict with us than we’re being told.

Of course they are. Carriers, and our navy, are how we project our power across the entire world, aligning the world order to our own interests. China wants to become the new superpower, so they're working on ways to ensure that in a military engagement they nullify one of our biggest strengths.

Cave Johnson
05-25-2010, 11:39 AM
Were you signing this same song when North Korea sunk a ship under Bush in 2002?

"Before those recent incidents, the last time the two Koreas traded gunfire at sea was in June 2002, when a North Korean patrol boat crossed the maritime border in the Yellow Sea and fired against two South Korean patrol boats. It sank one South Korean boat, killing six South Korean sailors and injuring 19 others."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704100604575145683306658178.html

...

boogblaster
05-25-2010, 11:40 AM
This time China will stay out .. so this should be a win win for the US .....

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 11:40 AM
I probably was. I don't seem to evaluate an attack by an enemy on an allied country as being acceptable or not on the basis of the party affiliation of the incumbent leadership.

The fact they did it before and was wrong and dangerous is not justification to take it as a non issue today. And in the time period since then NK has developed into a much more well funded economy with far greater nuclear and non traditional abilities,

The other difference is while they have grown in strength, Kim has become more goofy, and Obama is not seen as having the strength of will to hammer them if they make one more move.

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 11:41 AM
This time China will stay out .. so this should be a win win for the US .....

Why, Douglas? Do you also have a particularly keen understanding of "the Oriental mind"?

Radar Chief
05-25-2010, 11:41 AM
Of course they are. Carriers, and our navy, are how we project our power across the entire world, aligning the world order to our own interests. China wants to become the new superpower, so they're working on ways to ensure that in a military engagement they nullify one of our biggest strengths.

Correct.

alnorth
05-25-2010, 11:42 AM
Fair enough.

Do you think it's in China's best interest to take control of NK?

I think if it becomes inevitable that North Korea will fall, it will be in their interests to keep it from becoming a new democratic government or part of a reunified Korea under Seoul.

For us, it would not be ideal, but at this point in time it would probably be better than us spending the money we dont have, losing the lives that we politically would rather not lose, and dealing with more anti-america world political crap. China wants to be a world power, well this problem is in their own neighborhood, so they need to act like it and either put a leash on their dog or put it to sleep.

BucEyedPea
05-25-2010, 11:42 AM
Why, Douglas? Do you also have a particularly keen understanding of "the Oriental mind"?

That's racist.

They're called Asians...East Asians.

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 11:43 AM
I probably was. I don't seem to evaluate an attack by an enemy on an allied country as being acceptable or not on the basis of the party affiliation of the incumbent leadership.

The fact they did it before and was wrong and dangerous is not justification to take it as a non issue today. And in the time period since then NK has developed into a much more well funded economy with far greater nuclear and non traditional abilities,

The other difference is while they have grown in strength, Kim has become more goofy, and Obama is not seen as having the strength of will to hammer them if they make one more move.

It's not a non-issue.

But blaming Obama for what a country which is essentially a rabid dog does is rather sily.

The Mad Crapper
05-25-2010, 11:43 AM
I think if it becomes inevitable that North Korea will fall, it will be in their interests to keep it from becoming a new democratic government or part of a reunified Korea under Seoul.

For us, it would not be ideal, but at this point in time it would probably be better than us spending the money we dont have, losing the lives that we politically would rather not lose, and dealing with more anti-america world political crap. China wants to be a world power, well this problem is in their own neighborhood, so they need to act like it and either put a leash on their dog or put it to sleep.

Thanks. I agree.

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 11:45 AM
That's racist.

They're called Asians...East Asians.

:rolleyes: There's a reason the phrase in quotes. If you knew and understood history, instead of making it up as you go along, you'd understand what I said and why I said it.

alnorth
05-25-2010, 11:45 AM
This time China will stay out .. so this should be a win win for the US .....

I think if it looks like we'll be drawn into a shooting match, they will either publicly or quietly assure us that "they got this one".

It would be like Mexico going completely insane, we say "meh, we don't care, we're doing nothing", and China takes over and installs a new commie government on our border. I really dont think that China would stay out.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 11:45 AM
It's not a non-issue.

But blaming Obama for what a country which is essentially a rabid dog does is rather sily.


Blaming Obama for empowering them to do so through weakness and demonstrated lack of will is certainly in play.

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 11:49 AM
Blaming Obama for empowering them to do so through weakness and demonstrated lack of will is certainly in play.

Talk to the Taliban about hsi weakness and lack of will.

His approach to diplomacy is more than just shoot first and ask questions later. Since that seems to be the only approach many right-wingers like, then it comes off as weak in your view. It's not. Nor do I think for a second that NK thinks it's going to go steamroll SK while Obama just sits on his thumbs.

alnorth
05-25-2010, 11:52 AM
It's not a non-issue.

But blaming Obama for what a country which is essentially a rabid dog does is rather sily.

Yeah, I have to assume that our generals and/or China's generals have the disaster plans all quietly worked out. If North Korea attacks, we pull out, and just watch South Korea get overrun I'll be calling for Obama's head, but I really doubt that will happen.

We either have an understanding with China that they will take care of it if North Korea snaps, or if not then we've got our own quiet plans to nuke Pyongyang and bring the war to a quick bloody end. I think its pretty telling that in our new "we wont nuke you unless you try to nuke us" strategy, we conspicuously excluded North Korea.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 11:55 AM
Talk to the Taliban about hsi weakness and lack of will.

His approach to diplomacy is more than just shoot first and ask questions later. Since that seems to be the only approach many right-wingers like, then it comes off as weak in your view. It's not. Nor do I think for a second that NK thinks it's going to go steamroll SK while Obama just sits on his thumbs.

Sure has reduced our risk to attack here hasn't it? Do you feel the Taliban is degraded as a power as a result of Obama? How do you know?

You who prefer to play nice, ignore the danger from enemies and hope we can have happy times by being sweetness and light have always been around. They were the protestors before WW2 who held huge rallies and called for FDR to be impeached, opposed lend lease, and fought to keep us from aiding the Brits.

Thank goodness we have people ho have a better grasp on what it takes to remain safe and to protect others keeping them safe than this happy dance attitude some of the dove left always feels.

patteeu
05-25-2010, 12:20 PM
Didn't see it.

Generals are advisers, like any others. They present the range of options and the consequences of actions within the best of their ability. Bush shut out the State Department. It's why Colin Powell left. Diplomacy was just an adjunct to his adolescent testosterone fueled foreign policy approach. I'm confident that very, VERY few Presidntns have listened to his generals the way Bush did.

To the extent that Bush shut out the State department (and it wasn't to a great enough extent for my money), it was because they were institutionally disloyal to his policy direction not because his policy was short on diplomacy. If Colin Powell had been able to rein the state department in and get it fully on board with the Bush program, it would have had a significantly larger role to play.

Loxinabox
05-25-2010, 12:36 PM
This administration cannot seem to get it. Reacting after the fact is the norm as opposed to our policy since WW2 of having the strength an will that keeps crap like this happening.

Obama has degraded our deterrent ability by being weak, anti military, handing over terrorist intel to Holder, not being willing to identify an enemy or a threat and taking steps to be out front.

We are in an unsafe world being led by a man who has no respect with enemies or allies.

Just say no to Socialism

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 12:40 PM
Sure has reduced our risk to attack here hasn't it? Do you feel the Taliban is degraded as a power as a result of Obama? How do you know?

Don't know. What I do know is that under Bush they were simply taking over the place with their shadow government and waiting for the US to leave to take over again the next day, basically. Bush ignored Afghanistan to the extent that now it's difficult to dig them out. Will Obama succeed? No idea. History, however, is definitely NOT on his/our side.

You who prefer to play nice, ignore the danger from enemies and hope we can have happy times by being sweetness and light have always been around. They were the protestors before WW2 who held huge rallies and called for FDR to be impeached, opposed lend lease, and fought to keep us from aiding the Brits.

Yeah, Republicans mostly. But that was a different era so I won't hold it against you.

Nor is using diplomacy either playing nice or ignoring danger.

Thank goodness we have people ho have a better grasp on what it takes to remain safe and to protect others keeping them safe than this happy dance attitude some of the dove left always feels.

I'm no dove. Obama's reorientation to Afghanistan shows he's hardly weak or a dove either. He's trying to reach the same aims by a different method.

Did Bush solve NK's nuclear buildup? No.

Iran's? No.

Settle Afghanistan or Iraq? No.

Make Iran bow to our will? No.

Resolve the West Bank and other Israeli/Arab tensions? Nope.

Reduce/eliminate rising Russian militantcy? Nope.


The reality is that the world is in a period of tranistion from the relatively simple math of the Cold War to rising nationalism among third world nations who want a seat at the table and a voice in the international community. Many of these countries are not our friends, do not have interests that are remotely similar to ours, much less aligned with ours, and are struggling against a world order that they do not like one damn bit. This has been going on since the end of World War II, but has really accelerated since the end of the Cold War stopped forcing countries into one of two camps.

Most of the world, of course, is more or less being ignored. They don't have things that we want, and they don't threaten (much) people that we care about (much). Those countries that sit on or near strategic resources (oil), threaten countries who are our friends or with whom we have close ties (North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela), present problems that are not easily solved. The fact that they are not easily solved is proven by the fact that many are longstanding issues that have vexed both Republicans and Democrats for many years.

John Wayne diplomacy is mindlessly simple, but it's not necessarily either the best approach or the right approach. It may come as a surprise to you, but it's a big world, with alot of people in it, and not all of them are just going to run around scared and doing what we want because we have the biggest gun and we're willing ot use it.

Having the biggest gun didn't solve Vietnam, and hasn't yet solved Afghanistan or Iraq for us. It didn't solve Iran for Reagan, Bush 1 or Bush 2. It hasn't solved North Korea since Truman.

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 12:42 PM
To the extent that Bush shut out the State department (and it wasn't to a great enough extent for my money), it was because they were institutionally disloyal to his policy direction not because his policy was short on diplomacy. If Colin Powell had been able to rein the state department in and get it fully on board with the Bush program, it would have had a significantly larger role to play.

Sources? If you've read a book on this, I might be interested. I've read some, but they're on the other side of the political spectrum.

Far as I can tell, State just didn't have much pull because Bush/Cheney liked Defense better. To the point where Defense, partly because it has a massive budget, was given carte blanche to start operating far beyond normal Defense parameters (nation-building in Iraq with minimal input from State, etc.)

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 12:43 PM
Why this fascination with Bush? Is Bush your benchmark of good leadership vs Bad? Do your expectations center on Bush?

VN was run by Johnson and McNamara and the Military was never allowed to engage...sound familiar?

Tactical Funky
05-25-2010, 12:47 PM
And under this scenario Kim Jong Mentally Il doesn't launch a single nuke?
Kim Jong Il can't launch a nuke; North Korea's nuclear program is very rudimentary and they haven't even approached the technical ability to miniaturize nuclear weapons for fitting warheads on missiles. Heck, even the nuke that North Korea detonated a few years back fizzled badly and didn't have nearly as much of a yield as per its design. It was also likely so large and unwieldly that it wouldn't be easy to transport or conceal. Chances are it took years for North Korea to build that single nuke and chances are they don't have another one ready yet.

The real concern should be the hundreds of thousands of artillery cannons pointed at Seoul.

dirk digler
05-25-2010, 12:51 PM
Sure has reduced our risk to attack here hasn't it? Do you feel the Taliban is degraded as a power as a result of Obama? How do you know?

You who prefer to play nice, ignore the danger from enemies and hope we can have happy times by being sweetness and light have always been around. They were the protestors before WW2 who held huge rallies and called for FDR to be impeached, opposed lend lease, and fought to keep us from aiding the Brits.

Thank goodness we have people ho have a better grasp on what it takes to remain safe and to protect others keeping them safe than this happy dance attitude some of the dove left always feels.

Then are people like you who chickened out of serving their country in Vietnam and now are experts on the military.

I am glad there were real Americans who actually stood up and defended this country unlike other people.

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 12:58 PM
Why this fascination with Bush? Is Bush your benchmark of good leadership vs Bad? Do your expectations center on Bush?

VN was run by Johnson and McNamara and the Military was never allowed to engage...sound familiar?

Half a million American soldiers were deployed in Vietnam a country which, including both North and South Vietnam, is about the size of New Mexico, and you say the military wasn't "engaged"? Yeah.

And the war was run by Nixon starting in 1968.

The war wasn't even a situation we should have been in. No strategic significance to us. It was a war of nationalism, not of communism, not that our leadership understood that at the time, because the world was all black and white, communism and capitalism, and an overly simplistic and paranoid worldview dominated American thinking.

I get it. To you, a gun can solve any problem. If one gun doesn't work, then two will. If not two, then a dozen. If not a dozen, then a million. Enough guns solves any problem. Right. Got it.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 01:01 PM
Then are people like you who chickened out of serving their country in Vietnam and now are experts on the military.

I am glad there were real Americans who actually stood up and defended this country unlike other people.

Too bad we don't have mandatory service isn't it Dirk.

In your view if someone did not volunteer at 17 to be in active duty, do they have any voice? Should non-service people or vets be allowed to vote? Can they be "real Americans"?

Is it just VietNam that you would focus on? What about those who didn't go to Korea? Or WW2?

I imagine there are a good number of people who you could put in your group of not being "real americans"

ROYC75
05-25-2010, 01:03 PM
Any war is bad. But really have 4 options, 1). Nuke them, which is out of the question and reality or
2). Ground troops .... a lot of lost lives for our soldiers.
3). Missile strikes ......... We do not have enough there to launch and counter their military missile ability.
4). Kiss their ***, which we have done a pretty good job of.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 01:03 PM
Half a million American soldiers were deployed in Vietnam a country which, including both North and South Vietnam, is about the size of New Mexico, and you say the military wasn't "engaged"? Yeah.

And the war was run by Nixon starting in 1968.

The war wasn't even a situation we should have been in. No strategic significance to us. It was a war of nationalism, not of communism, not that our leadership understood that at the time, because the world was all black and white, communism and capitalism, and an overly simplistic and paranoid worldview dominated American thinking.

I get it. To you, a gun can solve any problem. If one gun doesn't work, then two will. If not two, then a dozen. If not a dozen, then a million. Enough guns solves any problem. Right. Got it.

Nixon decreased forces and were were effectively out by 72. Kennedy was first to begin ramping up but even before that we had started to send advisors post French withdrawal.

As far as the value of or the reason to be there, I'd agree it turned out to be a failure on almost any level.

petegz28
05-25-2010, 01:06 PM
Half a million American soldiers were deployed in Vietnam a country which, including both North and South Vietnam, is about the size of New Mexico, and you say the military wasn't "engaged"? Yeah.

And the war was run by Nixon starting in 1968.

The war wasn't even a situation we should have been in. No strategic significance to us. It was a war of nationalism, not of communism, not that our leadership understood that at the time, because the world was all black and white, communism and capitalism, and an overly simplistic and paranoid worldview dominated American thinking.

I get it. To you, a gun can solve any problem. If one gun doesn't work, then two will. If not two, then a dozen. If not a dozen, then a million. Enough guns solves any problem. Right. Got it.

Be real. Vietnam was a war of $'s. Plain and simple.

dirk digler
05-25-2010, 01:10 PM
Too bad we don't have mandatory service isn't it Dirk.

In your view if someone did not volunteer at 17 to be in active duty, do they have any voice? Should non-service people or vets be allowed to vote? Can they be "real Americans"?

Is it just VietNam that you would focus on? What about those who didn't go to Korea? Or WW2?

I imagine there are a good number of people who you could put in your group of not being "real americans"

I don't have a problem with people not serving. What I do have a problem with is those who had a chance to go to Nam or any other war and decided not to or run overseas and then start lecturing people later on in life about war and being soft and basically being a pussy.

And you know what hcf that might include me as well. I am 39, I could have probably re-upped with the USMC and went to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan but I became a lazy civilian. The thing is though I joined when Gulf War 1 was just about to start. It is too damn bad it ended before I even got to boot camp.

alnorth
05-25-2010, 01:11 PM
Any war is bad. But really have 3 options, 1). Nuke them, which is out of the question and reality or
2). Ground troops .... a lot of lost lives for our soldiers.
3). Missile strikes ......... We do not have enough there to launch and counter their military missile ability.

1) false. When you join the "nuclear club", you also force everyone else to use nuclear weapons against you in a war. We have no illusions that any nuclear nation that somehow gets in a war with the USA wont use them. N. Korea probably thought they would gain respect and financial advantages with nuclear weapons. Maybe they will, but they also put themselves in a very dangerous position in a war, so they would be stupid to start one.

2) unnecessary

3) Who is talking missiles? With aircraft carriers we can attain air superiority within days, then proceed to bomb the living hell out of them with conventional weapons if necessary. Large infantries are of very limited use against superior technology and firepower.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 01:14 PM
I don't have a problem with people not serving. What I do have a problem with is those who had a chance to go to Nam or any other war and decided not to or run overseas and then start lecturing people later on in life about war and being soft and basically being a pussy.

And you know what hcf that might include me as well. I am 39, I could have probably re-upped with the USMC and went to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan but I became a lazy civilian. The thing is though I joined when Gulf War 1 was start just about to start. It is too damn bad it ended before I even got to boot camp.

So do you feel less than a "real American"?

petegz28
05-25-2010, 01:15 PM
1) false. When you join the "nuclear club", you also force everyone else to use nuclear weapons against you in a war. We have no illusions that any nuclear nation that somehow gets in a war with the USA wont use them. N. Korea probably thought they would gain respect and financial advantages with nuclear weapons. Maybe they will, but they also put themselves in a very dangerous position in a war, so they would be stupid to start one.

2) unnecessary

3) Who is talking missiles? With aircraft carriers we can attain air superiority within days, then proceed to bomb the living hell out of them with conventional weapons if necessary. Large infantries are of very limited use against superior technology and firepower.

To win a war you have to put boots on the ground at some point.

Bowser
05-25-2010, 01:15 PM
Blaming Obama for empowering them to do so through weakness and demonstrated lack of will is certainly in play.Hilarious. North Korea has a history of pulling stunts like this for years, regardless of who has been in the White House.

alnorth
05-25-2010, 01:17 PM
To win a war you have to put boots on the ground at some point.

true, but "at some point" means after their military has basically been broken by our nukes and/or air force. We didn't lose a whole hell of a lot of infantry in the Iraq wars, our losses came after the wars were basically over, during insurgent attacks or suicide missions by religious fanatics. We likely wont have as much of that here.

We're basically talking mop-up not 18th-century combat where everyone stands in orderly lines and shoots at each other.

dirk digler
05-25-2010, 01:17 PM
So do you feel less than a "real American"?

Sometimes I do. I feel like I had an opportunity and I didn't step up.

alnorth
05-25-2010, 01:22 PM
I don't have a problem with people not serving. What I do have a problem with is those who had a chance to go to Nam or any other war and decided not to or run overseas and then start lecturing people later on in life about war and being soft and basically being a pussy.

And you know what hcf that might include me as well. I am 39, I could have probably re-upped with the USMC and went to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan but I became a lazy civilian. The thing is though I joined when Gulf War 1 was just about to start. It is too damn bad it ended before I even got to boot camp.

I've always looked at it the same way as that old analogy where you don't have to be addicted to cocaine to know that drugs are bad for you. Likewise, you can argue in favor of war without having served.

Are there "chickenhawks" who cavalierly toss around lives without risking their own? Sure, but if someone makes a reasoned logical case for war when other options have been exhausted and when the need for a military solution is great, their own lack of military service is not relevant. The argument is either good or it isn't.

dirk digler
05-25-2010, 01:25 PM
I've always looked at it the same way as that old analogy where you don't have to be addicted to cocaine to know that drugs are bad for you. Likewise, you can argue in favor of war without having served.

Are there "chickenhawks" who cavalierly toss around lives without risking their own? Sure, but if someone makes a reasoned logical case for war when other options have been exhausted and when the need for a military solution is great, their own lack of military service is not relevant. The argument is either good or it isn't.

You can argue that but don't come across and act like you are all tough and the other person is a pussy. That is my main point of contention.

alnorth
05-25-2010, 01:26 PM
You can argue that but don't come across and act like you are all tough and the other person is a pussy. That is my main point of contention.

fair enough. If some hothead steps outside the arena of rational debate and stoops to calling you out for something silly or imagined, then their own record is fair game.

petegz28
05-25-2010, 01:33 PM
I've always looked at it the same way as that old analogy where you don't have to be addicted to cocaine to know that drugs are bad for you. Likewise, you can argue in favor of war without having served.

Are there "chickenhawks" who cavalierly toss around lives without risking their own? Sure, but if someone makes a reasoned logical case for war when other options have been exhausted and when the need for a military solution is great, their own lack of military service is not relevant. The argument is either good or it isn't.

This is my problem with the war in Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan. When you go to war you better be ready to go kick the ever loving fuck out of the enemy with, how do they say it, extreme prejudice. That means all out, full wave, mass destruction. Civilian casualties have to be a secondary thought. The goals of a war are simple:

1. Win
2. Bring as many of your troops home as fast and as safe as you can


This playing cops and robbers bullshit just extends the war, increases casualties and wears on the public support.

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 01:37 PM
Nixon decreased forces and were were effectively out by 72. Kennedy was first to begin ramping up but even before that we had started to send advisors post French withdrawal.

As far as the value of or the reason to be there, I'd agree it turned out to be a failure on almost any level.

Yes, I'm familiar with the history. And while we were effectively out by '72, that was four years into Nixon, and he inherited a situation where we had peak forces there, starting to scale them back after the Tet Offensive.

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 01:37 PM
Be real. Vietnam was a war of $'s. Plain and simple.

A war of $? Not sure I get what you're trying to say.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 01:37 PM
So you hold Nixon accountable for VN?

petegz28
05-25-2010, 01:41 PM
A war of $? Not sure I get what you're trying to say.

Unfortunately I cannot remember all the details. But a friend of my Wife's Dad (who was killed from Vietnam, cancer got him shortly after the war), a democrat even, explained it to me one day. It was very eye opening and what it came down to was money. It was all about money.

Bowser
05-25-2010, 01:42 PM
This is my problem with the war in Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan. When you go to war you better be ready to go kick the ever loving fuck out of the enemy with, how do they say it, extreme prejudice. That means all out, full wave, mass destruction. Civilian casualties have to be a secondary thought. The goals of a war are simple:

1. Win
2. Bring as many of your troops home as fast and as safe as you can


This playing cops and robbers bullshit just extends the war, increases casualties and wears on the public support.

Sure, but the action of "going to war" has changed by leaps and bounds over the past two decades. Our air superiority alone forces our would be foes to find a new way to wage war against us, hence the terroristic attacks and guerrilla style fighting. I sincerely doubt you will ever see wars fought like they were in WWII ever again. It's going to be urban, house to house stuff, which prevents "all out, full wave, mass destruction"*. You can say civillian casualties must be a secondary thought, but if you TRULY adopt that line of thinking, not only are you no better than those you're trying to hunt down, but you would most likely piss off the rest of the world. And despite what some hardliners like to think, America (or any other country for that matter) couldn't fend off the rest of the world. Hell, you see a little of that with how we completely botched Iraq.


*The only way we could go nuts like that is if our country ended up nuked, and it would probably require multiple detonations. IMO

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 01:42 PM
Johnson, his buds, family made untold gazillions but that is old history

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 01:43 PM
This is my problem with the war in Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan. When you go to war you better be ready to go kick the ever loving fuck out of the enemy with, how do they say it, extreme prejudice. That means all out, full wave, mass destruction. Civilian casualties have to be a secondary thought. The goals of a war are simple:

1. Win
2. Bring as many of your troops home as fast and as safe as you can


This playing cops and robbers bullshit just extends the war, increases casualties and wears on the public support.


I agree 100%. Unfortunately, this only applies to traditional wars with traditional armies. What do you do when the Taliban dresses like everyone else? When they melt into the indigeneous population as soon as your forces show up? When they take over the towns and villages at night when your troops aren't on patrol.

Kill everyone? Kill every male between 18 and 50? When you KNOW that only, let's say, 30% of them at most are casual much less active supporters of the Taliban? When you're trying to have a local government get the support of its people?

How do you fight that war? There's lots of different ways to do it. But none of them are easy, or quick.

petegz28
05-25-2010, 01:51 PM
I agree 100%. Unfortunately, this only applies to traditional wars with traditional armies. What do you do when the Taliban dresses like everyone else? When they melt into the indigeneous population as soon as your forces show up? When they take over the towns and villages at night when your troops aren't on patrol.

Kill everyone? Kill every male between 18 and 50? When you KNOW that only, let's say, 30% of them at most are casual much less active supporters of the Taliban? When you're trying to have a local government get the support of its people?

How do you fight that war? There's lots of different ways to do it. But none of them are easy, or quick.

I hate to say this at the sake of sounding inhumane, but if the enemy refuses to fight fair, i.e. wear uniforms, then you are left with no other choice than to fight unfairly as well.

You ever played a game against a cheater while you played by the rules? I doubt you won much.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 01:59 PM
We would still be fighting on the sand at Omaha beach, Hitlers grandkids would be running the reich if we took the approach taken today.

Bowser
05-25-2010, 02:03 PM
We would still be fighting on the sand at Omaha beach, Hitlers grandkids would be running the reich if we took the approach taken today.

You might have a point if the Nazis dressed in civilian clothes and strapped bombs to their chests in hopes of getting close to soldiers to blow them up while they were storming the beach. But since they didn't, you don't.

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 02:34 PM
So you hold Nixon accountable for VN?


"Accountable"? No. We shouldn't have been there in the first place. It was pretty much an unwinnable situation, and certainly not winnable at anywhere near a price we'd be willing to pay.

Of course, by the standards employed by some around here in 2010, clearly Nixon had 100% responsibility within three, maybe four days of taking office. :p

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 02:36 PM
I hate to say this at the sake of sounding inhumane, but if the enemy refuses to fight fair, i.e. wear uniforms, then you are left with no other choice than to fight unfairly as well.

You ever played a game against a cheater while you played by the rules? I doubt you won much.

So kill all male civilians? That your answer?

And you're going to get the population supporting your preferred government how?

Your solution has been used. But usually when you want to annex/control a territory, not when you want to get a friendly but indigeneous government in place. The solution you propose will just get us another anti-American Hussein/Taliban type government, which will be just as anti-American as before, and earn us hatred across the Muslim world.

Justified hatred...



EDIT to note that yo usaid you don't want to "sound inhumane", and yet you advocate that we follow a policy that IS inhumane. That we knowingly kill lots of innocent civilians.

You're afraid to say it, but you want us to go do it....?

These aren't easy questions, and there aren't easy answers. In many ways we followed the policy that you advocate in the PHillipines in the early 1900s, and it was effective. But the press didn't reveal what we were doing to the world via the Internet on 24 hour news cycles, generating hatred across the Hispanic world. CNN wasn't there to show us butchering Indians either. The world's a different place anymore. The policies of Vlad the Impaler and Basil BulgarSlayer can work, but if you're going to use them, you better be prepared for the blowback, and that includes the political consequences at home by a nation that thinks it's just and humane pursuing a policy that would be viewed by many/most as inhumane butchery, and losing support in the worldwide community to support our policy goals.

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 02:37 PM
We would still be fighting on the sand at Omaha beach, Hitlers grandkids would be running the reich if we took the approach taken today.

In that war the enemy wore uniforms so we knew who to shoot. We didn't have any trouble in Iraq with the guys in uniforms, did we?

It's the guys out of uniforms that give us all the trouble.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 02:42 PM
In that war the enemy wore uniforms so we knew who to shoot. We didn't have any trouble in Iraq with the guys in uniforms, did we?

It's the guys out of uniforms that give us all the trouble.


I'm lost now. If we knew who to shoot and were so sure why were towns and civilians from North Africa to the French Coast totally destroyed?

petegz28
05-25-2010, 03:02 PM
So kill all male civilians? That your answer?

And you're going to get the population supporting your preferred government how?

Your solution has been used. But usually when you want to annex/control a territory, not when you want to get a friendly but indigeneous government in place. The solution you propose will just get us another anti-American Hussein/Taliban type government, which will be just as anti-American as before, and earn us hatred across the Muslim world.

Justified hatred...



EDIT to note that yo usaid you don't want to "sound inhumane", and yet you advocate that we follow a policy that IS inhumane. That we knowingly kill lots of innocent civilians.

You're afraid to say it, but you want us to go do it....?

These aren't easy questions, and there aren't easy answers. In many ways we followed the policy that you advocate in the PHillipines in the early 1900s, and it was effective. But the press didn't reveal what we were doing to the world via the Internet on 24 hour news cycles, generating hatred across the Hispanic world. CNN wasn't there to show us butchering Indians either. The world's a different place anymore. The policies of Vlad the Impaler and Basil BulgarSlayer can work, but if you're going to use them, you better be prepared for the blowback, and that includes the political consequences at home by a nation that thinks it's just and humane pursuing a policy that would be viewed by many/most as inhumane butchery, and losing support in the worldwide community to support our policy goals.

Dude, war is inhumane in its nature. Do I want to purposely target civilians? No. Do I think we should shy away from certain types of operations because civilians could be involved? No.


And this is where we differ. I don't give a good God damn if the government or population like us. I just don't want them to fuck with us. How they choose to live their lives is their business. Just don't fuck with us and you will live longer.

Iowanian
05-25-2010, 03:12 PM
Sounds like a B Kung Fu Movie in the making.

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 03:59 PM
I'm lost now. If we knew who to shoot and were so sure why were towns and civilians from North Africa to the French Coast totally destroyed?

Total war. There's no concept of hearts and minds.

So kill them all. That's your answer. Had to wipe out the village to save the village. Got it.

Amnorix
05-25-2010, 04:02 PM
Dude, war is inhumane in its nature. Do I want to purposely target civilians? No. Do I think we should shy away from certain types of operations because civilians could be involved? No.


And this is where we differ. I don't give a good God damn if the government or population like us. I just don't want them to fuck with us. How they choose to live their lives is their business. Just don't fuck with us and you will live longer.

I wouldn't have opposed a decapitation strike and immediate withdrawal in Afghanistan. That's not what we opted to do. Once you stay and try to put in your own government -- because you're trying to install democracy, then you're on a pretty different road than what you're suggesting.

go bowe
05-25-2010, 05:11 PM
To win a war you have to put boots on the ground at some point.serbia?

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 05:24 PM
serbia

petegz28
05-25-2010, 05:31 PM
serbia?

I don't really consider that a war. Secondly, while we were bombing the crap out of them they were killing the people we were supposedly trying to save.

chiefzilla1501
05-25-2010, 05:33 PM
Some scary shit. But nothing's going to happen.

It all depends on China. And China relies on the US and Western Allies way too much to let themselves be persuaded by North Korea. They support North Korea only because they want a communist regime in between South Korea and the US. But I can guarantee you that the absolute last thing they want to do is exercise their political muscle against countries they rely on heavily.

China may have been on North Korea's side years ago, but that was way before they started opening their economy up to the world.

chiefzilla1501
05-25-2010, 05:37 PM
By the way, having not liked a lot of things Obama has done, I don't think he's done a terrible job with foreign policy. I think Clinton's running a pretty good ship. I was expecting the new regime to back out of Iraq in a flash, but he's letting Gates call the shots and I like that Clinton is taking a tough stance on issues like Iran and North Korea.

KC native
05-25-2010, 08:38 PM
I bet China is pissed at NK right now. While they have a strategic alliance, NK does what they want and have pissed the Chinese off before in the recent past. I bet China cools NK's jets and nothing happens within the next 8-9 months.

petegz28
05-25-2010, 08:44 PM
I bet China is pissed at NK right now. While they have a strategic alliance, NK does what they want and have pissed the Chinese off before in the recent past. I bet China cools NK's jets and nothing happens within the next 8-9 months.

Lets hope so

go bowe
05-25-2010, 09:06 PM
i could be wrong, but isn't it pretty much the usual response to us - sk military exercises?

maybe somebody better informed can tell us...

petegz28
05-25-2010, 09:06 PM
i could be wrong, but isn't it pretty much the usual response to us - sk military exercises?

maybe somebody better informed can tell us...

Typically. Or so it seems.

Jenson71
05-25-2010, 09:11 PM
Unfortunately I cannot remember all the details. But a friend of my Wife's Dad (who was killed from Vietnam, cancer got him shortly after the war), a democrat even, explained it to me one day. It was very eye opening and what it came down to was money. It was all about money.

Brilliant analysis, pete. It is very clear you understand the Vietnam War.

Jenson71
05-25-2010, 09:13 PM
I hate to say this at the sake of sounding inhumane, but if the enemy refuses to fight fair, i.e. wear uniforms, then you are left with no other choice than to fight unfairly as well.

You ever played a game against a cheater while you played by the rules? I doubt you won much.

An incomplete analysis. If the enemy refuses to fight fair, and you are stronger, you still fight fair. If the enemy refuses to fight fair, and you are weaker, you refuse to fight fair.

Saul Good
05-25-2010, 09:14 PM
Brilliant analysis, pete. It is very clear you understand the Vietnam War.

I have to admit that this was pretty funny.

petegz28
05-25-2010, 09:23 PM
Brilliant analysis, pete. It is very clear you understand the Vietnam War.

Meh, I'll admit that post was pretty lacking. But what can I say? I don't remember the details he gave me. I should, but I don't. :)

chiefzilla1501
05-25-2010, 11:56 PM
I bet China is pissed at NK right now. While they have a strategic alliance, NK does what they want and have pissed the Chinese off before in the recent past. I bet China cools NK's jets and nothing happens within the next 8-9 months.

That's where I'm at now. North Korea isn't scared of South Korea and really, not the US. They are a puppet to China--China is too close, too big, and too powerful.

China doesn't want NK to dissolve because they're a nice wedge between China and the Western World. But don't doubt for a second that China needs us a hell of a lot more than they need North Korea. China is pretty much dominating the western world and their economy is thriving because of it. Would be awfully stupid for China to ruin a good thing and mess with a bunch of countries they do a lot of business with, just to defend a spoiled, whiny stepchild.

Direckshun
05-26-2010, 12:05 AM
I was initially going to hit up this thread, because North Korea's a pretty intense interest of mine, but Amnorix is pretty much beating me to all my points, points I've made in countless threads about North Korea and fighting insurgencies in general.

Nonetheless. I'll think of something pretty soon. So everybody watch out.

patteeu
05-26-2010, 08:04 AM
The reality is that the world is in a period of tranistion from the relatively simple math of the Cold War to rising nationalism among third world nations who want a seat at the table and a voice in the international community. Many of these countries are not our friends, do not have interests that are remotely similar to ours, much less aligned with ours, and are struggling against a world order that they do not like one damn bit. This has been going on since the end of World War II, but has really accelerated since the end of the Cold War stopped forcing countries into one of two camps.

Most of the world, of course, is more or less being ignored. They don't have things that we want, and they don't threaten (much) people that we care about (much). Those countries that sit on or near strategic resources (oil), threaten countries who are our friends or with whom we have close ties (North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela), present problems that are not easily solved. The fact that they are not easily solved is proven by the fact that many are longstanding issues that have vexed both Republicans and Democrats for many years.

John Wayne diplomacy is mindlessly simple, but it's not necessarily either the best approach or the right approach. It may come as a surprise to you, but it's a big world, with alot of people in it, and not all of them are just going to run around scared and doing what we want because we have the biggest gun and we're willing ot use it.

Having the biggest gun didn't solve Vietnam, and hasn't yet solved Afghanistan or Iraq for us. It didn't solve Iran for Reagan, Bush 1 or Bush 2. It hasn't solved North Korea since Truman.

I agree with much of what you said above, but with respect to your last paragraph, having the biggest gun has solved a lot of problems. Some, like the WWII endgame, come readily to mind, but most are problems that we have trouble thinking about because they just didn't happen. Having the biggest gun is a lot better than not having the biggest gun. Beyond that, having the biggest gun by a wide margin is a lot better than having a gun that is slightly larger than your potential adversary. I'm definitely pro-biggest-gun.

Amnorix
05-26-2010, 08:08 AM
I agree with much of what you said above, but with respect to your last paragraph, having the biggest gun has solved a lot of problems. Some, like the WWII endgame, come readily to mind, but most are problems that we have trouble thinking about because they just didn't happen. Having the biggest gun is a lot better than not having the biggest gun. Beyond that, having the biggest gun by a wide margin is a lot better than having a gun that is slightly larger than your potential adversary. I'm definitely pro-biggest-gun.

I'm pro biggest gun too. The problem isn't havign the biggest gun. Having it is a GOOD thing. Absolutely.

The proble comes when you think having the biggest gun and using it, can solve every problem everywhere every time.

Amnorix
05-26-2010, 08:09 AM
I was initially going to hit up this thread, because North Korea's a pretty intense interest of mine, but Amnorix is pretty much beating me to all my points, points I've made in countless threads about North Korea and fighting insurgencies in general.

Nonetheless. I'll think of something pretty soon. So everybody watch out.

ROFL I'll stand aside and let you show your mojo. I still need to catch up on the History thread, etc. so you can carry the torch for rational thought from here. :D

patteeu
05-26-2010, 08:33 AM
Sources? If you've read a book on this, I might be interested. I've read some, but they're on the other side of the political spectrum.

Far as I can tell, State just didn't have much pull because Bush/Cheney liked Defense better. To the point where Defense, partly because it has a massive budget, was given carte blanche to start operating far beyond normal Defense parameters (nation-building in Iraq with minimal input from State, etc.)

That's mostly my conclusions from general reading of the news. The two books I've read that address that topic have divergent views. Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack paints Colin Powell and his state department as heroic figures while Douglas Feith's War And Decision makes them out to be at least part-time obstructionists (although to be fair he has plenty of praise for them at other points). I'm sure it won't come as a surprise that I found Feith's account more convincing, but there's probably some truth in both.

For example, Feith's version of what you describe above is that Defense won many of the battles with State because Rumsfeld understood that the POTUS was interested in strategy while Powell's contributions were often more tactical in nature. (War and Decision, page 62 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/B003GAN3WS/ref=sib_dp_ptu#reader-link))

WilliamTheIrish
05-27-2010, 02:21 PM
How long does it take NK to mobilize their army?

JOhn
05-28-2010, 02:10 PM
I was initially going to hit up this thread, because North Korea's a pretty intense interest of mine, but Amnorix is pretty much beating me to all my points, points I've made in countless threads about North Korea and fighting insurgencies in general.

Nonetheless. I'll think of something pretty soon. So everybody watch out.

This also

JOhn
05-28-2010, 02:11 PM
ROFL I'll stand aside and let you show your mojo. I still need to catch up on the History thread, etc. so you can carry the torch for rational thought from here. :D

I hope it's the WW2 thread you speak of...... Getting kinda lonely talking to myself. Ok well Buckeyed is stalking me there, so at least I have some company.:doh!:

DaneMcCloud
05-28-2010, 02:17 PM
Im sure you have some basis for that nonsense. Clearly the military does not and has not directed foreign relations. Thats Obama's job and the main reason we are perceived globally as weak and poorly led and directed. Rules of engagement in Obamas peoples own words were that its better for our soldiers to be at risk than any risk of civilians getting hurt. Nice unless you are the kid with the gun. Its hogwash. Win hearts and minds after you win the war.

Somehow, I have my doubts that you've traveled anywhere and know the world's opinion of America.

You're a fucking closeted nutjob and you display it every single day with your posts.

Inspector
05-28-2010, 02:18 PM
I agree with much of what you said above, but with respect to your last paragraph, having the biggest gun has solved a lot of problems. Some, like the WWII endgame, come readily to mind, but most are problems that we have trouble thinking about because they just didn't happen. Having the biggest gun is a lot better than not having the biggest gun. Beyond that, having the biggest gun by a wide margin is a lot better than having a gun that is slightly larger than your potential adversary. I'm definitely pro-biggest-gun.

My wife mention the biggest gun topic last night. She is absolutely in favor of it.

Amnorix
05-28-2010, 02:34 PM
I hope it's the WW2 thread you speak of...... Getting kinda lonely talking to myself. Ok well Buckeyed is stalking me there, so at least I have some company.:doh!:

I stopped paying attention because BEP told me the war is over...


Actually, I mean my own history thread which I certainly hope/imagine you are checking out. I check out the WWII thread any time I see a new post, but didn't see much opportunity to say much lately.

JOhn
05-28-2010, 02:38 PM
I stopped paying attention because BEP told me the war is over...


Actually, I mean my own history thread which I certainly hope/imagine you are checking out. I check out the WWII thread any time I see a new post, but didn't see much opportunity to say much lately.

LOL @ BEP :thumb:

Yea I subscribe to your History thread, also cool things on there. Keep up the good work

JOhn
05-28-2010, 02:39 PM
My wife mention the biggest gun topic last night. She is absolutely in favor of it.

Well tell her I was thinking of her also, and it's so cool she remembers :evil:








:p sorry couldn't resist that nice tee shot

patteeu
05-28-2010, 04:00 PM
I'm pro biggest gun too. The problem isn't havign the biggest gun. Having it is a GOOD thing. Absolutely.

The proble comes when you think having the biggest gun and using it, can solve every problem everywhere every time.

I honestly don't think there's much of that going on in the real world (at least not in the US part of the real world). Maybe in some backwater somewhere, but not here.

Jenson71
05-28-2010, 04:11 PM
I'm sort of leaning towards thinking this is escalating to be the end of the North Korean regime. Which is fortunate. I don't think China really cares much about NK's protection.

Am I right/wrong?

CoMoChief
05-28-2010, 04:20 PM
It would be total mass suicide if that country did ANY attacking at all.

Cave Johnson
05-28-2010, 04:22 PM
I'm sort of leaning towards thinking this is escalating to be the end of the North Korean regime. Which is fortunate. I don't think China really cares much about NK's protection.

Am I right/wrong?

It's pretty much impossible to predict NK's behavior. The fall of communism has basically isolated them from the rest of the world, and they're starving, ultra-nationalistic dwarfs*, per Hitchens.


*On average, 6 inches shorter than South Koreans.

CoMoChief
05-28-2010, 04:24 PM
How long does it take NK to mobilize their army?

Have one of them swamp rats get out a calculator and figure up the #'s for ya.

Dave Lane
05-28-2010, 04:39 PM
jenson or orange will prob be by to say the north just needs a hug, not everyone in the north is an extremist, so don't judge them. whatever.

I think NK is way worse of a threat than Iran on its worst day. Kim Jong almost dead Il is a ****ing whacko

WhitiE
05-28-2010, 04:52 PM
I think NK is way worse of a threat than Iran on its worst day. Kim Jong almost dead Il is a ****ing whacko

like Al Davis?

patteeu
05-29-2010, 10:14 AM
I'm sort of leaning towards thinking this is escalating to be the end of the North Korean regime. Which is fortunate. I don't think China really cares much about NK's protection.

Am I right/wrong?

Some people think that it's a sign of the end of the current NK regime (Kim Jong-Il) and an effort on his part to insure the line of succession to his son. This wouldn't necessarily be better.

Crush
05-29-2010, 10:20 AM
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/05/113_66723.html

Kim Jong-il told Hu that NK not involved in Cheonan

During his secretive trip to China earlier this month, Kim Jong-il personally claimed, in his meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao that North Korea was not responsible for the Cheonan sinking, a local daily said Saturday citing a government source.

Citing an unnamed senior government official, the JoongAng Ilbo newspaper said during Kim's trip to China from May 3 to 7, he told Hu that "(The North) has nothing to do with the Cheonan."

Earlier on May 7, the Chinese side briefed to South Korea on Kim's visit. At that time, Beijing told Seoul that Pyongyang had explained to Beijing that it was not responsible for the fatal sinking of the 88-meter-long South Korean navy corvette.

But the Chinese side at that time didn't specify who from the North Korean side made that explication.

The official also claimed that the Chinese side was disappointed with the North when they got to know the evidence indicating the North's culpability presented by a team of international investigators later, it said.

During a meeting on Wednesday between President Lee Myung-bak and the U.S. secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, the two mentioned about how China was dismayed by North Korea (for its lying), it said, citing another high-ranking, yet also unnamed, government official.

It also didn't say whether the remark was brought up by Clinton or by Lee.

Crush
05-29-2010, 12:06 PM
That fucker cannot die soon enough.

Fat Elvis
05-29-2010, 12:09 PM
like Al Davis?

Let's put it this way: If Kim Jong Il were a football GM/Owner, he would freakin' draft Goofy thinking that it (whatever the heck Goofy is) was some type of human/canine hybrid that would singlehandedly dominate the league. Al Davis at least drafts fast humans.

Either that, or Kim Jong Il would publish newspaper articles about how he won the Super Bowl as the only player on the team decimating his opponant by the score of 1,000,000,000 to 0.

When it comes to nutjobs, Kim Jong Il is in a class all by himself.

Direckshun
05-29-2010, 12:11 PM
It's pretty much impossible to predict NK's behavior. The fall of communism has basically isolated them from the rest of the world, and they're starving, ultra-nationalistic dwarfs*, per Hitchens.

*On average, 6 inches shorter than South Koreans.

Hitchens is about as dead-on a reporter on North Korean society as there is.

It's profound, how disconnected they are, how oppressed they are, and how brainwashed they are.

It's an alternate universe.

Crush
05-29-2010, 12:20 PM
http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk00100&num=6438

<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td>China "Will Not Protect Anyone"

</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="padding: 10px 0pt;"><table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td style="padding: 0pt 0pt 2px;" class="small">By Kim Yong Hun</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="padding: 0pt 0pt 15px;"> China has expressed an extra degree of openness to the Cheonan issue through Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to Seoul today.

Premier Wen, meeting South Korean President Lee Myung Bak, apparently stated, “China will take a stance after judging the incident fairly and objectively, clarifying the rights and wrongs while bearing in mind each country’s reaction to the international investigation.”

According to a briefing from President Lee Myung Bak’s PR head Lee Dong Gwan following the meeting, Premier Wen also assured President Lee, “China will not protect anyone.”

Premier Wen asserted, “China has been making a consistent effort for peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, and denounces and opposes any actions which destroy that peace and stability.”

President Lee requested Chinese support and cooperation with the international community, to which Premier Wen apparently answered, “We hope that the South Korean administration deals with the issue properly, and we will cooperate closely with South Korea.”

He also offered his condolences for the bereaved families of the victims of the Cheonan, saying, “The sinking of the Cheonan is a tragedy. China fully understands the South Korean people’s heavy hearts.”

In the meeting, President Lee personally explained the details of the Cheonan investigation to Premier Wen and asked that the Chinese administration take responsible action for peace in Northeast Asia.

Besides the Cheonan issue, the two men discussed ways to develop the strategic cooperative alliance between them, as well as the issue of a China-South Korea FTA.

Following their 90-minute summit, there was apparently a follow-up meeting on referring the Cheonan issue to the UN Security Council and placing additional sanctions on North Korea.
</td></tr></tbody></table>

Crush
05-29-2010, 12:22 PM
http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk01500&num=6411

<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td>Special Police Squads Organized under PSM

</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="padding: 10px 0pt;"><table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td style="padding: 0pt 0pt 2px;" class="small">By Jung Kwon Ho</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="padding: 0pt 0pt 15px;"> Shenyang, China -- The North Korean authorities appear to be moving to strengthen regulations against residents at a time when military tensions are gradually rising. According to sources, special police squads have been formed in each province under the People’s Safety Ministry (PSM) to take action to block out information on foreign countries and root out anti-regime suspects.

A source from Shinuiju reported on Tuesday, “The special police squads consist of some 300 agents in each provincial office of the Peoples’ Safety Ministry. Their purpose is to crack down on offenders against the regime and its system.”

Such activities have traditionally been the responsibility of the National Security Agency (NSA), whereas the People’s Safety Ministry has normally focused on finding common criminals and persons who break North Korea’s “anti-socialist” conventions.

Therefore, the launch of the special police squads seems to be part of a trend toward strengthening the PSM’s authority after it was promoted to “Ministry” status earlier in the year.

The Shinuiju source said, “Pyongyang is trying to enhance the position of the People’s Safety Ministry. They will now deal with usage of cell phones in the border region, circulation of foreign video clips, spreading of leaflets, denouncements of the authorities and other anti-regime offenses.”

Bearing in mind the Cheonan incident, there is a possibility that the North Korean authorities are preparing for confrontation following the impending re-launch of South Korean psychological warfare.

North Korea has already said it will attack the broadcasting facilities if South Korea follows through on its promise to restart the broadcasts.

According to the source, this latest measure implies that the situation in North Korean society is unstable. He explained how the reputation of Kim Jong Il has been damaged, saying, “In an event to welcome Kim Jong Il back home, people whispered among themselves, ‘He tiptoed here and there in secret and made an exhibition of himself,’ or, ‘I wish he had not come back.’”

Meanwhile, North Korea Intellectuals Solidarity (NKIS) reported today, “On the 20th when the announcement of the results of the Cheonan incident investigation were revealed, Oh Keuk Ryul, the Vice-chairman of the National Defense Commission stated on the Third Broadcast, cable radio for North Korean residents, ‘Chairman Kim Jong Il has ordered the entire army, the People’s Safety Ministry, the National Security Agency, Worker and Peasant Red Guard and the Young Red Guard to move to a war footing.’”

It added, “To Pyongyang and neighboring cities, a decree from the Central Committee of the Party has been handed down demanding that rallies be organized entitled “Retaliation for enemy retaliation, total war for enemy’s total war!”
</td></tr></tbody></table>

Crush
05-30-2010, 05:01 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100530/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_north_korea

Mullen cites risks of further NKorean provocation

WASHINGTON – The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expressing concern that North Korea might follow its alleged torpedoing of a South Korean warship with other provocative acts.

Adm. Mike Mullen tells "Fox News Sunday" that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il tends not to stop after a single provocative move. So Mullen worries that Kim could be planning something else.

North Korea denies that it downed the South Korean ship. An international investigation led by South Korea has said the North was to blame. Forty-six South Korean sailors were killed in the explosion.

Mullen says it's up to President Barack Obama to decide whether North Korea should go back on the State Department's list of nations that sponsor terrorism. North Korea was removed from that list during the Bush administration.

Crush
05-30-2010, 05:04 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100530/ap_on_re_as/as_skorea_ship_sinks

China holds back on blaming NKorea in ship attack

<cite class="vcard"> By YOUNG-JOON AHN, Associated Press Writer Young-joon Ahn, Associated Press Writer </cite> – <abbr title="2010-05-30T11:14:58-0700" class="timedate">Sun May 30, 2:14 pm ET</abbr>

<!-- end .byline --> SEOGWIPO, South Korea – China held back from joining the chorus of nations condemning North Korea over the sinking of a South Korean warship, making quick international sanctions unlikely but perhaps buying time while China quietly leans on its unpredictable, nuclear-armed neighbor.

As Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao met with his South Korean and Japanese counterparts Sunday, tens of thousands of North Koreans rallied in their capital, clapping their hands, pumping their fists and and shouting slogans against South Korea and America, according to video footage from APTN in Pyongyang.

South Korea has taken punitive measures against the North since a team of international investigators said this month that a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine tore apart and sank the warship Cheonan on March 26, killing 46 sailors. North Korea vehemently denies attacking the ship and has warned that the South is risking war by attempting to punish it.

Beijing didn't appear ready to support possible action in the U.N. Security Council against North Korea, its longtime ally. But Wen's closing remarks at Sunday's meeting seemed to signal that it was becoming more engaged in the crisis.

"The urgent task for the moment is to properly handle the serious impact caused by the Cheonan incident, gradually defuse tensions over it and avoid possible conflicts," Wen said.

Beijing has long tried to mediate disputes between the Koreas, and it often likes to maintain an appearance of neutrality. The Cheonan sinking poses an awkward challenge for China, which is under pressure to go along with sanctions but wants to maintain its friendship with North Korea, an unpredictable buffer state whose collapse could cause instability on a long Chinese border.

China unwillingness to criticize Pyongyang now might mean it's trying to use quiet negotiations to convince North Korea to come clean on the ship attack, one of the South's worst military losses since the Korean War in the 1950s.

If the ship sinking makes it to the United Nations, it's possible China will support sanctions like it did last year when the global body punished Pyongyang for its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. But it also could make sanctions impossible as a veto-wielding member of the U.N. Security Council.

After strategic talks in Beijing last week, senior U.S. officials predicted that China will gradually endorse the view that North Korea should be held accountable for the torpedo attack.

Wen's next stop after Korea was Japan, where he was expected to face more pressure to censure North Korea during a three-day stay.

During his visit to South Korea, Wen signaled that China was edging off the sidelines. He expressed condolences to the dead sailors' families and received an extensive briefing on the results of the multinational investigation that blamed North Korea for the ship attack.

Wen also told his hosts that China "will defend no one" once it determines who sank the ship, the South Korean government said.

South Korea plans to haul North Korea before the Security Council for sanctions or condemnation, but even if the South succeeds, it's unlikely Pyongyang will refrain from more provocative acts.

In Washington on Sunday, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told "Fox News Sunday" that he worries North Korea is planning something else.

North Korea has accused the South of faking the ship sinking and enlisting its allies to do a phony investigation, a theme echoed at Sunday's rally in Pyongyang's main square.

"Because of the South Korean war-loving, mad puppets and American invaders, the North and South relationship is being driven to a catastrophe," Choi Yong Rim, a high-ranking North Korean Party official, told the crowd, which carried a huge portrait of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.

Such rallies are commonly held during times of tension.
North Korean media continued a stream of threats about war. A news announcer on state TV warned, "We are placed in a turbulent situation where war could break out at any moment."

The announcer added, "Under this kind of acute situation, trivial provocation or one gunshot can grow into an all-out war."

On the South Korean side, President Lee Myung-bak on Sunday told his summit counterparts, "We are not afraid of war but we don't want it," according to presidential adviser Lee Dong-kwan.

Last week, South Korea laid out a series of punitive measures, including slashing trade, resuming anti-North Korean propaganda broadcasts across the border and launching large-scale naval exercises off the western coast.
The North and South have technically remained at war since the 1950-53 Korean War ended with an armistice rather than a peace treaty.

North Korea has carried out a series of attacks on the South since then, but South Korea has never retaliated militarily.