Let's move onto the next conflict [Archive] - Oprano Adult Industry Forums

PornoDoggy

04-08-2003, 11:10 PM

Uhhhh ... do you think it's just a coincidence that the folks in Washington are taking a far more traditional diplomatic approach to the North Korean dispute than they are to Saddam? I for one am glad as hell they are.

This whole scenario is a clusterfuck waiting to happen. Events in Iraq have likely made it more difficult, and not just because of its effect on the North Koreans. Hopefully a diplomatic solution is found soon, because it's causing all kinds of tensions and will likely lead to an arms race in the region, particularly if Japan decides to rearm to a greater extent than they already are.

We don't have enough troops in the theater to defend South Korea against an attack from the North, and probably haven't since the mid 1960s. Presidents, Democrats and Republicans, since Johnson diverted troops to 'Nam, have turned down DOD requests to strengthen the forces. Just about every war scenario that's been gamed out has involved the loss of Seoul and a million or so South Koreans, and most of the 30-40K U.S. troops that are stationed there. They are there as much as a deterent as they are a military force.

So I just wonder what razzle-dazzle plan people have for "taking care of the North Koreans." See, we did kick their ass the last time we were there. However, another power was concerned that OUR presence on their border represented a threat to THEIR national security intervened and damn near kicked our asses, after the "defeatists" in Washington were warned it would never happen.

You think, in view of the events in the Middle East, they're likely to think any different?

-= JR =-

04-09-2003, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 8 2003, 10:18 PM
Uhhhh ... do you think it's just a coincidence that the folks in Washington are taking a far more traditional diplomatic approach to the North Korean dispute than they are to Saddam? I for one am glad as hell they are.

This whole scenario is a clusterfuck waiting to happen. Events in Iraq have likely made it more difficult, and not just because of its effect on the North Koreans. Hopefully a diplomatic solution is found soon, because it's causing all kinds of tensions and will likely lead to an arms race in the region, particularly if Japan decides to rearm to a greater extent than they already are.

We don't have enough troops in the theater to defend South Korea against an attack from the North, and probably haven't since the mid 1960s. Presidents, Democrats and Republicans, since Johnson diverted troops to 'Nam, have turned down DOD requests to strengthen the forces. Just about every war scenario that's been gamed out has involved the loss of Seoul and a million or so South Koreans, and most of the 30-40K U.S. troops that are stationed there. They are there as much as a deterent as they are a military force.

So I just wonder what razzle-dazzle plan people have for "taking care of the North Koreans." See, we did kick their ass the last time we were there. However, another power was concerned that OUR presence on their border represented a threat to THEIR national security intervened and damn near kicked our asses, after the "defeatists" in Washington were warned it would never happen.

You think, in view of the events in the Middle East, they're likely to think any different?
I think its a different situation in North Korea than Iraq. With Iraq, diplomacy has failed time and time again and has not even deterred the Iraqi government from brutally torturing and slaughtering their own people. Its a different situation. Why does anyone need diplomacy to deal with Iraq, when all they can say is "fuck you" in return?

I think that we also know far less about North Korea than we do about Iraq. Events in Iraq have played out pretty much exactly as they were expected to. Iraqis neighbors want Saddam and his inner circle dead as well and no one is lamenting the loss of that government. The Iraqi governmnet has significant internal and external opposition - North Korea does not seem to. Iraq has no real military capability (as was recently proven). North Korea certainly does.

What would you suggest PD? Did you notice that "diplomacy" has been a complete and abject failure since the 1994 agreement where the North Koreas blatently lied and continued to pursue a nuclear weapons program?

Sure its a clusterfuck waiting to happen. Are you willing to wait for the UN to debate this issue into eternity while North Korea tries to arm itself so it can threaten the region and blackmail everyone?

The UN just passed a resolution condemning North Korea restarting their nuclear program.

North Korea is threatening the world with Nuclear war. Not because something changed on the Korean Peninsula - but because they want more aid. Thats completely insane. They dont want to talk to anyone but the US because thats where the money is. They are not offering compromise... they are making death threats to everyone.

They have withdrawn from all their international obligations. Their neighbors (China, Russia, Japan, Korea) are all 100% against the North Koreans actions and all accept the threat they present to the region.

They have already stated their intentions already to develop nuclear weapons. T

Its a Stalinist government that again, is causing millions an millions of deaths of its own people through starvation. Its a government who is losing its grip on power and is in serious decay. There is no diplomacy with these people.

What should be done?

Do the fears of "what if" or "Bush is an idiot" in the event of a military action weigh proportionately to "what if they are a fully nuclear power"? Is that a government that could be trusted NOT to push the button?

i personally dont think so.

What happens when they finally start developing rockets and nuclear warheads? all countries in the region will have no choice but to start arming themselves to counter that threat... correct? then what? its Cold War ll and 2 minutes to midnight all over again. What do you think they will act like once all neighbors are pointing nuclear missiles at them to counter the threat of their weapons? will things be better? The bigger question is what can be done to avoid that situation? if dimplomacy is and has been a failure... what options are left?

call me conservative, but i think these guys are positioning themselves for being the most likely candidates in the world for a pre-emptive strike against their military, reactors and nuclear programs.

slavdogg

04-09-2003, 03:11 AM

we should not move anywhere else in the Middle East until we build some klind of a government in Iraq. Winning the war is the easy part, building the peace is the hardest part. And this is not something that should be left upto to UN again to fuck it up. We should only celebrate and congratulate ourselves when there is some kind of a stable Iraqi government in place and this wont be easily done considering Iran, Syria and the Saudies dont want a pro western democracy in the region.

This is not Afghanistan, a country that no one really cares about in the region or the world and wont ever have influence over anything other than its own zoo and heroin. Iraq will eventually have major influences in the middle east and oil supplies. We need to make sure we build it up the right way or we'll forever have unfinished business there.

slavdogg

04-09-2003, 03:33 AM

The reason N Korean situation has gone to UN is everyone in Washington knows no one in the region will or can do anything about it. Chinease wont lift more than one finger to help us. Why ? so we can threaten them over the Taiwan situation ? The last thing China wants is more US military influences in its backyard. I dont know what the deal with the russians in.

call me conservative, but i think these guys are positioning themselves for being the most likely candidates in the world for a pre-emptive strike against their military, reactors and nuclear programs.

JR that all sounds nice, but what if it fails to take out all the important targets ?? And than Kim thows some nukes at Tokyo and Soul and the next thinkg you know the whole region has gone up in flames.

Trev

04-09-2003, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by slavdogg@Apr 9 2003, 07:41 AM
JR that all sounds nice, but what if it fails to take out all the important targets ?? And than Kim thows some nukes at Tokyo and Soul and the next thinkg you know the whole region has gone up in flames.
And this is a bad thing for what reason?

PornoDoggy

04-09-2003, 04:28 AM

I realize it's a lot easier for you to discuss things with people who's sole response is "Bush is an idiot" (an entirely different discussion), but the least you could do is let me say that before you assume it.

Thank you for reminding me that they have a Stalinist-style dictatorship, too ... I'm glad to know that the regime we've been opposing for 53 years hasn't changed in the last 24 hours.

Shit-fire, why the hell do you think I have such a poor opinion of force reductions that eliminate "heavy" divisions and focus exclusively on the razzle-dazzle high tech "sexy" stuff - because I think the world is a nice place? The world is a mean, nasty place, and there are people we may have to confront that have a lot more bite than the mighty Iraqi army.

And there will be an arms race in Asia no matter WHAT the N. Koreans do. Japan is working toward rearming - in response to CHINA as much as to North Korea. If Japan rearms, South Korea and China will feel the need to counter it.

If you think I would shed a tear or spare a thought for the demise of the North Korean government then you are a lot dumber than I thought. If you think I'm opposed to the use of military force just because it's mean, nasty, and unpleasant you are really a complete moron who needs to ask friends to take up a collection to buy yourself a clue. See, in spite of my humble public school educatoin I not only am aware of the nature of the North Korean government, I am also slightly aware of the geography of Korea.

Remember them pesky, annoying South Koreans? They're our ... whattya call it? ... ALLIES!! that's the word I'm looking for.

How the fuck do you propose to conduct a "pre-emptive strike against their military, reactors and nuclear programs" without killing off a whole bunch of South Koreans in the inevitable war? I'm not talking about the "possibility" of nuking Tokyo, either. Do you realize how few options we've for defending South Korea for the past 30 years? Do you realize that most of those options are of the nature that "it is the policy of the Department of Defense to neither confirm nor deny?"

See, the kind of attack that would be necessary in order to make that first strike effective will require a little more than some sexy "bunker busters" and high-tech wiz-bang shit. It's old technology, really ... and it's technology that we have avoided using for just about 60 years.

And even Arlie Fleisher would have a hard time explaining that one.

-= JR =-

04-09-2003, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by slavdogg@Apr 9 2003, 02:41 AM

call me conservative, but i think these guys are positioning themselves for being the most likely candidates in the world for a pre-emptive strike against their military, reactors and nuclear programs.

JR that all sounds nice, but what if it fails to take out all the important targets ?? And than Kim thows some nukes at Tokyo and Soul and the next thinkg you know the whole region has gone up in flames.
how is he going to nuke Tokyo or Seoul? it has yet to be proven that he has that capability. but it is definately fact that they are actively working to have that capability. this is the problem in my eyes... time. each day lost is critical.

-= JR =-

04-09-2003, 04:51 AM

wow PD, you sound really defensive at times. i dont know why you would start making personal attacks. i did not say "you said bush was an idiot" i was referring to a world view that seems to be quite popular. i was not aware that you thought i was dumb or a moron.

maybe its just how i read things or how i write them. i understand hostility considering that i am really a smart ass sometimes. I think you are one of the best people at defending a position that often seems to be in a minority around here. i have a tremendous amount of respect for you for being able to do that well.... and for not backing down.

in my opinion the problem is time. tick-tock tick-tock. every second lost is another second gained in there race to achieve their stated purpose of becoming a bigger threat. They are actively working to build multi-stage rockets capable of delivering a nuclear warhead. they are actively working towards making nuclear bombs.

i would not say that Bush has tried diplomacy at all after thinking about it. basically he put them on notice... people went to Korea to confront them about their nuclear program... after that, there has not been any real communication between the two governments that i am aware of besides Richard Butler meeting some Korean officials.

i think that diplomacy has failed and has proven to be a failure with them on this issue. they are painting themselves into a corner with all the "die america, die" rhetoric which makes even dialog impossible and makes it clear that they are definately intent on becomming a bigger and better threat.

They dont want to talk to China
They dont want to talk to S. Korea
The dont want to talk to Russia

they only want to talk to the US. Bush has insisted that it is an issue that needs to be solved collectively between the US and the concerned parties in the region and N. Korea has spit on that suggestion repeatedly as well.

i did not propose to strike them. i said that it looks like they are forcing that possibility to become reality. The US did not put 24 B-2's in Guam with Nuclear payloads "just because" - i would imagine that is the preferred option in dealing the problem effectively in a military sense. of course, it would be one of the greatest human tragedies ever. Of course its not something anyone wants to do.

my point is simply - what are the options? to make the argument for "Diplomacy" the argument has to be made that "diplomacy" has or can work. so far there has been every indication to the contrary.

Almighty Colin

04-09-2003, 05:04 AM

Whoever says "Asian Hitler" first loses.

slavdogg

04-09-2003, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by -= JR =-@Apr 9 2003, 03:45 AM
how is he going to nuke Tokyo or Seoul? it has yet to be proven that he has that capability. but it is definately fact that they are actively working to have that capability. this is the problem in my eyes... time. each day lost is critical.
JR, i believe its estimated N Koreans already have 2-4 nukes.

Almighty Colin

04-09-2003, 05:24 AM

Communist totalitarian terrorists with WMD's. It's like the best political hits of the past half century all rolled into one.

This has Bush's name all over it.

-= JR =-

04-09-2003, 05:34 AM

i know they are "suspected" to have 2 and possibly more. but i cant see a logical argument for waiting until they are "confirmed" to have 100.

PornoDoggy

04-09-2003, 05:35 AM

Well, since you apparently don't think I would shed a tear or spare a thought for the demise of the North Korean government then you are obvioulsy not dumb at all. Since you don't think I'm opposed to the use of military force just because it's mean, nasty, and unpleasant you are probably a rich capitalist pig that doesn't need to ask friends to take up a collection to buy yourself a clue.

And I did misunderstand you insofar as the "first strike" goes. I hear a lot of that tossed about from armchair warriors without a clue about what they are talking about.

The bombers on Guam loaded with nukes are additional nukes aimed at North Korea. We decided on a nuclear option for that country years and years ago. I've known a lot of people who've served there, and some folks (at least used to) refer to themselves as being part of BaitCorps. It's been an Achilles Heel for a long time.

The Bush Administration has gone out of its way to be hostile to the North Koreans from the moment they took office. Lumping them into the "axis of evil" (particlularly since Syria would have been a more logical candidate) was an extremely short-sighted idea, IMHO, unless Kim has secretly hidden the large number of fundamentist Islamic Koreans from the world for a long time. I'm not defending the North Korean deceptions, or saying that shouldn't be dealt with - but we just don't have a whole lot of viable options.

The Chinese approach to the N. Koreans is extremely quiet. They have realized, after 50 years of "friendship," that publicly chastizing them NEVER works. And they are a problem in and of themselves. They can't feel a whole lot more secure about a nuclear North Korea than we are; at the same time, they don't want to increase our influence in the region in any way, shape or form. And the folks that do advocate some form of military action against NK run the same risk that McArthur did - and I personally don't think they would react much differently this time.

You asked me what I'd do - I'd talk to them without preconditions, one on one if that's what they want. I'd do at least that much to get them willing to participate in a genuine regional solution. I wouldn't capitulate - they would have to jump through a lot more hoops than last time to get what they want, and I'm not sure that it would be any more successful than it was last time.

But the simple fact of the matter is, there has been no diplomacy conducted between the U.S. and North Korea since January, 2001. That has to change. And making the first gesture would be the sort of big, bold move that could REALLY fuck up his critics, both domestic and foreign, in the same way that Roosevelt's gesture toward the Soviets or Nixon's gesture toward China was.

And then we can build the military that we need for a possible confrontation with China. And no matter how many times Rummy sees "Star Wars" and "The Green Berets," that's gonna have a lot more heavy divisions than the sexy spec-ops folks he seems to favor.

Almighty Colin

04-09-2003, 05:57 AM

There's no obvious move here.

Face to face talks? Didn't work last time. NK backed out of those agreements.
Unilateral talks? NK doesn't want them.
Sanctions? NK considers that an act of war [not effective anyway I think we've learned]
Get UN consensus? Ha!

Last edited by Colin at Apr 9 2003, 05:05 AM

-= JR =-

04-09-2003, 06:29 AM

PD, i agree that the "axis of evil" remark may have been unneccessary. possibly. The USSR was labeled an "Evil Empire" by Reagan and i think we all know what followed.... and the world was a better place for it.

Iraq was labeled as being part of the Axis of Evil and Iraqis are now rejoicing at the collapse of Saddams government today.

you are saying that diplomacy should be tried. I agree that is a logical course. but i also think that diplomacy has failed. Richard Butler had meeting with them just a couple months ago. How do you have a diplomatic relationship who is saying "you will all die in a sea of fire"?

Clinton wanted to bomb the same reactor for the same reasons... diplomacy was a waste of time and they knew that N. Korea would not honor any agreement - which proved to be 100% correct.

I am not sure its fair to characterize Chinas reaction or non-reaction. I could also say its because their economy is more dependent on their Most Favored Nation Trading status and WTO membership and they have no intention of rocking that boat.

i think this is a flawed idea:

You asked me what I'd do - I'd talk to them without preconditions, one on one if that's what they want. I'd do at least that much to get them willing to participate in a genuine regional solution. I wouldn't capitulate - they would have to jump through a lot more hoops than last time to get what they want, and I'm not sure that it would be any more successful than it was last time.

talking to them is fine i think. without preconditions even.

BUT how could you base a strategy in dealing with them on making demands and enforcing them when they have been pretty clear that even so much as reduce aid, it will be a declaration of war against them? these are people saying they are going to kill all of us and you are going to make demands.

what information has suggested that we have any leverage over them whatsoever to modify their behavior?

My opinion is that their tactics are pretty straight forward and consistent with everything they have done in the past. they are using threats to get attention, create the "problem" and are hoping that in the end, the world will give in and meet their demands.

Rolo

04-09-2003, 07:40 AM

I was going to say France :biglaugh:

North Korea is a very bad place... I think they will collapse on their own in time, but can we sit by as they kill and starve their own people?

PornoDoggy

04-09-2003, 07:42 AM

I don't care much for your comparison of Reagan's "Evil Empire" to the Axis of Evil. First of all, while I don't dispute that Reagan's administration contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union, I think he gets a lot of credit for that in the same way that Clinton got credit for the economy - right place, right time.

Iraqis are rejoicing over the demise of Saddam - but in mosques around the world the calls for jihad are increasing. Mubarak told his military recently that our actions will likely create 100 bin Ladens - and he may very well be right. Every action creates a reaction - and it will take a while to see what all the reactions to our course of action turn out to be.

At the risk of committing the currenly politically incorrect act of "questioning the ability of the [so-called] Iraqi people" to govern themselves, recent experiences by artifical nations freed from oppressive regimes seems to suggest a long and difficult path ahead. I know that the people of the former Yugoslavia celebrated their freedom from an oppressive regime too - but horrible, unspeakable things came later.

Am I prediciting that future for Iraq? No, not at all; but you've got to be naive or selling something to deny that it's a very real possibility. I'm glad Saddam is gone; but now the hard work begins, and it won't be accomplished by flying in a bunch of ex-pats who haven't lived there since before Reagan single-handedly brought down the Soviet Union by spending them into oblivion.

China values most favored nation status. But if Mubarak is right, and our actions hasten the spread of radical Islam, then China will be affected both internally and on its borders. And if there are plans to confront Iran or Syria - or both - then China will probably not be the only nation to begin to view us with even more distrust than they already do. Making a move that would bring us closer to their borders could just be the push they need to make them think they are forced to confront us. An awful lot of people an awful lot smarter than me have been wrong about China before.

I'm not going to deny that my idea is flawed. I have to agree with Colin that "There's no obvious move here." ALL the methods of dealing with the situation are flawed.

But nuclear war has to be the last option. War in Korea would almost have to be nuclear, and it would cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of civilians - not collateral damage to enemy civilians, but those of our ally.

And I think even the (former?) Iraqi Information Minister would have difficulty putting a positive spin on that one.

-= JR =-

04-09-2003, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 9 2003, 06:50 AM

And I think even the (former?) Iraqi Information Minister would have difficulty putting a positive spin on that one.
i agree pretty much with everything you say. there is no good answer. i think we all agree with that.

but i cannot accept the above.

that boys got mad skillz
:rokk:

Almighty Colin

04-09-2003, 08:14 AM

Diplomacy requires willing participants.

Is China a willing participant?
Is France?
Is Russia?
Is US?
Is UK?
Is NK?

Did the failure of the UN to reach a consensus on Iraq decrease the possibility of diplomacy through the UN? Has Blair spent his political capital? Has Bush?

Can we AFFORD another war if it came down to it? [I personally think no. Certainly not with tax cuts and increasing deficit spending]

Almighty Colin

04-09-2003, 11:25 AM

'ROME, April 9 (Reuters) - The United States on Wednesday warned countries it has accused of pursuing weapons of mass destruction, including Iran, Syria and North Korea, to "draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq".

John R. Bolton, U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, also appealed to Syria and other countries in the Middle East to open themselves up to "new possibilities" for peace in the region.

"With respect to the issue of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the post-conflict period, we are hopeful that a number of regimes will draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is not in their national interest," Bolton told a news conference.'

Almighty Colin

04-09-2003, 01:35 PM

April 09, 2003

This week's North Korean meal:

"Japan should behave with discretion, clearly mindful that it is also within the striking range of the DPRK (North Korea),"

"Japan is turning to the right and is getting militarised at such a rapid tempo that the call for destroying the DPRK, a legitimate sovereign state, is heard in the Diet (Japanese parliament). This is a clear indication of the gravity of the situation."

"The Japanese reactionaries seem to have lost their reason under the impact of the Iraqi war launched by their master,"

Winetalk.com

04-09-2003, 01:50 PM

PD,
unlike you, I have COMPLETE trust in our military.
voices all over the p[laces were predicting how USA will have it's ass kicked in Iraq, never happened.

I have no problems with our military not discussing their plansd with you and the rest.

Actions are louder than words,
and so far, my trust in our military hasn't been violated.

Mike AI

04-09-2003, 01:54 PM

Serge I think you are right. Our Military is fantastic, our Military Leadership is amazing - goes all the way to the top with Rumsfield.

I think he has to be the most competent leaders I have ever seen. I love his briefings, he is a genuis, and has a very good sense of humor!

:rokk:

-= JR =-

04-09-2003, 02:12 PM

I agree 100%. A tough call was made about how to deal with that guy... The UN faught it tooth and nail for 12 years, continuing to seek to appease a murderer at the expense of Iraqi people.

people are now dancing and singing in the streets of Bagdad. wonder why?

too bad... i guess i was really really really wrong about one thing... it looks like Bush may actually get that second term after all. Short war, complete political victory, objectives achieved. I really thought the odds were against him on that one.

As i have said many times now during these arguments about all the "what if's" and fears and concerns...

The reality never lives up to the hype and the fears expressed beforehand.

Afghanistan WAS the most recent and relevent example of that. All the same concerns were heard. None of them happened. Now Iraq is the most recent and relevent example of that. They are dancing in the streets just like Kabul.

It was just proven to the world that such a threat can be dealt with, a government and its military can be destroyed and its country can be controlled in 21 days. Tough shit for Iran and Syria. hope they get their shit together. not for the Wests sake... but for theirs.

PD said that Mubarak said there would be 100 Osama Bin Ladens. What would he be expected to say? What similar things did he say before Afghanistan? How many times has that been said in the past? That type of leadership cannot simultaneously appear in 100 places in 100 people. Osama Bin Laden took decades to create himself. It did not happen overnight. It happened fighting against Soviet Forces. It happened because he had several hundred million dollars. There will not be another Osama Bin Laden. There certainly will not be 100. NO country is going to tolerate them as certain African nations and lastly, Afghanistan/Taliban did. There will be no more training bases. how will they be financed? How can they move money around now? how will they move around? They are finished.

- its just not gonna happen in todays world. Prior to 9/11 had its eyes closed to that threat and that now is dealing with that threat with extreme predudice. i would never say its not possible, but i would say that it is far beyond unlikely.

Almighty Colin

04-09-2003, 02:21 PM

I have no idea if Bush will get re-relected. Too early to tell.

Bush I lost an election after winning Gulf War I and that had a lot more support.

-= JR =-

04-09-2003, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Colin@Apr 9 2003, 01:29 PM
I have no idea if Bush will get re-relected. Too early to tell.

Bush I lost an election after winning Gulf War I and that had a lot more support.
there is definately a case that his popularity can plunge much faster than it rose. its clearly too early to say anything conclusively. i thought that this would be a key turning point. with Bush 1, Desert Storm was a distraction. With Bush 2, its a crusade.

i base what i said on a few factors:

1) fast, clean Iraqi victory

2) economy recovering.

3) democrats already threw everything but the kitchen sink at him (Enron, stock scandals, failing economy etc) they will have to get really creative to find a way to discredit him.

4) more bad guys on the chopping block - North Korea, Iran, Syria. to quote Clinton "in a time of crisis, people would have someone lead that is strong and wrong, than weak and right"

PornoDoggy

04-09-2003, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Apr 9 2003, 12:58 PM
PD,
unlike you, I have COMPLETE trust in our military.
voices all over the p[laces were predicting how USA will have it's ass kicked in Iraq, never happened.

I have no problems with our military not discussing their plansd with you and the rest.

Actions are louder than words,
and so far, my trust in our military hasn't been violated.
I see that Generals Westmoreland and Gromov have arrived. All we need now is McArthur, and we could have a real party.

Winetalk.com

04-09-2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Apr 9 2003, 02:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Apr 9 2003, 02:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Apr 9 2003, 12:58 PM
PD,
unlike you, I have COMPLETE trust in our military.
voices all over the p[laces were predicting how USA will have it's ass kicked in Iraq, never happened.

I have no problems with our military not discussing their plansd with you and the rest.

Actions are louder than words,
and so far, my trust in our military hasn't been violated.
I see that Generals Westmoreland and Gromov have arrived. All we need now is McArthur, and we could have a real party.[/b][/quote]
PD,
nothing new...
for some reason one beleives is when he doubts facts and doubts other people competence,
it makes him an INTELLECTUAL...

nice to see you enjoying yourself...
;-)))

PornoDoggy

04-09-2003, 03:44 PM

Serge, I don't have any lack of faith in our military. I served in our military. It's the policymakers I don't trust.

But you are quite right - facts are facts. Geography is a fact that even Rummy the great and powerful can't quite overcome.

The geography of Korea makes the tactical situation on hell of a lot more complicated than Iraq. The firepower that Kim has packed on the DMZ is far more potent than a handful of scuds and antique silkworms, and those weapons are aimed at a thriving democracy and ally of the United States.

Mike AI

04-09-2003, 03:48 PM

Serge, I have to give PD credit. He did support the war for Iraqi Liberation!

Unlike most on the left, who wanted to keep the Iraqi people under the brutal regime of Saddam. Those on the left who said we shuold have continued to wait, that France and Russia is right, in the first week of the war said we were in a quagmire and wanted to threaten the Vietnam experience was about to happen.

I got the impression from most liberals even those here in the United States that they were pulling against Bush and a US Victory.

Where is Jimmy Carter now? HAHA HE has been on the WRONG side of history his entire life. Basic rule of thumb - if you beleive or do the opposite Jimmy Carter would do - you will be successful!!

If the left had been in control, the USSR would still be around, there would still be an East Germany, the people in Poland, and rest of Europe would be under Communist tyranny. The people in Afganistan would be under the Taliban, and of course Saddam would still be in power....

Of course these are just a few of the larger highlights....

I am amazed that the left in this Nation gets any support in this country....

Note - the war in Iraq still has a long way to go. Tikirit, the oil fields in the North, still need to be secured. The peace will be the biggest thing to win in Iraq. Just hope the left can get their heads on straight, and stop being on the wrong side of history....

:salute:

PornoDoggy

04-09-2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Apr 9 2003, 02:56 PM
Serge, I have to give PD credit. He did support the war for Iraqi Liberation!

Unlike most on the left, who wanted to keep the Iraqi people under the brutal regime of Saddam. Those on the left who said we shuold have continued to wait, that France and Russia is right, in the first week of the war said we were in a quagmire and wanted to threaten the Vietnam experience was about to happen.

I got the impression from most liberals even those here in the United States that they were pulling against Bush and a US Victory.

Where is Jimmy Carter now? HAHA HE has been on the WRONG side of history his entire life. Basic rule of thumb - if you beleive or do the opposite Jimmy Carter would do - you will be successful!!

If the left had been in control, the USSR would still be around, there would still be an East Germany, the people in Poland, and rest of Europe would be under Communist tyranny. The people in Afganistan would be under the Taliban, and of course Saddam would still be in power....

Of course these are just a few of the larger highlights....

I am amazed that the left in this Nation gets any support in this country....

Note - the war in Iraq still has a long way to go. Tikirit, the oil fields in the North, still need to be secured. The peace will be the biggest thing to win in Iraq. Just hope the left can get their heads on straight, and stop being on the wrong side of history....

:salute:
Mike, you are sounding more and more like Torone every day.

Almighty Colin

04-09-2003, 04:44 PM

NM

Last edited by Colin at Apr 9 2003, 04:05 PM

Almighty Colin

04-09-2003, 04:45 PM

War of liberation? What ever happened to the war for WMD?

Coming this week to a theater near you. Some interesting "Smoking gun" sites still being looked at, one a possible nuclear facility.

Last edited by Colin at Apr 9 2003, 04:05 PM

PornoDoggy

04-09-2003, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Colin@Apr 9 2003, 03:53 PM
War of liberation? What ever happened to the war for WMD?

Coming this week to a theater near you. Some interesting "Smoking gun" sites still being looked at, one a possible nuclear facility.
The rationale for this war does seem to shift and change every now and again. I've heard enough arguments for it that I am reminded of the old military saying, "run it up the flag pole and see who salutes."

Almighty Colin

04-09-2003, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 9 2003, 07:10 PM
The rationale for this war does seem to shift and change every now and again. I've heard enough arguments for it that I am reminded of the old military saying, "run it up the flag pole and see who salutes."
I wonder who came up with the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom". What a stroke of genius.

-= JR =-

04-10-2003, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by Colin@Apr 9 2003, 03:53 PM
War of liberation? What ever happened to the war for WMD?

Coming this week to a theater near you. Some interesting "Smoking gun" sites still being looked at, one a possible nuclear facility.
I really dont think it will matter. a few more tours of prisons, of torture facilities, a few uncovered mass graves... endless testimonies of those whos family members were executed and dissapeared, interviews with scientists about secret weapons facilities and programs and more videos of people dancing in the street while spitting on images of Saddam etc etc etc... we are going to be bombarded by it all. people will forget quickly how and why it all happened. I think we are going to be bombarded with so much imagery and horror stories of the past, that people will feel ashamed of themselves to ask about WMD.

I am sure that WMD stuff will be presented. probably as before the war, it will be 90% circumstantial evidence and 10% substance. but even that won't matter.

The UN, France, Russia, China, Germany is not focused on it. No one is making an issue of it... its not in anyones interest to do so now. They are all breathing a deep sigh of relief in private while trying to save face at home by showing some support of "post Saddam Iraq" and focusing on the newer issues of rebuilding, humanitarian issues etc.

I am very impressed with this whole thing. I am impressed with the execution of the war. amazing. no Arab country thought that Saddam and his murder crew could be out of a job, just 21 days after saying "fuck you"

I am impressed that one of the most brutal regimes on the planet was just wiped off the face of the earth with such minimal loss.

I am not a flag waiver. i am not one of the "my country, right or wrong" crowd. i am probably far from being patriotic as most would define it because i am just too cynical....

but i am very confident that the world will be a better place for what just happened.

Almighty Colin

04-10-2003, 04:48 AM

JR,

I'm very IMPRESSED and very HAPPY. Throwing Saddam to the lions makes the world a safer place.

BUT .. unless the action is turned into a world more determined to stop proliferation of weapons, we haven't done anything in the grand scale of things.

How can Bush and Co. turn this into a long-tem policy of the US, the UN, or any other body? How could the other security council members be convinced that this is an issue worth fighting for? What will the world be like if dozens of countries have nuclear weapons? Bush will only be president for four or eight years. It is not likely that the next president will be as resolute as he is on this issue. Assuming WMD's are found, can this success be turned into some long-term policy view?

How much will it matter if Saddam is overthrown and NK gets nuclear weapons? [I bet they don't have them yet, BTW]. They don't seem to be shy about selling their weapons either.

-= JR =-

04-10-2003, 05:54 AM

BUT .. unless the action is turned into a world more determined to stop proliferation of weapons, we haven't done anything in the grand scale of things.

How can Bush and Co. turn this into a long-tem policy of the US, the UN, or any other body?

i dont think it can happen. or will happen.

that involves:

a common understanding
a common perspective
common interests politically and economically
decisive action
confrontation
the needed determination and resolve to enforce decisions

The UN Security Council has never shown any of these qualities when it came to making the tough decisions towards prevention and taking action towards enforcing its will.

The UN Security Council is a world theater where every actor is greedily trying to steal the political spotlight. It has proven to be pretty indifferent to how many casualties that struggle causes. even when they number in the millions. even in the face of unimagined suffering, brutality and imminent threats. if the UN is going to be the main policing body and guarantor of world security, then it needs to be reformed and it needs to get serious about doing the job it should be doing.

I have little faith that much change will happen in the way it behaves.

Almighty Colin

04-10-2003, 06:05 AM

JR,

Do you think it is possible that nonproliferation, even at the risk of force, could become US policy and applied consistently from administration to administration ?

If not, what do we really gain from throwing Saddam out of Baghdad if countries like NK, Iran, and maybe eventually Syria have nuclear weapons?

Last edited by Colin at Apr 10 2003, 05:13 AM

slavdogg

04-10-2003, 06:38 AM

Colin you bring up a very good point and i dint know the answer to that, but clearly UN is becoming more irrelevant everyday. Look at this UN cant even get together and agree to condemn NK's for pulling out of the nonproliferation treaty. In this case China and Russia are the ones apposed to such a move.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2928095.stm

Turn the table and put Iran or Syria in place of NK's and we'll have Russia and probably France apposing such movies.

Almighty Colin

04-10-2003, 07:04 AM

Slav,

Totally true. Completely agree with you. Countries are putting their political alliances ahead of the general principle of nonproliferation. Weapons that can be easily used against civilian populations are becoming difficult to contain.

Getting five countries [just to begin with] to come to a general consensus regarding nonproliferation seems impossible.

North Korea. China certainly doesn't want to see US hegemony increasing in Asia - and rightly so, from their point of view. They have to balance that against the threat of them being used against them.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, a large segment of the world is unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to stop proliferation.

Interesting times.

Almighty Colin

04-10-2003, 07:10 AM

I don't vote very often but if Bush can solve the NK nuclear crisis he will most likely get my vote in the next election.

slavdogg

04-10-2003, 07:12 AM

we're heading into a bixing match for now with US, UK, Japan on one side and France, China and Russia on the other side.

Almighty Colin

04-10-2003, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by slavdogg@Apr 10 2003, 06:20 AM
we're heading into a bixing match for now with US, UK, Japan on one side and France, China and Russia on the other side.
I hope that end of the day I don't need a North Korean geography lesson.

-= JR =-

04-10-2003, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Colin@Apr 10 2003, 05:13 AM
JR,

Do you think it is possible that nonproliferation, even at the risk of force, could become US policy and applied consistently from administration to administration ?

If not, what do we really gain from throwing Saddam out of Baghdad if countries like NK, Iran, and maybe eventually Syria have nuclear weapons?
Do you think it is possible that nonproliferation, even at the risk of force, could become US policy and applied consistently from administration to administration ?

i think that is really unlikely to happen due to the nature of politics, especially in a two party system... permanence cannot really happen in terms of government policy because the next party will try to discredit the policies of the previous just as one party will discredit the other today.

If not, what do we really gain from throwing Saddam out of Baghdad if countries like NK, Iran, and maybe eventually Syria have nuclear weapons?

i think its important because many loud messages were sent through this:

1) "you cannot find refuge forever, snuggled comfortably under the arms of the ineptitude of the UN"

2) "even if world opinion is against it and the UN is against it, you are still at risk in your behavior"

3) "people in the middle east dont want to be oppressed any more than people do anywhere else"

4) "popular opinion and 20 year old protestors are not always right and are certainly not always a deterrence... so dont count on this as a deterrence"

5) "just because you manage to put monuments, signs, sculptures and statues everywhere and terrorize people into cheering for you... it does not mean they support you and will not necessarily fight for you"

6) "dictatorships are quickly going out of fashion - and you too, could be 21 days from being out of a job"

7) "cruise missiles and tomohahk missiles can be launched from subs and warships hundreds of miles away and take out your bunker with pin-point accuracy while you are eating breakfast or sleeping"

8) "bunkers dont keep you safe"

9) "elite troops wont keep you safe"

10) "hey man, get your shit together and stop fucking around"

11) "Iran, Syria, N. Korea and others... please pay attention to this like you have never before paid attention to anything in your life"

Almighty Colin

04-10-2003, 08:28 AM

-= JR =-

04-10-2003, 08:40 AM

So if we can't get an official US policy out of this that transcends administrations and the UN is doomed to be a failure on the issue of nonproliferation. If countries like NK and Iran don't "learn a lesson"* from the swift demolition of the Iraqi army and will continue headstrong down the path to being nuclear states, is our victory only a pyrrhic one?

yes, i dont think there will be policy that will make a lasting impact.

i think the only way to make diminish the threat both now and in the future is to take them out right now, or to eliminate the threat. i

i think todays victory is important today. i dont think it will mean much over time if remaining governments like NK, Iran etc are not reformed or their behavior is not modified.

lifes a bitch, then you turn radical, then you radicalize others, then you take over a government, then you continue being a prick, then you oppress and brutalize people, then you die.

lifes not fair.

PornoDoggy

04-10-2003, 09:06 AM

6) "dictatorships are quickly going out of fashion - and you too, could be 21 days from being out of a job"

Damn, JR ... I thought liberals had the market on naive locked up. So next on our agenda is a number of countries in the "Coalition of the willing (to suck off Uncle Sam's teat?)"?

Are you saying that the Bush Administration would come down hard in defense of Chavez and democracy should the Venezuelan military stage a coup tomorrow?

[QUOTE]"Do you think it is possible that nonproliferation, even at the risk of force, could become US policy and applied consistently from administration to administration?"

"I think that is really unlikely to happen due to the nature of politics, especially in a two party system... permanence cannot really happen in terms of government policy because the next party will try to discredit the policies of the previous just as one party will discredit the other today."
[QUOTE]

I'm not so sure about that particular arguement. In spite of the historical revisionist screeching of the uberpatriots we stayed pretty consistent throughout the Cold War.

I think it more likely that one party or another would begin to apply the policy selectively. Just off the top of my head, Japan or Australia could build very logical and persuasive arguements for the need of a nuclear deterent against China and Indonesia respectively.

Almighty Colin

04-10-2003, 09:14 AM

So what do you think, PD?

Should the US just mind it's own business?

BTW .. I think JR's enumerations were at least partly in jest. #10 was my first clue. You know how JR is. :okthumb:

Almighty Colin

04-10-2003, 09:17 AM

I agree with PD that a basic policy regarding nonproliferation can transcend administrations. If "the people" want it, they can get it. It might very well be that people don't and that we'll have to take a dozen nukes someday before we try and remake the world in our image.

PornoDoggy

04-10-2003, 09:47 AM

Simply put, I think the ONLY way to accomplish nonproliferation is through the United Nations or something like it.

A unilateral policy of enforced nonproliferation will never work, unless "the people" want to go back to the arms races of the 50s - 70s. I doubt very seriously that countries like China or Russia would view the policy as anything other than an effort to increase American influence. Ultimately such a policy would cause large portions of the world to view the United States as the country that's "out of control." How many countries do you think we could attempt to "remake ... in our image" before we convince them that THEY are threatened?

We've already seen traditional friends of the United States (please note - friends aren't always lackeys) question the policy with regards to Iraq, and not all of those concerns are simply over commercial interests (o matter how often you repeat it amongst yourselves)

I suspect that you will see even the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" fall apart should there be an effort to take the war beyond Iraq into Syria or Iran (if it doesn't fall apart during the occupaton of Iraq). Syria's role in international terrorism has decreased significantly over the last ten or twelve years, and Iran is teetering on the brink of democracy. I doubt very seriously you could build a case that an attack on either country at this point would be in the national interests of the United States, let alone the world.

Almighty Colin

04-10-2003, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 10 2003, 08:55 AM
Simply put, I think the ONLY way to accomplish nonproliferation is through the United Nations or something like it.

PD,

I'd LOVE to see that but if each violator gets a dozen years and a dozen and a half resolutions, I think we can safely say we'll be talking a good game but walking with a languid limp.

Any other ideas?

PornoDoggy

04-10-2003, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Colin+Apr 10 2003, 09:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Apr 10 2003, 09:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Apr 10 2003, 08:55 AM
Simply put, I think the ONLY way to accomplish nonproliferation is through the United Nations or something like it.

PD,

I'd LOVE to see that but if each violator gets a dozen years and a dozen and a half resolutions, I think we can safely say we'll be talking a good game but walking with a languid limp.

Any other ideas?[/b][/quote]
Sure.

* Reinstitute the draft (including women this time)
* Rebuild the military to 1960s levels
* Increase the military drain on the budget to 1950s levels
* Start building personal bomb shelters again

-= JR =-

04-10-2003, 11:19 AM

its not that i dont think that doing everything through the UN or "something like it" is a bad idea. i think its an unrealistic idea because it has not worked very well to date. Just like terrorism right now. its no longer a 1960's idea of a crazy guy running into a cafe with a machine gun... its about detonating a dirty nuclear bomb in NY, releasing chemical weapons or biological weapons on millions. its not about killing 5 guys with a pistol in the subway. Its about those same people NOW having the capability to kill millions.

its a brave new world out there. i would hesitate to apply the logic of the middle of the last century to todays "Jihadis" with nuclear weapons.

I agree with you PD. i dont think that unilateralism is the *best* answer. I just dont see an organization like the UN Security Council protecting the USA either. I am just a little more cynical than you are. i think that unilateralism (though its not really unilateralist when 50 countries support you as with Iraq) is the best solution to protect the interests of the USA. I think its safe to say that China, Syria, Russia and France cant be relyed on to do so.

there is not a perfect answer. the problem that i see is the same problem that led up to 9/11. The threat was always known. The threat continued to grow. Then he began to attack US targets for almost 10 years. He trained terrorists for almost 10 years to kill Americans. We all knew about it. like everything else, we cannot agree to act BEFORE a 9/11 happens - we can only agree AFTER the tragedy.

But what will the next attack be? Will it be North Korea launching 400 nuclear ICBM's at the USA? probably not. i dont think North Korea is much of a threat or even has enough money for gas to become a threat. people who want to live never are. Iran? i dont know... people who want to die and are trying to go nuclear scare me. Do we argue and debate until a know radical fundamentalist government, who we know would destroy the US if it was within its power to do so aquires nuclear weapons? DO we allow a government who is a know sponsor of terrorist organizations aquire nuclear weapons? Do they still have their big banner in their central mosque saying "death to america"? are those people that should have nuclear weapons? can it be argued that it will not be a serious threat to the US and its allies? i dont think so.

How would the USA vs Soviet Union apply to Iran (Islam) vs The Western World? i dont see a comparison.

the only thing i feel 100% sure of ... is that once these people cross the line and go nuclear, the "problem" grows exponentially and can no longer be contained.

Whos interest will it serve to have Iran have Nuclear weapons and be able to bring that to the negotiating table with them? no one i can think of.

the USA and Soviet Union were not unstable, autocratic, religious dictatorships teaching people that to die while trying to destroy the USA is the only way to go. Can that argument apply to the Middle East? to Iran, to Pakistan? Pakistan could launch its arsenal anytime. Mushariff, though a seemingly nice guy, barely has control of the country and Pakistan is "jihad central"

would we have been better off making sure that Pakistan NEVER had nuclear weapons in the first place that trying to rely on "peace and optimism" in a fundamentalist society plagued by revolution after revolution and coup after coup?

i think so.

did the UN do its job and make sure they DID NOT AQUIRE nuclear weapons? no. The UN continually allows these known, potential threats come to fluition. thats a problem in my mind.

Almighty Colin

04-10-2003, 11:32 AM

Terrorism works. I think Osama got exactly what he wanted out of this. Probably more. The non-Arab world divided.

-= JR =-

04-10-2003, 11:32 AM

Are you saying that the Bush Administration would come down hard in defense of Chavez and democracy should the Venezuelan military stage a coup tomorrow?

i think that if Chavez was threatening the United States that we will all die in a "sea of fire", exited the 1994 agreement, pulled out of the non-proliferation treaty and actively pursued a nuclear weapons program while threatening the US... he would be found dead, shot in the face, lying in a drainage ditch by the roadside and the world would not lose a moments sleep for it and it would not even make the front page.

Last edited by -= JR =- at Apr 10 2003, 10:41 AM

PornoDoggy

04-10-2003, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by -= JR =-@Apr 10 2003, 10:40 AM
Are you saying that the Bush Administration would come down hard in defense of Chavez and democracy should the Venezuelan military stage a coup tomorrow?

i think that if Chavez was threatening the United States that we will all die in a "sea of fire", exited the 1994 agreement, pulled out of the non-proliferation treaty and actively pursued a nuclear weapons program while threatening the US... he would be found dead, shot in the face, lying in a drainage ditch by the roadside and the world would not lose a moments sleep for it and it would not even make the front page.
Don't doubt your scenario for a moment.

Now come back to the question I asked. Assume that the Venezuelan military stage a coup tomorrow and installed what they would consider a friendlier government - are you confident that the current administration's commitment to democracy result in more than the murmur of platitudes necessary to present an appearance of disapproval?

Last edited by PornoDoggy at Apr 10 2003, 11:00 AM