North Korean "Nuke" Speculation

[quote=doberman]

I may be wrong, but I would bet that the North Korean "nuke" test simply consisted of some TNT and radioactive material. TNT to mimic similar effects (as a nuke explosion) on a Richter scale and the subtle release of radioactive material to be picked-up by sensors.

Given the weak explosive effect of the blast, I wouldn't put it past them to try and con the world. And you can bet Iran is watching our reaction.

...back to my fallout shelter.

[/quote]

I've had the same thought.

I never thought of that. But that is very interesting. 

To what end?  Even that pinhead Kim Jong Il knows that if you have many nukes, you're a threat...if you have one nuke, you're a target.

And they do have the technology...bet on it.

The Chinese will deal with the North Koreans. There are too many Chinese IPO’s on tap for them not to.

The Chinese actually have as much, if not more, to worry about from North Korea as anyone. 

Interesting line of conversation.  Don’t forget that the Olympics are coming to China - the whole world will be eye-balling that region under a microscope.  The Chinese are at risk of losing Billions if athletes are the only ones who show up.

I just read an article that refuted the “big pile of TNT” theory.  Turns out moving THAT much material into the cave would be impossible to hide.

It’s more likely that this was a “partial success” or a “partial failure”, whatever that means.

Pulling troops out of Korea recently probably sent the wrong message.

It now looks like their test was a partial failure - like Jeff said.  Apparantly the rubber bands and duct tape began to unravel just before it went off - according to the North Korean reporter who was ‘assigned’ to cover the live explosion at close proximity.

[quote=apprentice]It now looks like their test was a partial failure - like Jeff said.  Apparantly the rubber bands and duct tape began to unravel just before it went off - according to the North Korean reporter who was 'assigned' to cover the live explosion at close proximity.[/quote]

That's a sexy job to have. 

I think we should institue a full naval blockade of N. Korea immediately.  Nothing comes in or goes out.  Ask the Chinese to do the same by land.  If they refuse to play along, immediately place a 50% tariff on all Chinese goods coming into the United States.  What would N. Korea do? 

Probably start launching artillery shells at downtown Seoul.  That would probably go on for 3-4 weeks.  When they ran out of ammuntion, then give them what they have always asked for--direct talks with the United States (while we're holding their balls). 

There might be some other good to come from such a policy.  Wal-Mart might cease to exist.  The Chinese might start dumping our Treasuries by the billions, forcing us to clean up our negative savings rate, and the Chinese might lose their chance at hosting the Olympics.  Are these really bad things?

Carefull - you don't want to upset Kim Dung Ill (aka: Menta Li Ill).  He may fling a bottle rocket towards Gwam. 

What's wrong with Wal-mart?  Don't tell me you're buying into the 'wal-mart' is evil prop.  Just because they don't bow to the extortion practices of unionized labor doesn't mean that you should wish their demise.

Gwam?  Is that anywhere near Guam?

Yes - Gwam, that's about as close to the US as they could get with their technology.

[quote=apprentice]It now looks like their test was a partial failure - like Jeff said.  Apparantly the rubber bands and duct tape began to unravel just before it went off - according to the North Korean reporter who was ‘assigned’ to cover the live explosion at close proximity.[/quote]

Don’t underestimate a hungry, rabid dog.  The only thing holding that country together is their hatred of the United States.

Just because they can’t produce a critical mass explosion doesn’t make them harmless.  For example, they probably have the materials for a dirty bomb.

It doesn’t matter whether the US or China does this, but the situation needs to be handled.

It will be handled - by China.  The US should not give them the time of day.  He wants attention from the US - we should ignore Dung Ill (politically ignore).  Involvment from the US should be to ramp up Japan.

What tangled web. Il doesn't want nuclear war any more than we do. He wants our attention. Well, he's got it.

Here are some of the options:

Sanctions - We could stop all trade with North Korea. Big problem, nobody trades with them now, for the most part, with the exception of China. China has said we are going too far with the sanctions we are proposing. So, if we can't cut off their largest trading partner how will this work?

Conventional military action - Well, let's see, we attack NK to force a regime change and disarmament. They fight back with their million man army. Seoul South Korea gets turned into Bagdad east by their air force and artillary. Add 300,000 to 500,000 dead military on our side, many of those american, plus the high six figure civilian body count, and it's an ugly option. But it gets worse. China is still obligated to defend North Korea by the same treaty agreement that brought them into the Korean war. They've got a lot more to lose now than then, but are will willing to roll those dice? Lastly, any armed conflict in Korea would disrupt the entire asian rim. And speaking of rims, the world's economy would be circling one in this scenerio. A painless click of the remote would not remove the reality of this war from our lives as it does with the war in Iraq. Not to mention the millions of people who would have worthless warranties on their Hyundais and KIAs.

Tactical nuclear war - Strike the facilities that are keeping us awake at night. See conventional war for the expected result.

Create regional nuclear powers - arm Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan with Nukes and strike a nuclear balance in the area. Besides a big no from China, this doesn't solve our biggest global concern with NK. That is their likelyhood to sell Nuclear bombs, technology, or materials to terrorist. That is, if they haven't already done so.

Talk - Not talking hasn't worked. This is Bush playing hardball. And while hardball must be played, a different route to the bargaining table must be found. A way must be found to give Il an out, and at the same time disarm him. NK has bargained in the past. They have shown that they are willing to deal. Verifiable destruction of the fuel rods, all existing nuclear weapons, and materials, as well as conventional heavy weapons is what we want. We do the same on our side with the conventional weapons in SKand give NK a path to join the world's economic order.

Bush isn't my first choice for getting this done. Just what we needed, a nuclear showdown with this guy at the helm. Lumping NK into the axis of evil didn't help our position. Neither does the doctrine of preemptive disarmament. If you were Il, you'd be building Nuclear bombs too.

Unfortunately, this could get very ugly.

[quote=BondGuy]

What tangled web. Il doesn’t want nuclear war any more than we do. He wants our attention. Well, he’s got it.

Here are some of the options:

Sanctions - We could stop all trade with North Korea. Big problem, nobody trades with them now, for the most part, with the exception of China. China has said we are going too far with the sanctions we are proposing. So, if we can't cut off their largest trading partner how will this work?

Conventional military action - Well, let's see, we attack NK to force a regime change and disarmament. They fight back with their million man army. Seoul South Korea gets turned into Bagdad east by their air force and artillary. Add 300,000 to 500,000 dead military on our side, many of those american, plus the high six figure civilian body count, and it's an ugly option. But it gets worse. China is still obligated to defend North Korea by the same treaty agreement that brought them into the Korean war. They've got a lot more to lose now than then, but are will willing to roll those dice? Lastly, any armed conflict in Korea would disrupt the entire asian rim. And speaking of rims, the world's economy would be circling one in this scenerio. A painless click of the remote would not remove the reality of this war from our lives as it does with the war in Iraq. Not to mention the millions of people who would have worthless warranties on their Hyundais and KIAs.

Tactical nuclear war - Strike the facilities that are keeping us awake at night. See conventional war for the expected result.

Create regional nuclear powers - arm Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan with Nukes and strike a nuclear balance in the area. Besides a big no from China, this doesn't solve our biggest global concern with NK. That is their likelyhood to sell Nuclear bombs, technology, or materials to terrorist. That is, if they haven't already done so.

Talk - Not talking hasn't worked. This is Bush playing hardball. And while hardball must be played, a different route to the bargaining table must be found. A way must be found to give Il an out, and at the same time disarm him. NK has bargained in the past. They have shown that they are willing to deal. Verifiable destruction of the fuel rods, all existing nuclear weapons, and materials, as well as conventional heavy weapons is what we want. We do the same on our side with the conventional weapons in SKand give NK a path to join the world's economic order.

Bush isn't my first choice for getting this done. Just what we needed, a nuclear showdown with this guy at the helm. Lumping NK into the axis of evil didn't help our position. Neither does the doctrine of preemptive disarmament. If you were Il, you'd be building Nuclear bombs too.

Unfortunately, this could get very ugly.

The first thing that entered my mind when the news broke on this the other day is “and we’re bringing a baby into this world.”  Who knows what will happen, but it does get very real and very scary when you think about the extremes.

I'm with you on a lot of this, but a couple of items stick out...

[quote=BondGuy]

What tangled web. Il doesn't want nuclear war any more than we do.

[/quote]

I wouldn't bet the farm on him being rational...he's already said it would be far worse for us than for him. He's pretty happy as it is starving his people to death.

[quote=BondGuy]Talk - Not talking hasn't worked. This is Bush playing hardball. And while hardball must be played, a different route to the bargaining table must be found. [/quote]

Carter's two-party talks (under Clinton) worked as well as his boycott of the 1980 Olympics.... Bush's six party talks give us a chance to get China and Japan involved, at least...it's the better of the bad choices.

[quote=BondGuy]

NK has bargained in the past. They have shown that they are willing to deal. [/quote]

I wish that were true. What they've shown they're willing to do is make an agreement, break it in private, and take billions of US taxpayer money for the bargain and strave their population while building nukes.

[quote=BondGuy]Verifiable destruction of the fuel rods, all existing nuclear weapons, and materials, as well as conventional heavy weapons is what we want. We do the same on our side with the conventional weapons in SKand give NK a path to join the world's economic order. [/quote]

They've already shown they wouldn't allow real inspections for verification. They're also not going to give up conventional heavy weapons (whatever that is, exactly) nor should we. I wish it were this simple. I really see no way out but an ugly struggle for containment until this regime falls from its own weight.

Finally, they have no interest in joinging the world's economic order, in fact, perhaps now is the time the world can get together and close off the "hermit kingdom" as I read it referred to today.

[quote=BondGuy]Bush isn't my first choice for getting this done. Just what we needed, a nuclear showdown with this guy at the helm. [/quote]

Hey, what do you know, Bush-bashing is like jello, there's always room for it..

[quote=BondGuy]Lumping NK into the axis of evil didn't help our position. [/quote]

I think it does/did. Being delusional about the reality of  North Korea, ala Carter, sure didn't help. A clear eyed appraisal of the situation was called for.

[quote=BondGuy]Neither does the doctrine of preemptive disarmament. If you were Il, you'd be building Nuclear bombs too. [/quote]

Right, that's what got the old nutcase to build nukes, Bush and Iraq...

[quote=Soothsayer]

I think we should institue a full naval blockade of N. Korea immediately.  Nothing comes in or goes out.  {/quote]

It may come to that, but I hope not...

[quote=Soothsayer]

  What would N. Korea do? 

Probably start launching artillery shells at downtown Seoul.  That would probably go on for 3-4 weeks.  When they ran out of ammuntion, then give them what they have always asked for--direct talks with the United States (while we're holding their balls).  [/quote]

Along with shells, they'd send that million man army and kill tens of thousands (including Americans) in the process. Not a good thing by any measure..

[quote=BrokerRecruit]The first thing that entered my mind when the news broke on this the other day is “and we’re bringing a baby into this world.”  Who knows what will happen, but it does get very real and very scary when you think about the extremes.[/quote]

Life brings hope.  All the more reason to bring a baby into this world.

And by the way; congratulations!

Thx.  It’s always a little scary, though, when you think about what the global landscape could look like in six months.  Take September 10, 2001 for example and compare it to the world today.  Just goes to show what can happen in the blink of an eye.

[quote=mikebutler222]

I'm with you on a lot of this, but a couple of items stick out...

[quote=BondGuy]

What tangled web. Il doesn't want nuclear war any more than we do.

[/quote]

I wouldn't bet the farm on him being rational...he's already said it would be far worse for us than for him. He's pretty happy as it is starving his people to death.

[quote=BondGuy]Talk - Not talking hasn't worked. This is Bush playing hardball. And while hardball must be played, a different route to the bargaining table must be found. [/quote]

Carter's two-party talks (under Clinton) worked as well as his boycott of the 1980 Olympics.... Bush's six party talks give us a chance to get China and Japan involved, at least...it's the better of the bad choices.

[quote=BondGuy]

NK has bargained in the past. They have shown that they are willing to deal. [/quote]

I wish that were true. What they've shown they're willing to do is make an agreement, break it in private, and take billions of US taxpayer money for the bargain and strave their population while building nukes.

[quote=BondGuy]Verifiable destruction of the fuel rods, all existing nuclear weapons, and materials, as well as conventional heavy weapons is what we want. We do the same on our side with the conventional weapons in SKand give NK a path to join the world's economic order. [/quote]

They've already shown they wouldn't allow real inspections for verification. They're also not going to give up conventional heavy weapons (whatever that is, exactly) nor should we. I wish it were this simple. I really see no way out but an ugly struggle for containment until this regime falls from its own weight.

Finally, they have no interest in joinging the world's economic order, in fact, perhaps now is the time the world can get together and close off the "hermit kingdom" as I read it referred to today.

[quote=BondGuy]Bush isn't my first choice for getting this done. Just what we needed, a nuclear showdown with this guy at the helm. [/quote]

Hey, what do you know, Bush-bashing is like jello, there's always room for it..

[quote=BondGuy]Lumping NK into the axis of evil didn't help our position. [/quote]

I think it does/did. Being delusional about the reality of  North Korea, ala Carter, sure didn't help. A clear eyed appraisal of the situation was called for.

[quote=BondGuy]Neither does the doctrine of preemptive disarmament. If you were Il, you'd be building Nuclear bombs too. [/quote]

Right, that's what got the old nutcase to build nukes, Bush and Iraq...

[/quote]

Heavy weapons would be artillery and armored vehicles. This works for us because we would be reducing the threat without giving up our far more important technological advantage.

Carter may not have gotten it exactly right in 1994, but he played an important roll in averting nuclear war at that time. Something he and Clinton get no credit for, as big as that was.

As for bashing Bush. Looking at his team's track record this isn't a cheap shot. It's a reality. On this forum we harp endlessly about the value of experience. Bush admitted before taking office that he knew nothing about world affairs, which is why we have the Vulcans. This group wanted to wipe Iraq off the face of the planet during the nineties but couldn't get Clinton to pull the trigger. They finally got their chance. Now look at this mess we're in. Clueless president advised by war mongering incompetents with an agenda. Case closed!

Threatening unfriendly countries with preemptive war has done immeasurable damage to our abilty to maintain peace in the world. And yes, as the world's lone superpower, that responsibility falls on our shoulders. In the mid nineties we found ourselves in an envious position. As a superpower, we had no equals. We still don't.  We had choices about how to wield that power. In 2001 the Vulcans chose preemptive war as the centerpiece of our foreign policy. Not only not a smart way to go, an inexcusable way to go, as history will show. In the eyes of much of the world we are no better than a bully with a baseball bat. If you're not a like minded country, and find yourself on the short list of targets, would you arm yourself? Or at least give yourself some bargaining chips? Absolutely! Il is a lunatic sociopath who will go down in history as a monster, but make no mistake, this is about failed foreign policy.

Iran is watching.

You might was well ask them to give up the border. They'll never give up the million man army they starve their people to keep. If it wasn't for the hatred and paranoia the regime has instilled in their people for the South and the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US, they'd collapse, and they know it. They've been on a wartime footing for better than 50 years and that fact should be realized.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=BondGuy]

Carter may not have gotten it exactly right in 1994, but he played an important roll in averting nuclear war at that time. Something he and Clinton get no credit for, as big as that was.[/quote]

Please tell me you’re joking. “May not have gotten it exactly right”????

There was no threat of nuclear war when Carter assembled the ridiculous deal that caused us to pay billions in bribes while the North Koreans went right on in the march to produce nukes. We wasted a decade that could have been spent getting partners together, as Bush did when we dropped the bilateral agreement and moved to the six party talks, to face the reality of North Korea and its aims.

[quote=BondGuy]As for bashing Bush. Looking at his team's track record this isn't a cheap shot. [/quote]

It is completely a cheap shot, all 20,000 words you devote to it. There’s nothing North Korea is doing today that they wouldn’t have done had Bush never come to office, much less never gone to Iraq.

[quote=mikebutler222]

You might was well ask them to give up the border. They'll never give up the million man army they starve their people to keep. If it wasn't for the hatred and paranoia the regime has instilled in their people for the South and the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US, they'd collapse, and they know it. They've been on a wartime footing for better than 50 years and that fact should be realized.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=BondGuy]

Carter may not have gotten it exactly right in 1994, but he played an important roll in averting nuclear war at that time. Something he and Clinton get no credit for, as big as that was.[/quote]

Please tell me you’re joking. “May not have gotten it exactly right”????

There was no threat of nuclear war when Carter assembled the ridiculous deal that caused us to pay billions in bribes while the North Koreans went right on in the march to produce nukes. We wasted a decade that could have been spent getting partners together, as Bush did when we dropped the bilateral agreement and moved to the six party talks, to face the reality of North Korea and its aims.

[quote=BondGuy]As for bashing Bush. Looking at his team's track record this isn't a cheap shot. [/quote]

It is completely a cheap shot, all 20,000 words you devote to it. There’s nothing North Korea is doing today that they wouldn’t have done had Bush never come to office, much less never gone to Iraq.

[/quote]

No joke Mike. 94 was as close to nuclear war as we've come since Cuba.

Clinton put too much trust into the deal was brokered. Say what you will about it, that Clinton gave in to blackmail etc, the bottom line is that that deal stopped the production of nuclear weapons for eight years. Yeah, NK broke the agreement, no argument there, but instead of having hundreds of nukes they've only got a few. A win in my book.

Considering all that has transpired over the past couple of years, anyone else here think I was taking a cheap shot?

The six party talks are why we are where we are. Failure is failure. There is no other way to spell it. If we'd taking another tack with Il, who knows? We'll never know the road not taken. But we sure know a wrong road when taken. Obviously, ignoring him was the wrong road. Hopefully, as the father of 3 draft  aged children, we won't pay for this mistake with American lives. Iraq is also a failure. All Bush.

Considering the current climate on this board, I have come to three conclusions regarding online political discussions:

[quote=JCadieux]Considering the current climate on this board, I have come to three conclusions regarding online political discussions:

Just my opinion.  I could be wrong.


JC
[/quote]

Exactly.  You are.

I’ve never read such absurd things on this board.  Do you often make up lies to sound competent JCadieux? 

[quote=BondGuy]

No joke Mike. 94 was as close to nuclear war as we've come since Cuba. [/quote]

Either you're joking or your accidentally demonstrating you’re out of your depth on this topic. For us to come close to nuclear war, both parties have to have the weapons available. In 1994, North Korea didn’t have them, in fact, over a decade later, we’re not sure they have them.

[quote=BondGuy]

Clinton put too much trust into the deal was brokered. Say what you will about it, that Clinton gave in to blackmail etc, the bottom line is that that deal stopped the production of nuclear weapons for eight years. [/quote]

You’re right on the first part (although I blame Carter more than Clinton, since, by accounts of people involved, Carter inserted himself in the situation and handed Clinton a fait accompli) it’s an error that sprang from not seeing clearly what the threat was and being willing to paper over the issue to be popular with those whose advice is always “stability”. On the second part, you’re simply wrong. North Korea continued their progress towards nuclear weapons without a hitch and with massive piles of US cash.

[quote=BondGuy]

Yeah, NK broke the agreement, no argument there, but instead of having hundreds of nukes they've only got a few. A win in my book. [/quote]

They weren’t able to make “hundreds” then and whatever they have now they would have had without US cash and with international condemnation for the past decade. Sorry, no “win” unless you rewrite history.

[quote=BondGuy]

The six party talks are why we are where we are. [/quote]

Not so, and that comment demonstrates the underlying failure to see on your part. North Korea’s regime’s nature, and our refusal to clearly see it with clarity when they started down this path is why we’re here.

The six party talks started late (should have started in 1994), and didn’t stop the nutcase from producing (we think) what he intended to all along, but blaming them for “why we’re here” is like blaming WWII on the failure of Chamberlain to achieve “peace in our time” rather than blaming Hitler for doing what he intended from day one.

[quote=BondGuy] If we'd taking another tack with Il, who knows? We'll never know the road not taken. [/quote]

Let’s see, we tried the “lets stand alone, try to bribe them, and let them produce weapons anyway” approach and we tried the “let’s stand with friends, no bribes, and try as a world to stop this” approach. Care to name a third (only those with some shred of reality need apply) that “who knows” might have worked?

[quote=BondGuy] Hopefully, as the father of 3 draft aged children, we won't pay for this mistake with American lives. Iraq is also a failure. All Bush.

[/quote]

Seriously, the attempt to score political points on this, and the “Iraq is a failure” (let’s not bother to see it through to conclusion, just call it a failure now is to me like making the same judgment about WWII during the Battle of the Bulge) stuff is all cheap politics, and made worse by the seriousness of the situation. If you can name a single thing North Korea is doing now, that they wouldn’t have done had Bush never came to office, feel free to spell it out.

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/QUOTE]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

Let the countdown begin…

[quote=mikebutler222]Let the countdown begin....[/quote]

There is only one period needed to end a sentence.  I thought you were a smart guy.  Obviously not.

[quote=Grammar Police][quote=JCadieux]Considering the current climate on this board, I have come to three conclusions regarding online political discussions:

Just my opinion.  I could be wrong.


JC
[/quote]

Exactly.  You are.

Wow. That guy has lost some mental capacity in the past couple months. I love it.

[quote=mikebutler222]

Along with shells, they'd send that million man army and kill tens of thousands (including Americans) in the process. Not a good thing by any measure..

[/quote]

Is their million man army anything like Saddam's vaunted Republican Guard?  Because, I dealt with them myself and wasn't all that impressed.  Trust me, North Korea doesn't have 1 million armed and trained soldiers, nor the logistical capability to keep them engaged in a fight very long.  They'll fire artillery until we can shut it down, but they won't go on a military offensive.  They'll hole up on their own turf, and try to shoot down the planes that are bombing the artillery positions. 

Our navy is an extremely effective tool to extend and project force while remaining somewhat passive.  There would be those willing to try to run the blockade for a few days or so.  But, when they saw the price paid for that, they would get smart real quick. 

[quote=Soothsayer][quote=mikebutler222]

Along with shells, they'd send that million man army and kill tens of thousands (including Americans) in the process. Not a good thing by any measure..

[/quote]

Is their million man army anything like Saddam's vaunted Republican Guard? [/quote]

Not in the slightest, but I sure wish it was. The North Koreans are deadly serious, and crazy as hell. I can point out examples from the tree cutting incident in the DMZ to flights in Panmunjeom to them digging multiple truck sized tunnels under the DMZ. No, they're not like the Republican Guard now, or in the 1950s.

[quote=Soothsayer] Trust me, North Korea doesn't have 1 million armed and trained soldiers, nor the logistical capability to keep them engaged in a fight very long. [/quote]

I don’t know why I should trust you more than my own eyes and experience. Their logtail is a problem for them(ours is as well), otoh, they don't require near what we do. Make no mistake about the size of their army or how serious it is. These guys are the real deal (no, I didn't personally see all 1 million of them, but I saw enough on the DMZ, including their assumed assault plans, to take them seriously) and we don't have much more in South Korea than a speed bump.

They could push us damned near off the peninsula (as they almost did in 1950) before we could respond in a meaningful way. Think Taskforce Smith all over again.

[quote=Soothsayer] They'll fire artillery until we can shut it down, but they won't go on a military offensive. [/quote]

I wish that were the case. Like the old Soviet Army, they’re real believers in artillery, and we don‘t have enough counter-battery to dent them. The better bet is that they'd have leveled half of Seoul before they walked into it.

[quote=Soothsayer]

They'll hole up on their own turf, and try to shoot down the planes that are bombing the artillery positions. [/quote]

We wouldn’t be sending in planes on arty positions, we’d try to use tube cannon or MLRS. Planes would be reserved for higher priority targets.

[quote=Soothsayer]

Our navy is an extremely effective tool to extend and project force while remaining somewhat passive. There would be those willing to try to run the blockade for a few days or so. But, when they saw the price paid for that, they would get smart real quick.

[/quote]

Again, I wish I could agree, but I don’t think you understand the nature of the fanaticism at work here. I don’t think I’m telling tales out of school here by hinting at 20 year old battle plans, but let me suggest to you that the 2nd I.D.’s plan was to delay and withdraw, and that’s when we had an entire division there. They had no delusions about how the opening days would go.

[quote=Grammar Police]

[quote=mikebutler222]Let the countdown begin....[/quote]

There is only one period needed to end a sentence.  I thought you were a smart guy.  Obviously not.

[/quote]

It's called an ellipses and it has been used correctly.  The last dot IS the period.  Had mikebutler included words after the ellipses, then there would only be 3 dots.  And you are the Grammar Police?

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy]

No joke Mike. 94 was as close to nuclear war as we've come since Cuba. [/quote]

Either you're joking or your accidentally demonstrating you’re out of your depth on this topic. For us to come close to nuclear war, both parties have to have the weapons available. In 1994, North Korea didn’t have them, in fact, over a decade later, we’re not sure they have them.

[quote=BondGuy]

Again, not a joke. Clinton was faced with exactly the same situation in 94. it was either talk or fight. Then, like now, we weren't sure about what NK had or didn't have in nuclear capability. So, in that sense it was a nuclear standoff. NK has had plutonium since the Reagan era. The as now, Clinton, like Bush,  couldn't be seen as intiating unilateral talks, so good Jimmy Carter, who just happened to be in the neighborhood on a humanatarian mission, stopped by NK for a chat. Next thing you know the peanut farmer has brokered a deal that ended a nuclear showdown. An interesting point is that Clinton found a way to do the undoable, talk to il without talking to il.

Clinton put too much trust into the deal was brokered. Say what you will about it, that Clinton gave in to blackmail etc, the bottom line is that that deal stopped the production of nuclear weapons for eight years. [/quote]

You’re right on the first part (although I blame Carter more than Clinton, since, by accounts of people involved, Carter inserted himself in the situation and handed Clinton a fait accompli) it’s an error that sprang from not seeing clearly what the threat was and being willing to paper over the issue to be popular with those whose advice is always “stability”. On the second part, you’re simply wrong. North Korea continued their progress towards nuclear weapons without a hitch and with massive piles of US cash.

[quote=BondGuy]

Clinton/Carter had it right. The goal was to get il to stand down. That was accomplished.

Yeah, NK broke the agreement, no argument there, but instead of having hundreds of nukes they've only got a few. A win in my book. [/quote]

They weren’t able to make “hundreds” then and whatever they have now they would have had without US cash and with international condemnation for the past decade. Sorry, no “win” unless you rewrite history.

[quote=BondGuy]

Mike where are you getting this cash thing? There was no cash, just aid.

The six party talks are why we are where we are. [/quote]

Not so, and that comment demonstrates the underlying failure to see on your part. North Korea’s regime’s nature, and our refusal to clearly see it with clarity when they started down this path is why we’re here.

The six party talks started late (should have started in 1994), and didn’t stop the nutcase from producing (we think) what he intended to all along, but blaming them for “why we’re here” is like blaming WWII on the failure of Chamberlain to achieve “peace in our time” rather than blaming Hitler for doing what he intended from day one.

To be more clear,( I know) insisting six party talks when it has been flatly rejected by NK. It's a showdown that has failed. It's high stakes poker and il has called our hand. So now what? Clinton got creative and bought us some time, maybe as good as it gets with a madman.

[quote=BondGuy] If we'd taking another tack with Il, who knows? We'll never know the road not taken. [/quote]

Let’s see, we tried the “lets stand alone, try to bribe them, and let them produce weapons anyway” approach and we tried the “let’s stand with friends, no bribes, and try as a world to stop this” approach. Care to name a third (only those with some shred of reality need apply) that “who knows” might have worked?

Again with the bribe thing. No money changed hands. There was about , what, 4 billion in aid. Mostly power, oil, and coal.

As for stopping the production of these weapons, we knew where the spent fuel rods were, we knew where the only operational nuclear power plant was, we knew when the plant was online and off line. We also knew where the two plants under construction were and are. So, yes, we are reasonably assured that production stopped for about eight years.

[quote=BondGuy] Hopefully, as the father of 3 draft aged children, we won't pay for this mistake with American lives. Iraq is also a failure. All Bush.

[/quote]

Seriously, the attempt to score political points on this, and the “Iraq is a failure” (let’s not bother to see it through to conclusion, just call it a failure now is to me like making the same judgment about WWII during the Battle of the Bulge) stuff is all cheap politics, and made worse by the seriousness of the situation. If you can name a single thing North Korea is doing now, that they wouldn’t have done had Bush never came to office, feel free to spell it out.

[/quote]

Mike, hopefully you don't take any of this personally. I view our conversation as two people talking, debating, over a beer. Oops forgot to go blue on that one.

What cheap politics? I think as a father. My political side says the only way out of Iraq is to add a lot more troops. The only way that is going to happen is with a draft. That draft would include my three children. That's where I can only think as a father. I don't want my children in Iraq. I also don't want them driving with drunks, skydiving, or running class 5 rapids. I don't want them doing anything that puts them in harms way. As a father I think we should pull out of Iraq. Last week 27 of our troops were killed in Iraq. They all had fathers. 27 devastated fathers. We need to end this.

[quote=JCadieux]Considering the current climate on this board, I have come to three conclusions regarding online political discussions:

Just my opinion.  I could be wrong.


JC
[/quote]

Jane you ignorant slut! Just had to say that.

Diffinately spot on about the grammer.

There is something of value for rookies here and that is, never, as in never ever, get into a political discussion with a client. Because next thing you know they're blue and you're red and fired.

Butler, how do the Koreans counter our Navy, seeing as how they don't have one?  What you fail to understand is how devastating and demoralizing it is to an opposing force to be hit with firepower that you had no idea it was coming, and worse yet, have no idea how to respond to it or stop it.  That is the nature of modern warfare during an effetive offensive.  Think about Gulf War I or the first couple weeks or Gulf War II. 

Bad things started happening when we became an occupying force.  We were kicking ass and taking names as long as we were on the offensive.  The same would be true in any other conflict.  You vastly overestimate our adversary.  When people all around you are dying, your eardrums are ruptured from the explosions going off, you are out of ammunition, have no vehicle, no food, and no command staff, the game is up. 

[quote=Soothsayer] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

<?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Butler, how do the Koreans counter our Navy, seeing as how they don't have one? [/quote]

The naval advantage we have now is the same one we had in the 1950's (BTW, I wonder what the crew of the Pueblo would tell you about the non-existent NK Navy), it's the same one we had in the 1980s when clear-eyed planners knew we were going to have to use the 2ID to buy time (at great expense) until other ground forces could arrive.

With all due respect, and I’m dead serious, you navy guys never seem to get this, but navies don't take or hold ground. Never have, never will. BTW, how big was the North Vietnamese navy? How did our massive naval advantage work there?

[quote=Soothsayer] What you fail to understand is how devastating and demoralizing it is to an opposing force to be hit with firepower that you had no idea it was coming, and worse yet, have no idea how to respond to it or stop it.  [/quote]

Golly, thanks for the lesson. They never mentioned anything like that at Leavenworth, or the Basic course, or the Advanced course, or Ranger school, or….

[quote=Soothsayer]That is the nature of modern warfare during an effetive offensive.  Think about Gulf War I or the first couple weeks or Gulf War II.  [/quote]

Think about large expanses of flat terrain, open desert and population centers far apart. Now, think of Korea's rugged, mountainous terrain where every battle is cross-compartment and defilades make target acquisition and destruction much, much harder. Think about a massive friendly civilian population center, a world class city, just 6 minutes by air from a million man army. That’s Korea. This isn’t the minor leagues of the Middle East, this is where the US fought and bled to a stalemate 50 years ago and came within inches of a humiliating defeat.

We would win, no doubt in my mind, but the cost would be staggering in both military and civilian causalities. This is the first string. Back in the old days, when we planned for the 8th Guards Army pouring through the Fulda Gap, I felt confident about that one. The one that kept me up at night was the wack-jobs running North Korea.

[quote=Soothsayer]You vastly overestimate our adversary.[/quote]

You simply aren’t familiar with the terrain, the history and the people involved. These people have been at war for 50 years, make no mistake. They run their nation on a war footing. They will not go down easy.

[quote=Soothsayer]

  When people all around you are dying, your eardrums are ruptured from the explosions going off, you are out of ammunition, have no vehicle, no food, and no command staff, the game is up. 

[/quote]

Sounds nice, Patton, I’ve seen that movie too. I spent a big chunk of my live training to bring the nasty environment you’re talking about to enemies of this nation. You think we could get them to move to the desert where they couldn’t hide in bunkers they’ve been improving for 50 years and out of the mountains where you can’t see them until you’re in close range, and where indirect fire and air support aren’t severely hindered?

BG - I agree with your thought process as I have a brother-in-law that is in the Marines and is currently stationed in Japan.  In the coming weeks/months, he is going to Korea.  I also have another brother-in-law and friend in Iraq.

A guy in my office is a father of four and has a son in the Marines.  He has served four tours in Iraq, with three of them specifically in Fallujah (sp?).  He is home and has been for three months, but is awaiting word on his next tour in the Middle East.  In his last tour, he was leading his unit as they guarded the mayor of Fallujah for about four months.  Their unit was ambushed several times and caught a couple IEDs (that, thankfully, were partial failures and only caused damage to the vehicles and minor wounds to the troops within their unit).  They had mentioned that, since he has served so much time in Iraq, that they would station him somewhere stateside, but with the recent spike in activity over there, that message has changed.

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=BondGuy]

No joke Mike. 94 was as close to nuclear war as we've come since <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Cuba. [/quote]

Either you're joking or your accidentally demonstrating you’re out of your depth on this topic. For us to come close to nuclear war, both parties have to have the weapons available. In 1994, North Korea didn’t have them, in fact, over a decade later, we’re not sure they have them.

[quote=BondGuy]

Again, not a joke. Clinton was faced with exactly the same situation in 94. it was either talk or fight. Then, like now, we weren't sure about what NK had or didn't have in nuclear capability. So, in that sense it was a nuclear standoff. NK has had plutonium since the Reagan era. The as now, Clinton, like Bush,  couldn't be seen as intiating unilateral talks, so good Jimmy Carter, who just happened to be in the neighborhood on a humanatarian mission, stopped by NK for a chat. Next thing you know the peanut farmer has brokered a deal that ended a nuclear showdown. An interesting point is that Clinton found a way to do the undoable, talk to il without talking to il.

This may be the worst bit of political re-writing of history I’ve seen lately. Clinton didn’t face anything near the same situation in 1994. His goal then was to deter NK’s plans to produce weapons, not Bush’s dilema which was how to put the genie back in the bottle.

Having plutonium isn’t anything like having weaponable material. You might want to listen to members of the Clinton administration themselves about Carter inserting himself, Jesse Jackson style, into the NK issue and announcing first on CNN a deal that Clinton would not have signed. There was no “nuclear showdown” stopped, there was a bribe to pretend to not make weapons when we knew we couldn’t trust them to live up to it and we had no real inspections regime. They immediately went back to their long held goal of producing nukes, and Carter was toasted by clueless people at cocktail parties as a “peace maker”.

You really shouldn’t simply make things up out of thin air. 

Clinton put too much trust into the deal was brokered. Say what you will about it, that Clinton gave in to blackmail etc, the bottom line is that that deal stopped the production of nuclear weapons for eight years. [/quote]

You’re right on the first part (although I blame Carter more than Clinton, since, by accounts of people involved, Carter inserted himself in the situation and handed Clinton a fait accompli) it’s an error that sprang from not seeing clearly what the threat was and being willing to paper over the issue to be popular with those whose advice is always “stability”. On the second part, you’re simply wrong. North Korea continued their progress towards nuclear weapons without a hitch and with massive piles of US cash.

[quote=BondGuy]

Clinton/Carter had it right. The goal was to get il to stand down. That was accomplished.

   He didn’t stand down, as his recent nuke test (should it turn out to be one) proved. He took the aid  and broke the deal almost immediately.

Yeah, NK broke the agreement, no argument there, but instead of having hundreds of nukes they've only got a few. A win in my book. [/quote]

They weren’t able to make “hundreds” then and whatever they have now they would have had without US cash and with international condemnation for the past decade. Sorry, no “win” unless you rewrite history.

[quote=BondGuy]

Mike where are you getting this cash thing? There was no cash, just aid.

The “aid” went for things the NKs would otherwise have bought on their own, like fuel oil. You’re in this business, you’ve heard the term “fungible”, right? And do you think the “aid” cost the US nothing?

The six party talks are why we are where we are. [/quote]

Not so, and that comment demonstrates the underlying failure to see on your part. North Korea’s regime’s nature, and our refusal to clearly see it with clarity when they started down this path is why we’re here.

The six party talks started late (should have started in 1994), and didn’t stop the nutcase from producing (we think) what he intended to all along, but blaming them for “why we’re here” is like blaming WWII on the failure of Chamberlain to achieve “peace in our time” rather than blaming Hitler for doing what he intended from day one.

To be more clear,( I know) insisting six party talks when it has been flatly rejected by NK. It's a showdown that has failed. It's high stakes poker and il has called our hand. So now what? Clinton got creative and bought us some time, maybe as good as it gets with a madman.

Clinton (again, Carter is the one at fault here) bought us nothing aside from a process, as McCain said yesterday, rewarded bad behavior. NK didn’t stop working on nukes, there was no delay involved. They played Carter for the gullible Gee-if-I-could-only-reason-with-these-guys fool he is. He gave Il what he wanted most, the world stage with the only super-power, the US. He gained immeasurable stature.

NK tried to reject six party talks, but their number one prop, the country they couldn’t exist without, China, was there to provide leverage. My guess is that NK was going to produce nukes either way (as Hitler was going to over-run Europe, with or without Chamberlain), but the best hope, the one that didn’t give Il stature and brought the neighboring powers to the table with us, was multilateral talks.

[quote=BondGuy] If we'd taking another tack with Il, who knows? We'll never know the road not taken. [/quote]

Let’s see, we tried the “lets stand alone, try to bribe them, and let them produce weapons anyway” approach and we tried the “let’s stand with friends, no bribes, and try as a world to stop this” approach. Care to name a third (only those with some shred of reality need apply) that “who knows” might have worked?

Again with the bribe thing. No money changed hands. There was about , what, 4 billion in aid. Mostly power, oil, and coal.

Right, 4 billion in coal and oil that WE paid for, that Il didn’t, so he could use the money saved on things like interesting conversations with A.Q. Kahn and on equipment buys.

As for stopping the production of these weapons, we knew where the spent fuel rods were, we knew where the only operational nuclear power plant was, we knew when the plant was online and off line. We also knew where the two plants under construction were and are. So, yes, we are reasonably assured that production stopped for about eight years.

 This is pure fiction. Production never stopped, as we found out in early 2001. They had been cheating all along, as anyone, aside from Carter, would have figured.

[quote=BondGuy] Hopefully, as the father of 3 draft aged children, we won't pay for this mistake with American lives. Iraq is also a failure. All Bush.

[/quote]

Seriously, the attempt to score political points on this, and the “Iraq is a failure” (let’s not bother to see it through to conclusion, just call it a failure now is to me like making the same judgment about WWII during the Battle of the Bulge) stuff is all cheap politics, and made worse by the seriousness of the situation. If you can name a single thing North Korea is doing now, that they wouldn’t have done had Bush never came to office, feel free to spell it out.

[/quote]

Mike, hopefully you don't take any of this personally. I view our conversation as two people talking, debating, over a beer. Oops forgot to go blue on that one.

Not a problem.

What cheap politics? I think as a father. My political side says the only way out of Iraq is to add a lot more troops.

Sigh…. There’s nothing in your Iraq talking points that has to do with North Korea. You’ve yet to cite a single action Il took that depended on Bush going to Iraq much less his speech. Il didn’t suddenly become something he wasn’t, his path never changed.

As to draft age kids, I have them, and having served in uniform myself, and having friends in harm’s way as we speak, don’t try the you-care-more routine on me. That will end our pals over a beer conversation in a heartbeat. There will be no draft, no matter how many scare mongering Democrats say otherwise. Recruitment and reenlistment are strong, personnel needs are being met by volunteers. The same people who see the fight closest seem to be committed to it the strongest.

[quote=BrokerRecruit]

A guy in my office is a father of four and has a son in the Marines.  He has served four tours in Iraq, with three of them specifically in Fallujah (sp?).  [/quote]

It's a shame we connected two very dissimilar things, <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq and NK, but your friend's son is a hero, and he's a volunteer. There used to be a time when "a tour" in combat was a full year, in most army units it still is, as entire units rotate to the fight and back home again, and not the individual replacement scheme we used in Vietnam. Before that we sent people off to fight for "the duration", and some came back four years later. Often now a tour is a 3 month deployment.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 As I mentioned to BG, recruiting and re-enlistment are both strong, and to me that says something about the fight and the people doing the fighting.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=BondGuy]

No joke Mike. 94 was as close to nuclear war as we've come since <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Cuba. [/quote]

Either you're joking or your accidentally demonstrating you’re out of your depth on this topic. For us to come close to nuclear war, both parties have to have the weapons available. In 1994, North Korea didn’t have them, in fact, over a decade later, we’re not sure they have them.

[quote=BondGuy]

Again, not a joke. Clinton was faced with exactly the same situation in 94. it was either talk or fight. Then, like now, we weren't sure about what NK had or didn't have in nuclear capability. So, in that sense it was a nuclear standoff. NK has had plutonium since the Reagan era. The as now, Clinton, like Bush,  couldn't be seen as intiating unilateral talks, so good Jimmy Carter, who just happened to be in the neighborhood on a humanatarian mission, stopped by NK for a chat. Next thing you know the peanut farmer has brokered a deal that ended a nuclear showdown. An interesting point is that Clinton found a way to do the undoable, talk to il without talking to il.

This may be the worst bit of political re-writing of history I’ve seen lately. Clinton didn’t face anything near the same situation in 1994. His goal then was to deter NK’s plans to produce weapons, not Bush’s dilema which was how to put the genie back in the bottle.

Having plutonium isn’t anything like having weaponable material. You might want to listen to members of the Clinton administration themselves about Carter inserting himself, Jesse Jackson style, into the NK issue and announcing first on CNN a deal that Clinton would not have signed. There was no “nuclear showdown” stopped, there was a bribe to pretend to not make weapons when we knew we couldn’t trust them to live up to it and we had no real inspections regime. They immediately went back to their long held goal of producing nukes, and Carter was toasted by clueless people at cocktail parties as a “peace maker”.

You really shouldn’t simply make things up out of thin air. 

Clinton put too much trust into the deal was brokered. Say what you will about it, that Clinton gave in to blackmail etc, the bottom line is that that deal stopped the production of nuclear weapons for eight years. [/quote]

You’re right on the first part (although I blame Carter more than Clinton, since, by accounts of people involved, Carter inserted himself in the situation and handed Clinton a fait accompli) it’s an error that sprang from not seeing clearly what the threat was and being willing to paper over the issue to be popular with those whose advice is always “stability”. On the second part, you’re simply wrong. North Korea continued their progress towards nuclear weapons without a hitch and with massive piles of US cash.

[quote=BondGuy]

Clinton/Carter had it right. The goal was to get il to stand down. That was accomplished.

   He didn’t stand down, as his recent nuke test (should it turn out to be one) proved. He took the aid  and broke the deal almost immediately.

Yeah, NK broke the agreement, no argument there, but instead of having hundreds of nukes they've only got a few. A win in my book. [/quote]

They weren’t able to make “hundreds” then and whatever they have now they would have had without US cash and with international condemnation for the past decade. Sorry, no “win” unless you rewrite history.

[quote=BondGuy]

Mike where are you getting this cash thing? There was no cash, just aid.

The “aid” went for things the NKs would otherwise have bought on their own, like fuel oil. You’re in this business, you’ve heard the term “fungible”, right? And do you think the “aid” cost the US nothing?

The six party talks are why we are where we are. [/quote]

Not so, and that comment demonstrates the underlying failure to see on your part. North Korea’s regime’s nature, and our refusal to clearly see it with clarity when they started down this path is why we’re here.

The six party talks started late (should have started in 1994), and didn’t stop the nutcase from producing (we think) what he intended to all along, but blaming them for “why we’re here” is like blaming WWII on the failure of Chamberlain to achieve “peace in our time” rather than blaming Hitler for doing what he intended from day one.

To be more clear,( I know) insisting six party talks when it has been flatly rejected by NK. It's a showdown that has failed. It's high stakes poker and il has called our hand. So now what? Clinton got creative and bought us some time, maybe as good as it gets with a madman.

Clinton (again, Carter is the one at fault here) bought us nothing aside from a process, as McCain said yesterday, rewarded bad behavior. NK didn’t stop working on nukes, there was no delay involved. They played Carter for the gullible Gee-if-I-could-only-reason-with-these-guys fool he is. He gave Il what he wanted most, the world stage with the only super-power, the US. He gained immeasurable stature.

NK tried to reject six party talks, but their number one prop, the country they couldn’t exist without, China, was there to provide leverage. My guess is that NK was going to produce nukes either way (as Hitler was going to over-run Europe, with or without Chamberlain), but the best hope, the one that didn’t give Il stature and brought the neighboring powers to the table with us, was multilateral talks.

[quote=BondGuy] If we'd taking another tack with Il, who knows? We'll never know the road not taken. [/quote]

Let’s see, we tried the “lets stand alone, try to bribe them, and let them produce weapons anyway” approach and we tried the “let’s stand with friends, no bribes, and try as a world to stop this” approach. Care to name a third (only those with some shred of reality need apply) that “who knows” might have worked?

Again with the bribe thing. No money changed hands. There was about , what, 4 billion in aid. Mostly power, oil, and coal.

Right, 4 billion in coal and oil that WE paid for, that Il didn’t, so he could use the money saved on things like interesting conversations with A.Q. Kahn and on equipment buys.

As for stopping the production of these weapons, we knew where the spent fuel rods were, we knew where the only operational nuclear power plant was, we knew when the plant was online and off line. We also knew where the two plants under construction were and are. So, yes, we are reasonably assured that production stopped for about eight years.

 This is pure fiction. Production never stopped, as we found out in early 2001. They had been cheating all along, as anyone, aside from Carter, would have figured.

[quote=BondGuy] Hopefully, as the father of 3 draft aged children, we won't pay for this mistake with American lives. Iraq is also a failure. All Bush.

[/quote]

Seriously, the attempt to score political points on this, and the “Iraq is a failure” (let’s not bother to see it through to conclusion, just call it a failure now is to me like making the same judgment about WWII during the Battle of the Bulge) stuff is all cheap politics, and made worse by the seriousness of the situation. If you can name a single thing North Korea is doing now, that they wouldn’t have done had Bush never came to office, feel free to spell it out.

[/quote]

Mike, hopefully you don't take any of this personally. I view our conversation as two people talking, debating, over a beer. Oops forgot to go blue on that one.

Not a problem.

What cheap politics? I think as a father. My political side says the only way out of Iraq is to add a lot more troops.

Sigh…. There’s nothing in your Iraq talking points that has to do with North Korea. You’ve yet to cite a single action Il took that depended on Bush going to Iraq much less his speech. Il didn’t suddenly become something he wasn’t, his path never changed.

As to draft age kids, I have them, and having served in uniform myself, and having friends in harm’s way as we speak, don’t try the you-care-more routine on me. That will end our pals over a beer conversation in a heartbeat. There will be no draft, no matter how many scare mongering Democrats say otherwise. Recruitment and reenlistment are strong, personnel needs are being met by volunteers. The same people who see the fight closest seem to be committed to it the strongest.

[/quote]

Mike, you seem to be taking this personally. I never said I care more than anyone else. I can view the current situation in Iraq and now North Korea from one perspective, and that is as a father. I can also see that you are passionate in your viewpoint, as well as educated on the subject. We may disagree, but I have to respect your opinion.

OK, back to it.

As for Iraq and no draft, our problem is, not enough troops. We've lost control of the country. This isn't about win/lose, we've already lost the fight on the ground, and the broader fight for hearts and minds. And if you think differently you need a serious reality check.

What happened to: We'll stand down when they stand up. We've trained 300,000 Iraqies to stand up, and we're still there. I guess that was another "they'll be greeting us in the streets with flowers" miscalculation?

The situation in Iraq is not a debacle, it's a fiasco. I don't fault the troops who are fighting this, or their commanders. Brave soldiers, one and all. It's all Washington. Their failure to plan for this eventuality, Even though they knew full well what they were getting into. War games held since the early ninties held out this result. And here we are, brought to you be the same administration that brought you the Katrina response, a military quagmire, and human tragedy.

Now I have to trust an administration that has delivered us Iraq, an administration that denied it knew people were in trouble in New Orleans, as that trouble was being broadcast live on CNN, to stand down a Nuclear threat? Yeah, that'll work!

I was hoping the world would stay a quiet place for another two years. Now, with this, the world could be a very different place in two years.

Your opinion and read on NK follows the conservative republican line to a tee. Even the misinformation about the Advanced Framework. That's not a problem, just an observation. Believe what you will. What is a problem is that much of that line is spin. Spin created by the same group who decided derailing Clinton's presidency was a top priority. How can anyone take that as gospel?

[quote=BondGuy] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Mike, you seem to be taking this personally. I never said I care more than anyone else. [/quote]

I'm not taking anything personally, but the I-care-more implication is clear when you mention casualties.

[quote=BondGuy]I can view the current situation in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq and now North Korea from one perspective, and that is as a father. [/quote]

We're both fathers, no special insight there. Some fathers happen to be clueless, others not.

[quote=BondGuy] We may disagree, but I have to respect your opinion. [/quote]

And I yours, unless we're re-writing history and trying to tie Iraq (and Katrina) to NK.

[quote=BondGuy]As for Iraq and no draft, our problem is, not enough troops. [/quote]

I have limited interest in debating Iraq with you, the subject was North Korea.

There are commanders on the ground that would disagree with you citing the fact that troop strengths are a two edged sword. As to the draft scare, it doesn’t seem to matter who says it and how many times it’s said , but there will be no draft. There simply is no need.

[quote=BondGuy]We've lost control of the country. This isn't about win/lose, we've already lost the fight on the ground, and the broader fight for hearts and minds. And if you think differently you need a serious reality check.[/quote]

Let's see, I could believe you, or I could believe the guys I know that are there and I could trust the re-enlistment rates among people closest to the fight, and I could remember how the doomspeak started on day three of the invasion with the “dust storm that stopped US forces in their tracks” and I could remember enough military history to know how simply hard some fights are even when the eventual outcome is victory. I could also read the letters back and forth between leaders of Al Qaeda in Iraq and hiding in caves in parts unknown about how badly the fight’s going for them. Hmmm, which one…

[quote=BondGuy]

What happened to: We'll stand down when they stand up. [/quote]

It hasn't changed. Trained Iraqi troops are taking more and more responsibility. The vast majority of the country is secure.

The rest of your Iraq talking points (and Katrina, for that matter) simply don’t interest me. We’ve heard them all before and whatever you think of how we got there, or fantasies you entertain about prior wars in human history that have gone 100% to plan, we simply can’t walk away now.

[quote=BondGuy]

Your opinion and read on NK follows the conservative republican line to a tee. Even the misinformation about the Advanced Framework. That's not a problem, just an observation. [/quote]

It’s called reality, and there’s even room here for hyper-partisans like you. Don’t like what I’ve told you about Carter’s deal, read any number of Clinton staffers have said about it. This isn’t partisan by any means. We were played like suckers thanks to the incredible naiveté of a  man who inserted himself where he had no right to go.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I'm not taking anything personally, but the I-care-more implication is clear when you mention casualties.

I care only as a father. Does it serve some purpose to read more into it than that

We're both fathers, no special insight there. Some fathers happen to be clueless, others not.

It's not about insight. it's about the reality of our children coming to harm.

[quote=BondGuy] We may disagree, but I have to respect your opinion. [/quote]

And I yours, unless we're re-writing history and trying to tie Iraq (and Katrina) to NK.

Where we disagree is that you see no problem with how things are going in Iraq. Where I see inept leadership, you apparently see a war going to plan. Katrina just confirmed my view of how inept this administration is.

[quote=BondGuy]As for Iraq and no draft, our problem is, not enough troops. [/quote]

There are commanders on the ground that would disagree with you citing the fact that troop strengths are a two edged sword. As to the draft scare, it doesn’t seem to matter who says it and how many times it’s said , but there will be no draft. There simply is no need.

Over the past two months troop strength has increased from 120,000 to over 145,000. Anyone else here believe we have enough troop strength in Iraq? regardless, we need to change something because we've lost control of the country. With troop strength stretched where are we goig to get more troops? What if we do get into it with NK? Then what? Still no draft?

[quote=BondGuy]We've lost control of the country. This isn't about win/lose, we've already lost the fight on the ground, and the broader fight for hearts and minds. And if you think differently you need a serious reality check.[/quote]

Let's see, I could believe you, or I could believe the guys I know that are there and I could trust the re-enlistment rates among people closest to the fight, and I could remember how the doomspeak started on day three of the invasion with the “dust storm that stopped US forces in their tracks” and I could remember enough military history to know how simply hard some fights are even when the eventual outcome is victory. I could also read the letters back and forth between leaders of Al Qaeda in Iraq and hiding in caves in parts unknown about how badly the fight’s going for them. Hmmm, which one…

It's obvious that we've lost control. Unless all the sectarian executions and bombings going on are part of the plan?

[quote=BondGuy]

What happened to: We'll stand down when they stand up. [/quote]

It hasn't changed. Trained Iraqi troops are taking more and more responsibility. The vast majority of the country is secure.

The vast majority of the country is a desert. We have limited, at best, control of the population centers. Who exactly are we fighting for, Sunni, Shia, or Kurds?

, we simply can’t walk away now.

Why not?

[quote=BondGuy]

Your opinion and read on NK follows the conservative republican line to a tee. Even the misinformation about the Advanced Framework. That's not a problem, just an observation. [/quote]

It’s called reality, and there’s even room here for hyper-partisans like you. Don’t like what I’ve told you about Carter’s deal, read any number of Clinton staffers have said about it. This isn’t partisan by any means. We were played like suckers thanks to the incredible naiveté of a  man who inserted himself where he had no right to go.

Again with the spin as reality.

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

All of us who are fathers care about it, you have no special status.

We're both fathers, no special insight there. Some fathers happen to be clueless, others not.

It's not about insight. it's about the reality of our children coming to harm.

It's about using that remote possibility as the framework for political attacks.

Perhaps you can show me where I said that.... where we really disagree is your assertion that Iraq, or Bush has anything at all to do with North Korea's long march towards producing nukes.

Where I see inept leadership, you apparently see a war going to plan.

Knowing a bit about military history I know that no war ever “goes to plan”. Ask Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Truman.

Katrina just confirmed my view of how inept this administration is.

I suspect everything that happens on this planet confirms your view, which, no doubt, was conceived long ago. Personally, dragging in Iraq, much less Katrina on a conversation about North Korea confirms your status as a hack. Sorry.

Over the past two months troop strength has increased from 120,000 to over 145,000. Anyone else here believe we have enough troop strength in Iraq?

Please don't tell me you haven't seen people like Gen Abizaid talk about more troops on the ground has both advantages and disadvantages. While the professionals argue the troop strength, I have serious doubts that you or I are the final words on the subject.

regardless, we need to change something because we've lost control of the country.

Defeatist talk sure is cheap. Do you know how many provinces there are in Iraq? Do you know how many experience violence?  

BTW, have you had a chance to read the correspondence between Al Qeada’s leadership in Iraq and the higher HQ back in the caves? Their assessment of their situation is the same you have of ours. One of you is wrong, and the AQ guys are much closer to the fight.

With troop strength stretched where are we goig to get more troops? What if we do get into it with NK? Then what? Still no draft?

You’re fear mongering for political ends. There’s no need for a draft. You’ve simply ignored recruitment and re-enlistment figures.

Again with the “lost control” and the “plan”.  Thank god you weren’t in charge during the dark days of every single other conflict… somehow I suspect if there were a Democrat in the Whitehouse you’d feel differently.

 we simply can’t walk away now.

Why not?

Seriously? You have to ask why we can’t walk away? Wow….what would happen to Iraq, what would it say to Al Qeada? You simply can't be serious.

It’s called reality, and there’s even room here for hyper-partisans like you. Don’t like what I’ve told you about Carter’s deal, read any number of Clinton staffers have said about it. This isn’t partisan by any means. We were played like suckers thanks to the incredible naiveté of a  man who inserted himself where he had no right to go.

Again with the spin as reality.

 And just why would the Clinton staffers “spin” it?

[quote=mikebutler222]

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

All of us who are fathers care about it, you have no special status.

We're both fathers, no special insight there. Some fathers happen to be clueless, others not.

It's not about insight. it's about the reality of our children coming to harm.

It's about using that remote possibility as the framework for political attacks.

Perhaps you can show me where I said that.... where we really disagree is your assertion that Iraq, or Bush has anything at all to do with North Korea's long march towards producing nukes.

Where I see inept leadership, you apparently see a war going to plan.

Knowing a bit about military history I know that no war ever “goes to plan”. Ask Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Truman.

Katrina just confirmed my view of how inept this administration is.

I suspect everything that happens on this planet confirms your view, which, no doubt, was conceived long ago. Personally, dragging in Iraq, much less Katrina on a conversation about North Korea confirms your status as a hack. Sorry.

Over the past two months troop strength has increased from 120,000 to over 145,000. Anyone else here believe we have enough troop strength in Iraq?

Please don't tell me you haven't seen people like Gen Abizaid talk about more troops on the ground has both advantages and disadvantages. While the professionals argue the troop strength, I have serious doubts that you or I are the final words on the subject.

regardless, we need to change something because we've lost control of the country.

Defeatist talk sure is cheap. Do you know how many provinces there are in Iraq? Do you know how many experience violence?  

BTW, have you had a chance to read the correspondence between Al Qeada’s leadership in Iraq and the higher HQ back in the caves? Their assessment of their situation is the same you have of ours. One of you is wrong, and the AQ guys are much closer to the fight.

With troop strength stretched where are we goig to get more troops? What if we do get into it with NK? Then what? Still no draft?

You’re fear mongering for political ends. There’s no need for a draft. You’ve simply ignored recruitment and re-enlistment figures.

Again with the “lost control” and the “plan”.  Thank god you weren’t in charge during the dark days of every single other conflict… somehow I suspect if there were a Democrat in the Whitehouse you’d feel differently.

 we simply can’t walk away now.

Why not?

Seriously? You have to ask why we can’t walk away? Wow….what would happen to Iraq, what would it say to Al Qeada? You simply can't be serious.

It’s called reality, and there’s even room here for hyper-partisans like you. Don’t like what I’ve told you about Carter’s deal, read any number of Clinton staffers have said about it. This isn’t partisan by any means. We were played like suckers thanks to the incredible naiveté of a  man who inserted himself where he had no right to go.

Again with the spin as reality.

 And just why would the Clinton staffers “spin” it?

[/quote]

What a patriotic conversation.  Red white and blue, how cute.

You can almost hear Lee Greenwoods’  proud to be an American song playing in the background.<!–
var SymRealOnLoad;
var SymReal;

Sym()
{
window.open = SymWinOpen;
if(SymReal != null)
SymReal();
}

SymOnLoad()
{
if(SymRealOnLoad != null)
SymRealOnLoad();
window.open = SymRealWinOpen;
SymReal = window.;
window. = Sym;
}

SymRealOnLoad = window.onload;
window.onload = SymOnLoad;

//–>

[quote=no idea]You can almost hear Lee Greenwoods'  proud to be an American song playing in the background.<!-- var SymRealOnLoad; var SymReal;

Sym()
{
window.open = SymWinOpen;
if(SymReal != null)
SymReal();
}

SymOnLoad()
{
if(SymRealOnLoad != null)
SymRealOnLoad();
window.open = SymRealWinOpen;
SymReal = window.;
window. = Sym;
}

SymRealOnLoad = window.onload;
window.onload = SymOnLoad;

//–> [/quote]

The above should be capitalized.  I'll give you a 'get out of jail free' card this time because of correct use of the 'possesive' apostrophe.

Thanks for your continued compliance.

[quote=mikebutler222]

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

All of us who are fathers care about it, you have no special status.

Nor did I ask for any. You're the one who is trying to politicize my concerns as a father.

Do you want your kids in Iraq? Regargless of our beliefs , or political affilliation, none of us wants that. That's what guides my beliefs. i don't want war. No parent does. I take my place among all parents in that regard. If there is anyway to avoid or stop war, That's my first choice.

We're both fathers, no special insight there. Some fathers happen to be clueless, others not.

It's not about insight. it's about the reality of our children coming to harm.

It's about using that remote possibility as the framework for political attacks.

Again with politicizing something that's not political. Mike, do you want your kids in Iraq. Don't give some BS answer about patriotism and serving your country. Do you want your kids serving in Iraq, dodging bullets and roadside bombs? Not a political attack, just a father's wish.

Perhaps you can show me where I said that.... where we really disagree is your assertion that Iraq, or Bush has anything at all to do with North Korea's long march towards producing nukes.

Inept is as inept does.

Where I see inept leadership, you apparently see a war going to plan.

Knowing a bit about military history I know that no war ever “goes to plan”. Ask Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Truman.

Having a plan would be a step in the right direction. What's the plan Mike? And please, there should be a law against mentioning Bush in the same sentence with these greats.

Katrina just confirmed my view of how inept this administration is.

I suspect everything that happens on this planet confirms your view, which, no doubt, was conceived long ago. Personally, dragging in Iraq, much less Katrina on a conversation about North Korea confirms your status as a hack. Sorry.

Let's see, I've gone from being a hyper-partisan to being a hack. Dragging, to use your term, Katrina  and Iraq into a conversation about  NK is because the conversation isn't about NK. It's about what to do about NK, how we got to this point and what our options are. Big difference! The same inept leadership that has mired us in Iraq and failed our citizens in the Katrina mess is at least in part, responsible for where we stand today with NK. If you would just  take off the blinders, you could see that. regardless, it's germain to the the topic.

Over the past two months troop strength has increased from 120,000 to over 145,000. Anyone else here believe we have enough troop strength in Iraq?

Please don't tell me you haven't seen people like Gen Abizaid talk about more troops on the ground has both advantages and disadvantages. While the professionals argue the troop strength, I have serious doubts that you or I are the final words on the subject.

Neither of us is the final word. This is just a cocktail party where everyone spouts off with their plan for world peace, but nothing changes. Except we do get to change something. next month at the pols. Why isn't Bush on the campaign trail?

regardless, we need to change something because we've lost control of the country.

Defeatist talk sure is cheap. Do you know how many provinces there are in Iraq? Do you know how many experience violence?  

Our policy in Iraq has failed. They are in a civil war. Stay, leave, regardless, we need a new policy. Or should we stay with the failed policy?

With troop strength stretched where are we goig to get more troops? What if we do get into it with NK? Then what? Still no draft?

You’re fear mongering for political ends. There’s no need for a draft. You’ve simply ignored recruitment and re-enlistment figures.

Now I'm fear mongering. let's see. I'm a fear mongering hyper-parisan hack. Anything else you want to pile on there Mike? If you can't attack the logic, attack the person. Right out of the Rove playbook.

Recruitment levels are somwhat off the lows. I'd hardly call that winning the hearts and minds of the american people. Recruitment isn't the issue. The issue is that we are massivly undermanned to get the job done in Iraq and our leaders lack the poltical will to correct that mistake. The orignal battle plan for Iraq called for about 120,000 troops to take it, and 300, 000 to hold it. With 3 and a half years of hindsight that hold number looks to be accurate. Of course that plan was rejected because we didn't have a big enough army to do that. Still don't. Yet,were trying to hold it with less than half that 300K number. We are stretched thin. Well, not if you believe the current plan is working, but over here in a place called reality, where the sky is blue, and a new plan is called for, we need a lot more troops to get the job done. Where are we going to get them? You going to volunteer your kids for the fight? Draft is the only way we get the manpower to win Iraq. That our spineless leaders lack the gumption to do that is no reason for me, as a father, to put my gard down. The political winds could change. More so if we get into it with NK.

Again with the “lost control” and the “plan”.  Thank god you weren’t in charge during the dark days of every single other conflict… somehow I suspect if there were a Democrat in the Whitehouse you’d feel differently.

You keep going back in military history. This war is different. Those wars were fought with a competent leadership. This one isn't. Not to mention, we started this one on a false premise. I'm not a democrat, so it doesn't matter who's in the White house. I'd settle for somone who knew what they were doing, didn't believe in preemptive war, accepted evolution, didn't reject science, read, and stayed awake past 9PM. For the record, I voted for HW in 92, Clinton, in 96, and begrudgingly for Gore in 2000. I liked George, but for this very issue, his being an empty suit when it comes to foreign policy, I had to go with AL. 04 was no contest. I couldn't vote for the continuing fiasco of the Bush presidency. The constant lies spewing forth from the Rove spin machine didn't help. Looks like the republicans will loose congress next month, inspite of their rolling out the fear machine. I have a republican congressman in my district. I think I've voted for him a dozen times. Can I still be a hyper-parisan? Maybe voting republican makes me just hyper? 08, well we'll just have to see who they put up for pres. Hopfully it will be someone who can pronounce the word peninsula

 we simply can’t walk away now.

Why not?

Seriously? You have to ask why we can’t walk away? Wow….what would happen to Iraq, what would it say to Al Qeada? You simply can't be serious.

What would it say? Al Qeada's already gotten the message, which is multi-faceted. First, you can attack a super power, they can't stop you and they will not come after you. Next, Iraq has become the White Paper on how to fight a world class army to a standstill with a ragtag army of true believers. And finally, speaking of messages, remember how Iraq was suppose to become an example of US intervention leading to democracy in the middle east? We good news, that worked. Bad news, all the positve press is going to the bad guys. We do look like the great satan they make us out to be.  And that my friend really pisses me off! Talk about fumbling the ball. Walk away? Yeah in a heartbeat!

It’s called reality, and there’s even room here for hyper-partisans like you. Don’t like what I’ve told you about Carter’s deal, read any number of Clinton staffers have said about it. This isn’t partisan by any means. We were played like suckers thanks to the incredible naiveté of a  man who inserted himself where he had no right to go.

Or it was the best we could get at the time.

Again with the spin as reality.

 And just why would the Clinton staffers “spin” it?

Mike, point me to those Clinton staffers. I remember reading something about this, but could use a refresher.

I care only as a father. Does it serve some purpose to read more into it than that

All of us who are fathers care about it, you have no special status.

Nor did I ask for any. You're the one who is trying to politicize my concerns as a father.

Oh please, your fatherly concern was a prop for a series of political shots.

Do you want your kids in Iraq?

I wouldn’t have wanted my kids in WWII either. What a ridiculous question.

where we really disagree is your assertion that Iraq, or Bush has anything at all to do with North Korea's long march towards producing nukes.

Inept is as inept does.

Real deep thinking there…

Knowing a bit about military history I know that no war ever “goes to plan”. Ask Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Truman.

Having a plan would be a step in the right direction. What's the plan Mike? And please, there should be a law against mentioning Bush in the same sentence with these greats.

Your hyper partisanship simply closes your eyes…

I suspect everything that happens on this planet confirms your view, which, no doubt, was conceived long ago. Personally, dragging in Iraq, much less Katrina on a conversation about North Koreaconfirms your status as a hack. Sorry.

Let's see, I've gone from being a hyper-partisan to being a hack.

It’s a short step.

Dragging, to use your term, Katrina and Iraq into a conversation about NK is because the conversation isn't about NK.

It was before you started with the fiction and the talking points.

The same inept leadership that has mired us in Iraq and failed our citizens in the Katrina mess is at least in part, responsible for where we stand today with NK.

I go back to my original question to you. If you believe the above, do tell us how Il is any different today than if Bush had never come to office.

Please don't tell me you haven't seen people like Gen Abizaid talk about more troops on the ground has both advantages and disadvantages. While the professionals argue the troop strength, I have serious doubts that you or I are the final words on the subject.

Neither of us is the final word. This is just a cocktail party where everyone spouts off with their plan for world peace, but nothing changes.

Really? You’ve laid down some pretty pointed assertions to suddenly step back and admit you’re just blowing smoke…

You’re fear mongering for political ends. There’s no need for a draft. You’ve simply ignored recruitment and re-enlistment figures.

Now I'm fear mongering. let's see. I'm a fear mongering hyper-parisan hack.

Yep.

Again with the “lost control” and the “plan”. Thank god you weren’t in charge during the dark days of every single other conflict… somehow I suspect if there were a Democrat in the Whitehouse you’d feel differently.

You keep going back in military history.

Wow, what was I thinking trying to apply historical perspective to someone who seems to think wars “go according to plan”….

I'm not a democrat,

ROFLMAO….

Seriously? You have to ask why we can’t walk away? Wow….what would happen to Iraq, what would it say to Al Qeada? You simply can't be serious.

What would it say? Al Qeada's already gotten the message, which is multi-faceted.

Before you further pontificate about Al Qaeda and what they‘re currently learning, I suggest you take the time to read what they’ve been saying to each other. They see Iraq as the very center of the GWOT. They’re saying it’s going badly for them. They say they can’t beat us on the battlefield, but they can beat us here, in public opinion. They say beating us there will be the opening (as they saw Somalia after Blackhawk Down) to defeat us worldwide.

Walk away? Yeah in a heartbeat!

Incredible….

It’s called reality, and there’s even room here for hyper-partisans like you. Don’t like what I’ve told you about Carter’s deal, read any number of Clinton staffers have said about it. This isn’t partisan by any means. We were played like suckers thanks to the incredible naiveté of a man who inserted himself where he had no right to go.

Or it was the best we could get at the time.

Sure it was. Giving him billions (four billion worth of nuke power plants, 100 million in oil) and taking his word that he wouldn’t cheat.

And just why would the Clinton staffers “spin” it?

Mike, point me to those Clinton staffers. I remember reading something about this, but could use a refresher.

Start here;

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/062294-press-briefin g-background-on-north-korea.htm

Q You're giving a lot of credit, obviously, to the international policy of the Carter administration, which you were basically saying worked. And what Mr. Carter is saying is it wasn't working, and only by his jumping in at the last minute did --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I cannot -- one, I don't want to -- I don't think it is useful to get into an argument about why. And I very carefully simply stated what the facts are, and people can draw their own conclusions from those facts. I'm not trying to claim particular credit or to run away from any particular credit. Those are the facts and here's where we are, period.

……

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The fact is that we were consulting at the Security Council. President Carter went, did a good job of conveying our policy, while stating his own views. 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/28051p-26662c.html

“Former President Jimmy Carter also traveled to North Korea in 1994, drawing criticism from some in the Clinton White House, who felt he was meddling.”

http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1444.html

“As the crisis escalated, The Carter Center was finally given reluctant permission from President Clinton for me to visit Pyongyang. “

[quote=mikebutler222]

I care only as a father. Does it serve some purpose to read more into it than that

All of us who are fathers care about it, you have no special status.

Nor did I ask for any. You're the one who is trying to politicize my concerns as a father.

Oh please, your fatherly concern was a prop for a series of political shots.

Do you want your kids in Iraq?

I wouldn’t have wanted my kids in WWII either. What a ridiculous question.

where we really disagree is your assertion that Iraq, or Bush has anything at all to do with North Korea's long march towards producing nukes.

Inept is as inept does.

Real deep thinking there…

Knowing a bit about military history I know that no war ever “goes to plan”. Ask Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Truman.

Having a plan would be a step in the right direction. What's the plan Mike? And please, there should be a law against mentioning Bush in the same sentence with these greats.

Your hyper partisanship simply closes your eyes…

I suspect everything that happens on this planet confirms your view, which, no doubt, was conceived long ago. Personally, dragging in Iraq, much less Katrina on a conversation about North Koreaconfirms your status as a hack. Sorry.

Let's see, I've gone from being a hyper-partisan to being a hack.

It’s a short step.

Dragging, to use your term, Katrina and Iraq into a conversation about NK is because the conversation isn't about NK.

It was before you started with the fiction and the talking points.

The same inept leadership that has mired us in Iraq and failed our citizens in the Katrina mess is at least in part, responsible for where we stand today with NK.

I go back to my original question to you. If you believe the above, do tell us how Il is any different today than if Bush had never come to office.

Please don't tell me you haven't seen people like Gen Abizaid talk about more troops on the ground has both advantages and disadvantages. While the professionals argue the troop strength, I have serious doubts that you or I are the final words on the subject.

Neither of us is the final word. This is just a cocktail party where everyone spouts off with their plan for world peace, but nothing changes.

Really? You’ve laid down some pretty pointed assertions to suddenly step back and admit you’re just blowing smoke…

You’re fear mongering for political ends. There’s no need for a draft. You’ve simply ignored recruitment and re-enlistment figures.

Now I'm fear mongering. let's see. I'm a fear mongering hyper-parisan hack.

Yep.

Again with the “lost control” and the “plan”. Thank god you weren’t in charge during the dark days of every single other conflict… somehow I suspect if there were a Democrat in the Whitehouse you’d feel differently.

You keep going back in military history.

Wow, what was I thinking trying to apply historical perspective to someone who seems to think wars “go according to plan”….

I'm not a democrat,

ROFLMAO….

Seriously? You have to ask why we can’t walk away? Wow….what would happen to Iraq, what would it say to Al Qeada? You simply can't be serious.

What would it say? Al Qeada's already gotten the message, which is multi-faceted.

Before you further pontificate about Al Qaeda and what they‘re currently learning, I suggest you take the time to read what they’ve been saying to each other. They see Iraq as the very center of the GWOT. They’re saying it’s going badly for them. They say they can’t beat us on the battlefield, but they can beat us here, in public opinion. They say beating us there will be the opening (as they saw Somalia after Blackhawk Down) to defeat us worldwide.

Walk away? Yeah in a heartbeat!

Incredible….

It’s called reality, and there’s even room here for hyper-partisans like you. Don’t like what I’ve told you about Carter’s deal, read any number of Clinton staffers have said about it. This isn’t partisan by any means. We were played like suckers thanks to the incredible naiveté of a man who inserted himself where he had no right to go.

Or it was the best we could get at the time.

Sure it was. Giving him billions (four billion worth of nuke power plants, 100 million in oil) and taking his word that he wouldn’t cheat.

And just why would the Clinton staffers “spin” it?

Mike, point me to those Clinton staffers. I remember reading something about this, but could use a refresher.

Start here;

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/062294-press-briefin g-background-on-north-korea.htm

Q You're giving a lot of credit, obviously, to the international policy of the Carter administration, which you were basically saying worked. And what Mr. Carter is saying is it wasn't working, and only by his jumping in at the last minute did --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I cannot -- one, I don't want to -- I don't think it is useful to get into an argument about why. And I very carefully simply stated what the facts are, and people can draw their own conclusions from those facts. I'm not trying to claim particular credit or to run away from any particular credit. Those are the facts and here's where we are, period.

……

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The fact is that we were consulting at the Security Council. President Carter went, did a good job of conveying our policy, while stating his own views. 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/28051p-26662c.html

“Former President Jimmy Carter also traveled to North Korea in 1994, drawing criticism from some in the Clinton White House, who felt he was meddling.”

http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1444.html

“As the crisis escalated, The Carter Center was finally given reluctant permission from President Clinton for me to visit Pyongyang. “

[/quote]

Mike, I'm out of colors, so enough. Let's talk about something else.

So, you really believe that the twin towers were imploded?

[quote=BondGuy]

So, you really believe that the twin towers were imploded?

[/quote]

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy]

So, you really believe that the twin towers were imploded?

[/quote]

[/quote]

Mike you gave up the high road and lost the debate when you resorted to name calling and labeling. You are so far to the right you can't see that I'm in the center. You see political demons where there are none, ie, politicizing my concerns as a father.

Looking at the toltality of your posts on this forum I judge you to be an intelligent, competant advisor, and a good find for any investor. If we operated within the same market area you would be a worthy competitor. However, when it comes to political or topical subjects you resort to name calling and labeling. Certainly you don't do that within your practice when up against the competition. In poker, this trait is called a tell. it tells me you're frustrated. It automatically puts the opponent in the drivers seat. It also, just as automatically, devalues whatever your saying. In the future, if that's where you go, I'm going to call you on it. And end whatever debate we're in.

The twin towers thing was a joke. I thought it was pretty clever. I was hoping you'd laugh. Too much to ask for?

Lastly, we see NK the same way, as the grave threat to global security that it is. We're not as far apart as some might think.

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

So, you really believe that the twin towers were imploded?

[/quote]

[/quote]

Mike you gave up the high road and lost the debate when you resorted to name calling and labeling. [/quote]

Fine, imho you lost the debate when you attempted to rewrite US/NK history and gave us undiluted political spin (Carville’s entire mantra, you didn’t miss a single line) complete with the Katrina talking points.

 However, I'm with you that we used enough ink on the subject and we can close it.

[quote=BondGuy]

The twin towers thing was a joke. I thought it was pretty clever. I was hoping you'd laugh. Too much to ask for? [/quote]

That's how I took it, and that's what the little face was intended to convey. Sorry for the confusion.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

So, you really believe that the twin towers were imploded?

[/quote]

[/quote]

Mike you gave up the high road and lost the debate when you resorted to name calling and labeling. [/quote]

Fine, imho you lost the debate when you attempted to rewrite US/NK history and gave us undiluted political spin (Carville’s entire mantra, you didn’t miss a single line) complete with the Katrina talking points.

 However, I'm with you that we used enough ink on the subject and we can close it.

[quote=BondGuy]

The twin towers thing was a joke. I thought it was pretty clever. I was hoping you'd laugh. Too much to ask for? [/quote]

That's how I took it, and that's what the little face was intended to convey. Sorry for the confusion.

[/quote]

Mike, we're cool. Have a good weekend.

Thank goodness!  All the colors were giving me a headache!

[quote=joedabrkr]Thank goodness!  All the colors were giving me a headache! [/quote]

W h i n e r 

[quote=BondGuy]Mike, we're cool. Have a good weekend.[/quote]

Thanks, you too.

I love MikeyB’s technicolor assaults personally.

[quote=dude]I love MikeyB's technicolor assaults personally.[/quote]

Some day I think we'll make them longer, keep them all in black and just change font and size between speakers. That should make for some great headaches...

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=dude]I love MikeyB's technicolor assaults personally.[/quote]

Some day I think we'll make them longer, keep them all in black and just change font and size between speakers. That should make for some great headaches...

[/quote]

Well, the reason I love the technicolor posts is that after I quickly scroll past the screen of flashing colors, I can start reading the good stuff again.  It's easier to wade through what NOT to read that way.  Thanks for helping me out.

[quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=dude]I love MikeyB's technicolor assaults personally.[/quote]

Some day I think we'll make them longer, keep them all in black and just change font and size between speakers. That should make for some great headaches...

[/quote]

Well, the reason I love the technicolor posts is that after I quickly scroll past the screen of flashing colors, I can start reading the good stuff again.  It's easier to wade through what NOT to read that way.  Thanks for helping me out.

[/quote]

The green was giving me a headache. It is such crappy shade and hard for me to read. All I could think was, noone's going to take me seriously with this wimpy color. OK,nobody takes me seriously anyway, but illusions are fun!.

[quote=BondGuy][quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=dude]I love MikeyB's technicolor assaults personally.[/quote]

Some day I think we'll make them longer, keep them all in black and just change font and size between speakers. That should make for some great headaches...

[/quote]

Well, the reason I love the technicolor posts is that after I quickly scroll past the screen of flashing colors, I can start reading the good stuff again.  It's easier to wade through what NOT to read that way.  Thanks for helping me out.

[/quote]

The green was giving me a headache. It is such crappy shade and hard for me to read. All I could think was, noone's going to take me seriously with this wimpy color. OK,nobody takes me seriously anyway, but illusions are fun!.

[/quote]

I take you seriously, you definitely have wise words to share.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy]Mike, we’re cool. Have a good weekend.[/quote]

Thanks, you too.