North Korean "Nuke" Speculation

or Register to post new content in the forum

70 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Oct 12, 2006 2:45 am

[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.

Oct 12, 2006 2:55 am

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

Anybody who ever says something mildly critical of President Clinton on this board is a racist sexist homophobe member of the right wing conspiracy to destroy free will and replace our democracy with a borrow-and-spend neocon-facist hegemony.  Anybody who ever says something mildly critical of President Bush on this board is a hippie commie traitor who should be shot before hanging.  And you look like a French linguine coward, too! Anybody who thinks we can have a rational and insightful discussion about politics without resorting to personal jabs, cheap shots or bad grammar is an idiot.


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.

Oct 12, 2006 3:29 am

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. 

Oct 12, 2006 1:55 pm

[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?

Oct 12, 2006 2:13 pm

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.

Oct 12, 2006 2:28 pm

[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.

 

Oct 12, 2006 2:36 pm

[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.

Oct 12, 2006 3:31 pm

[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?

Oct 12, 2006 3:54 pm

[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.

Oct 12, 2006 4:23 pm

[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.

[/quote]
Oct 12, 2006 6:30 pm

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

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.

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.

Where we disagree is that you see no problem with how things are going in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq.

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.

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

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?

 

 

 

 

 

Oct 12, 2006 7:37 pm

[quote=mikebutler222]

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

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.

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.

Where we disagree is that you see no problem with how things are going in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq.

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.

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

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.

Oct 12, 2006 7:44 pm

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;

//–>

Oct 12, 2006 7:51 pm

[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.

Oct 12, 2006 8:35 pm

[quote=mikebutler222]

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

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.

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.

Where we disagree is that you see no problem with how things are going in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq.

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.

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

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.

[/quote]
Oct 12, 2006 11:41 pm

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. “

Oct 13, 2006 12:49 am

[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?

Oct 13, 2006 3:37 am

[quote=BondGuy]

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

[/quote]

 

Oct 13, 2006 1:33 pm

[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.

Oct 13, 2006 1:48 pm

[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.