PDA

View Full Version : globe & mail: N. Korea next to hear U.S. war drum


zimv20
Aug 9, 2003, 02:05 AM
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030806.ukore0807/BNStory/International/?query=north+korea


A senior Pentagon adviser has given details of a war strategy for invading North Korea and toppling its regime within 30 to 60 days, adding muscle to a lobbying campaign by U.S. hawks urging a pre-emptive military strike against Pyongyang's nuclear facilities.

Desertrat
Aug 9, 2003, 09:37 AM
Well, my unsolicited advice is to do it in April. Korean summers ain't as hot as Korean winters are cold. I found occupation duty there to be a miserable bitch, but that was nothing at all compared to what the guys went through at Chosin Reservoir.

But the boys won't be home by Christmas...

'Rat

Backtothemac
Aug 9, 2003, 11:10 AM
Well, I would say take about 10 F-117A's, and 4 B-2 Freedom's, and just get rid of the nuclear plants. Of course if you do that, then the North will invade the South. Now, fact is the approx 40,000 US troops there would be sacrificial lambs. UNLESS we were to use a tactical nuke on the North's military positions. Also, if we had three carrier groups there, there would be ample air support. But, N. Korea is not Iraq. They have many Mig-29's and SU-27 Flankers, and the pilots know how to fly them. We would win the war, but it would come at a much higher price than what we have seen in the gulf.

mactastic
Aug 9, 2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
Well, my unsolicited advice is to do it in April. Korean summers ain't as hot as Korean winters are cold. I found occupation duty there to be a miserable bitch, but that was nothing at all compared to what the guys went through at Chosin Reservoir.

But the boys won't be home by Christmas...

'Rat

Are you really advocating an invasion of the DPRK as sound US policy at this point? Or is this more of your special brand of tongue-in-cheek sarcasm?

You do realize that most of our military is committed elsewhere right now, and that no matter how badly some may want to do this, unless we reinstitute the draft or somehow drum up a couple extra divisions of soldiers voluntarily, the force structure just isn't there right now. Part of the downside of having invaded Iraq I guess.

Backtothemac
Aug 9, 2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
Are you really advocating an invasion of the DPRK as sound US policy at this point? Or is this more of your special brand of tongue-in-cheek sarcasm?

You do realize that most of our military is committed elsewhere right now, and that no matter how badly some may want to do this, unless we reinstitute the draft or somehow drum up a couple extra divisions of soldiers voluntarily, the force structure just isn't there right now. Part of the downside of having invaded Iraq I guess.

Well, most of the reserves are still available, and we could redistribute the forces. Leave the majority in Afghanistan and Iraq, say, 200,000 there. Then move the majority of combat forces say 500,000 to N. Korea.

And what would be so bad about the draft? Personally, I think every able bodied male at the completion of high school should have to go through basic training.

mactastic
Aug 9, 2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, most of the reserves are still available, and we could redistribute the forces. Leave the majority in Afghanistan and Iraq, say, 200,000 there. Then move the majority of combat forces say 500,000 to N. Korea.

And what would be so bad about the draft? Personally, I think every able bodied male at the completion of high school should have to go through basic training.

Yeah but anytime you have a draft, you have people with connections not serving the way the rest of the lowly citizens would. At least exemptions couldn't be bought like they were in the civil war. If we have a draft everyone goes, no matter how powerful your mom or dad is. Thats the only way its fair.

Backtothemac
Aug 9, 2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
Yeah but anytime you have a draft, you have people with connections not serving the way the rest of the lowly citizens would. At least exemptions couldn't be bought like they were in the civil war. If we have a draft everyone goes, no matter how powerful your mom or dad is. Thats the only way its fair.

Oh, I agree. The only way someone would not be drafted is if they are a last surviving son. Otherwise, suit up.

Can you imagine how much better this country would be if every male had to go through basic.

IJ Reilly
Aug 9, 2003, 11:31 AM
Just when I think things could not possibly get worse, somebody suggests a draft and World War III.

zimv20
Aug 9, 2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
UNLESS we were to use a tactical nuke on the North's military positions.

are you genuinely advocating a nuclear first strike?

elfin buddy
Aug 9, 2003, 12:34 PM
The thing about drafts are that most people don't like being forced to do things, especially risk their lives in the military. If they wanted to be in service, I'm sure they already would be.

Personally, I wouldn't mind having a year or two of compulsary military service right after high school, as long as there isn't a war going on ;)

At this point in time, I think it would be a big mistake for the US to start any more wars, especially with N.Korea. With their nuclear capabilities, they pose a much bigger threat (in war) than Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, don't they have a million men in their army or something?

I think diplomacy is absolutely the way to go with N.Korea. More war is just going to make things much worse for the US than it already is.

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 9, 2003, 02:19 PM
one of my friends is from south korea, and tells me that a lot of the rhetoric coming out of the north is just bluster, and they don't even really pay it much mind in the south. i think now that talks are finally going to begin (and not one on one as the north wanted), it's absurd to advocate a first strike. i hope the bush team knows that if they can resolve this diplomatically, it will be a huge boost to their credibility, with voters here and with world leaders.

Sayhey
Aug 9, 2003, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
And what would be so bad about the draft? Personally, I think every able bodied male at the completion of high school should have to go through basic training.

Sorry, B2TM, my teenage kids will not be used as cannon fodder for neoconservative ambition! Service in a military for national defense is one thing - this idea of starting a war in Korea is nothing short of insanity!

Hey, we could do our "surgical strike" and irradiate the North for thousands of years - that would be liberation wouldn't it? How about restarting the whole Korean conflict with maybe millions of casualties as the result - that would show 'em! Why, because of some macho conservative rhetoric about how we don't negotiate with regimes like this? This policy is insane!

Desertrat
Aug 9, 2003, 02:56 PM
mactastic, after 50 years of our sitting by and watching the abuse of its citizenry by the regime in North Korea, why go in now? Sure, it's sarcasm. However, I've rarely been able to stop fools from doing the obviously stupid, most notably politicians. :)

Ambrose, your comment reminds me of what some Costa Ricans were saying in 1985 about Nicaragua's Sandanistas "exporting revolution" via invasions in Central America. "They might invade us, but we'll swap them civilian clothes for their uniforms and guns; after a few good meals, they'll settle down. Wish we had Mickey Mouse watches, like the GIs traded the Russians in 1945."

South Korea's best defense against an invasion from the North would be a good Meals on Wheels program...

Re the draft: I got my greetings from Ike 11/'53. Now, this was after the shooting stopped in Korea. I've thought about this issue a lot since those days, and there is indeed one benefit to a military which has draftees in it: It is a citizen army, and the politicians would have to be a lot more careful before using force in foreign lands. (At least I think they would.) A politician's first perceived duty is to himself, to get re-elected, and only a war with a broadspread public support would allow re-election. I have the opinion without proof that our foreign policies might be different, if TPTB knew that military force was less readily available. (Well, this is about the only major rationale I could offer.)

OTOH, the idea of a professional, all-voluteer military makes me a bit nervous, for whatever potential exists that the loyalty would be to the military and not the society itself. I'm not saying I believe that would happen here, but it has happened elsewhere.

'Rat

pseudobrit
Aug 9, 2003, 03:30 PM
If we go to war with North Korea, Tokyo is gone. Seoul too.

Backtothemac
Aug 9, 2003, 06:05 PM
Well, let me say this. My policy would be to basically tell the north that the nuke program had to go in exchange for humanitarian aid. If they refuse that, then war is inevitable eventually. N. Korea is falling apart from the inside. So either they will attack the South, or there will be a civil war in the North.

As for the best that could happen. Civil war obviously would be better for our national interests, and actually I hope it happens. Those people are suffering over there so badly that something is going to reach a breatking point.

As for a draft, I did not say into service, just through basic. It would teach the younger generation a lot about what it means to be a man.

As for tactical strike. If the North were to invade the south,,,,,,, Hell yea use em. All we would need is one Ohio class sub sitting off the cost with a few tomahawks ready to go. Or, let 40,000 Americans be slaughtered at the hands of the north, and probably a million South Koreans.

The north had 20 times the tanks we have over there, 10 times the aircraft, countless more artillary positions, and a hell of a lot more people that will come running at the border.

So, if they invaded. Yes, use tactical nukes to stop the invation, and precision strikes to take out all of their nuclear plants, and sites of weapons.

Desertrat
Aug 9, 2003, 07:18 PM
Off and on, I've wondered if our troops aren't in South Korea to keep the ROK Army from heading north. Sort of a "Let's have done with this nonsense!" after some PRK kill-squad infiltrates south into the ROK.

'Rat

Sayhey
Aug 9, 2003, 08:30 PM
The best way to get rid of the "grand and glorious" Kim Jong il is to normalize the relations between the North and South to the degree that the economy of the South overwhelms the North. The reduction of troops and normalization of relations with the US would go a long way to help this process. If we have to do business with Kim to walk away from the brink of war then that sounds fine to me. Ideological blinders that ramp up tensions are just foolishness that plays into the paranoia that keeps Kim in power. It may also lead to a conflagration that would mean thousands, if not millions, of deaths. I've no interest in following Bush or Pat Robertson down that road.

pseudobrit
Aug 9, 2003, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
As for a draft, I did not say into service, just through basic. It would teach the younger generation a lot about what it means to be a man.

Being a man means training to kill your fellow man?

I think the world, especially our nation, could do without such mandatory militarisation.

Ugg
Aug 9, 2003, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
As for a draft, I did not say into service, just through basic. It would teach the younger generation a lot about what it means to be a man.



What percentage of the US military is female and, are they interested in learning what it means to be a "man"?

pseudobrit
Aug 9, 2003, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
So, if they invaded. Yes, use tactical nukes to stop the invation, and precision strikes to take out all of their nuclear plants, and sites of weapons.

You don't think it would be...
a bad thing
if Tokyo was nuked?

Don't you think
one might slip through?
Are you willing to take that chance for them?

Don't you think
the Japanese have had us initiate
enough nuclear holocausts
in their nation?

Don't you think China, with nukes that can reach the West Coast, might have something to say about us dropping thermonuclear warheads in their backyard?

Desertrat
Aug 9, 2003, 11:44 PM
Sayhey, I think the Chinese give lip-service to "doing business" with the PRK, but I don't think they really do much in the classic sense of business. The political support is pretty much window dressing, used as a ploy to keep the US off balance. Were it not for this political convenience of the status quo, I imagine they'd be as happy as anyone to see the ROK gain ascendancy.

The South Koreans have been trying for decades to achieve some sort of normality.

Regardless of basic US distaste for any Communist regime, and particularly one as murderous as the PRK, any real evidence of a desire for "normalization" on the part of Kim would be welcomed.

'Rat

Backtothemac
Aug 10, 2003, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
You don't think it would be...
a bad thing
if Tokyo was nuked?

Don't you think
one might slip through?
Are you willing to take that chance for them?

Don't you think
the Japanese have had us initiate
enough nuclear holocausts
in their nation?

Don't you think China, with nukes that can reach the West Coast, might have something to say about us dropping thermonuclear warheads in their backyard?

OMG, What I was saying is that IF the NORTH invaded the south, then yes use tactical nukes to stop them. They would launch on Japan at the same time they invaded the south. bank on it. And sorry, but China doesn't possess any ICBM's.

Backtothemac
Aug 10, 2003, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Being a man means training to kill your fellow man?

I think the world, especially our nation, could do without such mandatory militarisation.

Have you ever served? Basic is a lot more than learning how to kill someone. In fact in Navy basic, there is no hand to hand combat training, or weapons training. Basic teaches disipline, and how to rely on people and be part of team.

Backtothemac
Aug 10, 2003, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by Ugg
What percentage of the US military is female and, are they interested in learning what it means to be a "man"?

I would say probably 20% or so, but I don't think it is right to mandate that women be drafted. In fact, they can not be, that is why I did not include them.

IJ Reilly
Aug 10, 2003, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I would say probably 20% or so, but I don't think it is right to mandate that women be drafted. In fact, they can not be, that is why I did not include them.

I'll one up you then. I don't believe it's right to mandate anyone to be drafted.

Backtothemac
Aug 10, 2003, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I'll one up you then. I don't believe it's right to mandate anyone to be drafted.

Well, we could debate the notion of conscription forever. My point was that if every able bodied male at the completion of high school would go through basic, I would be willing to bet that crime would decrease, as would unemployment, etc.

zimv20
Aug 10, 2003, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Basic teaches disipline, and how to rely on people and be part of team.

so does improvisation, and it's a lot more fun. seriously, if everyone did 6 months of improvisation, the world would be 1000x better.

Ugg
Aug 10, 2003, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, we could debate the notion of conscription forever. My point was that if every able bodied male at the completion of high school would go through basic, I would be willing to bet that crime would decrease, as would unemployment, etc.

Hmmm, that sounds a lot like commie thinking to me. At the very least, socialist.

It would be very interesting to see the employment and criminal histories of GIs over the past 30 years to see if your claim has any truth to it. Personally, I don't think it does.

zimv20
Aug 10, 2003, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
China doesn't possess any ICBM's.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/icbm/df-31.htm


The DF-31 has a range of about 5,000 miles, sufficient to hit targets along the entire West Coast of the United States and in several northern Rocky Mountain states.

Sayhey
Aug 10, 2003, 04:59 AM
If you haven't already watched the Frontline program entitled "Kim's Nuclear Gamble" it is availible on line for viewing at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kim/view/

It gives an incredible amount of valuable background information on the situation.

pseudobrit
Aug 10, 2003, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, we could debate the notion of conscription forever. My point was that if every able bodied male at the completion of high school would go through basic, I would be willing to bet that crime would decrease, as would unemployment, etc.

What about those who would wash out? Refuse to go?

What about people like me, who cannot go through basic because of a medical condition that doesn't keep me from playing ice hockey but does keep me from joining the military (I"d already be out for a few years by now if I were allowed to join; I'd have enlisted at 17 when I was one month out of high school)?

Would I be looked down upon as less of a man?

I've knocked people out with my shoulder on the ice but can't go through basic, which I know I'd be able to do. Hell, I could probably hack selection. But I'm not a real man since I'm not allowed to.

Desertrat
Aug 10, 2003, 09:56 AM
pseudobrit, there's a lot more to Army Basic Training than the physical stuff. And there's a lot more to being manly than learning to kill.

While the actual military draft didn't take the 4F (physically disabled as regards military requirements), it would be easy enough to design a Basic Training course to accommodate those with limitations. Actually, just a medical slip for the Field First Sergeant would deal with the problem.

The primary purpose of Basic Training is to teach young people how to work together as a team, and how to follow instructions "Now!" (When somebody yells, "Duck!", you don't want to stand up and gawk, looking for a mallard.) The idea is to learn how to survive when Bad Guys are trying to kill YOU.

I guess it was during the late 1960s and early 1970s that it struck me how much of a spoiled-brat society we'd become. Instant gratification seemed more important than avoiding bankruptcy, as example. And, the idea that there are some things that MUST be done seems foreign to many. There are certain aspects of immaturity that you get rid of, during military service. You don't come out of it with any brainwashed-sheep attitude, but you damned sure grow up.

:), 'Rat

Backtothemac
Aug 10, 2003, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
What about those who would wash out? Refuse to go?

What about people like me, who cannot go through basic because of a medical condition that doesn't keep me from playing ice hockey but does keep me from joining the military (I"d already be out for a few years by now if I were allowed to join; I'd have enlisted at 17 when I was one month out of high school)?

Would I be looked down upon as less of a man?

I've knocked people out with my shoulder on the ice but can't go through basic, which I know I'd be able to do. Hell, I could probably hack selection. But I'm not a real man since I'm not allowed to.

No you would not be looked down upon. I had to leave the military because of a medical condition. Point being, that is what is wrong with our country. "Will I be looked down upon because I did not get to go"

Are you looked down upon now? No. Is my brother looked down upon because he did not go? No. People need to quit thinking about what other people feel about them, and just live their life.

Basic teaches people how to think reasonable, and how to follow orders. Something that I think most 17 year old males need to learn quite frankly.

Rat, you are dead on target.

Backtothemac
Aug 10, 2003, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/icbm/df-31.htm

Actual range is less than what is claimed, but it is a capable weapons. The term ICBM is actually misapplied to this weapon.
ICBM's have a much, much larger flight path than 8,000 KM.

IJ Reilly
Aug 10, 2003, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, we could debate the notion of conscription forever. My point was that if every able bodied male at the completion of high school would go through basic, I would be willing to bet that crime would decrease, as would unemployment, etc.

Sorry, but I have to laugh at this proposition. I mean, it sounds precisely like the kind of fuzzy-headed, top-down social engineering schemes that conservatives have (rightly) accused liberals of promoting for decades. It just goes to show, I suppose, how much seemingly opposed ideologies can have in common.

Ugg
Aug 10, 2003, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Actual range is less than what is claimed, but it is a capable weapons. The term ICBM is actually misapplied to this weapon.
ICBM's have a much, much larger flight path than 8,000 KM.

Well, unless I'm mistaken, ICBM stands for inter continental ballistic missile. If China has something that can be launched from their side and end up on our side of the Pacific, in my mind it qualifies. Labels in this case are purely academic.

Sayhey
Aug 10, 2003, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
Well, unless I'm mistaken, ICBM stands for inter continental ballistic missile. If China has something that can be launched from their side and end up on our side of the Pacific, in my mind it qualifies. Labels in this case are purely academic.

The radius lines for the range of the missile seem to cross California around San Francisco. It doesn't make me feel a lot better that the east coast can't be hit.:(

Backtothemac
Aug 10, 2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
The radius lines for the range of the missile seem to cross California around San Francisco. It doesn't make me feel a lot better that the east coast can't be hit.:(

China having ICBM's doesn't scare me at all. You have to understand how dependent they are on our economy for their own. Imagine if China and the US went to war. You could say goodbye to Christmas. ;)

Santa's workshop would be out of business.

Backtothemac
Aug 10, 2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Sorry, but I have to laugh at this proposition. I mean, it sounds precisely like the kind of fuzzy-headed, top-down social engineering schemes that conservatives have (rightly) accused liberals of promoting for decades. It just goes to show, I suppose, how much seemingly opposed ideologies can have in common.

What? Man, it isn't any kind of social engineering scheme. It is a fact. Ever been to basic?

I have. I know how it changes a person. Look at the problems in the kids that are in the 17 year old range. They have no disipline, no respect, and no motivation at all. I see them every day here at the University. Basic would help correct that problem.

Desertrat
Aug 10, 2003, 05:19 PM
IJ, backtothemac's idea about the results of Basic Training isn't some social scheme. I agree with him, based upon what I saw in me and others, a half-century back, and based upon what I've seen in more recent years.

All teeny-boppers are rebellious, and limited in self-discipline. Quite normal. IMO, the sooner you get over this, the better off you are--and the better off are the neighbors. Neighbors add up to "society". It's not that the Army is such a place of discipline in that you learn that self-discipline makes life easier for all concerned.

The early days of criminality are during a time of one's immaturity. The military forces you to become more mature, and living in close quarters brings home the idea that harm to one is harm to all. You grow out of the spoiled-brattism common to most younger criminals.

The military teaches you that you start at the bottom and work up. The operative word is "work", if you want more stripes and thus more pay. This becomes obvious early on.

You add up all this and you wind up with self-motivated grownups.

Looking back over these 45 years since I got out of the Army (thinking about it in threads like this) reinforces my belief that I learned a lot and matured one helluva lot--and it made a positive difference in my life.

But like somebody said, "I wouldn't do it again for a million dollars, but I wouldn't take a million dollars for the experience."

No way could I have been a Lifer...

:), 'Rat

Ugg
Aug 10, 2003, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
backtothemac's idea about the results of Basic Training isn't some social scheme. I agree with him, based upon what I saw in me and others, a half-century back, and based upon what I've seen in more recent years.

All teeny-boppers are rebellious, and limited in self-discipline. Quite normal. IMO, the sooner you get over this, the better off you are--and the better off are the neighbors. Neighbors add up to "society". It's not that the Army is such a place of discipline in that you learn that self-discipline makes life easier for all concerned.

The early days of criminality are during a time of one's immaturity. The military forces you to become more mature, and living in close quarters brings home the idea that harm to one is harm to all. You grow out of the spoiled-brattism common to most younger criminals.

The military teaches you that you start at the bottom and work up. The operative word is "work", if you want more stripes and thus more pay. This becomes obvious early on.

You add up all this and you wind up with self-motivated grownups.


I would still like to see some stats about how the volunteer military has fared after leaving the service. What are the crimes stats, employment histories, mental health stats, etc. If what you claim is true then ex military should be much more upright citizens especially given the volunteer status of today's military. I've never seen anything to back up your claims. If it were true, one would think that the Pentagon would be trumpeting those figures. Since it is not....

pseudobrit
Aug 10, 2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
All teeny-boppers are rebellious, and limited in self-discipline. Quite normal. IMO, the sooner you get over this, the better off you are--and the better off are the neighbors. Neighbors add up to "society". It's not that the Army is such a place of discipline in that you learn that self-discipline makes life easier for all concerned.

I would have volunteered for the service and done fine, but there's no way in Hell I'd go if forced.

Not now, not when I was 17, not ever. I would go to jail or leave this nation before I let it put me or my kids through forced conscription.

zimv20
Aug 10, 2003, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
I would still like to see some stats about how the volunteer military has fared after leaving the service.

i'd guess the data would be very different for those who actually saw combat.

crime rates are very low for improvisers, btw.

IJ Reilly
Aug 10, 2003, 06:25 PM
Sure, it's exactly like all the wishful thinking, magical cure-all, "if we could just do this one thing" social engineering plans championed by liberals for decades. The kind conservatives said were a waste of money and meddlesome besides. Just because your plan has a conservative bent, doesn't make it any more likely to reach the lofty goals you've assigned to it.

During the 1960s and 1970s, liberals were able to push these kinds of ideas because they figured they'd permanently won the moral high ground, and every idea, no matter how simplistic, had merit. Conservatives are coming up with similar loads of nonsense now for the very same reasons. This appears to be one of life's constants, unfortunately.

Backtothemac
Aug 10, 2003, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
I would have volunteered for the service and done fine, but there's no way in Hell I'd go if forced.

Not now, not when I was 17, not ever. I would go to jail or leave this nation before I let it put me or my kids through forced conscription.


What about on December 8th, 1941. If you would have been drafted would you not have gone?

What about on September 12th, 2001?

pseudobrit
Aug 10, 2003, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
What about on December 8th, 1941. If you would have been drafted would you not have gone?

What about on September 12th, 2001?

It's moot. I would have volunteered if I'd be allowed in. Then and now; before those events even.

If there was a draft during time of war, that would be one thing. I'm talking about a mandatory peacetime conscription. I would not go.

Desertrat
Aug 10, 2003, 10:59 PM
Just curiosity, pseudobrit: Would you use the system, claiming Conscientious Objector status? Or, would you basically take the position, "Go ahead and jail me, I'm not going!"? Or, bail out to Canada?

The volunteer system is most likely better than a Draft. I just wonder how much more likely TPTB are to use military force when there might well be less public griping from parents who might be higher up the economic pyramid...Everything I've read about the demographics of the grunts indicates they're more likely to come from the lower tiers. I dunno. Just speculating.

'Rat

zimv20
Aug 10, 2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
TPTB

??

pseudobrit
Aug 10, 2003, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
Just curiosity, pseudobrit: Would you use the system, claiming Conscientious Objector status? Or, would you basically take the position, "Go ahead and jail me, I'm not going!"? Or, bail out to Canada?

Well, it's moot, like I said, but if the fact that I'm 4F wouldn't keep them off me I'd likely let them throw me in jail to be a stubborn bastard, but might have listened to the voice of reason and just went overseas.

I'm kind of saddened to see you think of leaving the country as bailing out, I would think it's just claiming my life for myself if I don't feel the cause or nation is worth my only life. I pledge allegiance to the nation that is allegiant to me.

What I do have a problem with is bona fide draft dodgers (Cheney) who later decide they're fit for public service after it no longer means they could die.

Sayhey
Aug 11, 2003, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
What I do have a problem with is bona fide draft dodgers (Cheney) who later decide they're fit for public service after it no longer means they could die.

Sort of off topic, have you seen that iTMS now has Creedence Clearwater Revival availible? Only bring that up because I'm listening to my favorite song of theirs, Fortunate Son, while I'm writing this. Those are the sh**s I have a problem with, not the many of my friends who out of conscience refused to participate in a unjust war. The fact that this administration is stuffed full of "fortunate sons" starting with Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, who want to send our children off to war infuriates me to no end. On top of that they have the nerve to call people like Max Cleland unpatriotic and sneer at John Kerry because he "looks French." The hypocrisy and hubris just drips from each statement.

Backtothemac
Aug 11, 2003, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Well, it's moot, like I said, but if the fact that I'm 4F wouldn't keep them off me I'd likely let them throw me in jail to be a stubborn bastard, but might have listened to the voice of reason and just went overseas.

I'm kind of saddened to see you think of leaving the country as bailing out, I would think it's just claiming my life for myself if I don't feel the cause or nation is worth my only life. I pledge allegiance to the nation that is allegiant to me.

What I do have a problem with is bona fide draft dodgers (Cheney) who later decide they're fit for public service after it no longer means they could die.

Wait a second. would you not be doing exactly what you are saying you have a problem over Cheney about? If there was a draft you said you would leave, but you have also said that you would serve at your own choice. That is the same thing right?

And last time I checked, the country was being allegiant to you.

pseudobrit
Aug 11, 2003, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Wait a second. would you not be doing exactly what you are saying you have a problem over Cheney about? If there was a draft you said you would leave, but you have also said that you would serve at your own choice. That is the same thing right?

And last time I checked, the country was being allegiant to you.

If I left, I wouldn't come back, especially to seek public office. That's what I'm saying. Cheney didn't leave, but he dodged the real service every way he could and later found himself fit to volunteer for non-life-threatening public service (if you want to call what he's doing a "public service").

I said I'd have already signed up and been in and out by now had I been afforded the opportunity. If it were an issue where I'd be forced to go (mandatory universal conscription), I wouldn't.

Desertrat
Aug 11, 2003, 07:40 AM
zimv20: TPTB is the acronym for "The Powers That Be".

Apologies, pseudobrit; I didn't mean "bail out" to be pejorative. I just see three choices in the "I won't go", and was just curious about which you'd most likely make.

I chose the Draft, rather than enlistment. Two years, rather than three. :) I re-upped because of a chance to go to Paris for a tour. :D

But, different times, different situations...

I always thought Cassius Clay got a raw deal over his objection to the Draft--but he tried to use the system. At that time I had no objection to the Draft and disagreed with his views, but I respected him for the way he went about it all.

Now, Bush went NG, as did thousands of others. He certainly showed up enough to learn how to fly an F-4, if I understand the deal. You don't fly one of those from sitting home reading a book. (I'm no Chuck Yeager, but I do have 300 hours in a 172. :)) Correct me if I'm wrong, but at about the time he would have been expected to go to Vietnam they phased out the use of the F4. They had many other pilots available who were up-to-date on the next generation of planes.

'Rat

zimv20
Aug 11, 2003, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
zimv20: TPTB is the acronym for "The Powers That Be".


thank you

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at about the time he would have been expected to go to Vietnam they phased out the use of the F4.

i hadn't heard that. do you recall where you heard that (or better yet, have a link)?

Sayhey
Aug 11, 2003, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
...Now, Bush went NG, as did thousands of others. He certainly showed up enough to learn how to fly an F-4, if I understand the deal. You don't fly one of those from sitting home reading a book. (I'm no Chuck Yeager, but I do have 300 hours in a 172. :)) Correct me if I'm wrong, but at about the time he would have been expected to go to Vietnam they phased out the use of the F4. They had many other pilots available who were up-to-date on the next generation of planes.

'Rat

During the time period it was very hard to get into the national guard. You had to have someone pull strings to get you there instead of the other branches of the service. In general, it meant you were going to serve stateside and be clear of any combat.

IJ Reilly
Aug 11, 2003, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
During the time period it was very hard to get into the national guard. You had to have someone pull strings to get you there instead of the other branches of the service. In general, it meant you were going to serve stateside and be clear of any combat.

Well exactly, and if this issue is going to be bandied about, we should keep in mind that there were only a few ways to obtain draft deferments at that time, and the national guard was one that was available to only a relative handful (the best connected). In fact, wasn't Bill Clinton loudly accused of being a "draft dodger" for using his political connections to get his draft deferment? Why are these voices so silent in the instance of George Bush?

Fortunately, I never had to cross that bridge. I'd drawn number 50 in the lottery, but Nixon ended the draft the year I became eligible. If you're going to ask me what I'd have done had I been called, I'm here to tell you I don't know, and am glad I never had to decide.

Desertrat
Aug 11, 2003, 03:30 PM
zimv20, it's just another "bit" I ran across somewhere. Either a newspaper article, or maybe over at thefiringline.com, from a guy claiming to have been in the Guard AF at that time. Whoever wrote it allegedly had knowledge of what airplanes were used when by the USAF.

My kid was in the First Grade when Nam heated up. If he'd been older, and I'd had any clout, you darned betcha he'd have been in the Guard or some such equivalent good deal. Even in the days of WW II, there weren't many scions in action like Joe Kennedy, Jr. or JFK.

Clinton's deal got written up in the papers in February of 1992, IIRC, including the Austin American-Statesman, Austin, Texas. His number came up, but he wrote a letter to his draft board and demanded reinstatement of his 1-S (student) deferment because he said he had been accepted as a Rhodes Scholar. The local board of old codgers mumbled around a bit and said okay. Trouble was, he didn't apply for the Rhodes Scholarship until after he had claimed the status to his draft board. He beat the draft by flat-out lying to the board. "I is a Rhodes Scholar, depending on what your definition of is is."

:), 'Rat

Sayhey
Aug 11, 2003, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
...My kid was in the First Grade when Nam heated up. If he'd been older, and I'd had any clout, you darned betcha he'd have been in the Guard or some such equivalent good deal. Even in the days of WW II, there weren't many scions in action like Joe Kennedy, Jr. or JFK.

Clinton's deal got written up in the papers in February of 1992, IIRC, including the Austin American-Statesman, Austin, Texas. His number came up, but he wrote a letter to his draft board and demanded reinstatement of his 1-S (student) deferment because he said he had been accepted as a Rhodes Scholar. The local board of old codgers mumbled around a bit and said okay. Trouble was, he didn't apply for the Rhodes Scholarship until after he had claimed the status to his draft board. He beat the draft by flat-out lying to the board. "I is a Rhodes Scholar, depending on what your definition of is is."

:), 'Rat

I knew lots of folks who would have used any kind of scam to get out of the draft. I can't say that I blame them as I'm with you - if my kids face a draft I'll do pretty much all I can to keep them from going.

My only point around Bush is that lots of the folks in his administration, starting with Bush himself and including Cheney and Rumsfeld, did all they could to avoid going to war and now are gung ho in sending other people's sons and daughters off to die. While we could perhaps ignore their hypocrisy because ordering others to die may be part of their present job discription - it doesn't excuse their ridicule of those who served honorably like Cleland and Kerry.

pseudobrit
Aug 11, 2003, 05:44 PM
It was an F-100 that Bush learned to fly, and it was being phased out of use in 'Nam, ensuring that he'd never go. In fact, the aircraft was being phased out of service before Bush even trained on it.

He scored one point away on the aptitude test from not being able to be a pilot and jumped ahead of guys who aced it. How's that happen?

Some guys are just lucky I guess :rolleyes:

pseudobrit
Aug 11, 2003, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
His number came up, but he wrote a letter to his draft board and demanded reinstatement of his 1-S (student) deferment because he said he had been accepted as a Rhodes Scholar. The local board of old codgers mumbled around a bit and said okay. Trouble was, he didn't apply for the Rhodes Scholarship until after he had claimed the status to his draft board. He beat the draft by flat-out lying to the board. "I is a Rhodes Scholar, depending on what your definition of is is."

Well, he WAS a Rhodes Scholar, regardless of the time frame, and he got it on his own merit.

Would you pass up the opportunity?

IJ Reilly
Aug 11, 2003, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
It was an F-100 that Bush learned to fly, and it was being phased out of use in 'Nam, ensuring that he'd never go. In fact, the aircraft was being phased out of service before Bush even trained on it.

He scored one point away on the aptitude test from not being able to be a pilot and jumped ahead of guys who aced it. How's that happen?

Some guys are just lucky I guess :rolleyes:

Air National Guard units often fly obsoleted combat airplanes, so I don't think that in itself is any insurance against being retrained to fly another aircraft and activated. Still, it's a pretty cushy assignment, especially if you're given time off to work on political campaigns, as Mr. Bush was.

Desertrat
Aug 11, 2003, 07:59 PM
pseudobrit, looking back through my own years, there have been many occasions when I might have been "better off" had I lied. Escaped some sort of penalty, improved my status...

I didn't.

(I'm not talking about "creative interpretation" of an event. :) )

Clinton could have gotten his Rhodes Scholarship after his service. I still don't understand his comment in one letter to the draft board about how military service would (in his future) hurt his "political credibility". (His own words!)

One thing abut the Vietnam War era: We had some 3.5 million in the military. Some 0.5 million were in-theatre. Of those in-theatre, some 100,000 were actually at risk from combat or guerilla activities behind our lines. The demographics of the troops in Vietnam showed few enlisted men with college degrees. A man with a college degree and high grades easily got a commission and rarely went into a combat unit except voluntarily.

IOW, the odds were greatly against Clinton--or Bush, or Cheney--ever getting shot at except via their own desires...

'Rat

macphoria
Aug 15, 2003, 12:18 AM
North Korea has 1 million active duty soldiers and over 100,000 Special Operations capable soldiers, one of the largest in the world. They have chemical and biological warheads, which means accuracy of their missiles do not matter much. They have tens of thousands of artillery aimed at South Korea, meaning they cannot be stopped with missile defense system.

This article was in CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/01/21/nkorea.war/index.html

When the U.S. drew up plans for a possible military action against North Korea in 1993 -- again over its suspected nuclear weapons program -- a Pentagon estimate suggested four months of high-intensity combat would be required, using more than 600,000 South Korean troops and half a million U.S. reinforcements to the personnel already stationed in South Korea.

In 1994, advisers to then President Bill Clinton predicted 52,000 U.S. casualties in the first 90 days of combat alone, Don Oberdorfer, a former Washington Post reporter, wrote in his book The Two Koreas.

To put that figure in perspective, 55,000 U.S. military personnel were killed in the 1950-53 Korean War, and about 58,000 in the 1957-75 Vietnam War.

Some estimates went as far as forecasting a million casualties, not to mention economic damages and war-related costs that ran into trillions of dollars.

Now, the casualty estimates are higher, with North Korea's massive firepower moving closer to U.S. and South Korean forces stationed on the border.

To wage a campaign against North Korea would require hundreds of thousands of extra U.S. troops.

That's a tough demand -- despite Washington's claims to be able to fight two separate conflicts simultaneously -- given the military build up in the Persian Gulf and ongoing operations in Afghanista

War with North Korea will destroy South Korea, one of the biggest economy in Asia. It would also wreak havoc in Japan. Nothing short of nuclear attack will stop them before they do unimaginable damage. But if we use nuclear weapon, rest of the world will not stand by this. China and Russia certainly will not stand by while its border turns into radioactive wasteland. That sort of situation will give China great opportunity and legitimacy to invade Taiwan.

As far as I can tell, the situation is stalemate. Diplomacy is the answer and ideal way to bring down North Korean regime is to wait for the implosion.

Sayhey
Aug 15, 2003, 12:35 AM
According to this story:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/08/14/national1436EDT0610.DTL

The key demand from the North Koreans is around a non-aggression treaty with the US. The stumbling block appears to come from Cheney and the Defense Dept. (aka neoconservatives) while Powell has held out hope for some sort of possible settlement that would deal with the North's concerns. Let's see we could reach agreement that could rid the world of the threat of nuclear weapons from North Korea and we don't want to do so because we want to reserve the right to a preemptive invasion? Sounds remarkably consistent.

macphoria
Aug 15, 2003, 12:48 AM
According to this story:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...1436EDT0610.DTL

The key demand from the North Koreans is around a non-aggression treaty with the US. The stumbling block appears to come from Cheney and the Defense Dept. (aka neoconservatives) while Powell has held out hope for some sort of possible settlement that would deal with the North's concerns. Let's see we could reach agreement that could rid the world of the threat of nuclear weapons from North Korea and we don't want to do so because we want to reserve the right to a preemptive invasion? Sounds remarkably consistent.
It is a difficult situation. We don't want war with these guys. But they lied to us before. What happens if we give them non-aggression pact and they keep on developing nuclear weapon? What if it ends up in some terrorist groups' hands and explode in the middle of Manhattan?

I believe our inconsistency is largely caused by North Korea's inconsistency.

Sayhey
Aug 15, 2003, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by macphoria
It is a difficult situation. We don't want war with these guys. But they lied to us before. What happens if we give them non-aggression pact and they keep on developing nuclear weapon? What if it ends up in some terrorist groups' hands and explode in the middle of Manhattan?

I believe our inconsistency is largely caused by North Korea's inconsistency.

I believe the deal is for a non- aggression pact or agreement in return for verifiable dismantling of their nuclear weapons program. What does that cost us? Kennedy did the same in Cuba with a pledge not to invade. As to the inconsistency on our part we changed our position because of the political stance of many conservitives who view any concession to North Korea as appeasment. If you want to find out about the history of this watch PBS' Frontline documentary entitled "Kim's nuclear gamble" at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/

macphoria
Aug 15, 2003, 01:18 AM
What does that cost us?
What about their weapons sales? North Korea has consistently lied on their arms development. While ago, they agreed not to test their missiles. However, they are known to ship their equipments to Iran, the country that North Korea has shared its missile technology with, and test it there. They are one of the sources that promotes arms race.

And also, because North Korea deals with other countries and groups that do not have high opinion of us, it is quite possible that they will sell dangerous weapons to these countries or terrorist groups who would just love to blow one of them up in our cities. And it does not have to be a nuclear device, it could be chemical or biological weapon.

One of North Korea's main means of income is arms sales. And they are desperate for money because of their stagnant economy. It is likely scenario that they'll sell their weapons to dangerous groups given the right price.

Had they abided by their 1994 treaty, this case of distrust would not have come into being. They took large number of our resources while developing their weapons. We are hesitant and inconsitent because of this. This is a case of "boy who cried wolf." You lie enough times, people stop believing you.

Sayhey
Aug 15, 2003, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by macphoria
What about their weapons sales? North Korea has consistently lied on their arms development. While ago, they agreed not to test their missiles. However, they are known to ship their equipments to Iran, the country that North Korea has shared its missile technology with, and test it there. They are one of the sources that promotes arms race.

And also, because North Korea deals with other countries and groups that do not have high opinion of us, it is quite possible that they will sell dangerous weapons to these countries or terrorist groups who would just love to blow one of them up in our cities. And it does not have to be a nuclear device, it could be chemical or biological weapon.

One of North Korea's main means of income is arms sales. And they are desperate for money because of their stagnant economy. It is likely scenario that they'll sell their weapons to dangerous groups given the right price.

Had they abided by their 1994 treaty, this case of distrust would not have come into being. They took large number of our resources while developing their weapons. We are hesitant and inconsitent because of this. This is a case of "boy who cried wolf." You lie enough times, people stop believing you.

Kim Jong il and the leadership of North Korea shouldn't be trusted in the least. However, I don't see how giving them a pledge that we won't invade in exchange for verifiable disarmament hurts us in the least. Isn't this supposed to be about getting rid of the weapons? Or do we have another case where the desires for regime change are the motivating factor behind our policy? In your first post on this question you spelled out quite well the dangers a military confrontation would mean. With that as a real possiblility, why would we not make a pledge to not invade the north if we get what we have publicly stated our goals to be?

macphoria
Aug 15, 2003, 01:52 AM
Kim Jong il and the leadership of North Korea shouldn't be trusted in the least. However, I don't see how giving them a pledge that we won't invade in exchange for verifiable disarmament hurts us in the least. Isn't this supposed to be about getting rid of the weapons? Or do we have another case where the desires for regime change are the motivating factor behind our policy? In your first post on this question you spelled out quite well the dangers a military confrontation would mean. With that as a real possiblility, why would we not make a pledge to not invade the north if we get what we have publicly stated our goals to be?
Yes, the whole thing is about getting rid of weapons. Nuclear weapon in this case. And yes, it would be great if we can give them non-aggression treaty in return for verifiable disarmament. However, once again, we had International Atomic Energy Agency monitoring them and they still managed to develop nuclear weapons. So in a way, giving them a written pledge does not guarantee anything. What could change this however is if they provide truly verifiable means of disarmament.

And yes, I did point out the danger of military confrontation. And yes I do not want to see more of our soldiers die in far away land. Ideal solution would be non-aggression treaty and verifiable disarmament. Hopefully that is what will take place eventually.

But, North Korea lost its credibility. And they have other weaponry that is just as deadly as nuclear weapon. The possibility that we are concerned with is, war on Korean peninsula or their weapon being blown up on our soil by some terrorist group. Neither is pleasant.

So this negotiation is a difficult one. there will be plenty of tough talking, bluffing, and all that. We can't just give them non-aggression treaty. But it is not wise to do so either. We'll see how this thing plays out.

Sayhey
Aug 15, 2003, 01:59 AM
macphoria,

I think in general we agree. I have my skepticism about the motives of members of this administration, but the goal of getting nuclear arms out of the hands of one of the most dangerous regimes on the planet in the most peaceful way possible seems to be one we both share.

macphoria
Aug 15, 2003, 02:22 AM
macphoria,

I think in general we agree. I have my skepticism about the motives of members of this administration, but the goal of getting nuclear arms out of the hands of one of the most dangerous regimes on the planet in the most peaceful way possible seems to be one we both share.
Absolutely.

zimv20
Aug 15, 2003, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
the goal of getting nuclear arms out of the hands of one of the most dangerous regimes on the planet in the most peaceful way possible seems to be one we both share.

oh, i wasn't aware the talks would include the US disarming.

Sayhey
Aug 15, 2003, 02:39 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
oh, i wasn't aware the talks would include the US disarming.

Now, zimv20, I said "one of." Unfortunately, the talks about US nuclear weapons disarmament aren't as yet scheduled. In fact I think with the new "bunker-buster" nukes planned it seems we may be headed for a new arms race.

zimv20
Aug 15, 2003, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Now, zimv20, I said "one of."

gotcha. if you'd meant the US, you would have used the definite article.

;-)

mactastic
Aug 15, 2003, 10:00 AM
I say bring 'em on! :D

Seriously though, I think the major stumbling block in the administration here is the fact that the best course of action seems to be the one Clinton took, and they can't be seen as endorsing any Clinton policy. Military conflict with the DPRK would be devastating to Bush's re-elect numbers and Rove knows it. Talking tough helps those numbers, but having Kim Jong Il call Dubya's bluff here would be the end of the Bush presidential dynasty. I guarantee inside the WH the top goal is re-election, disarming the DPRK is below that.

IJ Reilly
Aug 15, 2003, 01:08 PM
The Bush administration held out for multilateral talks with the North Koreans, and I think this was the right thing to do. The solution if one is found will be regional if not international. If Russia and especially China sign on to a treaty along with the US, the message to Kim should be clear -- a violation of the terms risks incurring the wrath of North Korea's powerful neighbors, not just a distant US.

Sayhey
Aug 15, 2003, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The Bush administration held out for multilateral talks with the North Koreans, and I think this was the right thing to do. The solution if one is found will be regional if not international. If Russia and especially China sign on to a treaty along with the US, the message to Kim should be clear -- a violation of the terms risks incurring the wrath of North Korea's powerful neighbors, not just a distant US.

It also may have been the right thing to do because it seems both the US and North Korean negotiators can't talk to each other for any length of time without it degenerating into insults and walkouts. The Russians and the Chinese may be able to help keep this process going to a point where something might actually be accomplished.

pseudobrit
Aug 16, 2003, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The Bush administration held out for multilateral talks with the North Koreans, and I think this was the right thing to do. The solution if one is found will be regional if not international. If Russia and especially China sign on to a treaty along with the US, the message to Kim should be clear -- a violation of the terms risks incurring the wrath of North Korea's powerful neighbors, not just a distant US.

But the first actions you take shouldn't be to sever relations and start namecalling, putting North Korea on par with the nation you're about to invade!

Calling other foreign leaders pygmies is just dumb.

Keep your friends close...

IJ Reilly
Aug 16, 2003, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
But the first actions you take shouldn't be to sever relations and start namecalling, putting North Korea on par with the nation you're about to invade!

Calling other foreign leaders pygmies is just dumb.

Keep your friends close...

Well yes, ordinarily I'd agree fully, but in the case of North Korea I'd honestly have to admit I don't know what approach is the most effective. Whatever the Bush people did to get Kim marching in the right direction seemed to have worked, and I'm certainly wiling to give credit where due. We'll see what comes next.

FWIW, I gave the Bush administration credit for getting the arms inspectors back into Iraq. It was what came afterwards that was such a botch job.

Desertrat
Aug 16, 2003, 03:02 PM
IJ's '"If Russia and especially China sign on to a treaty along with the US, the message to Kim should be clear..." has merit but raises questions.

Let me first note that I subscribe to the saying, "Nations do not have friends; they have interests."

China is a trading partner, but is a rival for influence in Asia--and is a market competitor to South Korea. Russia is now a trading partner, but is not in any way a friend--although much less an enemy than in the past.

Short of a nuclear war, North Korea as a fly in our ointment is not necessarily a bad thing for China and Russia. It seems to me that during the last twenty or so years, they have both acted only to control the level of North Korean hostility but definitely not to try to end it. North Korea is a useful tool for them. I doubt this is any mystery to any in our present administration, just as it hasn't been in the past...

'Rat

IJ Reilly
Aug 16, 2003, 05:38 PM
I heard an interesting perspective on the North Korean situation on NPR this morning.

A Road Map for North Korea

NPR's Linda Wertheimer talks with Michael O'Hanlon, author with Mike Mochizuki of the book Crisis on the Korean Peninsula: How to Deal with a Nuclear North Korea. They discuss a win-win solution to the North Korean crisis.
RealAudio here. (http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/segment.jhtml?wfId=1398807)

Sayhey
Aug 16, 2003, 08:52 PM
IJ,

the NPR story is very informative. I wasn't aware that the North Koreans were also demanding normalization of relations as well as a non-agression pact. It doesn't change my position that these should be demands we can meet in exchange for verifible elimination of nuclear weapons. Neither of these demands costs us one cent or puts us at odds to any fundamental principles. The question seems to be around the Bush administrations ability to back track from its position of no concessions in the face of all the right-wing's bluster on this issue. Or perhaps the invasion of North Korea is one of the strategic goals of this administration and what ever the cost they will not back down. We shall see.

Backtothemac
Aug 16, 2003, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
I say bring 'em on! :D

Seriously though, I think the major stumbling block in the administration here is the fact that the best course of action seems to be the one Clinton took, and they can't be seen as endorsing any Clinton policy. Military conflict with the DPRK would be devastating to Bush's re-elect numbers and Rove knows it. Talking tough helps those numbers, but having Kim Jong Il call Dubya's bluff here would be the end of the Bush presidential dynasty. I guarantee inside the WH the top goal is re-election, disarming the DPRK is below that.

What do you think the odds are of us going to war with them if he is reelected?

IJ Reilly
Aug 17, 2003, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
IJ,

the NPR story is very informative. I wasn't aware that the North Koreans were also demanding normalization of relations as well as a non-agression pact. It doesn't change my position that these should be demands we can meet in exchange for verifible elimination of nuclear weapons. Neither of these demands costs us one cent or puts us at odds to any fundamental principles. The question seems to be around the Bush administrations ability to back track from its position of no concessions in the face of all the right-wing's bluster on this issue. Or perhaps the invasion of North Korea is one of the strategic goals of this administration and what ever the cost they will not back down. We shall see.

Yes, although I'm a bit hazy on the history, I believe they've desired normalization for some time because without it the technical state of war can't be ended. I don't know where the Bush administration is headed on this, and certainly they've shown signs of internal stress over the issue. Evidently the hawks, who are now in ascendancy, want to keep up the tough rhetoric and continue tightening the screws, chips falling where they may. This would be consistent with neocon foreign policy thinking. The more traditionalist thinking is probably what Mochizuki is representing -- gathering and applying leverage from as many quadrants as possible and relying on patient progress.

Sayhey
Aug 17, 2003, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Yes, although I'm a bit hazy on the history, I believe they've desired normalization for some time because without it the technical state of war can't be ended. I don't know where the Bush administration is headed on this, and certainly they've shown signs of internal stress over the issue. Evidently the hawks, who are now in ascendancy, want to keep up the tough rhetoric and continue tightening the screws, chips falling where they may. This would be consistent with neocon foreign policy thinking. The more traditionalist thinking is probably what Mochizuki is representing -- gathering and applying leverage from as many quadrants as possible and relying on patient progress.

I've known that the North wanted normalization of relations for a long time, but I didn't know they had put it forth as one of their demands in order for their nuclear program be stopped. In general, I think we need to listen more to the South Koreans on this question. They are the ones most in harm's way and should have a very large say in what happens.