Capitalism

[VictorCharlie]

My point is that unless the South explicitly says to use military action no one has any business attacking the North. And that I think China will ultimately keep North Korea in line. I massive land war in Asia is not what they need right now.

[Kirkland Laing]

My point is that unless the South explicitly says to use military action no one has any business attacking the North. And that I think China will ultimately keep North Korea in line. I massive land war in Asia is not what they need right now.

Yep, they don't want millions of refugees flooding over their border. The whole thing will be resolved peacefully at some point. I could point out the history of negotiations over the last ten years but you'd only accuse me of hating Bush and ridiculing him by pointing out what he actually did re. North Korea while he was in office.

[VictorCharlie]

Now now dont get salty Kirk Agree or disagree I am always interested in your posts. I only pointed out your bias b/c it takes away from the objectivity of your usually impeccable research. You rib Lyle pretty good about not providing good stats for his posts but I think a lot of your posts would be stronger if the constant damnation of Bush/GOP were left out. Why not just let the facts speak for themselves? In regards to the other post I've never heard Lyle blame Obama for the crisis. Drastic times call for drastic measures. And drastic measure are always debatable.

[Kirkland Laing]

Now now dont get salty Kirk Agree or disagree I am always interested in your posts. I only pointed out your bias b/c it takes away from the objectivity of your usually impeccable research. You rib Lyle pretty good about not providing good stats for his posts but I think a lot of your posts would be stronger if the constant damnation of Bush/GOP were left out. Why not just let the facts speak for themselves? In regards to the other post I've never heard Lyle blame Obama for the crisis. Drastic times call for drastic measures. And drastic measure are always debatable.

Well I let the facts speak for themselves on the financial crisis but in a day or so you'll be back to blaming both sides equally for it, not that you're biased or anything. And I didn't let the facts speak for themselves over North Korea because I'd either be accused of being a Bush hater or discover that Bush's disastrous NK policy was actually Obama's fault now. If you want to debate either issue then debate away, answer what I already posted.

[El Kabong]

Say what you will about George W. Bush but I tend to think his words meant a bit more to other leaders because of what we did to Iraq...and perhaps the leaders are trying to test Barry right now and when he's in Europe just slamming his own country for policies etc...I don't think they take him as serious as W. On the other hand it may be that China is feeling a little bit bolder these days.

And Kirk all I have ever done is get after Barry for how he has dealt with this crisis.

Also with North Korea it's not that they will use the missles but maybe they will sell them to some country that will use them. Is that not a legitimate worry? Didn't North Korea sell nuclear material to Syria and maybe missles to Iran...those countries aren't friendly to us or to our allies.

http://images.smh.com.au/2009/04/03/...w420-420x0.jpg

...all W did was dance with the dude

[Gandalf]

North Korea is a threat to nobody really. They have had their launch and the party is over. No war, no issues.

North Korea has a right to launch satellites, and no country can tell them no. That would just be hypocritical and they will do it regardless. And so they should.

Of course, they could be a threat. But in isolation and left to their own devices, they won't be.

[Gandalf]

Say what you will about George W. Bush but I tend to think his words meant a bit more to other leaders because of what we did to Iraq...and perhaps the leaders are trying to test Barry right now and when he's in Europe just slamming his own country for policies etc...I don't think they take him as serious as W. On the other hand it may be that China is feeling a little bit bolder these days.

And Kirk all I have ever done is get after Barry for how he has dealt with this crisis.

Also with North Korea it's not that they will use the missles but maybe they will sell them to some country that will use them. Is that not a legitimate worry? Didn't North Korea sell nuclear material to Syria and maybe missles to Iran...those countries aren't friendly to us or to our allies.

http://images.smh.com.au/2009/04/03/...w420-420x0.jpg
...all W did was dance with the dude

Doesn't your ridiculous country sell weapons to numerous other countries? Doesn't the US supply Isael with too much?? All of that shit should stop, but until arms trade is outlawed then you reap what you deserve. If you say no to North Korea then you are being rather bullshitty. You deserve to be on the receiving end, no use in being a hypocrite.

[VictorCharlie]

Miles I know you feel strongly about the Israel/Palestine issue, but I think you can agree that Israel is a stable country who is unikely to distribute nukes to extremists and would only use nukes in self defense. North Korea is woefully unstable and the prospect of it being nuclear armed could lead to even less savory groups obtaining such weapons. This stands true of Iran as well. I think as long as they are calling for the destruction of Israel (even if it is just lip service) and sponsoring terrorist groups the world should be wary of them becoming a nuclear power.

[Gandalf]

Miles I know you feel strongly about the Israel/Palestine issue, but I think you can agree that Israel is a stable country who is unikely to distribute nukes to extremists and would only use nukes in self defense. North Korea is woefully unstable and the prospect of it being nuclear armed could lead to even less savory groups obtaining such weapons. This stands true of Iran as well. I think as long as they are calling for the destruction of Israel (even if it is just lip service) and sponsoring terrorist groups the world should be wary of them becoming a nuclear power.

The bad countries already have the bomb. Including your own country and mine. North Korea has the right to defend itself too. It doesn't have nuclear arms but it has the right to them.

Israel should be destroyed and nuked to oblivion. Are you asking me if that is nice or not?

[VictorCharlie]

Miles I know you feel strongly about the Israel/Palestine issue, but I think you can agree that Israel is a stable country who is unikely to distribute nukes to extremists and would only use nukes in self defense. North Korea is woefully unstable and the prospect of it being nuclear armed could lead to even less savory groups obtaining such weapons. This stands true of Iran as well. I think as long as they are calling for the destruction of Israel (even if it is just lip service) and sponsoring terrorist groups the world should be wary of them becoming a nuclear power.

The bad countries already have the bomb. Including your own country and mine. North Korea has the right to defend itself too. It doesn't have nuclear arms but it has the right to them.

Israel should be destroyed and nuked to oblivion. Are you asking me if that is nice or not?

So Israel doesn't have the right to defend its self? I mean seriously you can't see that the world is a safer place with North Korea not having a nuclear arsenal?

[El Kabong]

Doesn't your ridiculous country sell weapons to numerous other countries? Doesn't the US supply Isael with too much?? All of that shit should stop, but until arms trade is outlawed then you reap what you deserve. If you say no to North Korea then you are being rather bullshitty. You deserve to be on the receiving end, no use in being a hypocrite.

I doubt we've ever sold nukes to anyone miles and I am sure our ICBM technology is kept from others as well.

[Kirkland Laing]

Say what you will about George W. Bush but I tend to think his words meant a bit more to other leaders because of what we did to Iraq...and perhaps the leaders are trying to test Barry right now and when he's in Europe just slamming his own country for policies etc...I don't think they take him as serious as W. On the other hand it may be that China is feeling a little bit bolder these days.

And Kirk all I have ever done is get after Barry for how he has dealt with this crisis.

Also with North Korea it's not that they will use the missles but maybe they will sell them to some country that will use them. Is that not a legitimate worry? Didn't North Korea sell nuclear material to Syria and maybe missles to Iran...those countries aren't friendly to us or to our allies.

http://images.smh.com.au/2009/04/03/...w420-420x0.jpg...all W did was dance with the dude

George Bush became a laughing stock because he talked tough then ran away. His signature policy, Iraq, cost the US 4000 lives, tens of thousands so badly wounded they'll need lifelong medical care, three trillion dollars, and handed Iraq, the world's second-biggest oil reserve over to the Iranians. America showed the world the limits of its military capability in Iraq and greatlry reduced the credibility of the president and his ability to get anything else done.

And you keep talking about how Obama is "blaming America", but you can't back it up with facts, and that's because the facts don't exist and you're just parroting some rightwing crackhead as usual. Do you honestly think foreign leaders took Bush seriously? Over what exatly? All the man ever did was talk tough then run away. When he screwed something up he went begging to the UN to get him out of the mess he'd got himself into. Bush was a joke internationally.

What difference does it make how bold China is? Can you explain that one? Define "bold."

NK don't have any missiles to sell to anybody. Nobody wants to buy something that demonstrably doesn't work. And they don't have anything to put on the end of any missile. They don't have anywhere near the technological capability to build an effective missile, nuclear warhead or warhead re-entry capability. If you knew the facts you'd have no reason to wet the bed over this.

[VictorCharlie]

Say what you will about George W. Bush but I tend to think his words meant a bit more to other leaders because of what we did to Iraq...and perhaps the leaders are trying to test Barry right now and when he's in Europe just slamming his own country for policies etc...I don't think they take him as serious as W. On the other hand it may be that China is feeling a little bit bolder these days.

And Kirk all I have ever done is get after Barry for how he has dealt with this crisis.

Also with North Korea it's not that they will use the missles but maybe they will sell them to some country that will use them. Is that not a legitimate worry? Didn't North Korea sell nuclear material to Syria and maybe missles to Iran...those countries aren't friendly to us or to our allies.

http://images.smh.com.au/2009/04/03/...w420-420x0.jpg...all W did was dance with the dude

America showed the world the limits of its military capability in Iraq

This is laughable. There is no military objective that hasn't been met in Iraq. Someone as schooled in history as you should know that holding a terrain feature or body count do not equate to winning in an asymmetric war. We were not going to kill our way out of there. When American troops were decisively engaged they have slaughtered their counterpart. The 2/30 Inf Battalion while patroling NE Baghdad had 3000+ killed or captured enemy combatants in 14 months. Thats ONE battalion. Even to go back to the beginning of the war the Iraqi Army was quickly routed in what 100 Days. American soldiers have taken on such a broad role in Iraq it is a testament to the tremendous level of individuals we have serving. As an Infantry squad leader that has served in both theaters I spent just as much time playing cop, city planner, social worker, intel analyst and lawyer as I have closing with and killing the enemy. These jobs are well outside my normal scope. Considering we started with a military trained to destroy Soviet tank columns and looking at the end state in Iraq: To suggest anything other than the United States Military is the most lethal and dynamic force in the world is just absurd.

[Kirkland Laing]

Say what you will about George W. Bush but I tend to think his words meant a bit more to other leaders because of what we did to Iraq...and perhaps the leaders are trying to test Barry right now and when he's in Europe just slamming his own country for policies etc...I don't think they take him as serious as W. On the other hand it may be that China is feeling a little bit bolder these days.

And Kirk all I have ever done is get after Barry for how he has dealt with this crisis.

Also with North Korea it's not that they will use the missles but maybe they will sell them to some country that will use them. Is that not a legitimate worry? Didn't North Korea sell nuclear material to Syria and maybe missles to Iran...those countries aren't friendly to us or to our allies.

http://images.smh.com.au/2009/04/03/...w420-420x0.jpg...all W did was dance with the dude

America showed the world the limits of its military capability in Iraq

This is laughable. There is no military objective that hasn't been met in Iraq. Someone as schooled in history as you should know that holding a terrain feature or body count do not equate to winning in an asymmetric war. We were not going to kill our way out of there. When American troops were decisively engaged they have slaughtered their counterpart. The 2/30 Inf Battalion while patroling NE Baghdad had 3000+ killed or captured enemy combatants in 14 months. Thats ONE battalion. Even to go back to the beginning of the war the Iraqi Army was quickly routed in what 100 Days. American soldiers have taken on such a broad role in Iraq it is a testament to the tremendous level of individuals we have serving. As an Infantry squad leader that has served in both theaters I spent just as much time playing cop, city planner, social worker, intel analyst and lawyer as I have closing with and killing the enemy. These jobs are well outside my normal scope. Considering we started with a military trained to destroy Soviet tank columns and looking at the end state in Iraq: To suggest anything other than the United States Military is the most lethal and dynamic force in the world is just absurd.

America never lost a single battle in Vietnam but still got kicked out by the Vietnamese. And Iraq was a dismal failure by the US militay, who sent every available man there, couldn't defeat a bunch of guys armed with garage door openers and then humiliatingly had to resort to putting Al Quaeda and other terrorists on the payroll to cut the number of US deaths to manageable levels. And then they claimed victory! If Bush had told the American people before he invaded that they'd end up paying taxpayer dollars to Iraqi and other Arab members of Al Quaeda to stop them killing US soldiers I don't think anybody in America would have seen that as a succesful outcome. After Bush spent years claiming that only total victory would do in Iraq and to countenance anything else was anti-Americanism, he ended up forced to pay the terrorists a wage to stop them killing so many American soldiers. The natioanl strategy in Iraq also failed as he was forced into free elections by an Iranian Ayatollah and then saw the country handed over to the Ayatollah's chosen represenatives inthose elections. But the Iraqis wouldn't let the US organise them or the constitution-writing process as nobody trusted them anymore so Bush was forced to go begging to the UN to set up elections/constitution-writing. And then claimed credit for it! Then the US military spent the next few years fighting and dying to keep the Iranian exile parties in power, something covered every day in Arab and world media with a mixture of ridicule and outrage. The stated overarching strategy, to fight terrorism, was also a disaster, Bush giving AQ and Sunni fundamentalist groups in general a huge propaganda victory by installing Shiites, their hated enemy in power in Iraq. And the real overarching strategy, control over Iraq's oil, was foiled by the Iranian exiles who forced Bush into signing a deal that meant all US troops had to leave before the end of 2011. But apart from all that it was a huge success.

[VictorCharlie]

Military success is measured by two things. Killing of the enemy and the ability to take and hold terrain. There is no terrain in Iraq that the US military couldn't take and hold at will and comparing the body count is absurd. Our military cannot help that there was no defined mission or end state. Nor is their fault that even though 400K + soldiers were asked for they got 150K for the invasion. You seem to confuse errors by the Bush administration as synonymous with military failure. More importantly as you already mentioned by echoing what I had already said body count does not equal winning in an asymmetric war. There is no military solution in Iraq or any country with an active insurgency. That being said considering the crappy card the military was dealt going into Iraq it has performed tremendously. Sunni Arabs turned from AQI in tremendous numbers b/c of the great counter-insurgent policies implemented by the Marines in the Anbar province. They drove a wedge between the populace and the terrorist as per doctrine. Seeing the number of its tribe being massacred by terrorist acts and the number dying from direct engagements with Americans as well as a self imposed political isolation I'd say they made a pretty good choice. The US footed the payroll b/c the process of getting the Maliki gov't to pay up would have taken forever(it just did in the past year). I really love how SOFA, elections not run by the US and Iraq controlling their own oil is a bad thing. Does it matter if Bush got his hand forced on these issues? Are they not what should have happened? Stick to finances Kirk..Your out of your element