US Needs a leader like Kennedy

[Onkel Neal]

It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union .
-- President John F. Kennedy,
Oct. 22, 1962

Now that's deterrence.
Kennedy was pledging that if any nuke was launched from Cuba, the United States would not even bother with Cuba but would go directly to the source and bring the apocalypse to Russia with a massive nuclear attack.

The remarkable thing about this kind of threat is that in 1962 it was very credible. Indeed, its credibility kept the peace throughout a half-century of the Cold War.


Excellent article by Krauthammer: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101201668_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101201668_pf.html)


Bush has drawn several red lines with Iran and NK, but has failed to make them stick. Someday, in the near future, when the first terrorist A-bomb destroys Washington, or Copenhagen, or the Hague, or London, or Berlin, or Rome, or Paris... people will look back and see this time as the decisive point where the Western world had the opportunity to act and stop nuclear proliferation, but did not have the will. Bush will be a key figure of blame, but most of Europe and half of America should share the blame for holding him back.

[HunterICX]

:-? Question is: Why do we have nukes in the first place?
because we have now the amount to blow up the earth a couple of times, I'll bet that we the human race will be dead because of our own creation of mass destruction.

its a scary thought.

[Coda]

US needs a leader like Jesse Ventura. No nonsense, straight forward, common sense with a purpose.

[madDdog67]

Can you imagine the mass hysteria around the world if Pres. Bush actually *said* that?

This whole thing is gonna get messy if the UN resolution that gets passed (most likely tomorrow) includes inpections of ships, and we actually try to enforce 'em.

[fredbass]

I'm with ya Neal.

[fredbass]

This whole thing is gonna get messy if the UN resolution that gets passed (most likely tomorrow) includes inpections of ships, and we actually try to enforce 'em.

I doubt it.

[Sea Demon]

This whole thing is gonna get messy if the UN resolution that gets passed (most likely tomorrow) includes inpections of ships, and we actually try to enforce 'em.

I doubt it.

It depends on how mentally stable Kim Jong-Il is. His government has stated this would be an act of war. Is Kim crazy enough to launch attacks on the South? Does China actually have any control over Kim and his government?

[Dowly]

US just needs to remember sometimes that it is PART of the world, not the whole world. :yep:

And on the N.Korea thing, Kim is definitely crazy, but I really doubt he is crazy enough to attack to S.Korea. He knows what would be the result. Without nukes, I´m pretty sure that S.Korea can beat the N.Korean forces. With nukes, the N.Korea cannot achieve anything except the total destruction of itself by other countries with nukes. Then again, if N.Korea decides to attack South with nukes, what will the reaction be on the 'outside' wolrd? Will it result in immediate retaliation with nukes or will there be "basic" war against the N.Korea?

[fredbass]

This whole thing is gonna get messy if the UN resolution that gets passed (most likely tomorrow) includes inpections of ships, and we actually try to enforce 'em.

I doubt it.

It depends on how mentally stable Kim Jong-Il is. His government has stated this would be an act of war. Is Kim crazy enough to launch attacks on the South? Does China actually have any control over Kim and his government?

I say inspect the ships and lets call the bluff. They need us to shoot first, so this is a great situation as far as I'm concerned.

[Yahoshua]

Agreed.

In fact, there are some who are doubting whether the NK even detonated a bomb because it was so small. It may be a farce to begin with, but should be dealt with as if there were a bomb that had been detonated during that test.

[Subnuts]

My gun has killed fewer people than....

Crap. Wrong Kennedy. :damn::rotfl:

[madDdog67]

My gun has killed fewer people than....

Crap. Wrong Kennedy. :damn::rotfl:

:rotfl:

[madDdog67]

I say inspect the ships and lets call the bluff. They need us to shoot first, so this is a great situation as far as I'm concerned.

I'm actually with ya on this...but Lord knows what it'll do to gas prices hehe.

[Onkel Neal]

US just needs to remember sometimes that it is PART of the world, not the whole world. :yep:



That's a cool catch phrase. I think, however, the US already remembers that. The rest of the world needs to step up and do their part to stop nuclear proliferation and stop trying to guess how sane Kim Jong IL is and if that has any meaning on what could happen.

[SUBMAN1]

US just needs to remember sometimes that it is PART of the world, not the whole world. :yep:


That's a cool catch phrase. I think, however, the US already remembers that. The rest of the world needs to step up and do their part to stop nuclear proliferation and stop trying to guess how sane Kim Jong IL is and if that has any meaning on what could happen.

Well put

[SUBMAN1]

:-? Question is: Why do we have nukes in the first place?
because we have now the amount to blow up the earth a couple of times, I'll bet that we the human race will be dead because of our own creation of mass destruction.

its a scary thought.

Simple. Just look at history. Countries unable to defend themselves in the face of overwhelming force get ransaked. Always have. Nukes is simply the progression of weaponry, and it is not the last. Antimatter bombs are on the way that will make the nuke look puny.

-S

[Skybird]

Goes all well into the ear. But simply lacks objectivity and reason. We sell military goods worldwide. Nuclear fuel. We differ between civil and milutary use of nuclear tech. We support tyrants if they are of short-termed use for us, we condemn them, if they are no longer our obedient servents. Our economy and our finances are run beyond reason and solidness. Our monetarian debts amongst each other are beyond imagination. We cause conflict and poverty, dependence and misery all over the globe, and call that our mission in the name of freedom, democracy, free trade - OUR freedom, OUR democarcy, OUR free trade. we excuse our falures by our intentions, and ignore that our intentions never matched our candy-sweet words. We have build the international structures and offices of global administration to our will and intention, because in the short term they promised us immense benefits, at the costs of others. We have created our own fate, and now make it sound as if it is the respnesebility of others, as if we have added nothing to the situation, as if all moral autority is ours.

All this in the face of other powers and factions, beliefs and ideologies that also act in the same way like we do. We live on a small and sinking island of the happy, while all around us people were drowning in the stormy sea by the hundreds of millions.

And today, in the present, many of us think that all what we need is more of that tough double-moral, packed into pithy phrases that directly deliver it into the centre of our emotion's control. You know what? This will solve nothing, because it does not change ourselves, not our selfishness and hypocracy, and it does not change the very rottenb mark and intention of the many systems and institutional interactions that form our so-called civilization.

Should we stop trying and fighting for the better? No. But please spare us the emotional catch-phrases and pithy slogans. Instead of a Kennedy speach, we need a general attitude of mind that share's a samurai's determination to serve, that focusses less on our rights that we define ourselves, and focusses more on our duties, and that repalces all what is rotten and hypocricy and split-tongued in our society and international administrative systems with what serves the best of all at the cost of no one and can rightfully be taken as a reason to claim that this it is what it is worth to fight for, and defend. But when the next elections approach, and you will see the ape's theatre that politicians put on, and the masses applauding that BS and call it "good" and "great" and "just" and "worthy", then you can see the grace and greatness of western man's reason and the worthiness of what is left of western civilization.

But at least you have a chance to get a blue or red abllon for free, and a pencil, and a card with some lying bastard's handwritten signature on it. Isn't that a good reason to fight for?

If Kennedy would be around today - I tell you what, it wouldn't make a difference. The general global trends would remain unaffected. That simple. Our civilization seems to be automatted to such a degree, that it now is run by it's own suicidal self-dynamic. We don't need a better speech-writer. we need new "ourselves".

Sometimes i think it would be good if out in space there would emerge an alien power that threatens all mankind and all earth with extinction. maybe that would motivate us to create a better world. But a thinking of "mine is longer than yours" will make us fight against each other and killing each other until the end of human race.

Keine Macht den Doofen! "There is no other hope than that mankind very quickly becomes reasonable." - Einstein, I think.

[Hylander_1314]

We need men in office like those who founded this nation.

They received no pay for public service.

[Yahoshua]

Agreed.

[ASWnut101]

damn straigt!

And Krazy Kim's bomb was supposedly an actual failure. It was a plutonium bomb, which should produce at least a Hiroshima type yeild, but it actually had only the power equal to or less than an American "Davy Crockett" (you may ask me what this is if you are not familliar, I will GLADLY answer!:up: )

[Onkel Neal]

Goes all well into the ear. But simply lacks objectivity and reason. We sell military goods worldwide. Nuclear fuel. We differ between civil and milutary use of nuclear tech. We support tyrants if they are of short-termed use for us, we condemn them, if they are no longer our obedient servents. Our economy and our finances are run beyond reason and solidness. Our monetarian debts amongst each other are beyond imagination. We cause conflict and poverty, dependence and misery all over the globe, and call that our mission in the name of freedom, democracy, free trade - OUR freedom, OUR democarcy, OUR free trade. we excuse our falures by our intentions, and ignore that our intentions never matched our candy-sweet words. We have build the international structures and offices of global administration to our will and intention, because in the short term they promised us immense benefits, at the costs of others. We have created our own fate, and now make it sound as if it is the respnesebility of others, as if we have added nothing to the situation, as if all moral autority is ours.

All this in the face of other powers and factions, beliefs and ideologies that also act in the same way like we do. We live on a small and sinking island of the happy, while all around us people were drowning in the stormy sea by the hundreds of millions.

And today, in the present, many of us think that all what we need is more of that tough double-moral, packed into pithy phrases that directly deliver it into the centre of our emotion's control. You know what? This will solve nothing, because it does not change ourselves, not our selfishness and hypocracy, and it does not change the very rottenb mark and intention of the many systems and institutional interactions that form our so-called civilization.

Should we stop trying and fighting for the better? No. But please spare us the emotional catch-phrases and pithy slogans. Instead of a Kennedy speach, we need a general attitude of mind that share's a samurai's determination to serve, that focusses less on our rights that we define ourselves, and focusses more on our duties, and that repalces all what is rotten and hypocricy and split-tongued in our society and international administrative systems with what serves the best of all at the cost of no one and can rightfully be taken as a reason to claim that this it is what it is worth to fight for, and defend. But when the next elections approach, and you will see the ape's theatre that politicians put on, and the masses applauding that BS and call it "good" and "great" and "just" and "worthy", then you can see the grace and greatness of western man's reason and the worthiness of what is left of western civilization.

But at least you have a chance to get a blue or red abllon for free, and a pencil, and a card with some lying bastard's handwritten signature on it. Isn't that a good reason to fight for?

If Kennedy would be around today - I tell you what, it wouldn't make a difference. The general global trends would remain unaffected. That simple. Our civilization seems to be automatted to such a degree, that it now is run by it's own suicidal self-dynamic. We don't need a better speech-writer. we need new "ourselves".

Sometimes i think it would be good if out in space there would emerge an alien power that threatens all mankind and all earth with extinction. maybe that would motivate us to create a better world. But a thinking of "mine is longer than yours" will make us fight against each other and killing each other until the end of human race.

Keine Macht den Doofen! "There is no other hope than that mankind very quickly becomes reasonable." - Einstein, I think.

Sky, you have your head in the clouds. Forget "moral authority" and "samurais", practical steps are necessary. Steps taken by the Kennedys, Roosevelts, Trumans, Reagans, and Thatchers in the past kept you from speaking Russian and made it possible for the world to last this long without another world war. The world is not going to burst forth in love and understanding tomorrow, people are still essesntially the same. If you apply some of your analytical skills to the substance of Kennedy's "emotional catch-phrases and pithy slogans...", you would see it was a necessary move to keep the Soviet Union in check. You wouldn't have done very well in the USSR, not with your independant nature.

You keep waiting for the aliens to unite us under a one-world peace but I think more pragmatism would be more helpful.

[TteFAboB]

The Alien part is completely wrong.

If Aliens invaded we would see a world-war with mankind fighting to decide who will submit first and ally with the Aliens. :rotfl:

As long as the Aliens promise bread and circus the planet is theirs.

[August]

The Alien part is completely wrong.

If Aliens invaded we would see a world-war with mankind fighting to decide who will submit first and ally with the Aliens. :rotfl:

As long as the Aliens promise bread and circus the planet is theirs.

I think any species that is advanced enough to make the trip to earth from another star system has the planet regardless of whether they offer bread and circuses or not.

[micky1up]

unfortunately they seem to assasinate good leaders when they come and let the idiots that ******* up there country get away scot free

[Skybird]

Sky, you have your head in the clouds. Forget "moral authority" and "samurais", practical steps are necessary. Steps taken by the Kennedys, Roosevelts, Trumans, Reagans, and Thatchers in the past kept you from speaking Russian and made it possible for the world to last this long without another world war. The world is not going to burst forth in love and understanding tomorrow, people are still essesntially the same. If you apply some of your analytical skills to the substance of Kennedy's "emotional catch-phrases and pithy slogans...", you would see it was a necessary move to keep the Soviet Union in check. You wouldn't have done very well in the USSR, not with your independant nature.

You keep waiting for the aliens to unite us under a one-world peace but I think more pragmatism would be more helpful.

And what is your pragmatic solution? Hoping for a holy saint, or a better Führer in the WH? The UN sanction do not hit Kim, they hit the already starving people. I do not judge the moralaity of it, I just doubt thta this could be called "pragmatism". Or nuking NKorea, maybe even preemptively? Massmurder (nuclear war simply is that) of a people that are victims, for just some dozen people at the top being bad bullies? Or retaliate nith nukes if they attack first? you have a right of self-defense, agreed, but again, mass murdering even in case of self-defense is not what correlates with the meaning of the word pragmatism, in my subjective understanding.

No-no, Neal, you just make it sound as if all that is needed to improve the world is a Kennedy-guy and a heart-warming speech and a red line drawn for this or that bad guy (many of them we have created ourselves), and that is all that is needed to let the West, or America, appear as the knight of the holy powers of light, and save the planet. Indeed, that is one of my most dominant impression about Americans: a great tendency and vulnerability to blindly believe in authorities especially a president, and easily falling for speeches that are done with rehtorical raffinesse. Maybe a mentality born from the colonizing period and wars with the indians, I don't know.

I just think beyond that immediate action, and reminded you that not all but much of the evil in the world today is created by actions and decision masterminded and carried out by - ourselves in our shining armour. Our position in the fight against tyrannies, progroms, terror and islam by far is not as clean and shining and perfect as America believes. We have plenty of dark spots on our not so white jackets, really. And that you made my comments look as naive love for the good things in life and hoping for aliens from outer space, just illustrates that you do not see that so many of today'S situations are created with help of the West and America, or that you do not want to see it and prefer to think of America as the country of the still morally superior who never troubled any water. From America I only always hear: tough stand here, tough stand there, but I never hear America thinking about it's own contribution to the global mess. You people still seem to think that you have nothing to do with it, that everything would be better if everything just would be like America, and you still seem to think that the many international political decisions you formed and implemented are only selflessly and really for the good of the people whom are affected.

But that things like the ICF for example has led foreign nations into higher dependency and made more people even poorer than helping to improve their life, while it all happened for OUR economical benefit and interest keeping, you refuse to see. Now the rules of the ICF are starting to work against us under the mechanism of so-called globalization (have you noticed the fall in enthusiasm for it in Western economies during the last two years or so, while it starts to become hurting not omnly for th eothers, but for ourtselves as well, while many of the others - are becoming stronger by it?), and I predict you that it is only a question of years now until it will be thought about to replace the ICF by a new design that matches our egoistic interests better - it will be argued to do so for very different reasons than what I said above, of course. but it will not work this time, for china, SE Asia and S America have learned their lesson and are to strong now as if you can push personal agendas through against their will. So that globalisation more and more wreaks havoc amongst Western employees and leads to regular jobs being replaced by low-wage mini-jobs by the many millions, and the class of the so-called working poor is increasing, in some nations even exploding, is in fact kind of a blowback ( i do not refer to chalmers johnson's book title this time, but use the term in the original CIA meaning of it: negative consequnces feeding back on us from causes and actions that are so long ago and so far away that we do not remember them and do not see the link between cause and effect and thus attribute these consequences to different causes that have nothing to do with it). But many of such international structures are masterminded by America, and give America a dominating position in it.

You also often make it look as if you only bring sacrifices and nobody honours you and that you are strong, militarily for example, completely by your own effort. And while you have waged more wars for SELFISH reasons in the last 70 years than anyone else, you present yourself as the misunderstood victim of anti-americanism and international hate that only always brings sacrifices and is payed be people becoming greedy and envy at (of?) america. But as so many commentators have calculated before, without incredibly high financial investements from other countries and especially europe into your national finance saystems, you simply would be to poor to maintain such a giant military apparatus that you now call your own - you depend on us, like it or not, and that is nothing new in history: many empired depended on military contributions from their vasallas and thus enforced the flow of goods and finaces into the empiral centre, no matter the cost. you are living a national lifestyle that you cannot pay for by yourself. You live on tick. All Western nations live on tick, but america by far more than anyone else. And you consider it to be a naturalness. Some days ago somebody here told me proudly that it already has been taken care of by planning not to ever pay back the massive debts, and calculating them on a 1:20 basis only. If financial investments into the US would suddenly dramatically drop, your lights would go dark. During the last five hundred years, the majority of european nations had run into total bancruptcy over reasons of living beyond their potential and maintaining a military during the many wars over here that simply strecthed their finacial systems beyond braking point: they had to start new, at point zero, with all the chaos and personal tragedy of ruined families this meant for the affected nation's population. the US is steaming into a comparable direction - at maximum speed.

And concerning Kennedy, I want to remind you that he, or you, or we all, simply had LUCK during Cuba. Contemporary witnesses of name, Kissinger for example, I think McNamara also, said it very clearly that it was not a crisis that got solved and managed: "Things were out of control. We had completely lost control at some time. We were simply lucky."

Nothing against pragmatism. But that must be considered to be much more than just a popular leader with catching speeches. Sense of realism and being aware of one'S own positive as well as negative influence during the emerging of current situation are necessary preconditions. and here I see America failing as well as Europe is failing, too, but both for different reasons and deficits. America needs Europes financial support, and europe indeed would need a strong and leading america. We are sitting in the same boat, as we say in German. That'S why I consider it to be of such high interst for us europeans as well what kind of leadership the Us is led by, and how trustworthy the motives of it are. If it fails, not only America but Europe feels the consequences as well, sometimes even much more immediately and directly than the US, for example Islamic terrorism. If this mutual dependency would not exist, I wouldn't give a damn about Bush and would have scratched his name from my memory long time ago. Bush not only brought America into trouble, but us as well.

Seen that way, Kennedy would be better than Bush. Anybody would be better than Bush. Maybe you are right after all with your call for pragmatism :D

[MadMike]

ASWnut101,
Are you familiar with the B57? I worked on that puppy many years ago...

Yours, Mike

[fredbass]

Skybird: Try to limit your thoughts to just a few paragraphs at a time then maybe I'll pay more attention to what your attempting to put forth.

[Takeda Shingen]

Skybird: Try to limit your thoughts to just a few paragraphs at a time then maybe I'll pay more attention to what your attempting to put forth.

That is your loss. It is also not his responsibility to supply you with the discipline required to read his postings. Personally, I enjoy reading about his thoughts on matters.

[fredbass]

I'm not losing anything. My point still stands. It's not necessary. It's just double talk when someone has to go to such length to make a point that could be done in much fewer words. I'll pass, thankyou very much. :ping:









Attack b4 it's too late.

[Skybird]

I do not hold a weapon at anyone's head to make him read my comments, fred. Do as you feel to do. You don't owe me, and I don'T owe you. ;)

There is a reason why I don't do it in the style of TV commercials and 20sec news snippets simplifying things. Things are more complicated, and complex and cannot be caught in just three sentences adequately, not without missing things or running the risk of being misunderstood - and i already need to fight occasionally to master this foreign language. The lacking willingness or ability of many people to reflect over the complexity of things is what I especially target when writing such a posting and try to illustrate that things are not as simple and uncomplicated as it is thought.

[Onkel Neal]

I think Fred just recognizes that this is an Internet forum, not the Grand Hall of Olympian Philosphers. Longer is not always better. If a man cannot express himself succinctly, then he needs help organizing his thoughts. Or he likes to hear himself talk :) (something I find myself guilty of at times). I understand what you mean, Sky, when you say "lacking willingness or ability of many people to reflect over the complexity of things". I think each of us could research these topics for days, pour out numerous quotes and historic references, rebut each other point by point, work in references to Tolstoy, Churchill, Saladin, and obscure Chinese Taoists, .... but "there is one fact no one will ever challenge (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110009081): The earth still spins on its axis every 24 hours, and work and sleep own most of them. Thus we may posit an iron law of the universe: You can do whatever it is you choose to do with your few free hours, or you can spend them" online, arguing in an internet forum. :dead: I have two jobs, three kids, and one g/f who is too hot to ignore... so, yeah, I prefer to-the-point posts, myself. Maybe I'm one of those steroetype Americans who is too scatterbrained to focus on complex issues... give loud noises and shiny colors!

Sky, I'll give your post a respectful answer later tonight when I have time. But if my g/f calls, don't expect to hear from me!

[Skybird]

No problem, Neal, I do not feel like being deathlocked with you in anything. You make me curious about your gf, though :lol:

[Fish]

It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union .
-- President John F. Kennedy,
Oct. 22, 1962

Now that's deterrence.
Kennedy was pledging that if any nuke was launched from Cuba, the United States would not even bother with Cuba but would go directly to the source and bring the apocalypse to Russia with a massive nuclear attack.

The remarkable thing about this kind of threat is that in 1962 it was very credible. Indeed, its credibility kept the peace throughout a half-century of the Cold War.


Excellent article by Krauthammer: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101201668_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101201668_pf.html)


Bush has drawn several red lines with Iran and NK, but has failed to make them stick. Someday, in the near future, when the first terrorist A-bomb destroys Washington, or Copenhagen, or the Hague, or London, or Berlin, or Rome, or Paris... people will look back and see this time as the decisive point where the Western world had the opportunity to act and stop nuclear proliferation, but did not have the will. Bush will be a key figure of blame, but most of Europe and half of America should share the blame for holding him back.

Not every body thinks the guy is excelent, or better just excelent for the neo-cons..

Krauthammer argues that the US has two options – the military option or doing nothing – a classic false dilemma

http://www.villagemagazine.ie/article.asp?sid=1&sud=36&aid=3146


http://www.informationliberation.com/files/krauthammer.jpgCharles Krauthammer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401413.html), guiding light of the neocon faction, predicts shock and awe waged against Iran in his latest op-ed in the CIA’s favorite newspaper, the Washington Post.

First, Krauthammer lays out the cost of this action—astronomical gas prices, precipitating a vicious recession, attacks on occupation forces and the installed government in Iraq. Next, he basically tells us all of this is necessary because “there is the larger danger of permitting nuclear weapons to be acquired by religious fanatics seized with an eschatological belief in the imminent apocalypse and in their own divine duty to hasten the End of Days.” Deterrence is impossible, Krauthammer explains, because Iran revels in a “millenarian fanaticism glorying in a cult of death,” in other words, there will be no stopping these suicidal Muslims, determined to wipe both Israel and the Great Satan, the United States, off the map.

Or, to paraphrase Clinton’s Iron Maiden, Madeleine Albright, economically destroying America, to say nothing of killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, is “a very hard choice, but the price … is worth it.”

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=16145

[ASWnut101]

ASWnut101,
Are you familiar with the B57? I worked on that puppy many years ago...

Yours, Mike

Actually i havent! PM me with pics and description and that kind of stuff!:up:

[moose1am]

Placing a naval blockade around a country is an ACT of WAR!. If we try to put a naval blockade around the Korean Pen it won't work and it will be seen by North Korea and China as a act of war by the USA on North Korea.

We got the Japanese to attack Pearl when we cut of their oil supplies. The Japanese had no choice but to go to war with the US when we and Britain cut of their oil supply to Southeast asia. Japan being an island nation would have died a slow death without oil from Indonesia. By attacking Pearl they hoped to be able to put the USA off for a while so that they could get the oil they needed to survive. Our leaders at that time knew that Japan would be desperate and start a war if we tried to cut off their oil supply.

Korea will see it the same way. But since most of N. Korea's supplies comes through the Chinese we won't succeed in a naval blockade of N Korea anyway.

Bush has our troops all tied up in Iraq. There is no way we can sustain another major ground war at this time without pulling troops out of Iraq. And or start a draft.


This whole thing is gonna get messy if the UN resolution that gets passed (most likely tomorrow) includes inpections of ships, and we actually try to enforce 'em.

I doubt it.

It depends on how mentally stable Kim Jong-Il is. His government has stated this would be an act of war. Is Kim crazy enough to launch attacks on the South? Does China actually have any control over Kim and his government?

[SUBMAN1]

Skybird: Try to limit your thoughts to just a few paragraphs at a time then maybe I'll pay more attention to what your attempting to put forth.

I second that! I didn't bother reading anything once I looked at the length. Precise clear thoughts is all that is need to get a point across, not a novel!!!

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Placing a naval blockade around a country is an ACT of WAR!. If we try to put a naval blockade around the Korean Pen it won't work and it will be seen by North Korea and China as a act of war by the USA on North Korea.

We got the Japanese to attack Pearl when we cut of their oil supplies. The Japanese had no choice but to go to war with the US when we and Britain cut of their oil supply to Southeast asia. Japan being an island nation would have died a slow death without oil from Indonesia. By attacking Pearl they hoped to be able to put the USA off for a while so that they could get the oil they needed to survive. Our leaders at that time knew that Japan would be desperate and start a war if we tried to cut off their oil supply.

Korea will see it the same way. But since most of N. Korea's supplies comes through the Chinese we won't succeed in a naval blockade of N Korea anyway.

Bush has our troops all tied up in Iraq. There is no way we can sustain another major ground war at this time without pulling troops out of Iraq. And or start a draft.


This whole thing is gonna get messy if the UN resolution that gets passed (most likely tomorrow) includes inpections of ships, and we actually try to enforce 'em.
I doubt it.
It depends on how mentally stable Kim Jong-Il is. His government has stated this would be an act of war. Is Kim crazy enough to launch attacks on the South? Does China actually have any control over Kim and his government?

Hold on one minute, but are you suggesting the US and S Korea is not at war already with N Korea? We have been since the 1950's. Only a formal ceasefire exists, nothing more. We are at war with N Korea still to this day. And end of hostilities was never put in place!!!

-S

[August]

We got the Japanese to attack Pearl when we cut of their oil supplies. The Japanese had no choice but to go to war with the US when we and Britain cut of their oil supply to Southeast asia. Japan being an island nation would have died a slow death without oil from Indonesia.

Woah, you are mistaken. The US and Britain did not blockade Japan, they instituted an embargo. That is a completely different thing and just refusing to sell something to a nation is not an act of war. If it were OPECs oil embargo in 1973 would have also been an act of war.

As I see it Churchill and FDR had little choice in the matter. No way could they continue selling oil to Japan while it was engaged in a war of genocide against China.

[SkvyWvr]

Skybird: Try to limit your thoughts to just a few paragraphs at a time then maybe I'll pay more attention to what your attempting to put forth.

I'm glad someone said that.:up:

[kiwi_2005]

Check out the real situation
Nation fight against nation,
Where did it all begin,
When will it end.
Well it seems like the only solution is a total destruction.

Bob Marley - Real Situation.


Armaggenddon - fire shall rein from the sky. - Bible

Whats the meaning of this, Nuclear war?

Edit:sorry went right of topic there. :lol: The Rum has been put away! :arrgh!:

[Bum]

Rosy outlook.

Reminds me of the new tv show Jericho, where a nuclear war against the US has taken place. I bet a lot of foreigners were cheered by that idea.

[ASWnut101]

Check out the real situation
Nation fight against nation,
Where did it all begin,
When will it end.
Well it seems like the only solution is a total destruction.

Bob Marley - Real Situation.


Armaggenddon - fire shall rein from the sky. - Bible

Whats the meaning of this, Nuclear war?

Edit:sorry went right of topic there. :lol: The Rum has been put away! :arrgh!:


Or was it the....:|\\

:D nice post, shakespeare!:cool: