AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums
New York Times Becomes Cowboy, Unilateral, Neo Con - Printable Version

+- AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums (https://ai-jane.org)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (https://ai-jane.org/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: International Politics (https://ai-jane.org/forum-13.html)
+--- Thread: New York Times Becomes Cowboy, Unilateral, Neo Con (/thread-2935.html)

Pages: 1 2


New York Times Becomes Cowboy, Unilateral, Neo Con - Palladin - 10-13-2006

Weird.



http//www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/opinion/12thu1.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


- John L - 10-14-2006

Why do I suspect a ruse here? My guess is that the NYTimes is trying to show that the Bushies and S&G Republicans are going about this the wrong way. Had we not gone into Iraq, we would be able to do something about NK.

I see it as a classic case of Heads I win, tails you lose. And watch out for the Kooks to be spreading out all over the the internet, with the latest mantra against the opposition. Expect our resident "Useful Fool" to be trumpeting this also.


- Palladin - 10-14-2006

John,

Probably,but anyone in the know already understands there will br NO military solution in NK short of an atomic bombing and that most unlikely.

North Korea is invulnerable to conventional assault from SK. Seoul would be destroyed in 2 days if there was one and SK isn't into that,so if that is the NYT angle,they're just showing more basic dishonesty.


- John L - 10-14-2006

Palladin Wrote:John,

Probably,but anyone in the know already understands there will br NO military solution in NK short of an atomic bombing and that most unlikely.

North Korea is invulnerable to conventional assault from SK. Seoul would be destroyed in 2 days if there was one and SK isn't into that,so if that is the NYT angle,they're just showing more basic dishonesty.

Having been around ROKS, I can tell you that they are tough SOBs. Granted, that was over thirty years ago, but the NKs don't hold anything on the ROKs. As a military, I will grant that the NKs could perhaps get close to Seoul, but there are some of the most horrendous blockades placed in between the Imjim river and Seoul. And there are only a few places where they can come south, it is that mountainous and difficult. Add heavy cultivation of rice paddies, and armoured vehicles would be sitting ducks, especually if the ROKS have air superiority, and that would be pretty much a given.

As for invading north, the fortifications are not as indepth as with the south. Once through the fortifications, the countryh is wide open. But ROK will not do that, since they have no plans to pay the price for conquering and then rebuilding the north.

When the north invaded in 1951, the south was caught totally unprepared. Not so this time. ROK forces are mean, lean, fighting machines. Whitehorse and Tiger Divisions in VietNam showed what they are capable of accomplishing. And they are not bogged down with all that PC, wussy concern like we are. They can truely kick butt. Wink1


- mv - 10-14-2006

There was another shocking article in NY Times last week: about how the Europeans changing their feelings about Islam and multiculturism.

(A pretty good article, but not what one expects from the slimes).


Made me wonder if NYT is beginning to worry about losing the share and money. S2


- Palladin - 10-14-2006

John,

The ROKS might be the best soldiers since the Roman Thunderbolts,but NO ONE can invade NK from SK due to the 10K artillery tubes already pointed at Seoul.

It's the same as 1 large A bomb in destructive potential.

It is out of the question. We are not discussing defending SK from NK assault.

If there is an invasion,China has to do it. These US conservatives who keep ranting about Clinton and Bush doing nothing don't know reality and certainly the leftist idiots don't.


- John L - 10-14-2006

Palladin Wrote:John,

The ROKS might be the best soldiers since the Roman Thunderbolts,but NO ONE can invade NK from SK due to the 10K artillery tubes already pointed at Seoul.

It's the same as 1 large A bomb in destructive potential.

It is out of the question. We are not discussing defending SK from NK assault.

If there is an invasion,China has to do it. These US conservatives who keep ranting about Clinton and Bush doing nothing don't know reality and certainly the leftist idiots don't.

Patrick, obviously you have never studied military science. I suggest that you go back and read how the Germans conquered Western Europe in 1940. Grossly outnumbered, facing extremem fortifications, and outnumbered with artillary, they thought up novel approaches and went for it. They even used gliders to assaualt that one Belgium fort that was supposed to be impenetratable. Today, the western militarys especially have advanced air transport and precision weapons that the NKs can only dream about.

Further, I don't care how many tubes are facing south. If the military using them is not trained in flexibility, and taking initiative, then they are rigid and easily broken in detail. Like I stated, the ROKs will not invade, but you are placing too much on an army that is poverty stricken, poorly trained, uses a system that too is rigid, discourages origionality, and is not modern. It is strong on paper, but tears easily when well directed force is applied. The same thing holds for the Chinese, former Soviets, and most likely still the Russians. The only thing that they can rely upon is overwhelming numbers in hopes of simply overwhelming that way.

One more thing about that NK artillary. You can bet that each battery has one, or several areas of responsibility. If they had to switch and work another area on the spur of the moment, within fixed positions, they would be hard pressed to accomplish this. On the other hand, US doctrine, as well as ROKS is flexible response. At a moment's notice, artillary batteries can take on a totally new fire mission or move to new locations very quickly, set up, and rock immediately. NKs can only dream of this, because the military is poorly trained, has inflexable officers, and probably lack the most important ingredient: a strong NCO corps. The Soviets lacked this, so what makes us think that the NKs would be any different?


- Fit2BThaied - 10-15-2006

Trying to overlook the moral portions, it seems to this non-military person that Bush rushed into Afghanistan without making the worst blunders, and then he rushed into Iraq making all the worst blunders. Oddly enough, on North Korea, he's done nearly the opposite. While naming NK as one of the evil axis countries, he has used Asian diplomacy as his response, even though NK seems now (and seemed then) to be a far greater, imminent threat to peace in the world.

Are American troops now so bogged down in western Asia that they can't be deployed to easternmost Asia? Can Japan and NK defend themselves against NK? How much would China defend NK?


- Palladin - 10-15-2006

John,

SK won't allow an invasion due to the devastation of Seoul. Nothing else matters unless you think we're going to do a Normandy style invasion up north.

The people of the USA won't support war with Kim,forget about it.

Thai,

Quite the opposite is fact,we went into Afghanistan with no military plan,we allowed the CIA to direct the effort,the Iraqi warplan was detailed as plans can be.

There's this little thing called "the enemy gets a vote,too" that you haven't thought of and some enemy are better than others. It's why Vietnam is all Marxist today and only half of Korea is.


- Anonymous24 - 10-15-2006

The NYT supports an invasion of NK cause it makes logical sense to do so.

First, NK are actually developing nuclear weapons, or have one. Two, they've demonstrated a willingness to use those weapons against surrounding countires, including the U.S. Three, they are racially and culturally the same as the Sks, so unifying the countries under a democracy would make sense. And fourth, they've shown aggression in the past.

As for the people of the USA, I think they will support war with the Kim much more than war with Iran, for the reasons I gave.


- mv - 10-15-2006

Anonymous24 Wrote:The NYT supports an invasion of NK cause it makes logical sense to do so.
The current estimates as I recall are about 50k US military casualties in case of such invasion. Compare this with 3k in Iraq. Additionally, projected are about 2 million civilian deaths. Real. Compare this with invented 600k Iraqi deaths.

NY Times is pro-invasion? I don't think even "neo-cons" are.

IIIIInteresting.

Quote:As for the people of the USA, I think they will support war with the Kim much more than war with Iran, for the reasons I gave.

If so, then the US is full of stupid people.... nothing new here.


- Anonymous24 - 10-15-2006

Oh, okay, so the Iraq invasion made sense cause there would be fewer casualties than an invasion of more dangerous, anti-American countries like NK, Pakistan, and Iran. Gotcha.


- mv - 10-15-2006

I think this is partially true: Bush was trying to achieve something on-the-cheap.

With NK and Iran the better approach is not an invasion but bombings...


- Anonymous24 - 10-15-2006

As far as North Korea, I think we should pull our troops out and let South Korea, China, and Japan handle this.

The South Koreans could take NK by themselves.


- Palladin - 10-15-2006

MV,

Yes,Bush thought he could start a positive pro western revolution in Arabia on the cheap in Iraq,I think the facts bear that out. Bad thinking there,failure of the Sun Tzu pronciple,"Know your enemy".

Concerning this little debate about invading NK ,Iraq or Iran.

NK is as isolated geographically as any state on earth. They have no natural affinity for or from our main enemy,ISLAM. They would create the most casualties with the least payback strategically. Easiest to contain by sea quarantine.

Bad idea under any conditions to waste the tiny wartime military force we do have .

Now it's between Iraq and Iran.

I say Iraq makes imminently more sense when we consider the casualties we would take in Iran relative to Iraq,added to the central position of Iraq geographically and spiritually to the ENEMY. Baghdad is after all the first islamic caliphate. The enemy has made it clear how important a loss there is to them,I doubt an American style democracy in Iran means as much to the enemy and very few Sunni jihadis would have come to Tehran to fight Americans,IMO.

We gain more and lose less by taking on Iraq in this war. failing to use sufficient harshness to prevail is a seperate issue,it sort of stands to reason if you're bold enough to go to war,you will use the necessary force to win the da,mn thing.

Truthfully,we're done with making decisions who WE want to invade,we've failed to prevail in 2 really weak opposition areas,it might be we get surprised and find ourselves on the defense before long. Weakness has a way of emboldening those who hate you.


- mv - 10-15-2006

Anonymous24 Wrote:The South Koreans could take NK by themselves.

No way.
NK has 1 million-strong standing army. SK will not be able to tolerate the losses, even if they could ultimately prevail. Moreover, they are not psychologically ready for this. Are you aware that 40% of S.Koreans blame the US for the NK nuclear test?

---

Now, Palladin, I'm actually mostly in agreement.

The source of the error (and the current situation) was insufficient attention to Iran: Bush allowed it to become the main benefiary of the war and this nullified the original reasons for the invasion.


- Palladin - 10-15-2006

MV,

I agree with you that a war INVADING NK,us or the ROK would be disastrous and only a nave doesn't understand that.

My only disagreement is that if we used necessary brutality to prevail in Iraq,Iran would not be as bold or dangerous,nor would any Iraqi.

I see our humanitarian version of combat as a tool for our enemy.

We would have been safer to have ignored 9-11 and let the enemy wonder.

For those here and everywhere who think my view of the "harsh logic of war" is either non Christian,non humanitarian or non moral,come see me when YOUR children,wives,mothers and finally yourselves are being mauled,raped and murdered because we allowed this virus to exist in our humanitarianism.

I'd say right about when your own child is raped and has her head cut off in front of you,you will achieve OBJECTIVE STATUS.

That's the problem with most people,we have this difficulty seeing our real options,we want so desperately to exist in a world that never has existed.


- mv - 10-15-2006

Palladin,

Palladin Wrote:MV,

My only disagreement is that if we used necessary brutality to prevail in Iraq,Iran would not be as bold or dangerous,nor would any Iraqi.

Quite possibly so.

I cannot narrow the error to one particular action. Possibly brutality was the answer. Possibly keeping the pro-Iranian groups down. Possibly bombing Iran at the slightest provocation.

The problem is that we allowed the balance of power to change in unfavorable direction, and the three years it took were ripe with opportunitites.


- Anonymous24 - 10-15-2006

Here's an option: disengage and let the SK, Japan, China handle it. Better yet, let the Japs arm themselves and deal with it without China.

How would this be 'unrealistic'. Bush's starting platform was to disengage from Korea!(this was before 9/11) What has our presence there over 50+ years accomplished?


- Palladin - 10-15-2006

MV,

It wasn't humanitarian concern for Japanese and German grandmothers that changed those 2 peoples to nice people. We knocked the he.ll out of them. Let their grandmothers fight dogs for food,when they desired to stop with their evil,we fed their remaining grandmothers.

That same attitude whips this neanderthal bunch as well. Fallujah should still be smoking from the devastation we put on them for all to see and I think waziristan should be as well.

We have to remember,it wasn't us that started or wanted this war and our failure is we did not give them more than they bargained for.

Anon,

Look,NK is not a major problem compared to Islam,I don't personally care if Kim invaded the south and took it over. I wouldn't be a bit concerned.

Korea,all of it ,is entirely a non event to our current problems.

Our past troop presence there prevented Kim's dad from doing just that,but had he and succeeded,it was a non event to us,Korea is strategically zilch,always was strategically zilch. truman just wasn't in the mood to allow Joe Stalin to take any further territory in 1950 so he made the call to intervene,but Korea in and of itself is nearly worthless land to us strategically.

I think we maintain some presence today more as an Asian Army base for Asian use than to protect them,Kim isn't going to invade the south,the south would devatstate his Army down there. IMO.