I'm with you on a lot of this, but a couple of items stick out...

[quote=BondGuy]

What tangled web. Il doesn't want nuclear war any more than we do.

[/quote]

I wouldn't bet the farm on him being rational...he's already said it would be far worse for us than for him. He's pretty happy as it is starving his people to death.

[quote=BondGuy]Talk - Not talking hasn't worked. This is Bush playing hardball. And while hardball must be played, a different route to the bargaining table must be found. [/quote]

Carter's two-party talks (under Clinton) worked as well as his boycott of the 1980 Olympics.... Bush's six party talks give us a chance to get China and Japan involved, at least...it's the better of the bad choices.

[quote=BondGuy]

NK has bargained in the past. They have shown that they are willing to deal. [/quote]

I wish that were true. What they've shown they're willing to do is make an agreement, break it in private, and take billions of US taxpayer money for the bargain and strave their population while building nukes.

[quote=BondGuy]Verifiable destruction of the fuel rods, all existing nuclear weapons, and materials, as well as conventional heavy weapons is what we want. We do the same on our side with the conventional weapons in SKand give NK a path to join the world's economic order. [/quote]

They've already shown they wouldn't allow real inspections for verification. They're also not going to give up conventional heavy weapons (whatever that is, exactly) nor should we. I wish it were this simple. I really see no way out but an ugly struggle for containment until this regime falls from its own weight.

Finally, they have no interest in joinging the world's economic order, in fact, perhaps now is the time the world can get together and close off the "hermit kingdom" as I read it referred to today.

[quote=BondGuy]Bush isn't my first choice for getting this done. Just what we needed, a nuclear showdown with this guy at the helm. [/quote]

Hey, what do you know, Bush-bashing is like jello, there's always room for it..

[quote=BondGuy]Lumping NK into the axis of evil didn't help our position. [/quote]

I think it does/did. Being delusional about the reality of  North Korea, ala Carter, sure didn't help. A clear eyed appraisal of the situation was called for.

[quote=BondGuy]Neither does the doctrine of preemptive disarmament. If you were Il, you'd be building Nuclear bombs too. [/quote]

Right, that's what got the old nutcase to build nukes, Bush and Iraq...

[quote=Soothsayer]

I think we should institue a full naval blockade of N. Korea immediately.  Nothing comes in or goes out.  {/quote]

It may come to that, but I hope not...

[quote=Soothsayer]

  What would N. Korea do? 

Probably start launching artillery shells at downtown Seoul.  That would probably go on for 3-4 weeks.  When they ran out of ammuntion, then give them what they have always asked for--direct talks with the United States (while we're holding their balls).  [/quote]

Along with shells, they'd send that million man army and kill tens of thousands (including Americans) in the process. Not a good thing by any measure..

[quote=BrokerRecruit]The first thing that entered my mind when the news broke on this the other day is “and we’re bringing a baby into this world.”  Who knows what will happen, but it does get very real and very scary when you think about the extremes.[/quote]

Life brings hope.  All the more reason to bring a baby into this world.

And by the way; congratulations!

Thx.  It’s always a little scary, though, when you think about what the global landscape could look like in six months.  Take September 10, 2001 for example and compare it to the world today.  Just goes to show what can happen in the blink of an eye.

[quote=mikebutler222]

I'm with you on a lot of this, but a couple of items stick out...

[quote=BondGuy]

What tangled web. Il doesn't want nuclear war any more than we do.

[/quote]

I wouldn't bet the farm on him being rational...he's already said it would be far worse for us than for him. He's pretty happy as it is starving his people to death.

[quote=BondGuy]Talk - Not talking hasn't worked. This is Bush playing hardball. And while hardball must be played, a different route to the bargaining table must be found. [/quote]

Carter's two-party talks (under Clinton) worked as well as his boycott of the 1980 Olympics.... Bush's six party talks give us a chance to get China and Japan involved, at least...it's the better of the bad choices.

[quote=BondGuy]

NK has bargained in the past. They have shown that they are willing to deal. [/quote]

I wish that were true. What they've shown they're willing to do is make an agreement, break it in private, and take billions of US taxpayer money for the bargain and strave their population while building nukes.

[quote=BondGuy]Verifiable destruction of the fuel rods, all existing nuclear weapons, and materials, as well as conventional heavy weapons is what we want. We do the same on our side with the conventional weapons in SKand give NK a path to join the world's economic order. [/quote]

They've already shown they wouldn't allow real inspections for verification. They're also not going to give up conventional heavy weapons (whatever that is, exactly) nor should we. I wish it were this simple. I really see no way out but an ugly struggle for containment until this regime falls from its own weight.

Finally, they have no interest in joinging the world's economic order, in fact, perhaps now is the time the world can get together and close off the "hermit kingdom" as I read it referred to today.

[quote=BondGuy]Bush isn't my first choice for getting this done. Just what we needed, a nuclear showdown with this guy at the helm. [/quote]

Hey, what do you know, Bush-bashing is like jello, there's always room for it..

[quote=BondGuy]Lumping NK into the axis of evil didn't help our position. [/quote]

I think it does/did. Being delusional about the reality of  North Korea, ala Carter, sure didn't help. A clear eyed appraisal of the situation was called for.

[quote=BondGuy]Neither does the doctrine of preemptive disarmament. If you were Il, you'd be building Nuclear bombs too. [/quote]

Right, that's what got the old nutcase to build nukes, Bush and Iraq...

[/quote]

Heavy weapons would be artillery and armored vehicles. This works for us because we would be reducing the threat without giving up our far more important technological advantage.

Carter may not have gotten it exactly right in 1994, but he played an important roll in averting nuclear war at that time. Something he and Clinton get no credit for, as big as that was.

As for bashing Bush. Looking at his team's track record this isn't a cheap shot. It's a reality. On this forum we harp endlessly about the value of experience. Bush admitted before taking office that he knew nothing about world affairs, which is why we have the Vulcans. This group wanted to wipe Iraq off the face of the planet during the nineties but couldn't get Clinton to pull the trigger. They finally got their chance. Now look at this mess we're in. Clueless president advised by war mongering incompetents with an agenda. Case closed!

Threatening unfriendly countries with preemptive war has done immeasurable damage to our abilty to maintain peace in the world. And yes, as the world's lone superpower, that responsibility falls on our shoulders. In the mid nineties we found ourselves in an envious position. As a superpower, we had no equals. We still don't.  We had choices about how to wield that power. In 2001 the Vulcans chose preemptive war as the centerpiece of our foreign policy. Not only not a smart way to go, an inexcusable way to go, as history will show. In the eyes of much of the world we are no better than a bully with a baseball bat. If you're not a like minded country, and find yourself on the short list of targets, would you arm yourself? Or at least give yourself some bargaining chips? Absolutely! Il is a lunatic sociopath who will go down in history as a monster, but make no mistake, this is about failed foreign policy.

Iran is watching.

You might was well ask them to give up the border. They'll never give up the million man army they starve their people to keep. If it wasn't for the hatred and paranoia the regime has instilled in their people for the South and the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US, they'd collapse, and they know it. They've been on a wartime footing for better than 50 years and that fact should be realized.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=BondGuy]

Carter may not have gotten it exactly right in 1994, but he played an important roll in averting nuclear war at that time. Something he and Clinton get no credit for, as big as that was.[/quote]

Please tell me you’re joking. “May not have gotten it exactly right”????

There was no threat of nuclear war when Carter assembled the ridiculous deal that caused us to pay billions in bribes while the North Koreans went right on in the march to produce nukes. We wasted a decade that could have been spent getting partners together, as Bush did when we dropped the bilateral agreement and moved to the six party talks, to face the reality of North Korea and its aims.

[quote=BondGuy]As for bashing Bush. Looking at his team's track record this isn't a cheap shot. [/quote]

It is completely a cheap shot, all 20,000 words you devote to it. There’s nothing North Korea is doing today that they wouldn’t have done had Bush never come to office, much less never gone to Iraq.

[quote=mikebutler222]

You might was well ask them to give up the border. They'll never give up the million man army they starve their people to keep. If it wasn't for the hatred and paranoia the regime has instilled in their people for the South and the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US, they'd collapse, and they know it. They've been on a wartime footing for better than 50 years and that fact should be realized.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=BondGuy]

Carter may not have gotten it exactly right in 1994, but he played an important roll in averting nuclear war at that time. Something he and Clinton get no credit for, as big as that was.[/quote]

Please tell me you’re joking. “May not have gotten it exactly right”????

There was no threat of nuclear war when Carter assembled the ridiculous deal that caused us to pay billions in bribes while the North Koreans went right on in the march to produce nukes. We wasted a decade that could have been spent getting partners together, as Bush did when we dropped the bilateral agreement and moved to the six party talks, to face the reality of North Korea and its aims.

[quote=BondGuy]As for bashing Bush. Looking at his team's track record this isn't a cheap shot. [/quote]

It is completely a cheap shot, all 20,000 words you devote to it. There’s nothing North Korea is doing today that they wouldn’t have done had Bush never come to office, much less never gone to Iraq.

[/quote]

No joke Mike. 94 was as close to nuclear war as we've come since Cuba.

Clinton put too much trust into the deal was brokered. Say what you will about it, that Clinton gave in to blackmail etc, the bottom line is that that deal stopped the production of nuclear weapons for eight years. Yeah, NK broke the agreement, no argument there, but instead of having hundreds of nukes they've only got a few. A win in my book.

Considering all that has transpired over the past couple of years, anyone else here think I was taking a cheap shot?

The six party talks are why we are where we are. Failure is failure. There is no other way to spell it. If we'd taking another tack with Il, who knows? We'll never know the road not taken. But we sure know a wrong road when taken. Obviously, ignoring him was the wrong road. Hopefully, as the father of 3 draft  aged children, we won't pay for this mistake with American lives. Iraq is also a failure. All Bush.

Considering the current climate on this board, I have come to three conclusions regarding online political discussions:

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

Just my opinion.  I could be wrong.


JC
[/quote]

Exactly.  You are.

I’ve never read such absurd things on this board.  Do you often make up lies to sound competent JCadieux? 

[quote=BondGuy]

No joke Mike. 94 was as close to nuclear war as we've come since Cuba. [/quote]

Either you're joking or your accidentally demonstrating you’re out of your depth on this topic. For us to come close to nuclear war, both parties have to have the weapons available. In 1994, North Korea didn’t have them, in fact, over a decade later, we’re not sure they have them.

[quote=BondGuy]

Clinton put too much trust into the deal was brokered. Say what you will about it, that Clinton gave in to blackmail etc, the bottom line is that that deal stopped the production of nuclear weapons for eight years. [/quote]

You’re right on the first part (although I blame Carter more than Clinton, since, by accounts of people involved, Carter inserted himself in the situation and handed Clinton a fait accompli) it’s an error that sprang from not seeing clearly what the threat was and being willing to paper over the issue to be popular with those whose advice is always “stability”. On the second part, you’re simply wrong. North Korea continued their progress towards nuclear weapons without a hitch and with massive piles of US cash.

[quote=BondGuy]

Yeah, NK broke the agreement, no argument there, but instead of having hundreds of nukes they've only got a few. A win in my book. [/quote]

They weren’t able to make “hundreds” then and whatever they have now they would have had without US cash and with international condemnation for the past decade. Sorry, no “win” unless you rewrite history.

[quote=BondGuy]

The six party talks are why we are where we are. [/quote]

Not so, and that comment demonstrates the underlying failure to see on your part. North Korea’s regime’s nature, and our refusal to clearly see it with clarity when they started down this path is why we’re here.

The six party talks started late (should have started in 1994), and didn’t stop the nutcase from producing (we think) what he intended to all along, but blaming them for “why we’re here” is like blaming WWII on the failure of Chamberlain to achieve “peace in our time” rather than blaming Hitler for doing what he intended from day one.

[quote=BondGuy] If we'd taking another tack with Il, who knows? We'll never know the road not taken. [/quote]

Let’s see, we tried the “lets stand alone, try to bribe them, and let them produce weapons anyway” approach and we tried the “let’s stand with friends, no bribes, and try as a world to stop this” approach. Care to name a third (only those with some shred of reality need apply) that “who knows” might have worked?

[quote=BondGuy] Hopefully, as the father of 3 draft aged children, we won't pay for this mistake with American lives. Iraq is also a failure. All Bush.

[/quote]

Seriously, the attempt to score political points on this, and the “Iraq is a failure” (let’s not bother to see it through to conclusion, just call it a failure now is to me like making the same judgment about WWII during the Battle of the Bulge) stuff is all cheap politics, and made worse by the seriousness of the situation. If you can name a single thing North Korea is doing now, that they wouldn’t have done had Bush never came to office, feel free to spell it out.

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/QUOTE]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

[quote=Grammar Police]Shut up.[/quote]

Shut up.

Let the countdown begin…

[quote=mikebutler222]Let the countdown begin....[/quote]

There is only one period needed to end a sentence.  I thought you were a smart guy.  Obviously not.

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

Just my opinion.  I could be wrong.


JC
[/quote]

Exactly.  You are.

Wow. That guy has lost some mental capacity in the past couple months. I love it.

[quote=mikebutler222]

Along with shells, they'd send that million man army and kill tens of thousands (including Americans) in the process. Not a good thing by any measure..

[/quote]

Is their million man army anything like Saddam's vaunted Republican Guard?  Because, I dealt with them myself and wasn't all that impressed.  Trust me, North Korea doesn't have 1 million armed and trained soldiers, nor the logistical capability to keep them engaged in a fight very long.  They'll fire artillery until we can shut it down, but they won't go on a military offensive.  They'll hole up on their own turf, and try to shoot down the planes that are bombing the artillery positions. 

Our navy is an extremely effective tool to extend and project force while remaining somewhat passive.  There would be those willing to try to run the blockade for a few days or so.  But, when they saw the price paid for that, they would get smart real quick. 

[quote=Soothsayer][quote=mikebutler222]

Along with shells, they'd send that million man army and kill tens of thousands (including Americans) in the process. Not a good thing by any measure..

[/quote]

Is their million man army anything like Saddam's vaunted Republican Guard? [/quote]

Not in the slightest, but I sure wish it was. The North Koreans are deadly serious, and crazy as hell. I can point out examples from the tree cutting incident in the DMZ to flights in Panmunjeom to them digging multiple truck sized tunnels under the DMZ. No, they're not like the Republican Guard now, or in the 1950s.

[quote=Soothsayer] Trust me, North Korea doesn't have 1 million armed and trained soldiers, nor the logistical capability to keep them engaged in a fight very long. [/quote]

I don’t know why I should trust you more than my own eyes and experience. Their logtail is a problem for them(ours is as well), otoh, they don't require near what we do. Make no mistake about the size of their army or how serious it is. These guys are the real deal (no, I didn't personally see all 1 million of them, but I saw enough on the DMZ, including their assumed assault plans, to take them seriously) and we don't have much more in South Korea than a speed bump.

They could push us damned near off the peninsula (as they almost did in 1950) before we could respond in a meaningful way. Think Taskforce Smith all over again.

[quote=Soothsayer] They'll fire artillery until we can shut it down, but they won't go on a military offensive. [/quote]

I wish that were the case. Like the old Soviet Army, they’re real believers in artillery, and we don‘t have enough counter-battery to dent them. The better bet is that they'd have leveled half of Seoul before they walked into it.

[quote=Soothsayer]

They'll hole up on their own turf, and try to shoot down the planes that are bombing the artillery positions. [/quote]

We wouldn’t be sending in planes on arty positions, we’d try to use tube cannon or MLRS. Planes would be reserved for higher priority targets.

[quote=Soothsayer]

Our navy is an extremely effective tool to extend and project force while remaining somewhat passive. There would be those willing to try to run the blockade for a few days or so. But, when they saw the price paid for that, they would get smart real quick.

[/quote]

Again, I wish I could agree, but I don’t think you understand the nature of the fanaticism at work here. I don’t think I’m telling tales out of school here by hinting at 20 year old battle plans, but let me suggest to you that the 2nd I.D.’s plan was to delay and withdraw, and that’s when we had an entire division there. They had no delusions about how the opening days would go.

[quote=Grammar Police]

[quote=mikebutler222]Let the countdown begin....[/quote]

There is only one period needed to end a sentence.  I thought you were a smart guy.  Obviously not.

[/quote]

It's called an ellipses and it has been used correctly.  The last dot IS the period.  Had mikebutler included words after the ellipses, then there would only be 3 dots.  And you are the Grammar Police?