Rumfeld is at it again..

Falstaff · Jun 12, 2003, 05:42 AM

Mr. Rumsfeld is on his way to meetings with Nato and he couldn't help but refer to France and Germany as old Europe, within the context of the new world order the former soviet satelites are now part of "new " europe and represent a portion of support for the coalition efforts in Iraq. I cannot help but thing that Struck is irritated with Rumsfeld and dismissed the comments about europe as just irritations. I think Rumsfeld really likes pissing people off. France is in the middle of strikes and germany's unemployment is rising, they all have some real problems that their present governments will probably not be able to remedy within the period of their respective terms of leadership. I wonder if Rumsfeld is trying in some way to repolarize the political climate in "old europe" in the United States favor.

JavaFox · Jun 12, 2003, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fallang_jeff
I wonder if Rumsfeld is trying in some way to repolarize the political climate in "old europe" in the United States favor.

Perhaps, but this strikes me as a somewhat incoherent strategy in that case. I think it is mostly just frustration on the part of Rumsfeld. Frankly, it is heartening to see that Poland is taking an active role in rebuilding Iraq along with the US and the UK. I hope that the US does shift its presence to reflect changing alliances. Generally speaking, France has been strikingly anti-American and acts very much like an enemy than a friend. In light of this new (or have the French always hated us?) reality, I hope we do shift some of our bases to friendlier Eastern states.

Falstaff · Jun 12, 2003, 01:36 PM

It seems that European support is shifting to the east, but I think Rumsfled is politically myopic and like a blind prise fighter swings at anything that gets in his way. I am a military guy and so is my family, we tend to think of Rumfeld as a loose cannon, what other might call a real "HAWK". The original plan and engagement in IRAQ might be victory for Tommy Franks, because he did the best he could with the resources that Rumsfeld let him use. But now we have a nation rebuilding itself with the same lawless and dangerous members of it's military regime. I personally think that Saddam might be still alive, and that he is in fact paying bounties on dead americans. Until the IRAQI people see the human remains or see the photos of a dead Hussien, they might continue to resist change in IRAQ, I think Rumsfelds business isn't finished in IRAQ and often wonder if he wanted just one really hard victory to erase the Hussien regime and move on. but it isn't that simple I suppose. And the french government have always wanted be on the winning team. They bitch and moan, they hide their true intentions but when it comes down to it I think they will fall into line...Chirac won't be there forever and he is having some real political problems, as well as Schroeder. Poland and Albania clearly have demonstrated support and seem ready to pick up the slack so to speak, I am over forty years old, and I though I would never see this happen, but then times are changing aren't they. It all adds fuel to the end of the world arguments...I wonder if Rumsfeld is part of the New World Order. Did Rumsfeld create the circumstances, or did the circumstances create our Rumsfled, becuase frankly he scares the hell out of me...

GOG · Jun 12, 2003, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Perhaps, but this strikes me as a somewhat incoherent strategy in that case. I think it is mostly just frustration on the part of Rumsfeld. Frankly, it is heartening to see that Poland is taking an active role in rebuilding Iraq along with the US and the UK. I hope that the US does shift its presence to reflect changing alliances. Generally speaking, France has been strikingly anti-American and acts very much like an enemy than a friend. In light of this new (or have the French always hated us?) reality, I hope we do shift some of our bases to friendlier Eastern states.

Psst... JavaFox... They are only friendly because you supply them with money. No-one likes the presence of your military. And Poland "rebuilding" Iraq isn't out of heart, it's out of money.

UberLord · Jun 12, 2003, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GOG
No-one likes the presence of your military.

That's not entirely true. I'm sure the local harlots love the American troops.
Also, they're well liked in the UK.

JavaFox · Jun 12, 2003, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GOG
Psst... JavaFox... They are only friendly because you supply them with money. No-one likes the presence of your military. And Poland "rebuilding" Iraq isn't out of heart, it's out of money.

That's a stupendously general statement. You think that the older generation of South Koreans don't like the US' presence? You think there aren't at least some people in Iraq that are glad we're there? You think all Filipinos resent the help we've been giving them in fighting Abu Sayyaf?

Strive to stay away from logical fallacies. What you say about American money probably has a lot of truth to it, but to say that nobody likes the presence of our military is absurd and impossible to back up.

GOG · Jun 12, 2003, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
That's a stupendously general statement. You think that the older generation of South Koreans don't like the US' presence? You think there aren't at least some people in Iraq that are glad we're there? You think all Filipinos resent the help we've been giving them in fighting Abu Sayyaf?

Strive to stay away from logical fallacies. What you say about American money probably has a lot of truth to it, but to say that nobody likes the presence of our military is absurd and impossible to back up.

Is it? Maybe it's only me, but as I see it your government is not stationing troops all over the world out of kindness. You're doing it out of own interest, nothing else. And please explain to me why a country that almost started WWIII when the Russians wanted to place nuclear weapons on Cuba should be allowed to do exactly the same just some miles outside my coast. It's so completely naive to think that you are some kind of saviors of world peace just with your presence. IF North Korea invaded their neighbour in the south, you would probably have all of your troops evacuated and done nothing. It has been proven time after time that when the opinion turns in the USA and US-soldiers starts to die, your country backs out of the heat.

Sure, your country did a great sacrifice in WWII and I thank you for that, but comparing the US foreign politics then with the present is an insult to all of your soldiers that died back then.

FuNsTeR · Jun 12, 2003, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UberLord
That's not entirely true. they're well liked in the UK.

wanna a bet on that

digerati · Jun 12, 2003, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GOG
Is it? Maybe it's only me, but as I see it your government is not stationing troops all over the world out of kindness. You're doing it out of own interest, nothing else. And please explain to me why a country that almost started WWIII when the Russians wanted to place nuclear weapons on Cuba should be allowed to do exactly the same just some miles outside my coast. It's so completely naive to think that you are some kind of saviors of world peace just with your presence. IF North Korea invaded their neighbour in the south, you would probably have all of your troops evacuated and done nothing. It has been proven time after time that when the opinion turns in the USA and US-soldiers starts to die, your country backs out of the heat.

Sure, your country did a great sacrifice in WWII and I thank you for that, but comparing the US foreign politics then with the present is an insult to all of your soldiers that died back then.

Oh yeah, we so did that in the Vietnam and Korean war. How typical of us!

mike2h · Jun 12, 2003, 11:39 PM

wonder how gog thinks those us troops got in s korea in the first place?
at least the us does try & do something, wether it is right or wrong, instead of sitting on the sidelines all the time hoping things work out or just go away.

digerati · Jun 13, 2003, 12:40 AM

Oh and just in case he pulls out the us withdrawing part, we were in the Vietnam war for what? 7 years? And there protests what? the last 5 of those years? And we still went to war. So don't be like "Yeah well the US withdrew after they lost some soldiers!"

Falstaff · Jun 13, 2003, 02:08 AM

Military troop presence in many countrys with the exception of cuba, afghanistan and IRAQ are arranged with the powers in place as part of a 'STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT'. We work in conjunction with foriegn governments to maintain security and project power, and stave off communism or any other threat. America is powerful and a credible force. There are always economic advantages to U.S. bases. With the nuclear spector hiding behind every dictater, the need for this influence may increase in time.

We went to vietnam to rescue the french, keep an anti communist power in place, peform covert activity against communist forces in China, Cambodia, Laos, Russia, N. Korea, N. Vietnam, etc....

I have to add that we could win a sustained conflict with N. Korea, they are not all they are cracked up to be.

In addition our foriegn policy is very much like it was after WW2, that is what scares me!

Time is running out for the small theater operations with conventional weapons..

I forsee a nuclear horizen...

GOG · Jun 13, 2003, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ^_^
Oh and just in case he pulls out the us withdrawing part, we were in the Vietnam war for what? 7 years? And there protests what? the last 5 of those years? And we still went to war. So don't be like "Yeah well the US withdrew after they lost some soldiers!"

Yes, you were in Vietnam for nine years, and what did you accomplish?

US Army Casualties

Deaths: 38,194

Vietnamese Casualties

North Vietnamese army deaths (EST): 666,000
North Vietnamese civilian deaths (EST): 65,000
South Vietnamese army deaths: 220,357
South Vietnamese civilian deaths (EST):300,000
South/North Vietnamese MIA's: 300,000

There were also civilian casualties in Laos and Cambodja, unfortunately I have found no figures regarding these.

You can add to this that even today, children are born with defects in Vietnam due to your use of a herbicide called Agent Orange. Of course the US government has not paid one cent in compensation. There was an cease fire agreement between Nixon and Van Dong of a compensation of $3,250 million for the rebuilding of Vietnam. Instead the US government freezes Vietnamese assets of $70 million and later sets up a blockade against the country. In 1997, Vietnam would begin to pay the USA $145,000,000 of debts incurred by the USA backed government of South Vietnam after pressure from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

American citizens are evacuated from Saigon while loyal South Vietnamese who had supported the Americans are abandoned to their fate. 7000 people are air lifted from Saigon in 18 hours. When you evacuated your troops in Vietnam the Communism was stronger than ever, the only difference was that nearly 1,500,000 (3,000,000 by other estimations) people hadlost their lives and half the country was polluted.

Vietnam is the worst example you can bring up when it comes to the reliability of your government.

Falstaff · Jun 13, 2003, 06:31 AM

interestingly enough, Mr. Rumsfeld didn't want another vietnam on his hands either, it is a black eye for foreign policy, and for two administrations, three if you count Nixon, but he got us the heck out of there.

The military went through some remarkable changes for sure, we embraced our limitations , my father did two tours and even manned a top secret sight in Cambodia as well. He can't talk about his adventures but his pictures tell all.
I will say that the casualties in Laos and Cambodia will never be known. but they are estimated in the millions, and not just because of Pol Pot.
It took the occupation of Afghanistan and Chechniya to make the russians realize they were making the same mistakes.
You know what we brought from Vietnam and Cambodia?....criminals, tribal grudges and better drugs.

Vietnam is in my opinion a real test for the american military, and if the politicians hadn't attempted to control everything, we certainly could have walked all the way to the northern border of N. Vietnam...
This is not idle jest, we could have done it, but washington tied the hands of the military...that led to countless innocent deaths and the cream of american youth spilling their blood in the rice patties...

I have seen footage shot by N vietnamese cameramen and it has a real personal quality, it hides nothing and it reveals the terrible struggle these simple people suffered fighting the French and Americans...

I believe the cost was too high...Vietnam was a terrible mistake....To hell with Kennedy and McNamarra, they sent your boys to die in a fruitless conflict...

digerati · Jun 13, 2003, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GOG
Yes, you were in Vietnam for nine years, and what did you accomplish?

US Army Casualties

Deaths: 38,194

Vietnamese Casualties

North Vietnamese army deaths (EST): 666,000
North Vietnamese civilian deaths (EST): 65,000
South Vietnamese army deaths: 220,357
South Vietnamese civilian deaths (EST):300,000
South/North Vietnamese MIA's: 300,000

There were also civilian casualties in Laos and Cambodja, unfortunately I have found no figures regarding these.

You can add to this that even today, children are born with defects in Vietnam due to your use of a herbicide called Agent Orange. Of course the US government has not paid one cent in compensation. There was an cease fire agreement between Nixon and Van Dong of a compensation of $3,250 million for the rebuilding of Vietnam. Instead the US government freezes Vietnamese assets of $70 million and later sets up a blockade against the country. In 1997, Vietnam would begin to pay the USA $145,000,000 of debts incurred by the USA backed government of South Vietnam after pressure from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

American citizens are evacuated from Saigon while loyal South Vietnamese who had supported the Americans are abandoned to their fate. 7000 people are air lifted from Saigon in 18 hours. When you evacuated your troops in Vietnam the Communism was stronger than ever, the only difference was that nearly 1,500,000 (3,000,000 by other estimations) people hadlost their lives and half the country was polluted.

Vietnam is the worst example you can bring up when it comes to the reliability of your government.

I was just proving we were there. And I was right, don't stray off topic. I don't support the vietnam war, that was a useless war, it prolonged communism taking over wasting countless lives as even your numbers are estimates. But we were there and we stayed there until it became apparent no victory was in sight.

Falstaff · Jun 13, 2003, 01:56 PM

Even when Kennedy knew we couldn't possibly win, he commited our forces anyway, surely he learned from the Bay of Pigs invasion. But Kennedy never trusted the military after that and frankly never did Pres. Johnson..

kp59583 · Jun 14, 2003, 05:17 PM

Gog you don't have a clue about americans if you think we wouldn't defend South Korea. We whould have solved the problem during the Korean War but the world and americans were tired of war and it would have probably lead to WWIII.

JavaFox · Jun 15, 2003, 02:15 AM

Well, Kp, we are pulling back from the DMZ, but that's more because we don't want our troops to die in the first artillery strike. Yes, we Americans would defend the Korean penninsula, no doubt about that. If GOG wanted to make a point about Americans running away after a little bloodshed, he could have brought up Mogadishu; Korea is an extremely poor example, considering thousands upon thousands of American spilt their blood to make South Korea the relatively prosperous nation it is today. We have had our troops vigilantly watching that border for fifty years now, and they will remain there, no doubt, long after the North Korean regime is dead and gone.

Falstaff · Jun 15, 2003, 03:07 AM

Without the support of the chinese, and the advanced tecnology at our disposal and the alliance with the Japanese and S. Korean army and airforce, it would be a matter of several weeks to completely devastate the N. Korean military, that is why I can hardly accept anything the N. Koreans do as little more than sabre rattling. N. Korean spys have infiltrated S. Korea and sitll hold japanese hostages. The N. Korean army sits on vast stores of food, to enable them to sustain a long campaign against aggresion, but it isn't sustainable, in my opinion, hostility against a coalition of U.S. backed forces can be measured in weeks or perhaps days...

JavaFox · Jun 15, 2003, 03:17 AM

No doubt, Jeff. Had the North Koreans not had Chinese support, MacArthur and his men would have crushed the North Koreans fifty years ago.

Falstaff · Jun 15, 2003, 03:22 AM

If MacArthur hadn't been sacked..

GOG · Jun 15, 2003, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kp59583
Gog you don't have a clue about americans if you think we wouldn't defend South Korea. We whould have solved the problem during the Korean War but the world and americans were tired of war and it would have probably lead to WWIII.

And you don't think a strike on NK today will start WWIII?

GOG · Jun 15, 2003, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fallang_jeff
Without the support of the chinese, and the advanced tecnology at our disposal and the alliance with the Japanese and S. Korean army and airforce, it would be a matter of several weeks to completely devastate the N. Korean military, that is why I can hardly accept anything the N. Koreans do as little more than sabre rattling. N. Korean spys have infiltrated S. Korea and sitll hold japanese hostages. The N. Korean army sits on vast stores of food, to enable them to sustain a long campaign against aggresion, but it isn't sustainable, in my opinion, hostility against a coalition of U.S. backed forces can be measured in weeks or perhaps days...

This isn't a starved army from years of sanctions. It's a well equiped and a motivated one, with neighbours capable of wiping the whole asia out ten times over. Not even an american president would be that stupid, calling that hand.

And no, the Chinese government would never allow you to use military force in their backyard and they sure wouldn't let the Japanese army use it.

GOG · Jun 15, 2003, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Well, Kp, we are pulling back from the DMZ, but that's more because we don't want our troops to die in the first artillery strike. Yes, we Americans would defend the Korean penninsula, no doubt about that. If GOG wanted to make a point about Americans running away after a little bloodshed, he could have brought up Mogadishu; Korea is an extremely poor example, considering thousands upon thousands of American spilt their blood to make South Korea the relatively prosperous nation it is today. We have had our troops vigilantly watching that border for fifty years now, and they will remain there, no doubt, long after the North Korean regime is dead and gone.

Korea? I thought I wrote about Vietnam?

Falstaff · Jun 15, 2003, 04:59 AM

Quote:

And you don't think a strike on NK today will start WWIII?

yes, that is why I am hoping and praying this is all sabre rattling, you know brinksmanship..

Quote:

This isn't a starved army from years of sanctions. It's a well equiped and a motivated one, with neighbours capable of wiping the whole asia out ten times over. Not even an american president would be that stupid, calling that hand.

No I am afraid it would be the N. Koreans, I am sure the upcoming opening of the railroad link between N. and S. Korea will not warm hearts so readily as some might think...I see it as a pipeline for change.

Quote:

And no, the Chinese government would never allow you to use military force in their backyard and they sure wouldn't let the Japanese army use it.

The chinese have had thousands of years of political experience, they no doubt might express regret, warn the west and intervene politically on behalf of the N. and S. Koreans..
GOG I am not at liberty to tell you how many nuclear weapons we have S. Korea, but suffice to say that scenerio is played over and over in battlefield schools over and over again......and we win every time...
Now that scares me..a 10 kt weapon would make a crater, kill people and leave weapons intact...and cause marginal atmospheric pollution and be safe within a year or two if there is no rain. The N. Koreans know this, this is the reason behind their posturing...I hope all this dialogue will end up being a catalyst for peace...I know my fellow republicans will admonish me for this, but if the Koreans just learn to be courteous and respectfull then there is a chance for peace..something Israel and Palestine will never have.

Quote:

Korea? I thought I wrote about Vietnam?

I thought you wrote about Korea too....

JavaFox · Jun 15, 2003, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GOG
And you don't think a strike on NK today will start WWIII?

No, not at all. North Korea doesn't have a friend in the world.

JavaFox · Jun 15, 2003, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GOG
Korea? I thought I wrote about Vietnam?

Quote:

Originally posted by GOG
IF North Korea invaded their neighbour in the south, you would probably have all of your troops evacuated and done nothing. It has been proven time after time that when the opinion turns in the USA and US-soldiers starts to die, your country backs out of the heat.

JavaFox · Jun 15, 2003, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GOG
And no, the Chinese government would never allow you to use military force in their backyard and they sure wouldn't let the Japanese army use it.

Japan doesn't have a military in the standard sense; it is a severely regulated Self Defense Force (Jieitai).

Fearsome, huh?

Actually, I hope to see Japan erect a real military within my lifetime.

Falstaff · Jun 15, 2003, 05:36 AM

The Japanese actually have a sophisticated Airforce, Navy and Army and their tanks are on a par with the S.Korean units. They actually train all the time, and I was privilege to participate in joint exercises, they conistently demonstate guile and cunning in tactical and covert missions..dont let the pictures fool you..
the Katana is still sharp and flexible, and the will is strong..The Japanese have iron men as well, and so do the S. Koreans, the media in Japan successfully downplays the importance of a strong and vital military force but they are there, in place and ready at a moments notice. I am always impressed with the dicipline and esprit de corp they demonstrate, and they often up-stage the american military every chance they get during fleet week in Sasebo and Yokohama..
In short....they are more than they appear to be..

JavaFox · Jun 15, 2003, 05:43 AM

Well, Jeff, listen, I wasn't putting down the SDF at all. They are indeed well-trained (as you would expect any Japanese outfit to be), motivated, and possess a love for their country. But there are severe Consitutional limitations on what the SDF's role can be, and the bureaucratic red-tape they have to go through to get anything done is a true nightmare. They have begun to take down some of the barriers, but it is still difficult for the Jieitai do maneuver freely.

Their role is very different from our military; they are defensive. So, yes, while they are a formidible force, it is safe to say, I think, that in the event of a war with North Korea, the SDF will not be seeing combat -- unless it came to within Japanese borders or waters. They might support the US and South Korea with refueling, medical care, and logistics, but they won't be fighting.

What do you think about a true Japanese military?

Jun 12, 2003, 05:42 AM	#1
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	Rumfeld is at it again.. Mr. Rumsfeld is on his way to meetings with Nato and he couldn't help but refer to France and Germany as old Europe, within the context of the new world order the former soviet satelites are now part of "new " europe and represent a portion of support for the coalition efforts in Iraq. I cannot help but thing that Struck is irritated with Rumsfeld and dismissed the comments about europe as just irritations. I think Rumsfeld really likes pissing people off. France is in the middle of strikes and germany's unemployment is rising, they all have some real problems that their present governments will probably not be able to remedy within the period of their respective terms of leadership. I wonder if Rumsfeld is trying in some way to repolarize the political climate in "old europe" in the United States favor. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Jun 12, 2003, 01:36 PM	Thread Starter #3
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	I agree It seems that European support is shifting to the east, but I think Rumsfled is politically myopic and like a blind prise fighter swings at anything that gets in his way. I am a military guy and so is my family, we tend to think of Rumfeld as a loose cannon, what other might call a real "HAWK". The original plan and engagement in IRAQ might be victory for Tommy Franks, because he did the best he could with the resources that Rumsfeld let him use. But now we have a nation rebuilding itself with the same lawless and dangerous members of it's military regime. I personally think that Saddam might be still alive, and that he is in fact paying bounties on dead americans. Until the IRAQI people see the human remains or see the photos of a dead Hussien, they might continue to resist change in IRAQ, I think Rumsfelds business isn't finished in IRAQ and often wonder if he wanted just one really hard victory to erase the Hussien regime and move on. but it isn't that simple I suppose. And the french government have always wanted be on the winning team. They bitch and moan, they hide their true intentions but when it comes down to it I think they will fall into line...Chirac won't be there forever and he is having some real political problems, as well as Schroeder. Poland and Albania clearly have demonstrated support and seem ready to pick up the slack so to speak, I am over forty years old, and I though I would never see this happen, but then times are changing aren't they. It all adds fuel to the end of the world arguments...I wonder if Rumsfeld is part of the New World Order. Did Rumsfeld create the circumstances, or did the circumstances create our Rumsfled, becuase frankly he scares the hell out of me... __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Jun 12, 2003, 11:39 PM	#10
mike2h DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: norcal Posts: 6,483 Rep Power: 91 System Specs	wonder how gog thinks those us troops got in s korea in the first place? at least the us does try & do something, wether it is right or wrong, instead of sitting on the sidelines all the time hoping things work out or just go away. __________________

Jun 13, 2003, 02:08 AM	Thread Starter #12
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	american military presence abroad Military troop presence in many countrys with the exception of cuba, afghanistan and IRAQ are arranged with the powers in place as part of a 'STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT'. We work in conjunction with foriegn governments to maintain security and project power, and stave off communism or any other threat. America is powerful and a credible force. There are always economic advantages to U.S. bases. With the nuclear spector hiding behind every dictater, the need for this influence may increase in time. We went to vietnam to rescue the french, keep an anti communist power in place, peform covert activity against communist forces in China, Cambodia, Laos, Russia, N. Korea, N. Vietnam, etc.... I have to add that we could win a sustained conflict with N. Korea, they are not all they are cracked up to be. In addition our foriegn policy is very much like it was after WW2, that is what scares me! Time is running out for the small theater operations with conventional weapons.. I forsee a nuclear horizen... __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Jun 13, 2003, 06:31 AM	Thread Starter #14
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	Rumsfeld and vietnam interestingly enough, Mr. Rumsfeld didn't want another vietnam on his hands either, it is a black eye for foreign policy, and for two administrations, three if you count Nixon, but he got us the heck out of there. The military went through some remarkable changes for sure, we embraced our limitations , my father did two tours and even manned a top secret sight in Cambodia as well. He can't talk about his adventures but his pictures tell all. I will say that the casualties in Laos and Cambodia will never be known. but they are estimated in the millions, and not just because of Pol Pot. It took the occupation of Afghanistan and Chechniya to make the russians realize they were making the same mistakes. You know what we brought from Vietnam and Cambodia?....criminals, tribal grudges and better drugs. Vietnam is in my opinion a real test for the american military, and if the politicians hadn't attempted to control everything, we certainly could have walked all the way to the northern border of N. Vietnam... This is not idle jest, we could have done it, but washington tied the hands of the military...that led to countless innocent deaths and the cream of american youth spilling their blood in the rice patties... I have seen footage shot by N vietnamese cameramen and it has a real personal quality, it hides nothing and it reveals the terrible struggle these simple people suffered fighting the French and Americans... I believe the cost was too high...Vietnam was a terrible mistake....To hell with Kennedy and McNamarra, they sent your boys to die in a fruitless conflict... __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Jun 13, 2003, 12:40 AM	#11
digerati Everyones life has worth Join Date: May 2003 Location: My Yellow Bug Posts: 3,779 Rep Power: 0	Oh and just in case he pulls out the us withdrawing part, we were in the Vietnam war for what? 7 years? And there protests what? the last 5 of those years? And we still went to war. So don't be like "Yeah well the US withdrew after they lost some soldiers!"

Jun 13, 2003, 01:56 PM	Thread Starter #16
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	That is the irony of it all... Even when Kennedy knew we couldn't possibly win, he commited our forces anyway, surely he learned from the Bay of Pigs invasion. But Kennedy never trusted the military after that and frankly never did Pres. Johnson.. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Jun 14, 2003, 05:17 PM	#17
kp59583 DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 121 Rep Power: 0	Gog you don't have a clue about americans if you think we wouldn't defend South Korea. We whould have solved the problem during the Korean War but the world and americans were tired of war and it would have probably lead to WWIII. __________________ ATHLON XP 2600+ K7N2G-LISR 512 SAMSUNG PC2700 ACER DVD DRIVE memorex DVD recorder WD 80GIG 7200 HARDDRIVE AUDIGY2 SOUND CARD 4 FANS, ANTEC 350W PWR SUPPLY ATI 9700 PRO

Jun 15, 2003, 02:15 AM	#18
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	Well, Kp, we are pulling back from the DMZ, but that's more because we don't want our troops to die in the first artillery strike. Yes, we Americans would defend the Korean penninsula, no doubt about that. If GOG wanted to make a point about Americans running away after a little bloodshed, he could have brought up Mogadishu; Korea is an extremely poor example, considering thousands upon thousands of American spilt their blood to make South Korea the relatively prosperous nation it is today. We have had our troops vigilantly watching that border for fifty years now, and they will remain there, no doubt, long after the North Korean regime is dead and gone.

Jun 15, 2003, 03:07 AM	Thread Starter #19
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	The N. Koreans have one shot Without the support of the chinese, and the advanced tecnology at our disposal and the alliance with the Japanese and S. Korean army and airforce, it would be a matter of several weeks to completely devastate the N. Korean military, that is why I can hardly accept anything the N. Koreans do as little more than sabre rattling. N. Korean spys have infiltrated S. Korea and sitll hold japanese hostages. The N. Korean army sits on vast stores of food, to enable them to sustain a long campaign against aggresion, but it isn't sustainable, in my opinion, hostility against a coalition of U.S. backed forces can be measured in weeks or perhaps days... __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Jun 15, 2003, 03:17 AM	#20
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	No doubt, Jeff. Had the North Koreans not had Chinese support, MacArthur and his men would have crushed the North Koreans fifty years ago.

Jun 15, 2003, 03:22 AM	Thread Starter #21
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	I wonder what would have happened If MacArthur hadn't been sacked.. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Jun 15, 2003, 05:36 AM	Thread Starter #29
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	JSDF The Japanese actually have a sophisticated Airforce, Navy and Army and their tanks are on a par with the S.Korean units. They actually train all the time, and I was privilege to participate in joint exercises, they conistently demonstate guile and cunning in tactical and covert missions..dont let the pictures fool you.. the Katana is still sharp and flexible, and the will is strong..The Japanese have iron men as well, and so do the S. Koreans, the media in Japan successfully downplays the importance of a strong and vital military force but they are there, in place and ready at a moments notice. I am always impressed with the dicipline and esprit de corp they demonstrate, and they often up-stage the american military every chance they get during fleet week in Sasebo and Yokohama.. In short....they are more than they appear to be.. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Jun 15, 2003, 05:43 AM	#30
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	Well, Jeff, listen, I wasn't putting down the SDF at all. They are indeed well-trained (as you would expect any Japanese outfit to be), motivated, and possess a love for their country. But there are severe Consitutional limitations on what the SDF's role can be, and the bureaucratic red-tape they have to go through to get anything done is a true nightmare. They have begun to take down some of the barriers, but it is still difficult for the Jieitai do maneuver freely. Their role is very different from our military; they are defensive. So, yes, while they are a formidible force, it is safe to say, I think, that in the event of a war with North Korea, the SDF will not be seeing combat -- unless it came to within Japanese borders or waters. They might support the US and South Korea with refueling, medical care, and logistics, but they won't be fighting. What do you think about a true Japanese military?