wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:25:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

So you don't think Kim moving from WWII Soviet surplus Nagant rifles
and a few aging migs to a nuke and a missile that they tested by
shooting over Japan is troubling?
That is not a worse situation? In spite of us keeping 50,000 troops
there for 57 years. Did we make it better or worse. If we had just
come home, they would have finished their civil war and followed the
Chinese example of joining the world.


I do think it's troubling, but since you're insistent about the specifics
of
military adventure, no deaths have occurred this year.

As I said, we've pretty much kept the peace. They claim a lot, but they do
very little.


We may haver somewhat "kept the peace" if you considered Kim sinking a
ship a couple months ago "peaceful" but strategically we lost ground.
The regional threat is exponentially worse that it ever was.
Even if Kim's bomb doesn't work, he can still contaminate a whole city
with radiation and effectively destroy it.
If that is Seoul it is horrible. If it is Tokyo it is a catastrophe

Why would there be a difference in horribleness between the two?

In any case, no Americans have died since 1953, which is what you were
claiming as better off.

YukonBound wrote:


"Larry" wrote in message
...
YukonBound wrote:


"Larry" wrote in message
...
YukonBound wrote:


"Harry " wrote in message
m...
On 7/28/10 9:35 AM, YukonBound wrote:


"Harry?" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:54:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:02:31 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:00:28 -0400, bpuharic

wrote:

and afganistan? guess you havent heard of 9/11.


Yeah I heard of it. I also heard the people who planned
it have
not
been in Afghanistan for 6 years.

hmmm...again you need to read the news.

the taliban just abducted 2 US servicemen the other day

The Taliban had nothing to do with 9-11. They are simply
reacting to
our invasion of their country.

Not directly, but they were certainly allowing bin laden to do
whatever he
wanted inside the Afg. border.


That was then, this is now and OBL is not in Afghanistan. We
have
managed to push that problem into a country that is a lot more
dangerous than Afghanistan and almost as unstable, getting
worse every
day.


Then or now, it doesn't matter. If we can stabilize Afg.,
then we
have a
better chance of finishing him.

We could absolutely dominate Afghanistan and that still does
not give
us the right to invade Pakistan to get OBL ... unless you
think that
is our next step.

Why does Cambodia seem to be coming up in my mind?

OBL might not even be the biggest danger to the US these days. It
could be another group in Africa or Indonesia and we are totally
ignoring them in our obsession with OBL.
I had a dog like that once. He saw a rabbit under the
macadamia nut
tree once and after that he had to go look there every time he
went
outside. There were rabbits everywhere but he kept trying to
find that
one.
We always fight the last war and try to prevent the last attack
instead of looking for the next one.


Our biggest enemies aren't in the middle east.

--
Harold

Finally said something right... they work on Wall Street.


Flajim is now openly spoofing my ID here?

What an ass he is.


Leopard doesn't change it's spots!
Say what? Leopard this! Spot boy!


That's about as dumb a response as you'll read in here!
Get to work, counterman.
I was trying to emulate the dumbest person here. It's hard to even
pretend to be as dumb as you actually are, Donny.

Forget emulating... you set the gold standard for dummies worldwide.
Keep up the dumb work, counterman.
Nice try, moron. WTF is "counterman"?

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:06:56 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:24:08 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


so i suggest you stop trying to impose YOUR views on the nazis of
islamist fascism, and read what they actually say.

Let me guess, you are a zionist too. It is no wonder you can ignore
the Islamic jihad against Israel.

goalpost moving.

you claimed bin laden hated us because of israel

you posted a link to a letter, written a year AFTER 9/11 saying this
was so.

i pointed out the truth. the letter was a PR stunt. his real reason
for hating us was our presence in saudi arabia and having the 'kufr'
(infidels) guarding the '2 holy places' (mecca and medina).

now that i've proved you're full of ****, you say i'm a

JJJJEEEEWWWW!!!!


There is a significant difference between being a Jew and being a
Zionist. If you don't understand that then it makes sense why you
don't understand the jihad.

now let me see...you didnt even know bin laden HAD an original letter
BEFORE 9/11 declaring war on the US...

you didnt know WHY he published his other letter a YEAR AFTER 9/11

but you're gonna lecture us on the JJJOOOOZZZ!!!!


You posted a letter from 5 years before the 9-11 attack and I posted
one from shortly thereafter. Why is yours more valid?

because it tells us WHY he attacked us BEFORE HE DID.

YOURS is a PR stunt designed to curry favor with the islamist masses
who wanted him to link his hatred to israel

Yours came from
the time that the US government didn't even think Bin Laden was worth
picking up when Sudan offered him up on a silver platter.
How big a mistake was that?

GOALPOST MOVING.

we already know the govt ****ed up....you keep telling us **** we
already know....which proves you don't know ****.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:41:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:25:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

So you don't think Kim moving from WWII Soviet surplus Nagant rifles
and a few aging migs to a nuke and a missile that they tested by
shooting over Japan is troubling?
That is not a worse situation? In spite of us keeping 50,000 troops
there for 57 years. Did we make it better or worse. If we had just
come home, they would have finished their civil war and followed the
Chinese example of joining the world.


I do think it's troubling, but since you're insistent about the
specifics
of
military adventure, no deaths have occurred this year.

As I said, we've pretty much kept the peace. They claim a lot, but they
do
very little.


We may haver somewhat "kept the peace" if you considered Kim sinking a
ship a couple months ago "peaceful" but strategically we lost ground.
The regional threat is exponentially worse that it ever was.
Even if Kim's bomb doesn't work, he can still contaminate a whole city
with radiation and effectively destroy it.
If that is Seoul it is horrible. If it is Tokyo it is a catastrophe

Why would there be a difference in horribleness between the two?

In any case, no Americans have died since 1953, which is what you were
claiming as better off.


No that was your criteria.
By that standard we won in Vietnam. No Americans have died there since
1975 either and we didn't even have to spend a dime on an occupation.
They are essentially demilitarized, not a nuclear state. Economically
Vietnam is entering the world marketplace very quickly. Maybe that is
the lesson we should take away from the difference in the two
policies.

I think that sometimes we should just step back and let these
countries work out their own problems.

You said (first, I might add)...

The question is whether we are actually accomplishing anything or are we
just prolonging a war for grand children to fight. We have been in Korea for
almost 60 years and things are worse now than they were in 1953.

There is no relevant equivalency with VN, since that was was lost, and we
left.

We have left S. Korea alone and only are there to ensure the North doesn't
get overly aggressive. We've mostly succeeded.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:34:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:41:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:25:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

So you don't think Kim moving from WWII Soviet surplus Nagant rifles
and a few aging migs to a nuke and a missile that they tested by
shooting over Japan is troubling?
That is not a worse situation? In spite of us keeping 50,000 troops
there for 57 years. Did we make it better or worse. If we had just
come home, they would have finished their civil war and followed the
Chinese example of joining the world.


I do think it's troubling, but since you're insistent about the
specifics
of
military adventure, no deaths have occurred this year.

As I said, we've pretty much kept the peace. They claim a lot, but
they
do
very little.


We may haver somewhat "kept the peace" if you considered Kim sinking a
ship a couple months ago "peaceful" but strategically we lost ground.
The regional threat is exponentially worse that it ever was.
Even if Kim's bomb doesn't work, he can still contaminate a whole city
with radiation and effectively destroy it.
If that is Seoul it is horrible. If it is Tokyo it is a catastrophe

Why would there be a difference in horribleness between the two?

In any case, no Americans have died since 1953, which is what you were
claiming as better off.


No that was your criteria.
By that standard we won in Vietnam. No Americans have died there since
1975 either and we didn't even have to spend a dime on an occupation.
They are essentially demilitarized, not a nuclear state. Economically
Vietnam is entering the world marketplace very quickly. Maybe that is
the lesson we should take away from the difference in the two
policies.

I think that sometimes we should just step back and let these
countries work out their own problems.

You said (first, I might add)...

The question is whether we are actually accomplishing anything or are we
just prolonging a war for grand children to fight. We have been in Korea
for
almost 60 years and things are worse now than they were in 1953.

There is no relevant equivalency with VN, since that was was lost, and we
left.

We have left S. Korea alone and only are there to ensure the North doesn't
get overly aggressive. We've mostly succeeded.


We have only succeeded in maintaining the DMZ we established in
1953.The threat form the north is exponentially greater than it was 57
years ago.
It really does beg the question, what would have happened if we had
just let the north win.
Would communism have just collapsed like it has everywhere else where
we ignore it? We seem to prolong the system when we fight it. Once we
normalize relations the citizens start finding out what the rest of
the world is doing and bring change from within. Satellites, cell
phones and the internet seems to be a lot more powerful that guns and
bombs.



--
Me

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:34:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:41:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:25:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

So you don't think Kim moving from WWII Soviet surplus Nagant rifles
and a few aging migs to a nuke and a missile that they tested by
shooting over Japan is troubling?
That is not a worse situation? In spite of us keeping 50,000 troops
there for 57 years. Did we make it better or worse. If we had just
come home, they would have finished their civil war and followed the
Chinese example of joining the world.


I do think it's troubling, but since you're insistent about the
specifics
of
military adventure, no deaths have occurred this year.

As I said, we've pretty much kept the peace. They claim a lot, but
they
do
very little.


We may haver somewhat "kept the peace" if you considered Kim sinking a
ship a couple months ago "peaceful" but strategically we lost ground.
The regional threat is exponentially worse that it ever was.
Even if Kim's bomb doesn't work, he can still contaminate a whole city
with radiation and effectively destroy it.
If that is Seoul it is horrible. If it is Tokyo it is a catastrophe

Why would there be a difference in horribleness between the two?

In any case, no Americans have died since 1953, which is what you were
claiming as better off.


No that was your criteria.
By that standard we won in Vietnam. No Americans have died there since
1975 either and we didn't even have to spend a dime on an occupation.
They are essentially demilitarized, not a nuclear state. Economically
Vietnam is entering the world marketplace very quickly. Maybe that is
the lesson we should take away from the difference in the two
policies.

I think that sometimes we should just step back and let these
countries work out their own problems.

You said (first, I might add)...

The question is whether we are actually accomplishing anything or are we
just prolonging a war for grand children to fight. We have been in Korea
for
almost 60 years and things are worse now than they were in 1953.

There is no relevant equivalency with VN, since that was was lost, and we
left.

We have left S. Korea alone and only are there to ensure the North doesn't
get overly aggressive. We've mostly succeeded.


We have only succeeded in maintaining the DMZ we established in
1953.The threat form the north is exponentially greater than it was 57
years ago.
It really does beg the question, what would have happened if we had
just let the north win.
Would communism have just collapsed like it has everywhere else where
we ignore it? We seem to prolong the system when we fight it. Once we
normalize relations the citizens start finding out what the rest of
the world is doing and bring change from within. Satellites, cell
phones and the internet seems to be a lot more powerful that guns and
bombs.

Are you seriously trying to make the argument that the S. Koreans would have
better off if the North had won??

That's really outlandish.

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:34:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:41:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:25:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

So you don't think Kim moving from WWII Soviet surplus Nagant
rifles
and a few aging migs to a nuke and a missile that they tested by
shooting over Japan is troubling?
That is not a worse situation? In spite of us keeping 50,000 troops
there for 57 years. Did we make it better or worse. If we had just
come home, they would have finished their civil war and followed
the
Chinese example of joining the world.


I do think it's troubling, but since you're insistent about the
specifics
of
military adventure, no deaths have occurred this year.

As I said, we've pretty much kept the peace. They claim a lot, but
they
do
very little.


We may haver somewhat "kept the peace" if you considered Kim sinking
a
ship a couple months ago "peaceful" but strategically we lost ground.
The regional threat is exponentially worse that it ever was.
Even if Kim's bomb doesn't work, he can still contaminate a whole
city
with radiation and effectively destroy it.
If that is Seoul it is horrible. If it is Tokyo it is a catastrophe

Why would there be a difference in horribleness between the two?

In any case, no Americans have died since 1953, which is what you were
claiming as better off.


No that was your criteria.
By that standard we won in Vietnam. No Americans have died there since
1975 either and we didn't even have to spend a dime on an occupation.
They are essentially demilitarized, not a nuclear state. Economically
Vietnam is entering the world marketplace very quickly. Maybe that is
the lesson we should take away from the difference in the two
policies.

I think that sometimes we should just step back and let these
countries work out their own problems.

You said (first, I might add)...

The question is whether we are actually accomplishing anything or are we
just prolonging a war for grand children to fight. We have been in Korea
for
almost 60 years and things are worse now than they were in 1953.

There is no relevant equivalency with VN, since that was was lost, and we
left.

We have left S. Korea alone and only are there to ensure the North
doesn't
get overly aggressive. We've mostly succeeded.


We have only succeeded in maintaining the DMZ we established in
1953.The threat form the north is exponentially greater than it was 57
years ago.
It really does beg the question, what would have happened if we had
just let the north win.
Would communism have just collapsed like it has everywhere else where
we ignore it? We seem to prolong the system when we fight it. Once we
normalize relations the citizens start finding out what the rest of
the world is doing and bring change from within. Satellites, cell
phones and the internet seems to be a lot more powerful that guns and
bombs.



--
Me


Wow... you're really a moron. You can't even post something without help.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:56:09 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The question is whether we are actually accomplishing anything or are we
just prolonging a war for grand children to fight. We have been in Korea
for
almost 60 years and things are worse now than they were in 1953.

There is no relevant equivalency with VN, since that was was lost, and
we
left.

We have left S. Korea alone and only are there to ensure the North
doesn't
get overly aggressive. We've mostly succeeded.


We have only succeeded in maintaining the DMZ we established in
1953.The threat form the north is exponentially greater than it was 57
years ago.
It really does beg the question, what would have happened if we had
just let the north win.
Would communism have just collapsed like it has everywhere else where
we ignore it? We seem to prolong the system when we fight it. Once we
normalize relations the citizens start finding out what the rest of
the world is doing and bring change from within. Satellites, cell
phones and the internet seems to be a lot more powerful that guns and
bombs.

Are you seriously trying to make the argument that the S. Koreans would
have
better off if the North had won??

That's really outlandish.


I agree the growth of the south has been phenomenal but one nuke from
the north could tip that scale and that threat definitely exists.

Do you really think that's likely? Seems to me that the NKs would know they
would be committing suicide.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:27:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Are you seriously trying to make the argument that the S. Koreans would
have
better off if the North had won??

That's really outlandish.


I agree the growth of the south has been phenomenal but one nuke from
the north could tip that scale and that threat definitely exists.

Do you really think that's likely? Seems to me that the NKs would know
they
would be committing suicide.

If we really believed that we would not care who had the bomb.

Untrue. I don't believe NK would be foolish enough to use one. I think we
need to continue to care and to try and 1) prevent it 2) remove the threat
of it.

It is clear if someone attacked the US with a nuke they would have
their country reduced to a smoking radioactive hole in the ground but
it starts becoming less clear what would happen when they attack other
countries. We would probably start WWIII over Israel but I am not sure
if we would do it over South Korea.

Why? And, besides it wouldn't start WWIII. It would be very limited and I
think China would stay out of it.

It is also up in the air what we do if we were attacked by a
stateless terrorist. The precedent is we invade and occupy the last
country the terrorist was in whether he is still there or not.

Which may be true, but that has nothing to do with the situation in Korea.