Science > Abortion > Bush incompetent military re-deployments, Dumbya strikes again
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Bill Case" |
| Date: |
17 Aug 2004 10:11:51 AM |
| Object: |
Bush incompetent military re-deployments, Dumbya strikes again |
Bush plans include reducing US troops facing N Korea without using it as a
bargaining chip, at a time when N Korea is vocally going into producing
nukes.
Upon examination, the other re-deployments are mostly stupid, as well.
Misconceived Military Shuffle, NY Times August 17, 2004
The troop redeployment plan announced yesterday by President Bush makes
little long-term strategic sense. It is certain to strain crucial alliances,
increase overall costs and dangerously weaken deterrence on the Korean
peninsula at the worst possible moment. Meanwhile, it will do nothing to
address the military's most pressing current need: relieving the chronic
strain on ground forces that has resulted from failing to anticipate the
long, and largely unilateral, American occupation of Iraq.
Mr. Bush provided few new details yesterday, confirming only that over the
next 10 years, about 60,000 to 70,000 uniformed troops, along with some
100,000 family members and civilian employees, would be transferred from
bases and other military installations in Europe and Asia to the United
States.
It has been known for some time that the Pentagon wants to pull back perhaps
half of the roughly 70,000 soldiers now in Germany and a third of the nearly
40,000 troops in South Korea. Further cuts in Europe and Asia will be needed
to reach Mr. Bush's totals, especially since some of those withdrawn from
South Korea may be headed toward other parts of Asia.
The Bush administration justifies these movements by pointing to fundamental
changes in the geography of threats since the end of the cold war. In Asia,
however, that geography has not changed all that much.
The most dangerous threat still comes from North Korea, which is now thought
to be building nuclear weapons. At a time when negotiating a halt to that
buildup is imperative, Washington has inexplicably granted Pyongyang
something it has long coveted - a reduction in American troop levels -
instead of building those reductions into a bargaining proposal requiring
constructive North Korean moves in return. The Korean pullback also sends a
dangerous signal to the North that America is devaluing its alliance with
South Korea.
In Europe, the withdrawals are less immediately dangerous, but they will be
expensive because Germany pays a hefty share of the costs for the American
military bases located there.
While sending military personnel back to Kansas or Colorado may avert some
base closings and make local politicians happy, it will cost the taxpayers
money. Furthermore, the military will also lose the advantage that comes
with giving large numbers of its men and women the experience of living in
other cultures.
The administration seems to be planning to establish new installations in
Eastern Europe, but they are more likely to be used for occasional exercises
than as permanent bases. An increased presence in Eastern Europe is fine,
but it need not come at the expense of our German bases. Although it is
certainly true that American troops no longer have to sit in Germany to
protect Western Europe from the Red Army, many of today's battlefields, like
Iraq and Afghanistan, are in fact closer to Germany than they are to the
United States.
The Pentagon is right to stress lighter, more mobile Army brigades. It is
also good to aim to reduce the number of job and location changes in a
typical Army career. With the huge personnel demands of Iraqi operations
forcing repeated tours, extended tours and involuntary callbacks, such
sensible steps aimed at raising morale and encouraging re-enlistments are
welcome. But over all, this plan marches in the wrong direction. Instead of
reflecting and reinforcing America's core alliances, the new plan dilutes
them.
Despite the Pentagon's denials, it seems deliberate that the two largest
withdrawals have been proposed for countries that the Bush administration
has had serious differences with in recent years, over Iraq in the German
case, and over negotiating strategy with North Korea in the case of Seoul.
Both countries have been working hard to patch up relations - South Korea is
one of the few American allies with troops in Iraq - but the Pentagon does
not seem interested in reciprocating.
.
|
|
| User: "IBM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush incompetent military re-deployments, Dumbya strikes again |
17 Aug 2004 04:47:11 PM |
|
|
"Bill Case" <Billc548@Hotmail.com> wrote in
news:XepUc.24863$9Y6.11267@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
Bush plans include reducing US troops facing N Korea without using it
as a bargaining chip, at a time when N Korea is vocally going into
producing nukes.
What Headcase fails to comprehend is that while North Korea may
have nukes, any use or even suspected use of them will result
in thermonuclear redevelopment of eveything north of the the 38th
parallel.
And in the meantime moving US troops out of artillery range of
the border makes life very much more difficult for the North
Koreans.
But then with Headcase being an idiot what would you expect.
IBM
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Gower" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush incompetent military re-deployments, Dumbya strikes again |
17 Aug 2004 10:38:46 AM |
|
|
"Bill Case" <Billc548@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XepUc.24863$9Y6.11267@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Bush plans include reducing US troops facing N Korea without using it as a
bargaining chip, at a time when N Korea is vocally going into producing
nukes.
In fact the opposite is true. The basic issue is not to negotiate with the
NK regime, but to contain it until it implodes, which all such terminally
ill regimes eventually do. Along the way, it is important to increase the
amount of contacts between the two Koreas, since the South will eventually
have to come to the rescue of the North. The best way to do that is to
reduce the U.S. presence, which means that if NK wants to talk to anyone
they have to swallow their pride and talk to their relatives. That, in turn,
forces them to face the reality that their economy is almost dead, whereas
the hated capitalist South has a GDP at least 20 times greater.
It is widely accepted among military analysts that South Korea is fully
capable of handling the North militarily. That fabled "million-man" NK army
is a hollow shell. Goose-stepping elite troops paraded in front of cameras
notwithstanding, the NK army is malnourished, pathetically equipped and has
zero morale. What NK does have is thousands of rockets aimed at Seoul, which
could hurt a lot of people (if they still work, which is unknown).
As to the nuclear threat, it is not at all sure that NK has a working
device, but regardless, there is a long way from a device to a weapon that
will work under combat conditions. Making that journey is a very tall order
for a country that can't even heat its houses. What little threat there
might be is handled by the U.S. nuclear umbrella.
You know, you could have learned all this with a little work, but then that
would be inconvenient for your political agenda.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Case" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush incompetent military re-deployments, Dumbya strikes again |
17 Aug 2004 10:57:21 AM |
|
|
"Dave Gower" <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:UOKdnRxiB-oQu7_cRVn-jg@magma.ca...
"Bill Case" <Billc548@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XepUc.24863$9Y6.11267@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Bush plans include reducing US troops facing N Korea without using it as
a
bargaining chip, at a time when N Korea is vocally going into producing
nukes.
In fact the opposite is true. The basic issue is not to negotiate with the
NK regime, but to contain it until it implodes, which all such terminally
ill regimes eventually do.
Wrong.
Just a little knowledge of history should inform you that regimes like N
Korea can go on for a LONG time.
Implode? From what? The people there are so cowed and without resources or
knowledge that they can't do much to overthrow their dictatorship.
If you had any common sense, you would only have to look to Iraq under
Saddam to know why this is a dumb argument.
Along the way, it is important to increase the
amount of contacts between the two Koreas, since the South will eventually
have to come to the rescue of the North. The best way to do that is to
reduce the U.S. presence, which means that if NK wants to talk to anyone
they have to swallow their pride and talk to their relatives. That, in
turn,
forces them to face the reality that their economy is almost dead, whereas
the hated capitalist South has a GDP at least 20 times greater.
It is widely accepted among military analysts that South Korea is fully
capable of handling the North militarily.
The North is capable of an artillery barrage into Seoul that the South
Koreans fear a lot.
That fabled "million-man" NK army
is a hollow shell. Goose-stepping elite troops paraded in front of cameras
notwithstanding, the NK army is malnourished, pathetically equipped and
has
zero morale. What NK does have is thousands of rockets aimed at Seoul,
which
could hurt a lot of people (if they still work, which is unknown).
As to the nuclear threat, it is not at all sure that NK has a working
device, but regardless, there is a long way from a device to a weapon that
will work under combat conditions.
First of all, what are your sources for this info?
The press generally reports they have at least two, maybe eight, and are
moving toward regular production.
Further, you don't even seem to know what the real threat from them is.
Now and in the near future, it's not them launching a compact nuke warhead
on a missile - it's selling a device to some terror organization, that will
put it into a container, onto a cargo ship, into a port like NY, LA,
whatever, and have some suicidal nut set it off.
No wonder you think Bush is ok.
Making that journey is a very tall order
for a country that can't even heat its houses. What little threat there
might be is handled by the U.S. nuclear umbrella.
You know, you could have learned all this with a little work, but then
that
would be inconvenient for your political agenda.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Gower" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush incompetent military re-deployments, Dumbya strikes again |
17 Aug 2004 11:16:18 AM |
|
|
"Bill Case" <Billc548@Hotmail.com> wrote in
...you would only have to look to Iraq under Saddam to know why this is a
dumb argument.
Saddam had oil. And neighbours like Syria and Jordan that slipped him
support under the table. NK has very little of this kind of support. In
theory NK could continue as is for a long time, but the fact is that brittle
regimes crack and fall. Look at Rumania.
Now and in the near future, it's not them launching a compact nuke warhead
on a missile - it's selling a device to some terror organization, that
will
put it into a container, onto a cargo ship, into a port like NY, LA,
whatever, and have some suicidal nut set it off.
Yes that's one of the things that has to be contained.
Ships leaving NK are carefully watched, and there's no other way to
transport such a device (NK doesn't have the technology to make small
nukes). Remember the NK ship stopped and searched off Somalia two years ago?
Anyway I doubt they'd part with anything so valuable. Remember two things a)
an atomic device represents a huge investment for them and b) the thing
they're most paranoid about is the U.S. doing to them what they did to
Saddam. So they are almost sure to hang on to any device as a deterrent.
No wonder you think Bush is ok.
I prefer Kerry. I am still a fan of Clinton, for all his lovable defects. I
though that was a great interview he gave on Larry King last month. But as a
Canadian, I look at U.S. presidents as world leaders, not simply
politicians.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Case" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush incompetent military re-deployments, Dumbya strikes again |
17 Aug 2004 11:40:23 AM |
|
|
"Dave Gower" <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:P9OdnUw5_pvHsr_cRVn-rg@magma.ca...
"Bill Case" <Billc548@Hotmail.com> wrote in
...you would only have to look to Iraq under Saddam to know why this is a
dumb argument.
Saddam had oil. And neighbours like Syria and Jordan that slipped him
support under the table. NK has very little of this kind of support. In
theory NK could continue as is for a long time, but the fact is that
brittle
regimes crack and fall. Look at Rumania.
And NK gets aid, and let's its people starve, and perhaps the growing
seasons will improve.
Now and in the near future, it's not them launching a compact nuke
warhead
on a missile - it's selling a device to some terror organization, that
will
put it into a container, onto a cargo ship, into a port like NY, LA,
whatever, and have some suicidal nut set it off.
Yes that's one of the things that has to be contained.
Ships leaving NK are carefully watched, and there's no other way to
transport such a device (NK doesn't have the technology to make small
nukes).
Please. Detecting stuff like that depends on intelligence and Bush has
sabatoged out intel for a long time to come.
Nobody was able tro stop Pakistan and Khan from nuke proleration. Come on.
Remember the NK ship stopped and searched off Somalia two years ago?
Anyway I doubt they'd part with anything so valuable.
They SELL this stuff to the highest bidder. They have been doing it with
other tech, and they will do it with nukes.
Five points w/ respect to N Korea, and some other countries.
1). They need money. Selling nukes brings in money.
2) Revenge - the US wasn't very nice to them 50 years ago, and we may have
forgotten it but they haven't.
3) How do you stop a big power which has been intervening all over the world
for the last 100 years, from intervening? You kill a few million of their
people and let the populace make demands on the government to withdraw from
world involvement.
4) make sure there's no return address on the nuke - use secrecy and several
middle men.
5) then straighten out matters on your own peninsula.
Remember two things a)
an atomic device represents a huge investment for them and b) the thing
they're most paranoid about is the U.S. doing to them what they did to
Saddam. So they are almost sure to hang on to any device as a deterrent.
No wonder you think Bush is ok.
I prefer Kerry. I am still a fan of Clinton, for all his lovable defects.
I think Bush is just a Republican version of Clinton - neither had any
business getting so high up and people all over the the world are paying for
US interanl poltics.
I
though that was a great interview he gave on Larry King last month. But as
a
Canadian, I look at U.S. presidents as world leaders, not simply
politicians.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Gower" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush incompetent military re-deployments, Dumbya strikes again |
17 Aug 2004 06:12:37 PM |
|
|
"Bill Case" <Billc548@Hotmail.com> wrote
And NK gets aid, and let's its people starve, and perhaps the growing
seasons will improve.
That's the basic difference between NK and Iraq under Saddam. Iraq did not
depend on aid - so they had a free hand. Even so their nuclear (and it
appears, their chemical and biological) programs had ground to a halt, at
least temporarily. When you're dependent on aid, you have far less leeway.
Nobody was able tro stop Pakistan and Khan from nuke proleration. Come on.
Pakistan is far less isolated than NK. Come on.
They SELL this stuff to the highest bidder. They have been doing it with
other tech, and they will do it with nukes.
I dealt with that, in several points you choose to ignore.
3) How do you stop a big power which has been intervening all over the
world
for the last 100 years, from intervening? You kill a few million of their
people and let the populace make demands on the government to withdraw
from
world involvement.
Ah NOW we see your true agenda. Took a while, but it came out. I can almost
see you salivate when you say that. You're sick.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Case" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush incompetent military re-deployments, Dumbya strikes again |
18 Aug 2004 02:24:18 PM |
|
|
"Dave Gower" <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:a_ydnfq0gd1sDb_cRVn-jg@magma.ca...
"Bill Case" <Billc548@Hotmail.com> wrote
And NK gets aid, and let's its people starve, and perhaps the growing
seasons will improve.
That's the basic difference between NK and Iraq under Saddam. Iraq did not
depend on aid - so they had a free hand. Even so their nuclear (and it
appears, their chemical and biological) programs had ground to a halt, at
least temporarily. When you're dependent on aid, you have far less leeway.
Nobody was able tro stop Pakistan and Khan from nuke proleration. Come
on.
Pakistan is far less isolated than NK. Come on.
They SELL this stuff to the highest bidder. They have been doing it with
other tech, and they will do it with nukes.
I dealt with that, in several points you choose to ignore.
3) How do you stop a big power which has been intervening all over the
world
for the last 100 years, from intervening? You kill a few million of
their
people and let the populace make demands on the government to withdraw
from
world involvement.
Ah NOW we see your true agenda. Took a while, but it came out. I can
almost
see you salivate when you say that. You're sick.
EXPLAIN THAT COMMENT YOU STUPID *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Case" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush incompetent military re-deployments, Dumbya strikes again |
17 Aug 2004 06:57:14 PM |
|
|
"Dave Gower" <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:a_ydnfq0gd1sDb_cRVn-jg@magma.ca...
"Bill Case" <Billc548@Hotmail.com> wrote
And NK gets aid, and let's its people starve, and perhaps the growing
seasons will improve.
That's the basic difference between NK and Iraq under Saddam. Iraq did not
depend on aid - so they had a free hand. Even so their nuclear (and it
appears, their chemical and biological) programs had ground to a halt, at
least temporarily. When you're dependent on aid, you have far less leeway.
Nobody was able tro stop Pakistan and Khan from nuke proleration. Come
on.
Pakistan is far less isolated than NK. Come on.
N Korea got some of their help from the Pakistan. They're not all that
isolated, or without resources. In any case, it seems like NK is intent on
developing an arsenal, and looking at it form their standpoint,
proliferating toUS enemies makes sense.
They SELL this stuff to the highest bidder. They have been doing it with
other tech, and they will do it with nukes.
I dealt with that, in several points you choose to ignore.
3) How do you stop a big power which has been intervening all over the
world
for the last 100 years, from intervening? You kill a few million of
their
people and let the populace make demands on the government to withdraw
from
world involvement.
Ah NOW we see your true agenda. Took a while, but it came out. I can
almost
see you salivate when you say that. You're sick.
Where did that come from. My agenda? Are you an idiot or a nutcase?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rhino" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush incompetent military re-deployments, Dumbya strikes again |
18 Aug 2004 02:02:03 PM |
|
|
"Dave Gower" <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:UOKdnRxiB-oQu7_cRVn-jg@magma.ca...
"Bill Case" <Billc548@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XepUc.24863$9Y6.11267@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Bush plans include reducing US troops facing N Korea without using it as
a
bargaining chip, at a time when N Korea is vocally going into producing
nukes.
In fact the opposite is true. The basic issue is not to negotiate with the
NK regime, but to contain it until it implodes, which all such terminally
ill regimes eventually do. Along the way, it is important to increase the
amount of contacts between the two Koreas, since the South will eventually
have to come to the rescue of the North. The best way to do that is to
reduce the U.S. presence, which means that if NK wants to talk to anyone
they have to swallow their pride and talk to their relatives. That, in
turn,
forces them to face the reality that their economy is almost dead, whereas
the hated capitalist South has a GDP at least 20 times greater.
It is widely accepted among military analysts that South Korea is fully
capable of handling the North militarily. That fabled "million-man" NK
army
is a hollow shell. Goose-stepping elite troops paraded in front of cameras
notwithstanding, the NK army is malnourished, pathetically equipped and
has
zero morale. What NK does have is thousands of rockets aimed at Seoul,
which
could hurt a lot of people (if they still work, which is unknown).
As to the nuclear threat, it is not at all sure that NK has a working
device, but regardless, there is a long way from a device to a weapon that
will work under combat conditions. Making that journey is a very tall
order
for a country that can't even heat its houses. What little threat there
might be is handled by the U.S. nuclear umbrella.
You know, you could have learned all this with a little work, but then
that
would be inconvenient for your political agenda.
I read the other day that North Korea has acquired a dozen Soviet missile
submarines. This is confirmed in Janes Defense Weekly in an article I saw
there myself. (I can't see it now; perhaps it is just old enough to fall out
of the "latest news" category.) This has the potential of escalating the
whole situation dramatically.
I don't know if the North Koreans can launch their nukes from these subs but
if they can manage it, it is going to be a lot less comfortable to live in
North America since we can't count on the distance between us and North
Korea protecting us any more. They just have to park their subs off the West
Coast (and a few off the East Coast for good measure) and start making
demands. Unless we're *certain* that those nukes can't be launched - and
when can we ever be truly certain - there will be strong temptations to cave
in to their demands rather than risking a nuclear attack on Los Angeles, San
Francisco, New York or whatever. And Canada is going to have a strong
interest in this too since the fallout from any nuclear strike on the US is
likely going to reach Canada eventually.
The main deterrent we'll have is that we can launch strikes against North
Korea in turn. Admittedly, that remains a powerful deterrent but only if
North Korea really believes that such a counterstrike would happen. I
haven't quite made up my mind if Kim Jung Il really is a loony or just
appears to be one but I'm not entirely comfortable with assuming he will be
deterred; he might decide to go out in a blaze of glory and launch a nuke,
even if it costs him everything.
Of course if I were "the Dear One", I'd wait until after the US elections
before trying nuclear extortion: Kerry strikes me as a guy who would cave in
rather than hang tough whereas Bush would be more likely to challenge the
North Koreans. But that's just my take on it; I'm sure Kerry's fanatical
followers will insist that exactly the reverse is true, just as Bush's
fanatical followers will assure me I'm right :-)
Rhino
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul J. Adam" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush incompetent military re-deployments, Dumbya strikes again |
18 Aug 2004 05:47:54 PM |
|
|
In message <jINUc.15271$ZI1.706509@news20.bellglobal.com>, Rhino
<rhino1@NOSPAM.sympatico.ca> writes
I read the other day that North Korea has acquired a dozen Soviet missile
submarines. This is confirmed in Janes Defense Weekly in an article I saw
there myself. (I can't see it now; perhaps it is just old enough to fall out
of the "latest news" category.) This has the potential of escalating the
whole situation dramatically.
"North Korea deploys new missiles
JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - AUGUST 04, 2004
JOSEPH S BERMUDEZ JDW Special Correspondent
....The second event occurred during September 1993, when the Korean
People's Navy (KPN) signed a contract with the Toen Trading Company of
Tokyo to buy 12 decommissioned Russian Foxtrot-class (Project 641) and
Golf II-class (Project 629A) submarines for scrap metal. The Golf IIs
were equipped to carry three R-21 (SS-N-5 Sark/Serb) SLBMs, although
neither the missiles nor the electronic firing systems were included
with the scrapped vessels. Due to factors such as the time and expense
of their removal, these boats retained significant elements of the
missile launch system, including their launch tubes and stabilisation
subsystems. This technology, in combination with the R-27 design,
provided the KPN with elements crucial to the subsequent development of
a submarine or ship-mounted ballistic missile system. "
They bought some LIFEX boats over ten years ago and have been using them
for ideas. This is not a surprise, nor is it an operational capability
yet: the potential exists, but not the actuality.
--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2
Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
