1. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    07 Apr '13 08:13
    Originally posted by normbenign
    The attack though from the north was still near the southern border, where the Iraqi forces were.

    Surprise or not, it is doubtful that any action would be far from the DMZ, just as it is doubtful that any serious chess opening doesn't involve challenging the center.
    Agreed, so why not do the military drills at about that place that an attack south of the DMZ would likely take place?
  2. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    07 Apr '13 09:05
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    And you do?

    I want to hear someone ask Obama why he needs the military drills to be done in disputed waters and I want to hear Obama answer the question. You are not qualified to answer for him and it is Obama's duty as president to answer questions when nuclear war is threatened. I'll settle for Jay Carney though. That is his job.
    It's not the duty of the President at all to discuss military tactics in detail.
  3. Joined
    10 May '09
    Moves
    13341
    07 Apr '13 09:13
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    And you do?

    I want to hear someone ask Obama why he needs the military drills to be done in disputed waters and I want to hear Obama answer the question. You are not qualified to answer for him and it is Obama's duty as president to answer questions when nuclear war is threatened. I'll settle for Jay Carney though. That is his job.
    Quite a bit more than you.
  4. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    07 Apr '13 09:23
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Quite a bit more than you.
    Based on what? What are your qualifications?
  5. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    07 Apr '13 09:28
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    It's not the duty of the President at all to discuss military tactics in detail.
    Who is asking for a lot of details? Someone should ask him why he is stubborn about doing military drills in disputed waters and why we can't do them further south. If he wants to play the "classified military tactics card" he can always give the same reply that you did, but we deserve to hear it. Nuclear war is serious stuff.
  6. Joined
    10 May '09
    Moves
    13341
    07 Apr '13 09:57
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Based on what? What are your qualifications?
    Actually having participated in numerous joint training exercises.
  7. Joined
    10 May '09
    Moves
    13341
    07 Apr '13 10:02
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Who is asking for a lot of details? Someone should ask him why he is stubborn about doing military drills in disputed waters and why we can't do them further south. If he wants to play the "classified military tactics card" he can always give the same reply that you did, but we deserve to hear it. Nuclear war is serious stuff.
    I'm sure the President has better things to do then try to coddle to spastic drama queens.

    Kim Jong-un would be beating the drum no matter how far south the training takes place. I'm sure his real problem is the new sanctions the UN approved.
  8. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    07 Apr '13 10:57
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    I'm sure the President has better things to do then try to coddle to spastic drama queens.

    Kim Jong-un would be beating the drum no matter how far south the training takes place. I'm sure his real problem is the new sanctions the UN approved.
    Sanctions almost never work to accomplish the stated goals. All they do is increase the suffering of innocent civilians who have little say so in their country's policies.

    The real reason for sanctions most of the time is to weaken a country before an invasion. The UN is a farce. The USA can usually get the votes they want with incentives and economic threats. Sometimes the USA government will literally buy votes.
  9. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    07 Apr '13 11:09
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Sanctions almost never work to accomplish the stated goals. All they do is increase the suffering of innocent civilians who have little say so in their country's policies.

    The real reason for sanctions most of the time is to weaken a country before an invasion. The UN is a farce. The USA can usually get the votes they want with incentives and economic threats. Sometimes the USA government will literally buy votes.
    Yes, I'm sure Obama is bribing Putin and Xi Jinping all the time.

    What a bizarre world you live in.
  10. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    07 Apr '13 13:312 edits
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Yes, I'm sure Obama is bribing Putin and Xi Jinping all the time.

    What a bizarre world you live in.
    Bush tried to bribe nations into supporting UN approval of the Iraq war before the invasion. I'm not making it up. I'm very serious.

    This is a bizarre world and you live in it too. Just because you are unaware of these things does not make them untrue.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/dec/17/usa.internationalaidanddevelopment

    http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0305a/copyright/bushunsanctions3.html
  11. Joined
    10 May '09
    Moves
    13341
    07 Apr '13 13:34
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Bush tried to bribe nations into supporting UN approval of the Iraq war before the invasion. I'm not making it up. I'm very serious.

    This is a bizarre world and you live in it too. Just because you are unaware of these things does not make them untrue.
    Russia and China have veto powers at the UN, and were adamantly against the invasion. Can you provide a link to these bribery attempts?
  12. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    07 Apr '13 13:38
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Russia and China have veto powers at the UN, and were adamantly against the invasion. Can you provide a link to these bribery attempts?
    Bush was not successful in getting UN approval, but he did try.

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/03/un-m06.html

    http://www.newstatesman.com/node/143829
  13. Joined
    10 May '09
    Moves
    13341
    07 Apr '13 13:53
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Bush was not successful in getting UN approval, but he did try.

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/03/un-m06.html

    http://www.newstatesman.com/node/143829
    I'm talking about those particular countries (Russia and France). Perhaps the Bush administration did attempt to bribe the poor countries who depend on foreign aid. I have nothing but disdain for Bush, but I would need to look into it further before I accept such a scandalous claim to be true.

    The point is the countries that actually have power and influence within the UN aren't so easily bribed and getting them to agree on anything remotely controversial is almost impossible.

    The fact that the UN acted against NK isn't insignificant.

    And by the way, ALL of South Korea is "contested" territory, so on what basis do you claim Kim Jong-un is only throwing a fit because the training is "close to their border"? In every report I read he's making threats because the exercise it taking place at all.
  14. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    07 Apr '13 14:50
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    I'm talking about those particular countries (Russia and France). Perhaps the Bush administration did attempt to bribe the poor countries who depend on foreign aid. I have nothing but disdain for Bush, but I would need to look into it further before I accept such a scandalous claim to be true.

    The point is the countries that actually have power ...[text shortened]... In every report I read he's making threats because the exercise it taking place at all.
    I must admit I have not read any of the links I posted and cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information on them. I am only going by memory of the Bush push for war with Iraq. I was very much opposed to that war from the beginning and I recalled the attempted bribery issue from long ago.

    I realize none of the links are from Reuters or the NY Times and I understand your skepticism. Like I said before, Bush was not successful in getting a UN resolution passed for invading Iraq. He wanted one badly though. It would have given some legitimacy for the war instead of merely unilateral action.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3661134.stm

    I know NK has a horrible human rights record and I don't condone the regime's domestic policies just as I don't condone China's horrible human rights record. China does human organ harvesting from prisoners to sell to the highest bidders. very repugnant.

    I often play devil's advocate on the debate forum just to see how far I can take the debate. It has been interesting. I think this has nearly run it's course though. Not much more to debate.
  15. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    07 Apr '13 14:56
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    I'm talking about those particular countries (Russia and France). Perhaps the Bush administration did attempt to bribe the poor countries who depend on foreign aid. I have nothing but disdain for Bush, but I would need to look into it further before I accept such a scandalous claim to be true.

    The point is the countries that actually have power ...[text shortened]... In every report I read he's making threats because the exercise it taking place at all.
    It is interesting that the issue of classified (secret) tactical information, and doing exercises right under the nose of a projected enemy seem to be in direct conflict.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree