Obama tells military: prepare for N.Korea aggression

[Adsos Letter]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON, May 24 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama has directed the U.S. military to coordinate with South Korea to "ensure readiness" and deter future aggression from North Korea, the White House said on Monday.

The United States gave strong backing to plans by South Korean President Lee Myung-bak to punish North Korea for sinking one of its naval ships, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement.

The White House urged North Korea to apologize and change its behavior, he said.

"We endorse President Lee's demand that North Korea immediately apologize and punish those responsible for the attack, and, most importantly, stop its belligerent and threatening behavior," Gibbs said.

Read more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N24206347.htm

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I hope they are also working like mad through diplomatic channels too.

Otherwise, we may just have another war on our hands.

Great.

[Adsos Letter]

2. I agree Peggy; I wonder just how open those channels are

hopefully, China will start putting some serious pressure on the North Koreans.

[madchick44]

124. Gotta have somewhere to send those returning Iraqi troops.

I call this bull crap.

[saigon68]

152. Oh goody another War

[The Northerner]

3. I'm honestly hoping that's the case

This country can't afford anymore wars and military action.

[DURHAM D]

5. The timing is interesting.

Isn't our Secretary of State in China right now?

[Just-plain-Kathy]

30. North Korea probably needs money. ...Remember how Bush threw North korea something like $95 million

to keep them quiet during the run up to our Iraq occupation?

[Posteritatis]

6. I imagine there's a whole lot of that going on too

Of course it's the less visible of the two options a lot of the time, regardless of how much of it is actually going on..

[Cali_Democrat]

4. I'm so sick of the United States having to get involved in every foreign conflict

So North Korea sunk a South Korean ship. Why the hell should it be any of our business?

We need to withdraw our troops South Korea and Japan anyways.

Now if they start fighting, we'll get pulled in.

I'm so sick of it.

[Posteritatis]

7. There are these things called laws and treaties, you see. (nt)

[Cali_Democrat]

9. That's what the UN is for.

And lets say they do start fighting...South Korea is more than capable of defending itself without the US.

Most people in South Korea hate the fact that our troops are on their soil. Same with the folks in Okinawa Japan.

[Arrowhead2k1]

12. SK is like our baby. We nurtured it. We are obligated to defend it, by law.

"Most people in South Korea hate the fact that our troops are on their soil. Same with the folks in Okinawa Japan."

They won't hate that fact so much when the shooting starts. They'll probably be pleading for more.

[era veteran]

27. The closer you get to the border the better they like you.

This was true in W Germany too.

[closeupready]

141. self-delete

n/t

[No Elephants]

192. Which law? As far as not hating us once the shooting starts, SOMEone, maybe EVERYone,

will hate us more. If our modern history tells us anything, it tells us that.

[rpannier]

17. And we are part of the UN and lead the UN presence in any conflict we're involved in

As someone who lives in Korea it's not as cut-and-dry as you seem to think
North Korea has the fourth largest standing army on this planet and enough artillery to way-lay everything between the DMZ and Songtan -- about 20 million people

We (the US) are the deterrent as is China (for the North)

As another poster said: If hostilities were to break out, the South will be happy we are here

[mitchtv]

94. ths South will fight them

to the last American

[neverforget]

32. We fought under the auspices of the UN during the Korean War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

[WinkyDink]

51. It was, and remains, the Korean CONFLICT.

http://books.google.com/books?id=G-g3IHZRyRgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=korean+conflict&source=bl&ots=Us2B90s2eg&sig=Z8ZXPPrprWF6M4QWxFGFUtuuXok&hl=en&ei=aaH6S-DgK8WqlAeMm6DgCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=14&ved=0CFIQ6AEwDQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Arkana]

100. That, and it's the principal reason Eisenhower declared himself a Republican.

Without the Korean War, Eisenhower might very well have become a Democrat--his views were much more in line with the Democratic Party's anyway.

[No Elephants]

193. Eisenhower did not choose a Party until the Korean War? He was 60 when it

started.

[cali]

92. lol. really?

and sorry, S. Korea is not capable of defending itself. If you think that you know absolutely zero about the situation.

[Cali_Democrat]

121. How so?

South Korea is well equipped to defend itself against the North considering all the weapons of war we have sold them.

They have a much more sophisticated army. Sure the North has a million man army, but then again so did Iraq.

North Korea is weak and has no industrial base whatsoever.

You are the one that is misinformed.

[Chulanowa]

19. It's not like this country has ever honored a treaty if it didn't feel like it.

Hundreds of treaties with sovereign nations in North America? Nah, fuck it, they're brown and we want their shit.

Nonproliferation treaty? It's in our strategic interests to teach the Israelis how to make Arabs glow, you know?

NAFTA? Yeeeeeah... About that, look, you guys are brown and talk funny and we want your shit, so...

[Posteritatis]

50. And that means it's okay. (nt)

[MellowDem]

85. You really don't know what NAFTA is, do you?

It's a step in the same direction that the EU has taken towards economic integration. If the baseline for such policies was "brown people", we would never have any sort of trade agreement at all, but rather we would have taken all of Mexico for ourselvles after the Mexican American war and deported the "brown people". The prime incentive has been and always will be economics. Same with the Native Americans. Doesn't matter what the skin color is, it's what was best economically or foriegn policy-wise for the US, treaties be damned. Of course, other nations (especially then) acted in this way as well. Including Native American nations. Treaty breaking is a time-honored practice.

It's why the US didn't get involved for the longest time in WW1 or WW2. There, lots of whites were being killed, many of them our closest allies, but we were making money off of staying neutral.

Anyone who blames it all on "brown people" bigotry is either ignorant, or looking for a reason to divide the nation by color lines.

[Chulanowa]

88. Except the US goes out of its way to honor treaties with "white" countries

I think you should study your history a little better. Racism plays a gigantic role in our country's history and its actions abroad. I know it's a lot more comfortable for some people to cover their eyes and pretend there's no such thing, but that's not the case.

The incentive may be economics, but the US was far more willing to ignore its treaties for economical gain when it wasn't white people. The US could have just claim-jumped France's claim on the Louisiana territory. Instead it negotiated and bought... and then broke every treaty it made with the peoples in that territory.

You want to talk about the Mexican-American war, and then in the same breath try to claim that racism is not a factor? Do you know anything about that war at all? You're going to tell me NAFTA isn't racist, when the entire plan of it is to squeeze every centavo out of Mexico, reducing its economy to a tattered scrap that was owned by American companies?

I think either you're very ignorant of history and the reality of our modern dealings, or you don't actually know what racism is. I'm guessing the latter, seems a terrible number of my fellow liberals are from the school of thought that nothing is racist until there's someone hanging from a tree.

[amandabeech]

102. We don't know what would have happened eventually if France had refused to sell.

We did find out what happened when Mexico refused to sell.

[MellowDem]

125. Don't forget Spain....

and the Spanish American War. We even did have a (short) war with France. We battled all the big European imperial powers in the Americas at some point or other.

[Posteritatis]

133. To be fair, they all battled each other as well

I dunno how much I'd single out the US for taking on the neighbors in the nineteenth century; things were generally done differently enough then from now that I don't think the comparisons are fair in the present.

[MellowDem]

123. I wish you could back up anything with evidence...

that the US goes out of its way to honor treaties with white countries. The US honored treaties with countries that were more powerful than it, in general. The more powerful the nation, the more beneficial it was to not piss them off. And all the more powerful nations were European. That didn't stop them from breaking certain treaties with them, when applicable.

You do know the US tried to take over Canada (and likely would have to) if not for the fact that it was part of the British Empire with the strongest navy in the world. And even that didn't stop them from trying.

The Mexican American war was all about economics. It wasn't about the idea that whites are the superior race, though that was used as a justification with a million other things. But the main reason was economics. More land for slavery and cotton, and just more land in general. Greed. And Mexico was weak enough to take it from. That's been the formula throughout history.

You can say NAFTA is racist, but it's just silly. It's all about economics. You may find that NAFTA is bad for some Mexicans, but of course it's also bad for some Canadians and some Americans. Every time there is increased trade and more competitiion, there will be winners and losers, no doubt about it. It's a common complaint in the EU as well.

The US has honored treaties with "brown people" nations when it has been beneficial to them. The US support of the Phillipines and China during World War 2 for example. And the US did grant independance to the Phillipines. I'm not saying these were all out of the warmth of America's heart, but I am saying that these are political calculations more complicated than just bigotry.

[Lorien]

168. Tell that to the Native Americans. nt

[No Elephants]

191. Which we seem able to ignore when it suits us. Like the Convention Against Torture, which not only

bans torture, but requires prosecution. Yet, prosecution went off the table almost on Day One.

So, obeying treaties and laws seems to be optional, i.e., a matter of choice.

BTW, which treaties and laws require us to fight now?

[NYC Democrat]

8. we have a Treaty with South Korea.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. We shouldn't

They should defend themselves and they can.

[Drunken Irishman]

14. We shouldn't but we do.

[No Elephants]

195. Pls. see Replies 191 and 194.

[Ter]

58. Could they?

Straight up, just N vs. S, you think they can defend themselves? They may win, but it would be a bloodbath.

[No Elephants]

194. What does it say about this situation, though? I find it hard to believe we have no way out, if we

want one. Not as though S. Korea had more power to negotiate a treaty than we did.


Please also see Reply 191.

[JDPriestly]

22. Because we rely on South Korea for, for example, steel.

South Koreans are very serious, very conscientious people. They have made themselves and their survival absolutely vital to our own success and survival. Smart people. I have great respect for them as human beings although I am very unlike them and would not want to have to live in their culture.

[Kringle]

25. how else do you earn a peace prize, except by being involved? nt

[No Elephants]

196. You're joking, no?

[Odin2005]

33. We are SK's ally. Allies support allies.

[krabigirl]

78. We have neither the money nor the troops left to help anyone..

[harun]

55. You and me both.

[krabigirl]

77. Same here. So freaking tired of it. We need to take care of our own business.

[cali]

91. Treaties are a huge part of international relations. It's that basic.

You might consider informing yourself.

[Cali_Democrat]

122. Another weak response from you

Counting African Americans as three fifths human was also law at one point in the United States.

Just because it's law, it doesn't make it right, sweetheart.

Treaties like the one we signed with South Korea do more harm than good in the long run.

Thomas Jefferson warned us about entangling alliances. It's a shame we never listened.

[proteus_lives]

128. And in 1941......

Your comment would be "Who gives a shit about Europe? Germany never attacked us!"

:eyes:

Isolationism never works.

[proteus_lives]

127. We've been allies with SK for over fifty years.

It's not right to throw them to the wolves.

[Lasher]

11. North Korea has a million man army.

But so did Iraq. South Korea's 700 thousand man army, backed by 5 million well trained reservists, could kick their asses with no help from US ground forces. But South Korea would love for us to send in half a million more troops and bankroll any major military action that might occur. And we're stupid enough to do it.

[Posteritatis]

13. The problem isn't the number of boots

The problem's the several thousand artillery tubes in a position to start hammering Seoul when things get hot. Pyongyang will lose any war that breaks out on the peninsula, but they'll be in a position to take a good chunk of one of the largest cities on the planet out along with their own country.

[Lasher]

15. Yes, I agree.

US and South Korean air forces and navies could help silence those guns, but probably not before significant damage is done by them.

[Diclotican]

28. Lasher

Lasher

In the starting stages of a Nort-South Korean war, it would be more than unsure that the South Korean army and navy and airforce would have the posibility to stop the artillery pieces from shooting at least a couple of rounds before they could be silenced.. Analyst of this, from war games over the last couple of decades, have shown that if North Korea was to attac the South by suprice, (as it often is a suprise) it wil at least take a couple of hours, before the Army, the Navy and the Airforce was capable of doing anything other than duck for cover and hope for the best... And as others have said far better than me, Seoul and most of South Korea are inside the range of the artillery from North Korea.... And the army is large, vith more than 1.4 million under weapon as current.. And the North Korean army is in a far better shape than the Iraq army of 2001, who had been subjected to most forms of embargo for 13-14 year, and who really haven't managed to came itself after the devestating defeat in the 1991 war. The North Korean army have been building the inner border between south and north to a fortress not even the east germans could imagine in the 1980s and have more than 4000 hewy artillery pieces at the border. It might not sound to mutch, but if they consentrate all this firepower to one or a few city's the result would be devestating for the south.. And this is artillery who are build into the ground, and chelterede from most of what South Korea could posible put into the ground in a minutes notice.. Some analyst have told that specailly in the 1990s, when the NK had their crises where hundred of thousands of north koreans starved to death, was builing and modernize the whole fortress complex at the border so the most hewy canons they had was defended against most of what the enemey could posible send in their way - and they have been building, and building their fortresses since 1953, when the armitise between south and north Korea was put into effect... SO if war was to broke out, it would not be easy to stop them from at least bomb South Korea at least as couple of decades back as it is today..

And it is also important to point out that a war between North and South Korea would not be that easy to stop, or to cotain to just the Korean Pensylvania.. It would rather be easy to the war spred over most of the area, as a war could spreed itself to some of the other countrys in the area.. China could be involved on the behaf of North Korea, even tho I am not that sure they want to put their feet into that mess more than strictly nessesary, but they are also not happy about the posibility of US armed forces on their border with NK... So they might have to send in a large army, to at least curtein the positibilty of US armed forces on their own borders if it was to be a war...

But of course, if it was to be a war, between south and north, and that the US also would be involved, as it posibile would after treaty and friendship between US and the South Korean government, then the North Korean army and navy would have not a snowballs chance in hell to surive, as the military have some lack that the US have at pressent... But it would take some time before the US forces, from Okinawa could came to the South Korea and in the meantime, the US forces and the South Korean forces would have their hand afull with a nasty war where 1.4 million strong army would marsh south of the border.. And at least wage wast to what the South Korean have build over the last 50 year or so of prosperity..

But the end gamle would be most interesting, becouse North Korea dosen't have the ressourses to wage a LARGE war, or a long war at this time, the last time they did that, it allmoust broke their back, and it was mostly becouse a million strond chinese army was helping them, that the north stop existed between 1952-53 (my guess, as I know it is a few expert on this subject in here) and even tho they managed to keep the border, it was devestating inside North Korea.. The North could wage a short, devestating war where they was trying to get their objective as Fast as posible.. But a long war, where the US more than posible was to be involved, the North Korea dosen't have a chance in... And it is not that sure that China would suport the North as it did in 1950.. Mostly becouse the Northt and China have not been so friendly with eatch other the last couple of years, the nuclear treath from the North have NOT made Chinas officials happy, and its clear that the government in China is irritate, as they in 2007 even offically critic north Korea, becouse of their actions... They are NOT happy about how the North have acted the last couple of years - but they also fear what the end wil be, if a war between North and South as to ensue.. It is more than posible that China was to be involved for some reason in protecting the North.. Something they Dosent want to be, becouse they are up in modernizing their own army, and airforce and navy, and dosen't want to waste money to protect a mad man on their border... They want status Que mostly..

Diclotican

[Lasher]

60. Thanks Diclotican

Your contribution is reasoned and informed.

[Diclotican]

113. Lasher

Lasher

Thank you sir;); try to be informed about things Im interested in. And for some reason, or another the north and south Korea have interested me for a long time... Don't know why, as I was not born when NK and SK was at war - hey my mom was born in 1950 or so... And myself is born a couple of decades later...

Diclotican

[Lasher]

136. I spent a year in Seoul.

Was drafted into the Army, probably about the time you were born.

[Diclotican]

137. Lasher

Lasher

I see;) wel you have more experience than me then;)

Diclotican

[Old Troop]

104. I agree too. I think the big question would be how

effective the NK special ops would be regarding airbases, ASPs, lines of communication and cyber war.

[Diclotican]

111. Old Troop

Old Troop

The north korean special forces have been practising terror against bases in the south for many year now.. It is reported that the Norh Korean special forces have been using a lot of ressourses to build, and train against south korean and american forces since the late 1990s... And even tho the North is a very closed up country, where information is radom at best. Some information have been surfaced information from the inner sircles in the armed forces that they have trained a lot of special forces, who have some of the best equpment that North Korea can muster.. In the mid 1990s a few of the equipment was discovered by the south, as some of the mini subs they have been using, was washed ashore in the south of Korea. I bet a lot of money that both the South Korean forces and the US was tearing the mini subs to tiny piaces to get intel for what the North was up to... And it is also reported that at least one of the divers was couth red handed, as he was trying to sabotage a power line on the coast.. The poor man "disapeared" and even that the north was making a lot of noise it was nothing to hear from South Korea or US of what happend... So my guess is that the man was defecting, and informing the South of what he was up to... He might live in US today for what I know, for some reason i doubt he want to live in South Korea, where he can be couth by the north who have kidnapped people before long away from where NK is...

When it came to Cyber war my guess that the north dosent have all that know how.. Mostly becouse if you want to have a lot of knowlegde about breaking into others countr's safty net, you also need a far more open country than the North are willing to give ANYONE under their comand.. If an north korean expert on computers was to discover the wastnes of the internet, and the wastness of what the world know about NK he would rather help the enemy than their own government.. SO when it came to cyber terror, im not sure that they have so mutch to say.. China on the other hand, have a far more "OPEN MIND" when it come to information - even tho they keep a tag on everyone who use the net.. And it is reported that many times China have tried, and sometimes even managed to break into the inner sanctum of Pentagon to steal information, or just to make a mess... And it have been a tit for tat war against more or less combined attack from China, against Pentagon and other government sites all over the place.. The securty messasures have sometimes lacked by all standards.. and sometimes even the more secure places have lacked all security if you just ram yourself against the first few stones who they belived should stop all attack...

Hopefully, this wil end without the use of a war. Hopefully North are using this as something to keep the sinking ship togheter so the next leader could emerge, and take the power of this desoulte poor country who the rest of the world have just resentment to give.. Even their only friend and allied in the world, is somewhat tired of their actions the last couple of years... And the rest of the world just want NK to be quiet...

On the other hand if they really are using this attack on a SK warship as an preloude for war.. Then the whole sout-east asia could start burning the next year or so.. This is something that everyone fear...

Diclotican

[rpannier]

18. Disagree on a few points

1. The South covers about 65% of the entire bill for the US presence in Korea -- equipment, supplies and salaries. So Korea already shells out big bucks

2. As to kick their asses. No. North Korea has enough artillery to way-lay the upper-third of South Korea -- 20 million people or so

3. The South doesn't want conflict with the North. Not sure where you're hearing that from.

4. Any conflict that involves North Korea also draws in the Chinese. North Korea is a client state of the Chinese.

[Lasher]

20. Well,

South Korea currently spends less of its GDP on military than does the US. Our military spending injects about $5 billion annually into their economy. Particularly since they currently enjoy a trade surplus with the US, South Korea can afford to cover 100% of their defense spending. But the point I was trying to make was more about the US military's outdated contingency plan to deploy 450,000 troops in South Korea if significant hostilities were to break out with the North.

North Korean artillery capability has been noted. These guns could inflict significant damage but would not stop the South from kicking the North's ass just as I have said. South Korean and US forces would not sit complacently by while shells were being lobbed their way. And human wave assaults would do little against the South's formidable fortifications, which I have seen firsthand.

You're right, the South doesn't want a conflict with the North. I didn't say they did, I was discussing 'what if' scenarios. But there has been a distinct act of war (North Korea submarine sank a South Korean warship) that neither the South nor the US can ignore.

China no longer considers North Korea a client state, and no provides no meaningful material support. China has thousands of soldiers on the border to keep starving North Koreans out. They are more interested in maintaining trade with the South than they are in supporting North Korea's military. And the Soviets no longer exist.

[rpannier]

21. Never said the Spviets existed

And yes they do consider North Korea a client state and do supply the North with aid, to keep people from scrambling across into China

As do the Russians -- Russian businesses regularly employ North Koreans in some construction projects just across their border

I've been in South Korea for about a decade and no one on this end denies the Chinese aid, both militarily and economically

As the amount spent on military it doesn't change the fact that the South covers around 65% of expenses incurred by the US -- both direct and indirect

[Lasher]

24. The US supplies $500 million dollars a year in food to North Korea.

And yet we do not consider North Korea a client state. China provides no meaningful military aid to North Korea. Their tanks and armored vehicles are relics in a state of disrepair. They have no air force or navy that could offer any kind of serious challenge to US or South Korean forces.

Until South Korean burden sharing reaches 100%, we are losing money in South Korea. You seem to think we're getting some kind of bargain. If so, I disagree.

[Sherman A1]

16. While I am not at all in favor of something starting, this is probably

a pro forma move, to remind those zany characters in NK that there is a bit more involved than their neighbors to the South. It's all part of the stagecraft at this point. The press release indicates that there is to be "coordination to ensure readiness", that is all. Says nothing about moving troops, ships, planes, etc. This is boiler plate while a bunch of maneuvering is going on with China, who doesn't want a war on their border any more than we want one there.

[JDPriestly]

23. I have to disagree. Unfortunately, I do not think this is just a pro forma move.

I think that Obama has been preoccupied with this for days now. I don't know why I have been thinking that. I just have.

This is a problem of the most serious magnitude.

[ixion]

26. Hurray! More change!

Obama sounds like he's fixin' to get his war on. Seems a US Prez just ain't all that until they invade a country or two, or three, or four. :puke:

[cali]

93. ridiculous. You actually believe the nonsense you spew?

[ixion]

99. Obama has already extended the Hostile Occupation to Yemen and Pakistan, and yet

you call these FACTS nonsense, and instead make snarky comments about the messenger.

Debate-wise, you've not really advanced your thesis much, if at all.

And if you really think that is "nonsense," then I'm sure you'll be okay with Pakistani Predator Drones flying around your home town.

[era veteran]

29. Being prepared IS the military's job, Never ready, always prepared!

Why could this be wrong? The South Koreans would have a giant welfare program if reunification was attained. North Korean war planning mimics fighting 50 years ago. Hub to hub artillery fire won't last too long. Seoul has about 10 million people and is 35 miles from the border. There would be tremendous casualties but the North's archaic Army would be destroyed. It would be a damn good thing if the Chinese intervene ( this time ) by leaning on Great Idiot before anything escalated to the point of war.

[Old Troop]

107. Good points and don't forget that the ":food problem" (as the NPRK

refers to it) has spread to the NK military as well. There are continuous reports of NK soldiers stealing food from collectives; often at the point of a gun. Fuel would be another significant problem for the Norks. Lack of fuel has reduced trying across the board in the NK military, especially in the air force - flying hours for training are just about nil. Finally, training in the army has been reduced significantly by planting and harvesting ops and civilian construction projects.

[Betty]

31. I'm sure we'll have no problems getting enough soldiers

to have three wars running at the same time. Likewise, no problem paying for them. What could possibly go wrong?

[krabigirl]

79. Good one.

[GreenStormCloud]

105. If war resumes in Korea, it will be fought with the troops that are already there.

It won't be a three year war like last time. It will be a furious action of only a few days, maybe two weeks.

[proteus_lives]

129. +1

There would be no insurgent conflict. Most NK residents would love seeing Kim's rule end.

[melm00se]

34. U.S. military told to get ready in Korea standoff

Source: MSNBC

WASHINGTON - The White House said Monday that President Barack Obama "fully supports" the South Korean president and his response to the torpedo attack by North Korea that sank a South Korean naval ship.

In a statement, the White House said Seoul can continue to count on the full backing of the United States and said U.S. military commanders had been told to work with their South Korean counterparts "to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression."

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37309788/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

---

uh oh

[Ian David]

35. Welcome to Jong-Il-Geddon. n/t

[Schema Thing]

38. you've been holding that one in reserve, haven't you?

[Ian David]

39. No, I'm just that quick. n/t

[Old Troop]

108. God I wish I could think up things like that so quickly

[Ian David]

139. I know. I am awesome. n/t

[Autumn]

36. Iraq , Afghanistan and Pakistan aren't enough?

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[GreenStormCloud]

41. What do you propose we do if Kim attacks South Korea? N/T

[Autumn]

43. We can worry about that when Kim attacks

my country.

[Heywood J]

53. Or when you have no LCD monitors, no steel, and no other Korean-made goods.

You seem to think there would be no repercussions on this continent, treaties aside.

[Posteritatis]

57. Isolationists are funny that way, aren't they? (nt)

[krabigirl]

80. That's non-interventionism, not isolationism.

[Posteritatis]

86. No, thinking events abroad have no impact domestically is pretty isolationist.

If someone thinks South Korea can go up in flames and the US won't feel any effects as long as it doesn't have anyone over there, they're delusional.

[Drunken Irishman]

70. Good thing that attitude didn't dominate our government when Hitler was invading Europe, eh?

[Posteritatis]

72. Except for the whole fact that it did. (nt)

[Drunken Irishman]

73. Dominate, no.

Apart of? Sure. But we had a president who was, thank goodness, not an isolationist.

[Posteritatis]

74. The war began in September 1939, not December 1941.

Twenty-seven months passed before Pearl Harbor during which isolationism was what determined US policy towards the war.

[Drunken Irishman]

75. I know my history...

And I know isolation kept America officially out of the war until Pearl Harbor was bombed. But it didn't stop the Lend-Lease Act, which was huge.

The fact is, our government was hardly isolationist in the buildup to that war.

[Heywood J]

120. At that point, we made our own steel and provided our own resources.

Not in the last thirty years or so.

[Autumn]

76. Maybe we could make our own steel

I seem to remember we used to do that. Might add a few jobs , so badly needed.

[krabigirl]

82. Seriously...we need to be re-learning how to manufacture stuff here.

[Autumn]

87. Thats a fact. There are still steel mills

here in this country. The one in Pueblo Colorado is still standing.

[harkadog]

90. Oh not having Korean steel dumped in the U.S. would be a real tragedy.

Korean steel has cost the jobs of thousands of American steelworkers. You want the American military to waste lives and resources protecting a country which is helping destroy our economy.

[G_j]

155. dumping steel

it's hard to believe people forget this.

thanks

[proteus_lives]

130. So fuck allies, huh?

[Autumn]

138. They won't be the first

we have said that to.

[proteus_lives]

140. Do you enjoy being cold-blooded?

[Autumn]

146. Just because I don't happen to think OUR

troops should die for some other country and OUR money should not go to fund a war (another one we can't fucking afford) against a country that hasn't attacked us means I am cold blooded, then yeah I guess I must be cold blooded. And I do enjoy the way I am so you must be right.

[proteus_lives]

147. Good thing you're not charge.

Alliances are a vital part of politics.

[Autumn]

148. If you were in charge we would be in a world war

with everyone. Pathetic. Nice talking to you. Bye.

[proteus_lives]

149. Pathetic is the word for you.

Enjoy abandoning people around you if they need help.

Cya.

[Jennicut]

176. Nice, kind of like the thinking when Hitler attacked other countries besides our own.

And then one day, we were attacked too.

We really should not be in Iraq or Afghanistan precisely because of this reason. Now this is an actual threat, not crappy terrorists and their crappy car bombs. They got lucky once, on 9/11. I am far more worried about North Korea.

[harkadog]

44. Don't you think after 60 years South Korea should be able to stand on its own?

[GreenStormCloud]

54. Then you believe that South Korea should develop nukes? N/T

[harkadog]

59. I am not an imperialist

Every country is sovereign and no other countries should tell another country what they can and can not do. S. Korea is a major economic power and N. Korea is filled with people who are starving to death. S. Korea can handle itself. To say otherwise will mean we will be in Iraq and Afghanistan forever because they are not nuclear powers and their neighbors are. No thanks.

[GreenStormCloud]

62. So you agree with nuclear proliferation.

In this month's issue of Scientific American, which arrived in today's mail, is an article about the global effects of even a small, regional, nuclear war. As more and more nations get nukes, the chance of such a war increases. It is directly in the U.S. interest, and the interest of all nations, to keep down the number of nations that have nukes.

Ideals about respecting another nation's sovereignty are nice, but there are other considerations as well.

[harkadog]

98. "Ideas about respecting another nation's sovereignity are nice"

When we give up our nukes then others can give up theirs. We used them first so we should give them up first.

[NickB79]

81. N. Korea's civilian population is starving partly because the food goes to the military

Their military, while not well-fed by Western standards, is not anywhere close to starving. They also have nuclear weapons, something S. Korea doesn't have.

Without US support, S. Korea would simply be overrun by the sheer number of N. Korean troops crossing the DMZ.

[harkadog]

96. We can't be the defender of the world

We no longer have the money to do that. It is time to go home.

[Pavulon]

110. Sure we do. The weapons are paid for already.

the cruise missiles, b2, f22, and torpedos from nuclear subs are paid in full.

[harkadog]

114. How ridiculous

Posted by someone who obviously was never around these type of weapons and assets. Weapons have to be replaced all the time. They have to be maintained all the time. Both require resources and personnel. Both are extremely costly.

[Pavulon]

117. Its a quote from "spies like us"

however the majority of the weapons that would be used are already in the arsenal. Army Logistics is something I was quite familiar years ago.

[xchrom]

37. Well I guess one could see this coming.

Still not a pleasant feeling reading this.

[Adsos Letter]

126. Hey, xchrom!

:hi:

[Bette Noir]

40. We don't have the resources to fight three wars at once.

Get ready to become the new Soviet Union, as in, no longer existing in the current form. Most likely outcome: reinstate the draft, raise taxes, curtail civil liberties. Better: make the hard choices regarding the Middle East and Central Asia. Iraq and Afghanistan may have to make it on their own. Worse: our own government falls.

[msongs]

42. 4 - u forgetting pakistan nt

[Soylent Brice]

45. *sigh*

[FarLeftFist]

46. They've never actually officially ended their war.

[ensho]

47. if we go to war 'again' with N.Korea it will be proof that we are an empire

no to more war. let S. Korea deal with their kin.

we should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. period.

close bases around the world and try to heal our own country which is being oiled, hormoned, and chemicaled to death.

and get all the toxic crap out of our food, including meat.

[cali]

95. no it won't be proof that we're an empire- and who needs more proof of that

anyway. Sorry, we have a treaty with S. Korea It's that simple. Should N. Korea launch a serious attack on the south, we have a obligation under international law.

[proteus_lives]

131. So fuck our allies, huh?

In the forties would you be saying "Let France and the rest of Europe deal with their own kin."?

[FarCenter]

48. The sinking of the South's ship is most likely retaliation for the severe damage to the North's ship

The previous confrontation was last November.

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2009/11/10/27/0301000000AEN20091110007900315F.HTML

The Northern Limit Line border in the Yellow Sea was drawn by a US commander in '53 and never accepted by the North Koreans.

[GreenStormCloud]

56. The North fired first in that incident, according to your linked article.

The North has, in general, abided by that line since 1953. As far as officially accepting it, they don't even officially accept South Korea as a separate nation.

[FarCenter]

63. The article is from a South Korean web site

Wouldn't you expect it to say that the North Koreans fired first?

[GreenStormCloud]

64. Are you an apologist for North Korea's "Dear Leader"?

If I must choose to believe a South Korean news media or a North Korean government statement, I will believe the SK every single time.

Further, it was YOU who supplied the link as a source for your spin. So don't complain if I quote your own source for my points.

[Posteritatis]

67. If you think the article's lying then why did you cite it? (nt)

[FarCenter]

103. To point out that the torpedoing of the SK ship was not unique, but just the latest in a series

of incidents of varying severity.

[GreenStormCloud]

143. Bullshit. You said it was RETELATION.

My post and others called you on that by pointing out that the North was the agressor in both cases.

[slackmaster]

49. Prepare my ass, we should commence bombing immediately

Can't President Obama see that they're getting ready to clobber us?

[WinkyDink]

52. He has until 2012, no joke:

Several aspects of the security relationship are changing as the U.S. moves from a leading to a supporting role. In 2004, agreement was reached on the return of the Yongsan base in Seoul--as well as a number of other U.S. bases--to the R.O.K. and the eventual relocation of all U.S. forces to south of the Han River. Those movements are expected to be completed by 2016. In addition, the U.S. and R.O.K. agreed to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Korea to 25,000 by 2008, but a subsequent agreement by the U.S. and R.O.K. presidents in 2008 has now capped that number at 28,500, with no further troop reductions planned. The U.S. and R.O.K. have also agreed to transfer wartime operational control to the R.O.K. military on April 17, 2012.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2800.htm

[paparush]

89. GASP! 2012! The Mayans were right!

:sarcasm:

[GreenStormCloud]

61. Obama is trying to keep the peace, not start a war.

North Korea appears to see us as vulnerable. We are heavily extended in the Middle East so Kim is likely thinking that he can get away with pushing his weight around with Korea.

By putting the military to a higher state of alert, Obama is trying to display to Kim that restarting an active Korean War would be a really bad idea for him. And it would be.

I would bet that all of the North Korean tunnels under the DMA have been found, although only a few of them would be advertised. Using modern siesmic methods it should not be an extremely difficult problem to find the tunnels. Given the extreme importance of locating the tunnels, it is unreasonable to believe that moder methods have not already been employed.

North Korea's Air Force is mainly made up of old MiG 17s (Korean War vintage), 19s (Late 1950s), 21s (Vietnam War vintage) and a few modern aircraft. Their pilots recieve very limited training due to the expense of such training. The NK Air Force would be destroyed in the opening moves of a new war.

Their Navy is a coastal defense force that wouldn't be able to do much.

They do have almost 20,000 artillery pieces, but they are older pieces. For accurate pinpoint fire, they would need forward observers. They are suitable only for firing shells into an area. They are not rapidly mobile, and the firing location of almost all of them is already precisely known and the GPS coordinates are already in American/South Korean computers. American artillery is able to shoot and move, and the shells are able to steer themselves to precise GPS coordinates. The new Small Diameter Bomb weight only 262 lbs and can glide up to 60 miles from the point where the aircraft releases it, to land with extreme accuracy on the target. A B-52 can fly along, miles outside of the North Korean Air Defense Missile umbrella and rain destruction on hundreds of independent targets. The new SBD2 bomb has a radar/heat seeker head that enable it to independently search for and target itself on tanks and trucks in a selected target area. So an NK armored column could be destroyed by a single B-52 dozens of miles away.

Much of the North Korean battlefield communications is non-electronic. That means human runners who are slow and may get killed, or may discover that the unit they are taking the message to has moved.

A modern war take fuel, and LOTS of it. NK fuel convoys would have little change of getting to the units that need the fuel. A tank that is out of fuel is a very expensive pillbox, easily destroyed from the air.

Sleeper sabotage units would be unreliable. After such a unit had been in the South for a few weeks, they would have been able to see for themselves that Dear Leader had lied to them.

The initial blow from the North would be staggering and US/ROK forces would have to fall back. Seoul would be pummeled. But in a few days time, the NK military would be destroyed.

Obama is hoping that Kim's generals will somehow get him to understand that. We all hope that Kim doesn't actually believe his own bullshit.

[krabigirl]

164. war is peace...

[GreenStormCloud]

169. Whoever would have peace, let him prepare for war.

Just as true now as it was in the days of ancient Rome.

[BlueIris]

65. Sad and pathetic.

The plan to invade Iran didn't work out, so...whoever's next on the neo-con's list?

Unacceptable.

[Posteritatis]

66. Yeah, clearly the US just got bored and made up the torpedo attack

Other nations never do anything, all actions everywhere are American machinations.

[cali]

97. oh for the love of reason- something you seem to have little regard for

this has jack all to do with neocons and comparing the situation to Iraq demonstrates a serious lack of historical knowledge.

[Posteritatis]

101. The number of people here who believe that the US is the only country with any agency is depressing

The number of times I've seen it suggested, implied, or outright claimed that the US is the only actor in the world and everyone else does anything only because of its shadowy machinations is beyond count.

It's also a dangerous attitude when it gets people shrugging off situations like this as 'simple' Republican conspiracy theories. (And that's before getting into the whole casual-bigotry aspect of the mindset in the first place.)

[Socal31]

112. .......

Seek help.

[xsquid]

116. Sad and pathetic comments.

Have you slept through our side being in charge? what the hell do neocons have to do with it? Unbelievable what people will claim to not give obama any responsibility.

[Posteritatis]

118. Or give Kim any responsibility, for that matter. (nt)

[xsquid]

119. Exactly, thanks for adding that.nt

[Adsos Letter]

134. And that's the point, as you stated above.

We can apply it to the world-at-large.

I've just finished Taing for a History course called 20th-Century World. While the professor interwove colonialism throughout the course (as expected) he also underlined another repercussion of the paternalistic element of most colonialism; it blinded us to the idea that, while colonialism certainly was a signal factor in such horrifying events as Rwanda, nations and peoples are perfectly capable of starting wars or genocides for their own reasons (simply to speak to the tendency-to-want-to-dominate-others aspect of human nature).

There is no more official Cold War, but we are dealing with one of the last of the Cold War confrontations, which has morphed over the years into something less about client states than about the nut-craziness, and oppressiveness, of its current dictator.

As you noted in another thread, we signed a treaty, and commited ourselves to the mutual defense of S. Korea; I agree that we are compelled to honor that while in the breach.

I also agree with you from another thread; even contemplating what it all means in material terms as we step closer to the FEBA is extremely sobering, and one hopes that this can end peacefully, and with the miracle of something positive as a result.

[chrisa]

68. We cannot, and should not get involved in another war.

Though the loss of South Korea, and resulting genocide in the event of North Korean attack would be awful, there is nothing the US can do without Chinese / Russian / World support. If the world is not willing to help, then we cannot attack North Korea on our own.

We should release ourselves from the defensive treaty, and get out of the region (as well as remove our bases from around the world). I wish I could wave a magic wand, and make the North Korean forces disappear over night, but this is a war we should not get involved in. The South Koreans are on their own.

[Posteritatis]

71. Wow. (nt)

[krabigirl]

83. I agree and people who want war with nk should just enlist themselves.

[Pavulon]

109. There is wand that does that.

we can waive it, but it does not discriminate very well between civilians and military.

[proteus_lives]

132. Sickening.

You'd watch million die on CNN and feel nothing?

:puke:

[chrisa]

153. Feel nothing? No. It would be a horrible event.

But without world support, we would be helpless to do anything.

I cannot support another war that consists of the United States blowing all of its resources and getting our soldiers killed in a useless quagmire. We must exhaust all diplomatic options first, even if we are the losing side in the process (you may call this appeasement, but Kim Jong-Il is a powerless troll who acts out to gain something (like food), where after he gets what he wants, he crawls back into his hole for a couple of years.

I do not personally see any reason to wage war in Korea, and as a result, do not want anyone to fight in my place.

[proteus_lives]

174. Wrong.

"But without world support, we would be helpless to do anything."

The Army is already there, we don't need the world's support to do a job we've been preparing for since 1953.

That is appeasement. Crack a history book, it doesn't work.

[chrisa]

178. It has worked.

The US has been dealing with Kim Jong-Il for a while. He's a troll that demands aid once in a while when his country's food supply runs out, and then just crawls back into his hole. He's not like Hitler. He has no interest in expanding beyond his failed Stalinist country.

The US Army cannot take on North Korea by itself with unacceptible losses. We are not prepared to defend South Korea, as our resources are diverted to Iraq and Afghanistan. If action were to be taken against North Korea, it would need to be a joint UN operation.

[HarrisonEH]

183. Alot of misunderstanding of why North Korea is the way it is now.

The Sunshine Policy would have worked. Kim Dae-Jung and Roh Moo-Hyun came pretty darn close to stabilizing the Korean Peninsula. But then came the Grand National Party and Lee Myung-bak, who further isolated the North Koreans and drove North Korea into a cornered position.

Backing countries such as North Korea, Cuba, Iran, etc into a corner also doesn't work.

http://kpolicy.org/documents/interviews-opeds/100523jttakagiinterviewhyeranoh.html

This also answers your previous posts. Much of your earlier posts attacks Korea for it's poor regard towards human rights and poor economic conditions and poor nutrition. But a vast majority of people flee North Korea due to economic hardships caused by natural disasters and US imposed sanctions.

[Pavulon]

187. And a shitty oppressor dictatorship..

you forgot that part. South Korea, strong economy, nice place. North, communist shit hole that citizens can not leave.

Now you would not defend a state that traps its own citizens would you?

[Posteritatis]

189. Or other countries' citizens - remember the abductions and the like. (nt)

[krabigirl]

163. Well, are you going to enlist then?

[proteus_lives]

175. No. Why would I?

Are you going to fly to South Korea, travel to the DMZ and stand in front of a tank to keep the war from starting?

[Abq_Sarah]

142. That would be a sure fire way to ensure

No country ever entered into a treaty with us again or felt any compunction to honor the treaties that exist today.

[chrisa]

154. Risking war with China would change that result very quickly.

For instance, if China invaded Taiwan, we would not defend Taiwan. It would not be worth it.

I personally dream of a military that is purely defensive in nature, and avoids any defensive pacts with other countries in the world. Foreign military entanglements are a big part of our problem.

[Abq_Sarah]

157. It's all part of gaining cooperation when we need it

We enter into treaties because the military and economic might of two countries is stronger than that of a single country.

Sitting back and watching an ally get slaughtered isn't morally defensible.

[Zynx]

190. China will not risk war with the United States over North Korea.

China needs us about as badly as we need them.

[fascisthunter]

69. now only if we could get this much attention to the BP oil leak

[krabigirl]

84. Bingo

[democrat2000]

115. Hit the nail on the head!

[Lorien]

167. Yep. no money to save our environment, not money for healthcare, no money for schools

but PLENTY for more WAR!!

:puke:

[Nihil]

177. Sad but it is a familiar refrain ...

> no money to save our environment, not money for healthcare,
> no money for schools but PLENTY for more WAR!!

... how many years now has this same damn tune been running?
:shrug:

[rug]

106. Bush is smirking.

[Adsos Letter]

135. Since I opened this thread, I probably oughta' post a couple of comments...

along the lines of Posteritatis' observation about human agency.
We can apply it to the world-at-large.

I've just finished Taing for a History course called 20th-Century World. While the professor interwove colonialism throughout the course (as expected) he also underlined another repercussion of the paternalistic element of most colonialism; it blinded us to the idea that, while colonialism certainly was a signal factor in such horrifying events as Rwanda, nations and peoples are perfectly capable of starting wars or genocides for their own reasons (simply to speak to the tendency-to-want-to-dominate-others aspect of human nature).

There is no more official Cold War, but we are dealing with one of the last of the Cold War confrontations, which has morphed over the years into something less about client states than about the nut-craziness, and oppressiveness, of its current dictator.

As noted in several answers, we signed a treaty, and committed ourselves to the mutual defense of S. Korea; I agree that we are compelled to honor that while in the breach. And we are compelled to pursue every avenue to find a peaceful solution that leaves S. Korea's safety intact. Can we afford to fight a war there? No, I don't see how we can. We're so over-extended abroad, and so skewed/screwed in how we prioritize our debt and domestic expenditures that, simply in the crassest of economic terms, war would be a disaster. In human terms, an unmitigated disaster.

I also agree with a sentiment I think most feel at the moment: even contemplating what it all means in human terms as we step closer to the FEBA is extremely sobering, and one hopes that this can end peacefully, and with the miracle of something positive as a result.

As for suggestions that this may be some sort of ploy to start a war with N. Korea, I respectfully disagree; we would certainly win the war, but I think both S. Korea and the US would view it as a pyrrhic victory which neither wants.

Anyway...just my take on some of what has been talked about.

[rayofreason]

144. For those who have never read DPRK crap...

...go to the following site to find yourself in bat-shit-crazy heaven.

http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm (also look at any previous random day for a real hoot)

There are always stories about "field guidance" and "building a prosperous, thriving nation" while the stupid, Stalinist, self-destructive mafia drives the economy into the ground, producing mass starvation and the worst hellhole in the world.

And they really expect people to believe these stories. Just a window into their insanity, the same insanity that has run amok in so many socialist dictatorships.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[superconnected]

150. bump

[charlesg]

151. It's time to wire Kim Jong Il some hard cash

like the last time he made really loud noises

[Politicub]

156. :sigh: Please, not again

I'm so tired of war. Our military is spread too thin as it is.

And NK's military isn't exactly tiny... Oh, and China neighbors the country to the North.

From the CIA World Factbook:

Manpower fit for military service:
males age 16-49: 4,127,999
females age 16-49: 4,522,707 (2010 est.)

[GreenStormCloud]

165. It takes more than a warm body to make a soldier.

It takes lots of expensive training, and war takes lots and lots of supplies. Both of those take bunches of money. NK doesn't have hardly any money. Their planes are flying museum pieces, their tanks are ancient, as is their artillery. All of their military is very poorly trained. A military man with little training is useless in a war.

The ROK/US military is extremely well trained and well equipped with modern stuff. If NK starts the war back up they will be destroyed.

Obama is having the military do exercises there to send the message to Kim that we are not to be messed with.

[Regret My New Name]

172. Let's say that does happen.

It's pretty obvious that NK military would not last long. Now, let's say the South Koreans moved in and started occupying cities in North Korea. How would China react? How about the population of North Korea? If they are as brainwashed as is claimed, would they quietly sit by and allow the occupation or would they resist? Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have managed to keep the biggest military power from real victory for years now.

I'm not saying that NK should be allowed to attack whoever it wants, just wondering how it would all play out.

[GreenStormCloud]

173. That is what makes everybody so nervous.

The crystal balls seem to catch a lot of static and can't be tuned. There are so many variables.

Personally, I think China would be glad to see Kim gone and the basket case that is NK become unified under the South. Eventually the entire area would be a good stable trading partner to the Chinese. The Chinese are more Capitalist than Communist now. With the country unified, the US could leave.

The population is starving again. Food help may be able to crack the brainwashing - I hope. But the people would have to personally be given the food from ROK troops. They would have to see that it didn't come from "Dear Leader".

I could easily be wrong on both projections. The only thing that I can predict with confidence is military disaster for Kim if he wants to try.

[Doctor_J]

158. Maybe we can find a way to be at war with half the countries in the world

simultaneously. It sounds far-fetched but if we really put our minds to it, and get Fox "News" on board, why settle for less?

:puke:

[Posteritatis]

159. I'm pretty sure it's up to North Korea whether or not North Korea attacks the south. (nt)

[ProudDad]

160. Obama - just another fucking tool of the war machine

But, what the hell, that's all this country's good for -- war, war, and more war...

It's hard (and mighty fucking expensive) to steal 25% of the Earth's bounty for 4% of her people...

Same old SHIT, different container...! :puke: Another Fucking Haavard Coward!

Oh, yeah, I TOLD YA' SO!!!! NYAH, NYAH, NYAH!!!

[krabigirl]

162. Yep and no one seems to care! It's all about "illegals" now.

[Posteritatis]

166. And of course North Korea is spotless in all of this, right? (nt)

[ProudDad]

179. STRAWMAN ALERT! STRAWMAN ALERT!!! (n/t)

[Posteritatis]

180. Says the person who thinks this is all happening just because Obama wants a war? (nt)

[ProudDad]

181. Where did I say that?

You must brush up on your reading skills...

I'm saying that the people who bought Mr. Obama (And Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain, etc) realize that without the permanent war economy, the USAmerican house-of-cards Ponzi scheme would collapse...

The USAmerican (and global) economy is all about exploitation in the service of the few capitalist masters. It's all about profit.

And the permanent war economy serves a dual purpose of producing HUGE, ENDLESS profits and, by stirring up nationalistic, jingoist emotional responses among the sheeple, protects the capitalist masters from any real scrutiny.

The global, permanent war economy is NOT about meeting human needs or any such silly un-lucrative pursuits. If the global "economy" were designed to meet human needs no one would need work more than 12-14 hours a week and the environment wouldn't be in mortal danger...

[Posteritatis]

182. So is North Korea responsible for the current situation or not? (nt)

[ProudDad]

184. A careful, complete reading of history

would have to say "No, not really."

They react just the way the USAmerikan Empire needs them to, when they need them to...

To draw your eyes away from your corporate capitalist war-mongering masters...

You're staring at the zit on your nose and missing the cancer riddling your body...just what they want you to do...

[Pavulon]

185. SO what do you say if china just stomps the shit out of them.

Is that the american empire too? Decent odds the dog bites his master and gets put down.


The careful history is really simple, n korea is run by a stroked out madman. They are starving and desperate. Their time here is over, and they are very dangerous.

[Posteritatis]

188. The problem is that fuzzies up the convenient "US is source of all evil" narrative

Anyone claiming North Korea's blameless in, well, most of the stuff they've been up to since 1950 is far too deep into that to really have anything worth contributing to the discussion.

[defendandprotect]

161. Insane . . . who have we ever apologized to? For everything US government has done, that is ...!!

[Regret My New Name]

170. The US should be apologizing to North Korea

for making North Korea torpedo the South Korean ship.

[defendandprotect]

171. Agree . . . did you ever read the story of how Kissinger sliced that up . . .??

48th parallel --

Think it was Kissinger -- have some stuff on it somewhere --

Try to find something when you need it!!

:)

[Pavulon]

186. Wrong war. Kissinger was not in the loop in the korean war.(nt)