Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Make No Mistake: This Is War

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Make No Mistake: This Is War
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:49 am Post subject:

Quote:

The one thing you're ignoring is the past. Clinton prevented terrorist attacks as well. Without the PA, without the help of the Republicans, and without needlessly sacrificing our troops.

Clinton was a reasonably good president. Not a great president.

But during his term Bathists , Khomeni supporters and Al Qaedist were after the US.

The US doens't have to let them have their war.

Quote:

All without a "war on terror," terror alerts, the PA, or the other shenanigans Bush has undertaken.

but what Clinton did was not enough . Both he and Bush underestimated the threat of AQ.

Quote:

And before you raise the bin Laden-Sudan connection again, please let me remind you that it's the ultimate in back seat, Monday morning quarterbacking. No one in either party said boo about the handling of bin Laden until after 9/11. The Bush administration ignored a lot of crucial intelligence leading up to 9/11. That they try to deflect blame to Clinton's handling of bin Laden 5 years prior is indicative of the administration's character.

I agree with you. I wasn't blasting Clinton. I was saying the US justice system as it was was not up to dealing w/ AQ.

If it was then the US would have been able to have gotten rid of not only Bin Laden but Khomeni as well.

Remember Sandy Burger said something would have been "worked out. "

Which means that something extra out side the justice system would have been done or needed to be done.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:18 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

but what Clinton did was not enough . Both he and Bush underestimated the threat of AQ.

You seem to keep implying that there can ever be "enough." That the terrorist threat will ever be 100%, completely eliminated. It's just not possible. Not unless you want to institute mindmetoo's sardonic solution.

And no, I still don't believe that a 5 1/2 year lull is indicative that a solution has been found.

Quote:

I agree with you. I wasn't blasting Clinton. I was saying the US justice system as it was was not up to dealing w/ AQ.

Isn't that like saying the US justice system wasn't up to dealing with Charles Manson, or Cho Seung-Hui? In 1996 bin Laden wasn't directly connected to any terrorist activity and wasn't considered the leader of AQ. It wasn't until after he moved to Afghanistan that he started issuing his fatwas and directing attacks. To say that any justice system could have been up to dealing with him seems to suggest that the PA somehow gives us prescience.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:55 am Post subject:

[quote="huffdaddy"]

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

but what Clinton did was not enough . Both he and Bush underestimated the threat of AQ.

Quote:

the US can hurt them alot , more than now.( No mindmetoo' idea is not a solution) . But the US can go after public figures who support AQ and invest in weapons systems that will give the US faster reaction time.

And the US can make it so Iran doesn't gain a strategic advantage from their nuclear program.

The US can not eliminate terror but the US can get a strategic edge.
The US ought not tolerate when mideast counties and elites incite violence, teach hate , fund terror and support AQ or similar groups.Going back to more or less the way the US did things the 90s will just mean the US will be hit again.

Quote:

And no, I still don't believe that a 5 1/2 year lull is indicative that a solution has been found.

no , but maybe it is some indicator that somethings the is doing are working.

Quote:

I agree with you. I wasn't blasting Clinton. I was saying the US justice system as it was was not up to dealing w/ AQ.

Quote:

No cause the US knew alot about Bin Laden. the US already asked the Sudan to kick him out. The Sandy Burger said the ideal was for Bin Laden to be turned over to the Saudis where they could chop his head off. If the Nation security advisor and Clinton knew about him the chances are Bin Laden was involved in a lot of stuff.

At any rate I am inclined believe Clintons ' national security advisor Sandy Baker when he said something would have been worked out. Which seems to mean something extra judicial. Notice he did not say we would have put him on trial the he said something "could be worked out"

If the US system was up to the task then nothing would need to be "worked out"

He was already the leader of AQ.

Quote:

Charles Manson, or Cho Seung-Hui?

No the US didn't know who they were before they did what they did.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:17 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

IMO, sustained, grassroots intelligence is going to do a lot more good than faster reaction time. This isn't like the movies where we catch the bad guys with seconds to spare.

Quote:

And no, I still don't believe that a 5 1/2 year lull is indicative that a solution has been found.

no , but maybe it is some indicator that somethings the is doing are working.

So Clinton was doing something that worked as well. No domestic attacks after Feb, 1993 (so that's almost 7 years of 11 months of success, which is better than W's record).

Quote:

Cho Seung-Hui?

No the US didn't know who they were before they did what they did.

So much for the PA's effectiveness at uncovering homicidal maniacs. Wink

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:24 am Post subject:

[quote="huffdaddy"]

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

IMO, sustained, grassroots intelligence is going to do a lot more good than faster reaction time. This isn't like the movies where we catch the bad guys with seconds to spare.

both are part of it.

Cruise missiles took 4 hours to hit Afganistan

Hypersonic cruise missile the same journey in 20 minutes.

Quote:

So Clinton was doing something that worked as well. No domestic attacks after Feb, 1993 (so that's almost 7 years of 11 months of success, which is better than W's record).

We don't know. But during that Time AQ was gaining in power.

The AQ Bush faced was more powerful than the AQ Clinton faced.

70,000 trained in AQ camps in Afghanistan.

Anyway I am not anti Clinton. I don't hate Hillary , I sort of like her ..

Clinton did many things right but he didn't understand how bad the war against the US was.

Anway the US has a serious problem to deal with and if you have any ideas I would be interested in knowing them.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:44 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

huffdaddy wrote:

IMO, sustained, grassroots intelligence is going to do a lot more good than faster reaction time. This isn't like the movies where we catch the bad guys with seconds to spare.

both are part of it.

Cruise missiles took 4 hours to hit Afganistan

Hypersonic cruise missile the same journey in 20 minutes.

I can't even envision a scenario where 4 hours is going to make a difference. Besides, missles can be launched from ships in the region and greatly reduce that 4 hour time.

Quote:

70,000 trained in AQ camps in Afghanistan.

Getting in to Afghanistan and busting up their training grounds was the right move. Nobody complains about our actions there.

Quote:

Clinton did many things right but he didn't understand how bad the war against the US was.

I'm really not sure Bush understands the problem. To him, military might equals success. I'm not sure that's the case.

Quote:

Anway the US has a serious problem to deal with and if you have any ideas I would be interested in knowing them.

Busting up AQ into fragments was good. Making a full scale assault on every cell and every potential terrorist is, minimally, a waste of time and money. At worst, counter productive.

An Iraq pullout is premature. I believe we're bound to the UN's Pottery Barn policy.

Sometimes the certainty of knowing the enemy, and being able to monitor him, is better than the uncertainty of eliminating him and having to worry about new enemies. I really don't know for sure though. I think it's a fine line that may be impossible to walk.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 6:57 am Post subject:

Quote:

I can't even envision a scenario where 4 hours is going to make a difference. Besides, missles can be launched from ships in the region and greatly reduce that 4 hour time.

any time the US sees a high value target - take a shot

Quote:

Getting in to Afghanistan and busting up their training grounds was the right move. Nobody complains about our actions there.

not you anyway.

but question were the 19 attackers on 9-11 from Afghanistan?

Quote:

I'm really not sure Bush understands the problem. To him, military might equals success. I'm not sure that's the case.

It is certainly not the case , but it might be part of the solution. Especially when it comes to Iran.

As I have said if the US has the right weapons Iran will gain no strategic advantage from having nuclear weapons.

As we can see NK has gained some thing from being able to threaten

IF the US strikes them then they will blow up South Korea with nuclear or conventional weapons.

and nuclear weapons have limited value cause the radiation would affect Korea, especially if they were used near the DMZ on North Korea's army.

But what if there was something that had the power of nuclear weapons w/o the radiation?

Quote:

Busting up AQ into fragments was good. Making a full scale assault on every cell and every potential terrorist is, minimally, a waste of time and money. At worst, counter productive.

You might have a point maybe , on the other hand a war is being waged against the US. Just let it go on.

Besides AQ has important people behind them. Should the US let them be?

If someone calls for holy war against the US or incites violence ought the US let them be?

Allowing a war -even a low level one to be waged against you is not a very desirable policy.

Quote:

An Iraq pullout is premature. I believe we're bound to the UN's Pottery Barn policy.

I would say go to the Kurdish areas.

Quote:

Sometimes the certainty of knowing the enemy, and being able to monitor him, is better than the uncertainty of eliminating him and having to worry about new enemies. I really don't know for sure though. I think it's a fine line that may be impossible to walk.[

Along with that comes this possiblity

If the enemy isn't gone then when another enemy rises you have two enemies.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:52 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

I can't even envision a scenario where 4 hours is going to make a difference. Besides, missles can be launched from ships in the region and greatly reduce that 4 hour time.

any time the US sees a high value target - take a shot

Which is only valuable if you can identify and lock in on the target in a couple of hours. Which again, comes down to intelligence. And again, conventional forces in the region could accomplish the same goal.

Quote:

Getting in to Afghanistan and busting up their training grounds was the right move. Nobody complains about our actions there.

not you anyway.

but question were the 19 attackers on 9-11 from Afghanistan?

Who in the US is opposed to the Afghanistan operations? It's an honest question, as I'm not aware of any outspoken opposition to that front.

The 9/11 attackers were trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I'm not sure how much relevance their Saudi origins have. Bin Laden is Saudi and was not accepted by the Saudis.

Quote:

IF the US strikes them then they will blow up South Korea with nuclear or conventional weapons.

and nuclear weapons have limited value cause the radiation would affect Korea, especially if they were used near the DMZ on North Korea's army.

But what if there was something that had the power of nuclear weapons w/o the radiation?

See your first point why space weapons have limited strategic advantage. They will still incite a war.

As for the later point, that's why we still have conventional weapons. Nuclear weapons are generally overkill in accomplishing strategic goals.

Quote:

Allowing a war -even a low level one to be waged against you is not a very desirable policy.

Allow a low level war or escalate it into a full blown war. It's a dilemma.

Quote:

An Iraq pullout is premature. I believe we're bound to the UN's Pottery Barn policy.

I would say go to the Kurdish areas.

I haven't studies it enough to be 100% behind it, but I believe the 3 state partition could be the most attractive. The trick is getting the different Iraqi factions to agree.

Quote:

Along with that comes this possiblity

If the enemy isn't gone then when another enemy rises you have two enemies.

Too true.

In short, many of the recent AQ leaders rose through the ranks during the Soviet-Afghan conflict. Which Iraqi insurgents will take their place? It's hard to know at this point. But in 5-10 years time, I believe we'll see a resurgence in power from AQ. Unfortunately, it will probably be a Democrat in office at the time and they will receive the blunt of the blame. Just like Clinton received the blame for Reagan's disasterous Afghan policy.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:49 am Post subject:

Quote:

keeping conventional forces in the mideast is difficult and costly and dangerous for the forces.

The good thing is that with new weapons no boots on the ground which means no hostages for the enemy.

Quote:

Who in the US is opposed to the Afghanistan operations? It's an honest question, as I'm not aware of any outspoken opposition to that front.

Counterpunch.org and the like.

Quote:

The 9/11 attackers were trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I'm not sure how much relevance their Saudi origins have. Bin Laden is Saudi and was not accepted by the Saudis.

Who made them think that way? Bin Laden and AQ get support from Saudi Arabia possibly from some of those who are high up.

Quote:

See your first point why space weapons have limited strategic advantage. They will still incite a war.

If they incite a war I would not want to be there other side. and if it incites a war then much of the threaten elements of the other side won't be there in a few hours.

This is not something that the other side just gets hit with and then goes on to fight another.

Quote:

As for the later point, that's why we still have conventional weapons. Nuclear weapons are generally overkill in accomplishing strategic goals.

Conventional weapons would not destroy all of N Koreas army in the first strike.

Conventional weapons probably could not hit at a lot of underground sites in Iran.

But it doesn't have to be that way.

Quote:

Allow a low level war or escalate it into a full blown war. It's a dilemma.

That means the US has to accept a low level war being waged against it.

That is not acceptable.

Quote:

I haven't studies it enough to be 100% behind it, but I believe the 3 state partition could be the most attractive. The trick is getting the different Iraqi factions to agree.

Ok

Too true.

Quote:

In short, many of the recent AQ leaders rose through the ranks during the Soviet-Afghan conflict. Which Iraqi insurgents will take their place? It's hard to know at this point. But in 5-10 years time, I believe we'll see a resurgence in power from AQ. Unfortunately, it will probably be a Democrat in office at the time and they will receive the blunt of the blame. Just like Clinton received the blame for Reagan's disasterous Afghan policy.

Clinton was a good president but he underestimated the war that was being waged against the US.

AQ trained 70,000 in their camps and Iran was also attacking US forces from time to time.

That ought not to have been allowed to happen.

And the Soviet Union was out to get the US .

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 4:07 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

The good thing is that with new weapons no boots on the ground which means no hostages for the enemy.

That's why we have ships.

Quote:

The 9/11 attackers were trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I'm not sure how much relevance their Saudi origins have. Bin Laden is Saudi and was not accepted by the Saudis.

Who made them think that way?

Maybe the same people who made igotthisguitar and EFLT think that way?

Quote:

Conventional weapons would not destroy all of N Koreas army in the first strike.

Conventional weapons probably could not hit at a lot of underground sites in Iran.

What's the link to these weapons again? They're sounding more pie in the sky every time you mention them.

Quote:

AQ trained 70,000 in their camps and Iran was also attacking US forces from time to time.

That ought not to have been allowed to happen.

In retrospect, yes. Though I don't believe Clinton would have gained the support of Congress or the American people to preemptively invade Afghanistan.

Quote:

And the Soviet Union was out to get the US .

Refer again to my point about the enemy you know.

And the failure in Afghanistan wasn't dealing with the Soviets, but rather the abandonment of Afghanistan after the Soviets left.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:44 pm Post subject:

Quote:

That's why we have ships.

not suited for all missions

Maybe the same people who made igotthisguitar and EFLT think that way?

What's the link to these weapons again? They're sounding more pie in the sky every time you mention them.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/military/hypersonic-cruise-missiles-hit-mach-5-223229.php

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/generaltechnology/df869aa138b84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

Quote:

In retrospect, yes. Though I don't believe Clinton would have gained the support of Congress or the American people to preemptively invade Afghanistan.

exactly . Maybe he should have lied like Bush did or sort of did.

Quote:

Refer again to my point about the enemy you know.

depends on which govenment was running the Soviet Union. If it were Gorby then the answer of course is that the US shoudl not support the groups the US suppported in AFghanstan.

But what if it is Breshnev or even worse Stalin.

Quote:

And the failure in Afghanistan wasn't dealing with the Soviets, but rather the abandonment of Afghanistan after the Soviets left.

agreed. Still the US found that the most effective fighters against the Soviets were the cruelist and most extreme.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:03 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

What's the link to these weapons again? They're sounding more pie in the sky every time you mention them.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/military/hypersonic-cruise-missiles-hit-mach-5-223229.php

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/generaltechnology/df869aa138b84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

I don't see that either one says they could:

Quote:

destroy all of N Koreas army in the first strike.

And I don't see how either one could prevent an eminent terrorist strike.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:48 am Post subject:

I don't see that either one says they could:

Quote:

destroy all of N Koreas army in the first strike.

Quote:

Rods from God" is the evolution of a 1980s program. Basically, it consists of orbiting platforms stocked with metal tungsten rods about 6.1 meters long (20 feet) and 30 centimeters (one foot) in diameter that could be satellite-guided to targets anywhere on the earth within minutes, for the rods would move at more than 11,000 kilometers an hour (6,835 miles per hour). This weapon exploits kinetic energy to cause an explosion the same magnitude of that of an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon, but with no radioactive fallout. The system would function due to two satellites, one of which would work as a communications platform, while the other would contain an arsenal of tungsten rods. Each of the satellites would be seven meters long and its diameter would be approximately 30 centimeters.

However, serious problems would arise if the Pentagon began the operational phase - especially from a financial perspective. Some studies maintain that Rods from God could be fully operational in 10 years. The targets of the rods would be much more restricted than those of Global Strike. Their main targets remains ballistic missiles stockpiled in hardened sites or orbital devices and satellite systems deployed by other powers - according to the counter-space operation doctrine. Rods from God can, however, be employed to strike targets in desert areas - be they hardened sites or concentrated hostile forces.

Its devastating striking power does not allow such a weapon to be used for other missions, if unsustainable collateral damage is to be avoided.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH18Aa01.html

Quote:

And I don't see how either one could prevent an eminent terrorist strike.[

eminent no. but it would improve the strategic balance in favor of the US and probably cancel out any strategic benefit Iran or North Korea would get from having nuclear weapons.

In the case of Iran Iran could not use the threat of nuclear weapons to deter the US from hitting it in retaliation for a terrorist strike like Khobar.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 4:25 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

atimes wrote:

Its devastating striking power does not allow such a weapon to be used for other missions, if unsustainable collateral damage is to be avoided.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH18Aa01.html

The article you site enumerates the problems with such weapons. Including the quote you provide, which would eliminate the possibility of their usage along the DMZ.

Quote:

And I don't see how either one could prevent an eminent terrorist strike.

eminent no. but it would improve the strategic balance in favor of the US and probably cancel out any strategic benefit Iran or North Korea would get from having nuclear weapons.

Temporary strategic balance, at best. Please refer to the article you site for reasons why the balance would not be long lasting, if at all.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 5:31 am Post subject:

[quote="huffdaddy"]

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

atimes wrote:

Its devastating striking power does not allow such a weapon to be used for other missions, if unsustainable collateral damage is to be avoided.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH18Aa01.html

Quote:

The article you site enumerates the problems with such weapons. Including the quote you provide, which would eliminate the possibility of their usage along the DMZ.

why couldn't they be used along the DMZ, especially if they are targeted well?

Quote:

Temporary strategic balance, at best. Please refer to the article you site for reasons why the balance would not be long lasting, if at all

Why only temporary?

It seems it would be a good counter to a nuclear armed Iran. What counter could Iran come up with?

It will certainly force the strategic balance via Iran and North Korea back in the favor the US .

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 5 of 7

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe