A way out of Iraq
 

We spent a good two hours discussing the Iraq and North Korea situations Friday night at work. Not that there are Iraqis and North Koreans here at work Friday nights, I mean ... Anyway. We got interesting viewpoints from around the room. Mike, the quiet guy, talked about bible prophecy and the end of the world. I kindly threw in that the billion year cycle of the Mayan calendar ends in 2012. Beau thought we should have removed Saddam the first time around. I thought we left him there so we had a boogeyman to bring up if we needed one. Darren was a Gulf War I veteran; he thought we should have gotten Saddam the first time. He didn't like the idea of going back to or sending anyone to Iraq. He had some pretty gruesome stories about some of his buddies and some Iraqi tankers [men who drive tanks] they met up with. Lots of waiting, searing heat, numbing cold interspersed with bits of life-threatening action. Ruben thought we should have immediately gone in after Saddam if we thought he had weapons, no diplomacy. I think Ruben was kidding. Maybe...

I think we should have sent Dick Marcinko in after Saddam; a surgical strike. We have a policy of not assassinating political leaders 'cause it's wrong'. Last attempt was against Iddi Amin in 1975, which was CIA sponsored. I give a hearty and confused 'WTF' at the no assassination rule. Why are we going to war against the Iraqi then?

Someone will undoubtedly bring up our involvement with Afghanistan. We originally assisted the Mujahadeen -- of which Osama bin Laden was a member -- against the Soviet-backed government. Once the war was over, and we were through; we left. It's been suggested that we should have stayed and helped rebuild, but we didn't. We weren't popular with the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia should have stepped in, an Islamic country helping another, but they didn't.

It was kind of an interesting to discover that Osama bin Laden went to the Saudi defense minister and asked that they not allow the US into Saudi Arabia, that he be allowed to drive Saddam out. He didn't want the US's presence on holy ground. The Saudi government told him no, and Osama blew a seal. Whether or not Osama is pinnipedophelic is another story, but by this I mean 'went crazy'. He began advocating the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy, and of course they weren't going to stand for that. He was branded a criminal and exiled. It became a case of me against my cousin; my cousin and I against the world.

I don't really see our government as good or evil. It is simply a massive entity that has no malice nor compassion. Our attempts at obtaining oil have produced some strange partnerships, and lead to some catastrophic problems. I don't think anyone in the government meant for anything to happen. We definitely need to reduce our dependence on oil, foreign or domestic. However that's for another post.

So to the heart of it: I think Saddam needs to buy a black market nuclear weapon. It may not even have to have the plutonium core; just enough to demonstrate there was a bomb. The Iraqi government needs to bring it forth -- to the UN, not the US -- and say "Well, we were lying. We were working on this, and thought better of it. You caught us. Boy you inspectors sure are good." The job is accomplished. Bush has proof of his nuclear weapon, and we can go home. Saddam saves face by giving it to the UN, and proving they are a capable nation, Bush saves face because he was right. I think congress and the senate will tell Bush to back down, he found what he was looking for. We can all exchange cards and flowers, and call it done. We can then send Jimmy Carter and some Marx Brothers DVD's to North Korea to settle that problem. I really get the feeling China is not going to step in to help North Korea if it does anything stupid. They're going to try and smooth things over, keep everyone talking, but that's it. But, as I said before, that's for another post.

Thoughts from across the pond.

We have taken our part in world history and invaded, educated, molested, corrupted whichever way you see it being, and left our western mark on the Camel Jockeys of the east.

By doing these things we have exposed our underbellies to each other and have seen cross capabilities. On both sides there is distaste for cultures and practices. The suppression of thought and speech goes against our western beliefs, where as in the east it is there to preserve the sanctity of there gods. Is it right that we ' look in ' at other nations and tut, tisk and snort our disapproval at them? If it happened to us would we react the same?

Will Saddam role over and expose his underbelly? Probably not.. There will always be the background argument that he should have been extracted the first time. He has attracted a vast range of extremists to his side who will fire the gun that he may have loaded, and there we must act.

Since 9/11 there has been a major focus on world terrorism and more and more sideline nations are being drawn in. The specialist security forces are monitoring activities world-wide and require the assistance of local governments from all countries to maintain this level of vigilance. If Bush and Blair apply over bearing pressure on the sidelines they will become objectionable and stubborn.
So let them rest, and believe they are not involved, but let them be grateful the fight is there.

The United Kingdom has suffered internal terrorism for a long period of time; most of this would have been ‘Conventional’ terror i.e.; bombs and bullets. This is hard enough to live with on its own. The new breed of terror is taking more horrific forms, and is the world prepared to accept a terrorist who will die without thought or conscience for who he is killing?

Are Bush and Blair the saviours of the playground, maybe not. They have both seen the people of there country damaged by terrorism and are standing up to be counted.

Uryoces, while I think your solution is an interesting solution, and the basis for a great covert action novel/movie, I don't think that it would satisfy GWBush. He is just hell-bent on getting rid of Saddam. Look at who is this biggest risk, North Korea or Iraq. North Korea is developing nukes, Saddam has nothing, (well nothing we've found yet). We should be turning our attention to N. Korea and disarming them first, then focus on terror/Osama, then Saddam.

Think about this, one Stealth Bomber flies into N. Korea and bombs the reactor site, destroying it. One bomber, one bomb. Conflict over.

Why haven't we done this???

It's the simplest solution to the problem.

Your opinion?

Saddam: Okay, okay, here -- here's my bomb. (hands it to Blix)

Bush: See? He DID have a bomb!

Saddam: That's the only one I had.

Bush: That means he's HIDING TWENTY MORE! CHAR-R-R-R-RGE!


Next plan?

mw - Unfortunately, that can't work. We don't have a military option with North Korea for a number of reasons. For one, we have 37,000 troops stationed in South Korea, within easy striking distance of North Korean missiles. We also have two allies - Japan and South Korea - within easy striking distance. DPRK would be foolish to hit Japan, but, as jaguar said previously, they are blessed with some of the worst leadership of any modern nation. South Korea is a much more likely target, and - here's the kicker - South Koreans would be more angry at the US than DPRK over a DPRK strike because of an already rising anti-American sentiment, due largely in part to the recent acquittal of two American soldiers in the accidental death of two South Korean girls. South Korea would throw a shit fit if we struck North Korea.

The worst part is that DPRK knows this, and they are going to continue to escalate the situation because of our inability to strike right now. The only time a military option becomes viable is when we are directly threatened (read: a DPRK strike on American targets is imminent). We're not there yet.

Diplomacy is the only option we have right now.

Re: A way out of Iraq
 

I'm surprised they haven't planted something on him yet (I guess they missed this week's episode of NYPD Blue).
On the other hand, I've read and heard a few times that they don't have the satellite capabilities to even launch a long-range missile. Then again, I'm sure Saddam has a Sony PS2 he could forfeit for a few hours.

Re: A way out of Iraq
 

Its going to take a hell of lot more than Marx Brothers films and Jimmy Carter to teach those dipsticks to have a sense of humor...that *is* what you're talking about , isn't it? :p

Re: Re: A way out of Iraq
 

*A* PS/2? How soon we forget...try 4,000 PS/2s.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=21118

My god, that is clear evidence of TERRORIST activity, only a TERRORIST could possibly want a PS2! Quick, nuke him before he gets the cheats to Vice City!

Re: A way out of Iraq
 

Actually, I was reading Wednesday that Kim Jong Il has every Daffy Duck cartoon out there...hmmm...

Or "Nice City."

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ft/2003/ft030113.gif
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ft/2003/ft030114.gif
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ft/2003/ft030115.gif
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ft/2003/ft030116.gif
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ft/2003/ft030117.gif

You know i keep hearing what an SOB the PS2 is to code on, somehow i don't think this is the most serious risk out there.

*sighs*, it's all just so silly.
DPRK mobilise troops, reopen reactors and start reprocessing fule rods to get plutonium for an admitted nuclear weapons program and the situation according to Bush will have a diplomatic solution. Keep in mind the DPRK has one of they worlds most formidable armies, and one of the largest, far larger than the ROK and US forces in the area combined as well as two suspected Nukes.

They find absolutely sweet fuck all in Iraq in terms of either links to terrorists or Chem/Bio weaponary (except for some ancient, empty chem shells which were probably sold to them by the US in the first place) despite a huge concerted intel effort and well - by god we better get in there fast and bomb the bastards back to the stone age - clearly they're hiding something.

I think the difference is that they can't garantee they would win a DPRK/ROK shitfest without losing a few people and maybe a million or 3 Koreans and that might cause them to drop a populatiry point or two. Whereas Iraq they can just bomb to hell from 30,000 feet and no one cares about killing half a million god damned terrorist supporting sandniggers, right?

As I detailed earlier, the US does not have a military option in DPRK. It will be solved by diplomacy because we have no other choice.

I also think your explanation of the situation in Iraq is extremely oversimplified and somewhat assuming and erroneous (i.e., warheads that the US gave 'em? Where's your backup, or are you just being an asshole?)

I'm still not sold on the war in Iraq, but it's silly to act as though we're treating one separately from the other for any reason except the fact that they're entirely different situations.

     A sinister figure clad in black robes enters the thread.
     There are sounds of labored, mechanical breathing, with
     an ominous bass line playing in the background.

     "Hmmmm. The Force is strong in this one..."


"Dave..."

Dave looks around, startled.

"Dave... call him a mouthbreather"

"Never!" says Dave, firmly. "I could never... That would be too..."

"Do it, Dave! Use the power that you feel inside you!"

"Noooo......"

"Yes! Now! Come over to the Dark Side..."

The US can take a military approach to the DPRK, it simply is not as 'easy' as it is in Iraq. That was my point.
As for pissing people off, bombing the fuck out of Iraq is going to whip half of the Middle East into an anti-USA frenzy - Saddam has been smart and made himself into the hero of both the Palestinians and Islam, it's pretty obvious why. Of course there isn't as much trade between most of the middle easy and the USA as there is between ROK and USA.

When you bomb shit you're always going to piss someone off, personally I think both military options are fucking stupid and demonstrate a horrible lack of foresight and thinking.

Chemical munitions...The weapons by all accounts were produced for use during the Iraq-Iran war - the same time the US was giving material aid in the form of both chemical and biological material to Iraq. According to some articles the warheads were imported(please note - none of the articles contradict this, some just don't mention it), but no one is saying where from. I'm a cynic. Join the dots. Maybe they were, maybe they were not, if they were, it's bloody ironic.

The other issue is the number of them, the prestigious sounding Center for Defense Information, a Washington think tank seem to think Iraq has 25000 rockets designed for Chem payloads. 11 here and 11 there is hardly going to make up 25000. Never assume something is cunning deception when it could quite easily be sheer stupidity and mis-management. 11 shells is a disused section of a munitions storehouse dating form 20 odd years ago is hardly solid proof of an active and large weapons development and production program.

Look personally I would not be surprised if Iraq had a very large and active dev program, I’d be quite surprised if they didn't. On the other hand they quite possibly have been smart, and don't. The point is this is no smoking gun, and as an excuse to wipe out a country and absorb it into empire Americana, it's pretty fucking lame.

So N Korean paranoia of a US attack is unjustified. From a US public's opinion - yes. Attack is absolutely unrealistic. But not true inside the same administration that was so quick to also threatened war with China over a silly spy plane.

Normally, a US attack would only be N Korean paranoia. However US leadership has sharply changed. So sharply that S Koreans consider the US more of a theat than N Korea. S Koreans are so furious at Americans now that US troops must remain in groups off base to avoid being attacked. Even the head of information for the US 8th Army in Korea (a Colonel) was mugged and stabbed because S Koreans are that upset with America. Or is it just George Jr they fear?

Normally, any US attack would only be S Korean paranoia. However tonight from the AP:
So it is not North and South Korean paranoia. This administration would openly consider a surprise attack on another nation - without a good reason.

Normally one could dismiss this report and the resulting Korean paranoia. But then this same administration acts so much like Nixon. They claim to seek diplomatic settlement while openly seeking reasons for war with Iraq - pushing almost any nonsense evidence - including aluminum tubes and rumored Al Qaeda contacts - to justify attack. This is so similar to Nixon's mindset when he attacked Cambodia and later Laos. First Nixon denied he was seeking any reason to justify both attacks. Then later outrightly denied he had already attacked.

Current administration's first step is repeatedly too quick to seek a military solution while arbitrarily cutting off all negotiations; thereby only aggrevating the situation.

Why, for god sake, was a surprise attack even being considered? And why did this president so quickly cut off all negotiations - suggesting a N Korean invason may be the next step. The last President that routinely used that kind of strategy when attack was so futile and unproductive was Richard Nixon - when Nixon was becoming paranoid.

On a Totally Unrelated Note
 

I have absolutely nothing to add to this thread, but found the last few entries tiresome, so I thought I'd interpose this non-sequitor.

In keeping with SOME PEOPLE's tradition of noting auspiciously numbered posts, I'd just like to point out that I have reached my 69th post at the Cellar.

Damn, this one makes it 70, so it's not funny anymore.

Sorry.

Please continue with your boring tirades.

The reason irrational S Koreans are unhappy about the US presence is because 2 S Korean children were killed in an auto accident by US Servicemen, who subsequently were not punished. Educational to see tw not mention this event.

The reason the US is still present is that rational S Koreans rule the day. And rational Japanese appreciate it too.

There is a little more to SKorean dislike of US troops than the two kids killed, the same way there is more to the dislike of US troops in Japan than a girl getting raped.
Educational to see you didn't bother to mention that.

Stats worth noting

Source: http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/2003...7132110440.htm

Hey, I wouldn't want foreign troops in my house either.

Also, I wanted to thank South Korea for saving our ass way back when we were almost overrun by our communist neighbors to the North. That was a close call.

(South Korea exists because the United States made it so. Who's to say that they would continue to exist for very long if we pulled out?)

That was but one event. Did you also include the rumor commonly accepted as fact among the S Korean young? Young Koreans now accept as fact that the US invaded Korea in 1950 and forced its current separation. This recent rumor has become quite popular only after George Jr's axis of evil speech.

Then this little tid bit that until now had confused me. The lame duck S Korean president was making contigency plans for S Korean military to replace American troops on the DMZ. It was said necessary in the remote case that America pulled out. Why would we pull the 8th Army out of Korea? That did not make sense back then.

Now it does make sense. Korea needed a contigency plan in case they had to demand US troops leave Korea. S Korea would be foreced to make that demand if we attempted a surprise attack on N Korea. S Korea was so worried that the US just might invade N Korea as to make contigency plans to replace US forces on the DMZ.

This US president makes US allies nervous. When was the last time that both Germany and Canada said they would not support the US in a war? These were the staunchest of US allies. Only under George Jr do even staunch US allies not support US foreign policy. This is the first time ever since WWII for Germany. But then notice how quick this administration is to first promote a military solution. Even young S Koreans fear this president.

What if we need the 8th to help hold Iran while we invade Syria?

Hey, I'm all for getting our troops out of Korea, if the ROK truly believes it can hold its own. I don't know what the numbers are on the ROK military, and I'm no military expert, but I would recommend getting their numbers up to those estimated in the DPRK. Add US training (and weapons), and I'd think they'd be ready to go.

American troops were politely asked to leave the Philippines and we did. If the S Koreans ask us to leave, we will. For some reason I don't think we'll be asked to leave.

I agree, UT. Deep down, I think the ROK fears another Vietnam situation, in that the North will overrun the South.

What does the Philippines have to do with Korea? Philippines is not confronted by a 1 million man adversarial army. US left Philippines same as US left Panama - with no reason to stay other than convenience. UT's post is irrelevant to Korean contingency plans.

Asking US to leave Korea made no sense from a Korean viewpoint. Having the US unilaterally leave Korea also makes no sense from the American perspective. So why was S Korean president Kim Dae-jung making contigency plans for a US withdrawl? This made no sense.

Then incoming president Roh Moo-hyun announced the US was considering the absurd - an attack on N Korea. Now those contingency plans make complete sense. Without those plans, S Korea would have no choice but to participate in a war that probably would be won, but that Korea desperately does not want. At minimum, war would be political suicide for S Korean politicians. It would be disasterous to S Korean economy. Death rates would be exteme and unnecesary. War provided no good solutions.

A US attack on N Korea's 1 million man army is so obviously wasteful and wanton as to be absurd to even consider. Why were hardline administration officials wasting time even considering the obviously absurd? But that is how administration extremists best understand how to solve problems. Big bureacracies and military action.

S Korea's president had to make contingency plans because of naive American administration extremists. If the US attacked N Korea, then S Korea either could participate in a war it does not want OR demand Americans leave. Those contingency plans gave S Korea enough leverage to make a US attack on N Korea impossible. Those contingency plans gave S Korea some options it did not currently have. Those contingency plans were necessary to protect S Korea from George Jr's right wing extremists. Now that contingency planning made complete sense.

I think UT was trying to demonstrate, by using a recent example, that it is the policy of the United States not to station its troops, in time of peace, in countries where the government and the popular will of the people is overwhelmingly opposed to their presence.

That's all.

You were just confused because it didn't take him eleven paragraphs of gibberish to make his point.

Yeah. For the simple reason that the ROK (stupid rumors tw wants to blame on Bush aside) knows that the DPRK troops won't be nearly as nice.

Since there were no rumors, then stupid would be one who did not know old news. Posted was fact. But based upon the local response, I again have made the same mistake. I had assumed news reports were commonly known. The silly emotional response by a few Daily News readers is understandable. Posted was news they did not know AND diplomatic probablilites too complex for some to comprehend.
No rumors were posted. S Korea needed contingency plans. And now we know why. US had been studying plans to attack N Korea. Not difficult to believe considering George Jr, his staff of hardliners, and their history of advocating war as the first solution.

But then even George Jr could not help but to learn how wrong he was with so many world leaders responding so negatively to his strategy. Last week George Jr reversed himself on a policy of not rewarding bad behavior by, instead, offering N Korea a generous offer of "large-scale fuel and food assistance." Even George Jr finally learned how stupid it was to terminate all communicaton with N Korea. He finally listened to solutions long advocated by Japan and S Korea. Maybe he is learning something about international diplomacy after all. He followed the advise of more intelligent leaders from allied countries. That can only be a good sign.

Who here seriously reads the Daily News? And for that matter, who here seriously watches Action News?

I do.. Shhhhhsh.. If I don't, then I miss Peter Jennings.

Actually I only listen; speaker in another room. Why do I so dislike Action News? Maybe because I have to wade through it just to get to ABC Network News.

Aha! Now the truth is known!

Here's the trick. Liza Thomas is a pretty babe - I am told. But I only know these people from their grey matter. I listen on speaker without video. Therefore I can not biased by her looks. Only by what she says.

Robin Quivers ( back when they were doing the show as demonstrated in Howard's movie) I always thought of as a long, legged, slinky, dark haired white girl who wore long red dresses every day. But then I saw her. Short, black, and fat (she has changed tremendously for the better since then). If she had not spoken, I would have never recognized her. People's interior and exterior have little in common.

At least Howard has a nose big enough to go with his mind. Maybe that is what Liza Thomas needs - a nose job?

I always thought of Robin Quivers as the woman who was basically an incompetent DJ, who was fired from the Harrisburg station I grew up with when she fell asleep at the job and left listeners with a long session of popping vinyl track of dead air. But that's just me, remembering a better time when DJs actually required talent, running equipment and making actual real-time content decisions.

T, the secret to local news is that it is aimed at an IQ of about 90, in order to draw the largest possible audience. Now that the middle class is fully wired for cable, they may be aiming even lower with the local station news.

But Ms. Thomas-Laury, as a proven talent in a major market, probably brings in about $250,000 a year. Mr. Howard, as a newly-hired-away major anchor, probably brings in $500K. At that level they are expected to know how to pronounce "Azerbaijan" but they don't need to know where it is.

That may be true. Local Gossip news reporters may need not know the news to make big bucks. But the great news broadcasters got that way because they knew enough about news to openly challenge every reporter. Ted Koppel is a prime example of what an anchor must do.

Classic example is Walter Conkite. He was not the kindly gentleman we thought. He was a reporter's worst nightmare - or best boss one could ever have. Walter got the story right every time because it was his job. He held reporter's feet to the fire.

Ten years to the day, CBS replayed Walter's broadcast about 3 Mile Island. Entire broadcast devoted entirely to the meltdown. With but days to figure out what had happened, and with GPU outrightly lying and intentionally providing disinformation, Walter's reporters got the event down correct and accurate. Why? David Halbersham delineates examples of what an anchor (including Cronkite as example) does in his book 'The Powers that Be'.

A news anchor is the best reporter who also makes every reporter do more than they thought they could. However I saw Liza Thomas Laurie do a three part report on lost airline baggage. What a waste of electricity! She could not report how a cat got stuck in a tree. It shows in how Actions News reports. Maybe those with an IQ of 90 could not see it. But anyone with an IQ of 100 has to be asleep or locked in prision to waste time watching Action News foolishness.