29 May 2005 22:47:27
Dillon Pyron
Am I a sicko?

Some people are repulsed when I say either of the following two
things. What do you folks think?

1
If I had been President on Sept 11th, I would have asked one question
after it was determined that it was al Qeda. Tell me which 12
locations bin Laden is most likely at. Then I'd call the Kremlin and
Bejing and tell them "I'm not launching you guys" as I ordered a
Trident up.

2
If North Korea and Iran want nuclear weapons, why not deliver some?

--
dillon
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.


29 May 2005 16:11:17
Scott
Re: Am I a sicko?


"Dillon Pyron" <dmpyronINVALID@austin.rr.com > wrote in message
news:fehk919otps98pqfl9bgl3gjr0hoqr87jt@4ax.com...
> Some people are repulsed when I say either of the following two
> things. What do you folks think?

What?




29 May 2005 18:39:26
dazed and confuzzed
Re: Am I a sicko?

Dillon Pyron wrote:

> Some people are repulsed when I say either of the following two
> things. What do you folks think?
>
> 1
> If I had been President on Sept 11th, I would have asked one question
> after it was determined that it was al Qeda. Tell me which 12
> locations bin Laden is most likely at. Then I'd call the Kremlin and
> Bejing and tell them "I'm not launching you guys" as I ordered a
> Trident up.
>
> 2
> If North Korea and Iran want nuclear weapons, why not deliver some?
>

No, you are not a "sicko". But people like you and I apparently lack
"nuance".

I might not have nuked the likely hideouts, but I would have demanded
that the Tailbone Gvt. in Afghanistan produce OBL, or every 24 hours one
of their military bases and/or palaces or other government buildings
would have ceases to exist (I'd have announced the list in advance).

As for Nk and Iran, I would have long ago vaporized (with High
Explosives if possible, Nukes if not) every possible place where they
are producing fuel for said nukes.

But then again, I apparently lack finesse is such situations.



--

My diesel truck has been modified to run on an environmentally friendly
mixture of clean burning Caribou fat and whale oil.

Looking for a good fight is not the same as finding one worth having...



29 May 2005 23:53:48
Gary Owens
Re: Am I a sicko?

Your not a "Sicko", you're just saying what everyone else is thinking, but
afraid to say.
North Korea and Iran should have been "Nuked" back to the stone age years
ago.
gary


"Dillon Pyron" <dmpyronINVALID@austin.rr.com > wrote in message
news:fehk919otps98pqfl9bgl3gjr0hoqr87jt@4ax.com...
> Some people are repulsed when I say either of the following two
> things. What do you folks think?
>
> 1
> If I had been President on Sept 11th, I would have asked one question
> after it was determined that it was al Qeda. Tell me which 12
> locations bin Laden is most likely at. Then I'd call the Kremlin and
> Bejing and tell them "I'm not launching you guys" as I ordered a
> Trident up.
>
> 2
> If North Korea and Iran want nuclear weapons, why not deliver some?
>
> --
> dillon
> Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
> Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.




29 May 2005 19:20:28
Dennis (Icarus)
Re: Am I a sicko?

"Dillon Pyron" <dmpyronINVALID@austin.rr.com > wrote in message
news:fehk919otps98pqfl9bgl3gjr0hoqr87jt@4ax.com...
> Some people are repulsed when I say either of the following two
> things. What do you folks think?
>
> 1
> If I had been President on Sept 11th, I would have asked one question
> after it was determined that it was al Qeda. Tell me which 12
> locations bin Laden is most likely at. Then I'd call the Kremlin and
> Bejing and tell them "I'm not launching you guys" as I ordered a
> Trident up.

I don't think you're a sicko. I felt the same way in the aftermath of 9/11.
But then I remembered that we do try to target just the enemy forces, and
not innocents.
Nukes are awfully big sticks.

>
> 2
> If North Korea and Iran want nuclear weapons, why not deliver some?

Dennis
>
> --
> dillon
> Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
> Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.




29 May 2005 19:22:59
Dennis (Icarus)
Re: Am I a sicko?

"dazed and confuzzed" <dedmann@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:8YWdnTTKqfczzwffRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> Dillon Pyron wrote:
>
> > Some people are repulsed when I say either of the following two
> > things. What do you folks think?
> >
> > 1
> > If I had been President on Sept 11th, I would have asked one question
> > after it was determined that it was al Qeda. Tell me which 12
> > locations bin Laden is most likely at. Then I'd call the Kremlin and
> > Bejing and tell them "I'm not launching you guys" as I ordered a
> > Trident up.
> >
> > 2
> > If North Korea and Iran want nuclear weapons, why not deliver some?
> >
>
> No, you are not a "sicko". But people like you and I apparently lack
> "nuance".
>
> I might not have nuked the likely hideouts, but I would have demanded
> that the Tailbone Gvt. in Afghanistan produce OBL, or every 24 hours one
> of their military bases and/or palaces or other government buildings
> would have ceases to exist (I'd have announced the list in advance).
>
> As for Nk and Iran, I would have long ago vaporized (with High
> Explosives if possible, Nukes if not) every possible place where they
> are producing fuel for said nukes.
>
> But then again, I apparently lack finesse is such situations.

Well, you've just lost any chance that the dems would not filibuser your
appointment as, say, ambassador to the UN.
So the only option is to elect more Republican senators. Just need 6 more,
...hmmm..best make it 10 in order to secure the cloture vote from RINOs.

Dennis
>
>
>
> --
>
> My diesel truck has been modified to run on an environmentally friendly
> mixture of clean burning Caribou fat and whale oil.
>
> Looking for a good fight is not the same as finding one worth having...
>




29 May 2005 19:23:11
dazed and confuzzed
Re: Am I a sicko?

Dennis (Icarus) wrote:
> "dazed and confuzzed" <dedmann@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:8YWdnTTKqfczzwffRVn-iw@comcast.com...
>
>>Dillon Pyron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Some people are repulsed when I say either of the following two
>>>things. What do you folks think?
>>>
>>>1
>>>If I had been President on Sept 11th, I would have asked one question
>>>after it was determined that it was al Qeda. Tell me which 12
>>>locations bin Laden is most likely at. Then I'd call the Kremlin and
>>>Bejing and tell them "I'm not launching you guys" as I ordered a
>>>Trident up.
>>>
>>>2
>>>If North Korea and Iran want nuclear weapons, why not deliver some?
>>>
>>
>>No, you are not a "sicko". But people like you and I apparently lack
>>"nuance".
>>
>>I might not have nuked the likely hideouts, but I would have demanded
>>that the Tailbone Gvt. in Afghanistan produce OBL, or every 24 hours one
>>of their military bases and/or palaces or other government buildings
>>would have ceases to exist (I'd have announced the list in advance).
>>
>>As for Nk and Iran, I would have long ago vaporized (with High
>>Explosives if possible, Nukes if not) every possible place where they
>>are producing fuel for said nukes.
>>
>>But then again, I apparently lack finesse is such situations.
>
>
> Well, you've just lost any chance that the dems would not filibuser your
> appointment as, say, ambassador to the UN.
> So the only option is to elect more Republican senators. Just need 6 more,
> ...hmmm..best make it 10 in order to secure the cloture vote from RINOs.
>
> Dennis
>
>>

Yah, like anyone who knows me would want me as ambassador to anywhere.....

--

My diesel truck has been modified to run on an environmentally friendly
mixture of clean burning Caribou fat and whale oil.

Looking for a good fight is not the same as finding one worth having...



29 May 2005 17:38:43
ghmorris
Re: Am I a sicko?



Dillon Pyron wrote:
> Some people are repulsed when I say either of the following two
> things. What do you folks think?
>
> 1
> If I had been President on Sept 11th, I would have asked one question
> after it was determined that it was al Qeda. Tell me which 12
> locations bin Laden is most likely at. Then I'd call the Kremlin and
> Bejing and tell them "I'm not launching you guys" as I ordered a
> Trident up.
>
> 2
> If North Korea and Iran want nuclear weapons, why not deliver some?

What confidence would you have in the answer to 1.?

Intelligence out of that region has not been and still isn't very good,
otherwise bin Laden would be in jail or dead and Al Qaeda would be a
bad memory.

Are you prepared to nuke innocent people on faulty data?

Why haven't we been able to find bin Laden??

George



29 May 2005 17:43:23
ghmorris
Re: Am I a sicko?

dazed and confuzzed wrote:
>
> I might not have nuked the likely hideouts, but I would have demanded
> that the Tailbone Gvt. in Afghanistan produce OBL, or every 24 hours one
> of their military bases and/or palaces or other government buildings
> would have ceases to exist (I'd have announced the list in advance).
>
> As for Nk and Iran, I would have long ago vaporized (with High
> Explosives if possible, Nukes if not) every possible place where they
> are producing fuel for said nukes.
>
An interesting position, why do you think it wasn't done that way?

It appears to have been a heck of a lot easier to deal with both Iran
and more importantly N Korea while they were weaker, so why not?

George



29 May 2005 19:54:54
dazed and confuzzed
Re: Am I a sicko?

ghmorris wrote:
> dazed and confuzzed wrote:
>
>>I might not have nuked the likely hideouts, but I would have demanded
>>that the Tailbone Gvt. in Afghanistan produce OBL, or every 24 hours one
>>of their military bases and/or palaces or other government buildings
>>would have ceases to exist (I'd have announced the list in advance).
>>
>>As for Nk and Iran, I would have long ago vaporized (with High
>>Explosives if possible, Nukes if not) every possible place where they
>>are producing fuel for said nukes.
>>
>
> An interesting position, why do you think it wasn't done that way?
>
> It appears to have been a heck of a lot easier to deal with both Iran
> and more importantly N Korea while they were weaker, so why not?

I dunno, no one in the Bush administration asked my opinion.

I'll play your silly game however,

Why not?


--

My diesel truck has been modified to run on an environmentally friendly
mixture of clean burning Caribou fat and whale oil.

Looking for a good fight is not the same as finding one worth having...



29 May 2005 18:07:58
ghmorris
Re: Am I a sicko?



dazed and confuzzed wrote:
> > An interesting position, why do you think it wasn't done that way?
> >
> > It appears to have been a heck of a lot easier to deal with both Iran
> > and more importantly N Korea while they were weaker, so why not?
>
> I dunno, no one in the Bush administration asked my opinion.
>
> I'll play your silly game however,
>
> Why not?
>
No games. I have absolutely no idea why more pressure hasn't been
applied. Perhaps its to do with troop levels in Iraq putting too much
strain on the system.

Both regimes are not prone to listening to reason, much more so the
Koreans. I think its going to backfire.

George



29 May 2005 20:09:04
dazed and confuzzed
Re: Am I a sicko?

ghmorris wrote:

>
> dazed and confuzzed wrote:
>
>>>An interesting position, why do you think it wasn't done that way?
>>>
>>>It appears to have been a heck of a lot easier to deal with both Iran
>>>and more importantly N Korea while they were weaker, so why not?
>>
>>I dunno, no one in the Bush administration asked my opinion.
>>
>>I'll play your silly game however,
>>
>>Why not?
>>
>
> No games. I have absolutely no idea why more pressure hasn't been
> applied. Perhaps its to do with troop levels in Iraq putting too much
> strain on the system.
>
> Both regimes are not prone to listening to reason, much more so the
> Koreans. I think its going to backfire.

How so?
>
> George
>


--

My diesel truck has been modified to run on an environmentally friendly
mixture of clean burning Caribou fat and whale oil.

Looking for a good fight is not the same as finding one worth having...



29 May 2005 18:18:56
ghmorris
Re: Am I a sicko?



dazed and confuzzed wrote:
> > Both regimes are not prone to listening to reason, much more so the
> > Koreans. I think its going to backfire.
>
> How so?
>

Who knows? The North Korean govt has demonstrated many times they don't
think the way we do.

A fresh invasion of the South while using their nukes as a deterrent to
intervention would be pretty interesting. Trying to work out who was
bluffing and how much would be scary, particularly if one of the nukes
was aimed at Tokyo for example...

George



30 May 2005 02:40:32
Dillon Pyron
Re: Am I a sicko?

Thus spake "ghmorris" <ghmorris@gmail.com > :

>
>
>Dillon Pyron wrote:
>> Some people are repulsed when I say either of the following two
>> things. What do you folks think?
>>
>> 1
>> If I had been President on Sept 11th, I would have asked one question
>> after it was determined that it was al Qeda. Tell me which 12
>> locations bin Laden is most likely at. Then I'd call the Kremlin and
>> Bejing and tell them "I'm not launching you guys" as I ordered a
>> Trident up.
>>
>> 2
>> If North Korea and Iran want nuclear weapons, why not deliver some?
>
>What confidence would you have in the answer to 1.?
>
>Intelligence out of that region has not been and still isn't very good,
>otherwise bin Laden would be in jail or dead and Al Qaeda would be a
>bad memory.

Clinton launched SLCMs at him. I don't see why we couldn't target the
12 most likely camp areas. I suspect we had a better chance of
catching him then than we ever will now.

>
>Are you prepared to nuke innocent people on faulty data?
>
>Why haven't we been able to find bin Laden??
>
>George

BTW, people give too much credit to bin Laden. He wasn't trying to
drop the WTC, he was trying to push them over, just like his previous
attempt. If I wanted to drop the towers, I would have had the planes
dive into the bases, rather than hit them high. Then he took credit
for a "masterful" plan that was really just a fluke.

--
dillon
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.


29 May 2005 19:58:43
Scott
Re: Am I a sicko?

"Dillon Pyron" <dmpyronINVALID@austin.rr.com > wrote in message
news:e0vk91h4g0tv698pv16g52690qhhg79dl7@4ax.com...

> BTW, people give too much credit to bin Laden. He wasn't trying to
> drop the WTC, he was trying to push them over, just like his previous
> attempt. If I wanted to drop the towers, I would have had the planes
> dive into the bases, rather than hit them high. Then he took credit
> for a "masterful" plan that was really just a fluke.

I remember seeing the tape of him and a couple of his pals giggling like
little girls, sitting on the floor in a bare room (walls lined with the
symbolic AK variants), like bums under an overpass, praising Allah for
taking the towers down and hitting the Pentagon. I remember that as the
defining moment for my consideration or compassion for his religion or his
"cause".

I take a little joy in knowing that every time he hears a dog bark or a twig
snap, his pulse races. He has to wonder if that is "them"; he knows "they"
are coming. He gets to watch his buddies go in the ground or into a closet,
one by one, and when we are lucky and on our game, a hundred or two at a
time. They must have an unlimited supply of virgins in their version of
heaven, or they are passing those girls around.

Uncle Sugar is going to get him, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, maybe
not for many more years.






29 May 2005 23:45:32
Douglas W. Popeye Frederick
Re: Am I a sicko?


"ghmorris" <ghmorris@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1117415936.867089.190710@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> dazed and confuzzed wrote:
>> > Both regimes are not prone to listening to reason, much more so the
>> > Koreans. I think its going to backfire.
>>
>> How so?
>>
>
> Who knows? The North Korean govt has demonstrated many times they don't
> think the way we do.
>
> A fresh invasion of the South while using their nukes as a deterrent to
> intervention would be pretty interesting. Trying to work out who was
> bluffing and how much would be scary, particularly if one of the nukes
> was aimed at Tokyo for example...
>
> George


Never happen.

Anyone pops a nuke in that area, for any reason, and we flatten the Great
Pornographer first.

And the Chinese won't do squat about it, infected by the almighty dollar.

In fact the North Koreans probably have more to worry about from the
Chinese than us.

That Kim guy is slightly more dangerous that Castro, which ain't sayin a
lot.





30 May 2005 02:45:21
ghmorris
Re: Am I a sicko?



Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
>
> Never happen.
>
> Anyone pops a nuke in that area, for any reason, and we flatten the Great
> Pornographer first.
>
> And the Chinese won't do squat about it, infected by the almighty dollar.
>
> In fact the North Koreans probably have more to worry about from the
> Chinese than us.

We'll see. I don't agree with your assessment.

> That Kim guy is slightly more dangerous that Castro, which ain't sayin a
> lot.

Castro is a sane, balanced, well educated westerner compared to Kim.
Castro never had control of nukes on Cuba, Kim has control of nukes in
N Korea. Big difference.

George



30 May 2005 02:51:55
ghmorris
Re: Am I a sicko?



Dillon Pyron wrote:
>
> BTW, people give too much credit to bin Laden. He wasn't trying to
> drop the WTC, he was trying to push them over, just like his previous
> attempt. If I wanted to drop the towers, I would have had the planes
> dive into the bases, rather than hit them high. Then he took credit
> for a "masterful" plan that was really just a fluke.
>
If you can't be good, be lucky. Bin Laden was certainly lucky from his
point of view. I'm using the difficultly of finding bin Laden to
illustrate how bad our intelligence is in that area. You're right,
capturing him at this stage has more propoganda value than anything.

Conventional SLCMs are slightly different from a Trident warhead. Even
in the mountains of Afghanistan you're going to do a lot of damage with
a Trident although the area effect in the mountains will be relatively
poor.

George



30 May 2005 08:22:57
Scott
Re: Am I a sicko?

"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Buzcutt454@aol.com > wrote in message
news:119l32q1rkof943@news.supernews.com...

> Never happen.

> Anyone pops a nuke in that area, for any reason, and we flatten the
Great
> Pornographer first.

> And the Chinese won't do squat about it, infected by the almighty
dollar.

> In fact the North Koreans probably have more to worry about from the
> Chinese than us.

> That Kim guy is slightly more dangerous that Castro, which ain't sayin a
> lot.

Cheney just pimp-slapped Kim and the obstructionist democrats here who
support the ongoing
BS with the Great Pornographer and his dance partners at the UN:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050529/pl_afp/usnkoreacheney_
050529234835





30 May 2005 13:49:33
Douglas W. Popeye Frederick
Re: Am I a sicko?


"ghmorris" <ghmorris@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1117446321.335529.141010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
>>
>> Never happen.
>>
>> Anyone pops a nuke in that area, for any reason, and we flatten the
>> Great
>> Pornographer first.
>>
>> And the Chinese won't do squat about it, infected by the almighty
>> dollar.
>>
>> In fact the North Koreans probably have more to worry about from the
>> Chinese than us.
>
> We'll see. I don't agree with your assessment.

Back during the Cold War, the PRNK was a cute little loose dog that the
Chinese could use to stir the pot.

Now they're an embarrasment, with absolutely no redeeming political value,
and a great deal of potential political downside.


>> That Kim guy is slightly more dangerous that Castro, which ain't sayin
>> a
>> lot.
>
> Castro is a sane, balanced, well educated westerner compared to Kim.
> Castro never had control of nukes on Cuba, Kim has control of nukes in
> N Korea. Big difference.

I'd say Castro is just as much of a whack job, and would have been far
worse if his lot in life wasn't determined by the Cuban Missle Crisis.

Imagine Castro if he was eastern European and physically attached to the
USSR, parallel to Kim's situation.

I once saw an extremely interesting (pre-invasion) interview with Tom
Clancy, where among other things he accurately predicted we'd not find WMD
in Iraq.

He raised a very valid point that I've always banked on.

"There's no such thing as a retired dictator, and the only goal of a
dictator is to be dictator one more day."

Kim can't break wind over there without commiting national suicide.

What's the absolute -worst- -case- scenario he can produce?

A couple nuclear hits in South Korea?

Good, that will further catapult us super power to strato power.

We'll MIRV the place flat, chances are Kim will be dead before his
warheads detonate, if they even do, and no one will do squat about it.

And then we'll have further license to flatten any one who looks at us
crosseyed.

Iran will piss themselves for a month.

It's been established, the greatest benefit of the Iraq invasion.

We'll do you, case closed, U.N. be damned.

And conversely, what could Kim -possibly- hope to accomplish?

Do you think he really thinks we, or even the Chinese, will let him invade
the south?

Never happen, and he knows it well.

He bluffs, the (world) politicians pay, the (our) generals get more
"stuff".

The Soviets did it for decades.

He can't go anywhere, he can't do anything, he can only commit suicide.

And he knows it well.



>
> George
>




30 May 2005 14:34:44
ghmorris
Re: Am I a sicko?



Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
>
> Back during the Cold War, the PRNK was a cute little loose dog that the
> Chinese could use to stir the pot.
>
> Now they're an embarrasment, with absolutely no redeeming political value,
> and a great deal of potential political downside.
>
But the Chinese still seem curiously reluctant to bring them to heel,
if in fact they can.
>
> >> That Kim guy is slightly more dangerous that Castro, which ain't sayin
> >> a
> >> lot.
> >
> > Castro is a sane, balanced, well educated westerner compared to Kim.
> > Castro never had control of nukes on Cuba, Kim has control of nukes in
> > N Korea. Big difference.
>
> I'd say Castro is just as much of a whack job, and would have been far
> worse if his lot in life wasn't determined by the Cuban Missle Crisis.

We're going to have to disagree on that one.
>
> Imagine Castro if he was eastern European and physically attached to the
> USSR, parallel to Kim's situation.

Hmmm.
>
> I once saw an extremely interesting (pre-invasion) interview with Tom
> Clancy, where among other things he accurately predicted we'd not find WMD
> in Iraq.
>
> He raised a very valid point that I've always banked on.
>
> "There's no such thing as a retired dictator, and the only goal of a
> dictator is to be dictator one more day."

Agreed.
>
> Kim can't break wind over there without commiting national suicide.
>
> What's the absolute -worst- -case- scenario he can produce?

Invading the south, without using his nukes except as a deterent.
Tokyo, Jakarta, New Delhi, Sydney perhaps as declared targets, but he
doesn't use them, just the threat.
>
> A couple nuclear hits in South Korea?

Not nearly the worst scenario. In fact I don't see that ever happening.
Not enough terror value. Kim will never attack the US directly with
nukes, just hint around it. He will threaten US allies to keep the US
off balance. The White House will drown in whining foreign ambassadors.
You will have to beat them off with a broom.
>
> Good, that will further catapult us super power to strato power.

Nope, it will paralyze you for just long enough. No one will have clue
one how to handle the issue before its moot.
>
> We'll MIRV the place flat, chances are Kim will be dead before his
> warheads detonate, if they even do, and no one will do squat about it.
>
> And then we'll have further license to flatten any one who looks at us
> crosseyed.

Not a hope.
>
> Iran will piss themselves for a month.

They're doing a pretty good job of ignoring the entire West right now
and doing precisely what they please. If its true that their facilities
are both dispersed and hardened its going to take more than the
Israelis to sort them out.
>
> It's been established, the greatest benefit of the Iraq invasion.
>
> We'll do you, case closed, U.N. be damned.

I see very nearly the opposite. I think there is going to be a rethink
about the reach of US military might after Iraq, and I really doubt the
scenario you describe above is even remotely possible. Tying up so many
ground troops indefinitely in a pissant little country like Iraq has
effectively paralyzed the US from doing anything else interesting, and
Kim and the boys in Iran know it. Your army is too small today for the
level of force projection you're talking about and recruiting isn't at
the level it needs to be.

You're now down to using nukes or large scale conventional weapons
because all your ground forces are busy. Not good, and it looks from
here that's why the Koreans and Iranians are thumbing their noses at
the West.
>
> And conversely, what could Kim -possibly- hope to accomplish?
>
> Do you think he really thinks we, or even the Chinese, will let him invade
> the south?

He has a very weird view of the world. Even stranger than some you find
on here. :)
>
> Never happen, and he knows it well.

Keep your fingers crossed.
>
> He bluffs, the (world) politicians pay, the (our) generals get more
> "stuff".
>
> The Soviets did it for decades.
>
> He can't go anywhere, he can't do anything, he can only commit suicide.
>
> And he knows it well.

We differ there. I don't think he knows it, and if he knows it he
doesn't care nearly enough, but I hope you're right. Further, I think
this is going to get more dangerous the longer we let it fester.

The only ray of sunshine is you'll get some help with Korea again when
push comes to shove. Nobody loves a nutter with a nuke.

George



30 May 2005 19:51:02
Douglas W. Popeye Frederick
Re: Am I a sicko?


"ghmorris" <ghmorris@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1117488884.779154.120190@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
>>
>> Back during the Cold War, the PRNK was a cute little loose dog that the
>> Chinese could use to stir the pot.
>>
>> Now they're an embarrasment, with absolutely no redeeming political
>> value,
>> and a great deal of potential political downside.
>>
> But the Chinese still seem curiously reluctant to bring them to heel,
> if in fact they can.
>>
>> >> That Kim guy is slightly more dangerous that Castro, which ain't
>> >> sayin
>> >> a
>> >> lot.
>> >
>> > Castro is a sane, balanced, well educated westerner compared to Kim.
>> > Castro never had control of nukes on Cuba, Kim has control of nukes in
>> > N Korea. Big difference.
>>
>> I'd say Castro is just as much of a whack job, and would have been far
>> worse if his lot in life wasn't determined by the Cuban Missle Crisis.
>
> We're going to have to disagree on that one.
>>
>> Imagine Castro if he was eastern European and physically attached to
>> the
>> USSR, parallel to Kim's situation.
>
> Hmmm.
>>
>> I once saw an extremely interesting (pre-invasion) interview with Tom
>> Clancy, where among other things he accurately predicted we'd not find
>> WMD
>> in Iraq.
>>
>> He raised a very valid point that I've always banked on.
>>
>> "There's no such thing as a retired dictator, and the only goal of a
>> dictator is to be dictator one more day."
>
> Agreed.
>>
>> Kim can't break wind over there without commiting national suicide.
>>
>> What's the absolute -worst- -case- scenario he can produce?
>
> Invading the south, without using his nukes except as a deterent.
> Tokyo, Jakarta, New Delhi, Sydney perhaps as declared targets, but he
> doesn't use them, just the threat.
>>
>> A couple nuclear hits in South Korea?
>
> Not nearly the worst scenario. In fact I don't see that ever happening.
> Not enough terror value. Kim will never attack the US directly with
> nukes, just hint around it. He will threaten US allies to keep the US
> off balance. The White House will drown in whining foreign ambassadors.
> You will have to beat them off with a broom.
>>
>> Good, that will further catapult us super power to strato power.
>
> Nope, it will paralyze you for just long enough. No one will have clue
> one how to handle the issue before its moot.
>>
>> We'll MIRV the place flat, chances are Kim will be dead before his
>> warheads detonate, if they even do, and no one will do squat about it.
>>
>> And then we'll have further license to flatten any one who looks at us
>> crosseyed.
>
> Not a hope.
>>
>> Iran will piss themselves for a month.
>
> They're doing a pretty good job of ignoring the entire West right now
> and doing precisely what they please. If its true that their facilities
> are both dispersed and hardened its going to take more than the
> Israelis to sort them out.
>>
>> It's been established, the greatest benefit of the Iraq invasion.
>>
>> We'll do you, case closed, U.N. be damned.
>
> I see very nearly the opposite. I think there is going to be a rethink
> about the reach of US military might after Iraq, and I really doubt the
> scenario you describe above is even remotely possible. Tying up so many
> ground troops indefinitely in a pissant little country like Iraq has
> effectively paralyzed the US from doing anything else interesting, and
> Kim and the boys in Iran know it. Your army is too small today for the
> level of force projection you're talking about and recruiting isn't at
> the level it needs to be.
>
> You're now down to using nukes or large scale conventional weapons
> because all your ground forces are busy. Not good, and it looks from
> here that's why the Koreans and Iranians are thumbing their noses at
> the West.
>>
>> And conversely, what could Kim -possibly- hope to accomplish?
>>
>> Do you think he really thinks we, or even the Chinese, will let him
>> invade
>> the south?
>
> He has a very weird view of the world. Even stranger than some you find
> on here. :)
>>
>> Never happen, and he knows it well.
>
> Keep your fingers crossed.
>>
>> He bluffs, the (world) politicians pay, the (our) generals get more
>> "stuff".
>>
>> The Soviets did it for decades.
>>
>> He can't go anywhere, he can't do anything, he can only commit suicide.
>>
>> And he knows it well.
>
> We differ there. I don't think he knows it, and if he knows it he
> doesn't care nearly enough, but I hope you're right. Further, I think
> this is going to get more dangerous the longer we let it fester.
>
> The only ray of sunshine is you'll get some help with Korea again when
> push comes to shove. Nobody loves a nutter with a nuke.
>
> George
>




30 May 2005 21:06:16
Douglas W. Popeye Frederick
Re: Am I a sicko?


"ghmorris" <ghmorris@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1117488884.779154.120190@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
>>
>> Back during the Cold War, the PRNK was a cute little loose dog that the
>> Chinese could use to stir the pot.
>>
>> Now they're an embarrasment, with absolutely no redeeming political
>> value,
>> and a great deal of potential political downside.
>>
> But the Chinese still seem curiously reluctant to bring them to heel,
> if in fact they can.
>>
>> >> That Kim guy is slightly more dangerous that Castro, which ain't
>> >> sayin
>> >> a
>> >> lot.
>> >
>> > Castro is a sane, balanced, well educated westerner compared to Kim.
>> > Castro never had control of nukes on Cuba, Kim has control of nukes in
>> > N Korea. Big difference.
>>
>> I'd say Castro is just as much of a whack job, and would have been far
>> worse if his lot in life wasn't determined by the Cuban Missle Crisis.
>
> We're going to have to disagree on that one.

Fair enough.

I think the trade sanctions are a joke, myself.

>> Imagine Castro if he was eastern European and physically attached to
>> the
>> USSR, parallel to Kim's situation.
>
> Hmmm.
>>
>> I once saw an extremely interesting (pre-invasion) interview with Tom
>> Clancy, where among other things he accurately predicted we'd not find
>> WMD
>> in Iraq.
>>
>> He raised a very valid point that I've always banked on.
>>
>> "There's no such thing as a retired dictator, and the only goal of a
>> dictator is to be dictator one more day."
>
> Agreed.
>>
>> Kim can't break wind over there without commiting national suicide.
>>
>> What's the absolute -worst- -case- scenario he can produce?
>
> Invading the south, without using his nukes except as a deterent.
> Tokyo, Jakarta, New Delhi, Sydney perhaps as declared targets, but he
> doesn't use them, just the threat.

George, how's he gonna get anywhere, swim?

He can't leave the peninsula.

He can't barely invade south.

Going north would be short and glorious.

He has no ships, planes, trucks.

His million man army is starving.

How in -thee hell- would he get to Sydney, Tokyo?

He's a windbag, the nukes are all he's got.

He can't sustain an attack, supply, or occupy.

He sure as hell can't defend an occupation.

All he can do is (briefly) cross the border, and risk -certain- world
wrath.

I say again, what can he actually -accomplish-?

Nada.

>> A couple nuclear hits in South Korea?
>
> Not nearly the worst scenario. In fact I don't see that ever happening.
> Not enough terror value. Kim will never attack the US directly with
> nukes, just hint around it. He will threaten US allies to keep the US
> off balance. The White House will drown in whining foreign ambassadors.
> You will have to beat them off with a broom.

Nothing new there.

Beg us now, blame us later.

SOS.

>> Good, that will further catapult us super power to strato power.
>
> Nope, it will paralyze you for just long enough. No one will have clue
> one how to handle the issue before its moot.

I have no idea how you came up with that.

Paralysis hasn't been a big problem for us lately, and these situations
are well documented.

Now, if the Chinese bitchslap Taiwan, that'll be a sticky wicket.

>> they even do, and no one will do squat about it.
>>
>> And then we'll have further license to flatten any one who looks at us
>> crosseyed.
>
> Not a hope.

The precident has been set.

It's a fact of life.

We'll act in our best interests as we see fit.

It's not like Bush has to worry about re-election.

>> Iran will piss themselves for a month.
>
> They're doing a pretty good job of ignoring the entire West right now
> and doing precisely what they please. If its true that their facilities
> are both dispersed and hardened its going to take more than the
> Israelis to sort them out.

Giving them rope.

W's just itchin to flatten that place.

Besides, free elections in Iraq will be the end of those assholes.

They're doing what they're doing to add pressure in Iraq, ignoring them is
our best bet.

>> It's been established, the greatest benefit of the Iraq invasion.
>>
>> We'll do you, case closed, U.N. be damned.
>
> I see very nearly the opposite. I think there is going to be a rethink
> about the reach of US military might after Iraq, and I really doubt the
> scenario you describe above is even remotely possible. Tying up so many
> ground troops indefinitely in a pissant little country like Iraq has
> effectively paralyzed the US from doing anything else interesting, and
> Kim and the boys in Iran know it. Your army is too small today for the
> level of force projection you're talking about and recruiting isn't at
> the level it needs to be.

It's a slight-of-hand.

The U.S. military's been doing it for years, self defense against the
usual post-war defense reductions.

"Waaaaaaaaa, we can't defend you, 5 more divisions and a dozen carriers
should do it."

Ask yourself how many personell we have in Afganistan and Iraq,

My latest count is around 150,000 troops combined.

And how many we have in the military, total.

Include the reserves.

I show around 1.35 million with a quick search.

Ask yourself what the Airforce and Navy are actually doing in Iraq, that
requires an overwhelming presence?

It's a trick, like how they rate the combat readiness of equipment.

If it ain't brand new, it doesn't statistically exist.

My pal's reserve unit, their mobile 155s don't have IVIS, so they're not
rated as fightable.

Between those personell we can retain, those we can recall, we ain't
lacking any fang.

Besides, anything we do in NK or Iran will be long distance, no troops
required.

your ground forces are busy. Not good, and it looks from
> here that's why the Koreans and Iranians are thumbing their noses at
> the West.
>>
>> And conversely, what could Kim -possibly- hope to accomplish?
>>
>> Do you think he really thinks we, or even the Chinese, will let him
>> invade
>> the south?
>
> He has a very weird view of the world. Even stranger than some you find
> on here. :)
>>
>> Never happen, and he knows it well.
>
> Keep your fingers crossed.

If he does, we win.

If he doesn't, we win (force increases).

It's a non-consequence.

>> He bluffs, the (world) politicians pay, the (our) generals get more
>> "stuff".
>>
>> The Soviets did it for decades.
>>
>> He can't go anywhere, he can't do anything, he can only commit suicide.
>>
>> And he knows it well.
>
> We differ there. I don't think he knows it, and if he knows it he
> doesn't care nearly enough, but I hope you're right. Further, I think
> this is going to get more dangerous the longer we let it fester.
>
> The only ray of sunshine is you'll get some help with Korea again when
> push comes to shove. Nobody loves a nutter with a nuke.

Nukes are readily available on the world market for far less than Bin
Laden has to spend.

This nuclear development program bullshit is a political smokescreen.

> George
>




13 Jun 2005 07:55:30
Grumman-581
Re: Am I a sicko?

"Dillon Pyron" wrote in message
news:fehk919otps98pqfl9bgl3gjr0hoqr87jt@4ax.com...
> Some people are repulsed when I say either of the following two
> things. What do you folks think?

Seems logical to me...




13 Jun 2005 07:55:31
Grumman-581
Re: Am I a sicko?

"ghmorris" wrote in message
news:1117413523.588352.187500@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Why haven't we been able to find bin Laden??

Because we haven't used a big enough search light... A hundred megaton
search light might work...