Home › Blogs › FlyingScot's blog ›

Liberals, please give me your ideas !

Submitted by FlyingScot on Sat, 05/30/2009 - 18:13
in

 

                                                                 

 

I would like to hear from my liberal friends just how they would deal with Kim Jong Il if he lobs one into Japan, or invades South Korea.

I'm serious. I want to hear from liberals how they would deal with another war, in the light of our treaties with S. Korea. What would you do?

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

Send in Hans Blix!!!

Submitted by Cahnman on Sat, 05/30/2009 - 19:00.

See Here.

Assemble a genuine international coalition

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sat, 05/30/2009 - 19:14.

I would follow the lead of the first President Bush and the first Gulf War.

In other words

Submitted by Cahnman on Sat, 05/30/2009 - 19:37.

You'll leave Kim Jong Il in power and lead the next Usama bin Laden to think you're a paper tiger....

 You can take a little in

Submitted by In between on Sat, 05/30/2009 - 20:10.

 You can take a little in what NRN said. That is, you go in with force. You will need 500,000 coalition troops-the same as what Bush 41 did and you pay for the war. Unlike Bush 43 with 170,000 troops and the war not paid for. Either you cut back spending somewhere, you add a tax, or you have other countries pay for the war. In any case, you pay for the war.

The difference here towards Iraq is that Iraq was a known quagmire. North Korea is a dictatorship and has no known factions. 

This problem has no good answer!!!

Submitted by gunthestops on Sat, 05/30/2009 - 20:20.

Cohnman---you do realize that he has been a problem for every US president since the end of the Korean war in 1953 (armistice).  Lets see---what did GW Bush do----lol---like everything else--passed it on the same as he did with every other problem he encountered.  BTW to try to connect Bin Laden and Korea shows your understanding of the problem or lack of!!!!  But Nando is probably right, a real coalition of world powers may be the only good option at this time. 

I could be mistaken...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sat, 05/30/2009 - 20:34.

...but I think Kim Jong Il nukes are more aimed at China than Japan, or the U.S. After all, China was the only country that overran N. K. with troops, it can easily do it again. It can also cut off N.K. fuel and food stuffs, but hasn't.

China needs the U.S. economy to pick up before it faces real economic rebellion, it's just that simple. The Chinese government cannot long survive without a robust U.S. economy. This is what I hope Biden was talking about when he said Obama would be tested soon after he becomes President, and to be patient. I hope he is right. If he ain't, we will soon know it.

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

More Seriously

Submitted by Cahnman on Sat, 05/30/2009 - 20:41.

Nando annoys me, so I gave him a snarky answer.

GWB's NK policy was equally crappy to every other President since Eisenhower.  That said, he most certainly confronted (quite courageously, I might add) the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The only shame is that Congress didn't act to meet his confrontation of the problems facing Social Security.

As for the number of troops, I do think there's some truth in that argument.  That said, after the Defense cuts of 41 and Clinton (only partially restored under Gingrich) sending in 500,000 troops in Iraq simply wasn't an option.  Speaking for no one but myself, I'd rather have history work out the way it did than leave Saddam in power.

Furthermore, the surge worked with only 160,000 troops; in my opinion, how you use the troops you deploy is more important than the total number.

 I guess, I don't see how you

Submitted by In between on Sat, 05/30/2009 - 21:00.

 I guess, I don't see how you are adding things up.

If you are talking of defense cuts, then you would have to include Rumsfeld who wanted a slimmed down military and faster strike force. Add the cuts in the CIA by Turner.

Bush "confronted" with not enough troops and the wars were not paid for. Add to that numerous mistakes, ignorance, and arrogance, and denial.

Bush 41 had 500,000 coalition troops from a lot of countries. Bush 41 was more experienced and made it a point to be friends with everyone, knowing in time of need he would have help. Bush 43 throughout said he would handle it by himself.

The surge only dampened down the problems in Iraq. Warlords on every corner are paid off. We still have the problem of Afghanistan/Pakistan to deal with. The balance of power went to Iran.

Considering that

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 00:00.

the North Koreans have a standing army of 1.2 million active duty and over 7 million reservists, that 500,000  coalition troop number is pretty useless. And they have nukes. And a crazy leader. There are no comparisons between Iraq and North Korea militarily.

That is why this is such a tough problem and maintaining "status quo" has been the strategy for the last 50 years. If Obama can do the same, that will be a victory. Believe me, we do not want a ground war with North Korea.

If he lobs a nuke into Tokyo . . .well, lets just say I'd hate to be the guy who has to make the decision of what to do next, because there is really only one answer-and it would be gut wretching.

Our best hope is that China clamps down on him. They have leverage.

 

I appreciate you- no kidding

Submitted by FlyingScot on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 19:15.

I appreciate my liberal friends saying what you've said. It is encouraging to me to see that some of you have some backbone, and are willing to face the hard realities of the world we live in. I am especially appreciative of some of  you giving some historical credit to someone who's last name is 'Bush' ( some of you). In originally writing this question,  I was honestly expecting the Obama (Nigel Chamberlain) "let's dialogue" routine from most of you. I am glad to see that that wasn't your solution.