November 27, 2010

Koreans Ready for War? (Ben)
— Open Blogger

I was cruising the internets today creating original content lifting material from other people and I came across an article at Business Insider. A poll was conducted and found that 45% of Koreans support escalation.

Some 34% don't want escalation but will support a military response if the Norks attack again. (By support they mean real support, not like a Democratic politician support).

The author notes:

But If there is another attack, these responses suggests around three in four South Koreans would support military response. That's saying a lot for a country that knows military engagement exposes them the world's biggest artillery force, chemical weapons and half a dozen nuclear weapons.

Please check out the link. They have a lot of great photos of the artillery attack aftermath. You'll have to click a link or two when you get there, but worth checking out.


Also, here is a link to Pat Buchanan's latest article about Korea. I think all of his articles are just mad libs. They all tend to ask the same question, "Why are we still in _______?". Fill in the blank depending on what country is in the news.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 12:13 PM | Comments (95)
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Should have nuked NK the day the USSR went tits up.

Posted by: eman at November 27, 2010 12:19 PM (kn74g)

2 American "peace movement" strangely quiet.

Posted by: GrinchRadish at November 27, 2010 12:21 PM (UUfHw)

3 I think we could probably shut down any North Korean attempt to actually deliver their nukes. It's just not a matter of having them - it's getting them into a plane or on a rocket before getting destroyed. I can really understand why the South Koreans would be willing to risk it all to get rid of North Korea once and for all: they've had a madman literally at their throats for two generations now. Something's gotta give.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 27, 2010 12:21 PM (tJjm/)

4 2 American "peace movement" strangely quiet. Posted by: GrinchRadish at November 27, 2010 05:21 PM (UUfHw) They're too busy protesting the treatment of women in the Muslim world, and female genital mutilation right here in America. Oh, wait...

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 27, 2010 12:23 PM (tJjm/)

5 I've read military history forums and it is apparent that SK has as many crazy leftards as we do. Why anyone would advocate or support the NK astonishes me. They starve their own people. They refuse to allow people to travel. They kidnap westerners including young girls to bring back to their hell hole of a country and "mate" with NK to create some sort of imaginary super spies. They are just nucking futz.

Posted by: Moi at November 27, 2010 12:23 PM (Ez4Ql)

6 I can really understand why the South Koreans would be willing to risk it all to get rid of North Korea once and for all: they've had a madman literally at their throats for two generations now. Something's gotta give.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 27, 2010 05:21 PM (tJjm/)

Plus, they say Kim Jong-I'm-so-Ill's kid isn't the brightest penny in the cup; makes you wonder who's minding the buttons.

Posted by: billygoat at November 27, 2010 12:25 PM (5qJM5)

7 I'll be the odd ball here and say I think South Korea just needs to take it for now. North Korea's collapse in inevitable and would be hastened greatly if South Korea and America stopped giving it aid. I know china holds the real keys to the Norks, specifically when it comes to fuel, but I think after the last incident we should withhold all aid permanently.

Posted by: Ben at November 27, 2010 12:26 PM (DKV43)

8

Hmmm.... we got a Carrier Group in the area...

Anyone know the whereabouts of the many other Aeigis Class cruisers are??? The ones with the Refits to hit ICBMs?

Or the whereabouts of that little ole 747... the one with the laser???

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 27, 2010 12:26 PM (AdK6a)

9 Anyone know the whereabouts of the many other Aeigis Class cruisers are??? The ones with the Refits to hit ICBMs? Or the whereabouts of that little ole 747... the one with the laser??? Posted by: Romeo13 at November 27, 2010 05:26 PM (AdK6a) Oh, I was meaning to tell you... I had those scrapped. They were provocative.

Posted by: The Won at November 27, 2010 12:28 PM (tJjm/)

10

Or the whereabouts of that little ole 747... the one with the laser???

is that a reference to a god awful james bond movie?

Posted by: Ben at November 27, 2010 12:29 PM (DKV43)

11

Whats I find intersting, is that this is another example of a DEMOCRACY ready to go to war.

Remember the Neo Con mantra that Democracys don't start wars???

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 27, 2010 12:29 PM (AdK6a)

12 As a military member who has been to Osan AB, SK many times, the second Kim launches shells across the border the gloves are off.

We keep our troops there as a trip wire, but in reality we aren't more than a speed bump if 1 mil NK troops come across. Massive retaliation will follow.

Posted by: Phat at November 27, 2010 12:29 PM (BYfE4)

13 Little message for B+rry...You might not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

Posted by: torabora at November 27, 2010 12:30 PM (l4ww4)

14 How is is possible that_________ is still _______ when it's been apparent for so many years that______ will inevitably________ _______?

Posted by: ParisParamus at November 27, 2010 12:30 PM (gMzAL)

15 Yeah, but that's all the fault of the United States. See, if we hadn't attacked North Korea in 1950 everything would be peachy over there. A veritable socialist paradise with kittens and squirrel-milk souffles for everyone.

Posted by: The Dread Pirate Neck Beard at November 27, 2010 05:28 PM (wOtDN)

Right on, Dude! -- THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN' ABOUT!!!

Posted by: Stoopid Moonbat Hippie at November 27, 2010 12:30 PM (5qJM5)

16 12

Or the whereabouts of that little ole 747... the one with the laser???

is that a reference to a god awful james bond movie?

Posted by: Ben at November 27, 2010 05:29 PM (DKV43)

No, its a reference to an actual weapons system that was being tested, but last I heard had been defunded...

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 27, 2010 12:30 PM (AdK6a)

17 Can I tell you my read on it?

Posted by: Obama's Teleprompter at November 27, 2010 12:33 PM (LwLqV)

18 Romeo,

Are you an idiot or being sarcastic?

The general rule is that democratic states don't go to war against other democratic states.

Every war in our history invalidates your post.

Posted by: Phat at November 27, 2010 12:33 PM (BYfE4)

19 Three questions and a statement:

What business is it of ours? Why do we care if the Norks and Souks duke it out? Isn't this what we have a UN for? If the UN can't work out the Korean problems then the UN needs to get the fuck off our soil.

When I'm preznit, the UN is history.

Posted by: sTevo at November 27, 2010 12:34 PM (VMcEw)

20 Also, here is a link to Pat Buchanan's latest article about Korea. I think all of his articles are just mad libs. They all tend to ask the same question, "Why are we still in _______?". -------------- Wouldn't be nearly so annoying, but his answer always seems to be "it's the jooooos!"

Posted by: Anachronda at November 27, 2010 12:34 PM (6fER6)

21

Remember the Neo Con mantra that Democracys don't start wars???

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 27, 2010 05:29 PM (AdK6a)

I thought the mantra was that democracies don't go to war with eachother. 

Posted by: buzzion at November 27, 2010 12:35 PM (oVQFe)

22 North Korea's collapse is a question mark.

China has reason to keep Korea divided; a Korea as economically strong as South Korea is highly unlikely to be a Chinese vassal, at least not without a hard fight.

Then there's the specter of a highly prosperous Korea just across the Yalu ...compare that with starving (North) Korean refugees: how does this look to the average Chinese peasant?

There's a possibility that China will simply annex North Korea, "for humanitarian reasons".  A few North Korean Generals and politicians are shot, the remaining North Korean people are grateful and China's border expands. 

South Korea still borders China, but at the 38th parallel, not the Yalu.

South Korea needs to act soon.

Posted by: Arbalest at November 27, 2010 12:35 PM (8tCPO)

23 I wonder if the SoKos have the spine to face the Norks without us doing all the heavy lifiting. Are the "ready for war" people the ones who, like many young Kuwaitis after Saddam invaded, are going to beat feet for some European pleasure ground when the SHTF and shout defiance of the interlopers from a safe distance?

We need to go Full Patton on the Norks, and publicly make that our operating philosophy if anyone else is dumb enough to take us on.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at November 27, 2010 12:38 PM (Ulu3i)

24 I have a sneaking suspicion that the minute Lil' Kim gives the order for an all out attack on South Korea, his Generals will get the order from the Chinese to take him out back and shoot him.

Posted by: Alex at November 27, 2010 12:38 PM (yY28H)

25 I am wondering if the posters who want us to face off with NK have the spine to put themselves in harm's way or if they just want other people to do it for them ?

Posted by: archie bunker at November 27, 2010 12:41 PM (0YS61)

26 26 I have a sneaking suspicion that the minute Lil' Kim gives the order for an all out attack on South Korea, his Generals will get the order from the Chinese to take him out back and shoot him. Posted by: Alex at November 27, 2010 05:38 PM (yY28H) I remember a fellow Lieutenant (he was in the Military Intelligence branch) telling me, when I was over there in 1985/86, that projection was the North would simply run out of fuel and other supplies after about a week of hostilities. There's no way North Korea could carry on a 3 year long war again, like it did back in the 50's. Unless the Chicoms supplied them, of course.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 27, 2010 12:43 PM (tJjm/)

27 20 Romeo,

Are you an idiot or being sarcastic?

The general rule is that democratic states don't go to war against other democratic states.

Every war in our history invalidates your post.

Posted by: Phat at November 27, 2010 05:33 PM (BYfE4)

Hmmm.... no... not an idiot... but you apparently are an Asshole....

I've heard it stated both ways, depending on what brand of NeoCon is speaking at the time...

And the statement that Democracies do not go to war with other democracies, is also historicly inaccurate...

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 27, 2010 12:45 PM (AdK6a)

28

Archie,

No, but in the best liberal tradition I volunteer you to clear mines.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 27, 2010 12:45 PM (ExLU1)

29 Anyone know the whereabouts of the many other Aeigis Class cruisers are??? The ones with the Refits to hit ICBMs? A Carrier Group always has a Cruiser or two

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 27, 2010 12:45 PM (0GFWk)

30 27 I am wondering if the posters who want us to face off with NK have the spine to put themselves in harm's way or if they just want other people to do it for them ?

Posted by: archie bunker at November 27, 2010 05:41 PM (0YS61)

Nonsense, NitWit -- I'll be glad to push the button; now go stuff a leftover drumstick up your orifice...you pick the hole, a-hole.

Posted by: Me So Crazy at November 27, 2010 12:46 PM (5qJM5)

31 2 American "peace movement" strangely quiet.

Posted by: GrinchRadish at November 27, 2010 05:21 PM (UUfHw)

It surfaced...at 27.

Posted by: Edith Bunker at November 27, 2010 12:48 PM (5qJM5)

32 Remember the Neo Con mantra that Democracys don't start wars???

Retaliating after getting shelled and torpedoed is "starting" a war? What kind of illiterate retard are you?

Posted by: Waterhouse at November 27, 2010 12:48 PM (UU3NU)

33 32 27 I am wondering if the posters who want us to face off with NK have the spine to put themselves in harm's way or if they just want other people to do it for them ? Posted by: archie bunker at November 27, 2010 05:41 PM (0YS61) I did put myself in "harms way," right up on the DMZ at Guard Posts Collier and Ouelette, and kept watch over the "Joint Security Area" where just a year or two before an American Captain and Lieutenant were hatchet to death by a North Koreas "tree trimming crew." Now, I was lucky enuff to serve in a time of relative peace, but don't assume that only people that have no intention of ever serving take a hardline in defense of liberty.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 27, 2010 12:51 PM (tJjm/)

34

In all seriousness, Archie, how do you propose to solve the problem of a nuclear-armed rogue state which oppresses its people and blackmails its neighbors for food?

As for myself, the last time I checked the Army didn't want aspies, so I am barred from joining.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 27, 2010 12:51 PM (ExLU1)

35
I remember a fellow Lieutenant (he was in the Military Intelligence branch) telling me, when I was over there in 1985/86, that projection was the North would simply run out of fuel and other supplies after about a week of hostilities. There's no way North Korea could carry on a 3 year long war again, like it did back in the 50's. Unless the Chicoms supplied them, of course.

True.  Hell, all we have to do is cook a couple thousand pounds of rice and the smell will cause the Nork army to surrender.  I have no doubt that, with the amount of support the Chinese give them, they've put a couple million invested into the military leadership.  The Chinese want a buffer between themselves and South Korea.  An outbreak of war would see the Chinese pushing to quickly end it with that buffer intact.

Posted by: Alex at November 27, 2010 12:54 PM (yY28H)

36 but in the best liberal tradition I volunteer you to clear mines.

Can you put that on YouTube?

It surfaced...at 27.

Oops.  I didn't mean to summon it.

Posted by: GrinchRadish at November 27, 2010 12:55 PM (UUfHw)

37 34 Remember the Neo Con mantra that Democracys don't start wars??? You DO remember that the US and Iraq were still in a state of war when Bush Jr. ordered the resumption of hostilities based on Saddam's frequent violations of the Gulf War armistice, right? You know, violations that included frequent attempts to shoot down American pilots enforcing the No Fly Zone declared after Saddam violated the Armistice by using Chemical Weapons - you know, WMD's - against the Kurds, right? And you know the Gulf War was started by Saddam, not the USA, right?? Now, I don't hate you or anything because you're probably just a product of Public Education brainwashed by years of hyper-liberal "education." But I do refer you to your local public library to brush up on your recent history.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 27, 2010 12:56 PM (tJjm/)

38 Or the whereabouts of that little ole 747... the one with the laser???

Shhh... aimed at Kim Jong Il's giant misshapen jiffy-pop head... right through a stained glass window.

Posted by: Val Kilmer and Gabe Jarret at November 27, 2010 12:57 PM (TEAh3)

39 The US/SK should be periodically violating NK airspace, accidentally on purpose.

Every time a violation occurs, we should provide a sincere apology, an every time we should note the NK response. (via satellite imagery)

Let's make them react to us.
.

Posted by: gastorgrab at November 27, 2010 12:57 PM (H2LlS)

40 27 I am wondering if the posters who want us to face off with NK have the spine to put themselves in harm's way or if they just want other people to do it for them ?

Posted by: archie bunker at November 27, 2010 05:41 PM (0YS61)


Hey, archie, if you've spent any more than 2 minutes here at the HQ you'd know that a great many posters, perhaps even the majority, are either veterans or are currently proudly serving in the military.  So, since you have definitely been trolling here for longer than that, you can't claim ignorance on that one, which leaves as the only other option that you are a total insulting fuckwit asshole.  Go DIAF.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 27, 2010 01:00 PM (PaSAU)

41 34 Remember the Neo Con mantra that Democracys don't start wars???

Retaliating after getting shelled and torpedoed is "starting" a war? What kind of illiterate retard are you?

Posted by: Waterhouse at November 27, 2010 05:48 PM (UU3NU)

Hmmm... Illiterate? no... I read and write...

Retard? no... my IQ is well above average...

And if you know history... the War has never actually ended... its in a Cease Fire...

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 27, 2010 01:01 PM (AdK6a)

42

I think all of [Buchanan's] articles are just mad libs.

(Exclamation)! What a pile of (noun).

Posted by: FireHorse at November 27, 2010 01:03 PM (sWynj)

43 Does anyone really listen to Buchanan anymore anyway?

Posted by: chemjeff at November 27, 2010 01:04 PM (PaSAU)

44

And the statement that Democracies do not go to war with other democracies, is also historicly inaccurate...

Since 1900.

Thusly qualified, can you point out an example?

Posted by: FireHorse at November 27, 2010 01:06 PM (sWynj)

45 45 Does anyone really listen to Buchanan anymore anyway? Posted by: chemjeff at November 27, 2010 06:04 PM (PaSAU) All you have to know about him and Noonan is that both have become MSNBC regulars.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 27, 2010 01:10 PM (tJjm/)

46
2    American "peace movement" strangely quiet.


They're busy fightin' the War Against The Palins

Posted by: Mr Wizard at November 27, 2010 01:10 PM (H+LJc)

47 And if you know history... the War has never actually ended... its in a Cease Fire...

Congratulations on contradicting yourself within the space of 30 comments, you ignorant fuckknob.

Posted by: Waterhouse at November 27, 2010 01:11 PM (UU3NU)

48 the War has never actually ended... its in a Cease Fire... Posted by: Romeo13 at November 27, 2010 06:01 PM (AdK6a You mean just like the Gulf War, right?

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 27, 2010 01:13 PM (tJjm/)

49
Does anyone really listen to Buchanan anymore anyway?

Posted by: chemjeff at November 27, 2010 06:04 PM (PaSAU)

The only time I believed Buchanan was when he admitted to boning Eleanor Clift.

Also, what's with Clift  making 300K a year and sporting teeth uglier than a pair of Ugg Boots on Margaret Cho's bunion and fungus infected feet?

Posted by: Fish the Impaler at November 27, 2010 01:15 PM (v1gw3)

50 Now would be an excellent time for a few stealth bomber overflights of NK.
A few drone fly-by's of Kim's palaces might send another message.

Romeo, there are a lot of career mil on this board. It's a general axiom that democracies don't fight wars with other democracies. I will caveat that by saying that adding the word 'stable' to that axiom would eliminate a lot of conflicts.

The Civil War is the one exception I can think of, but there are probably smaller conflicts that qualify.

As an aside, calling people 'asshole' is not conducive to healthy debate. At least I left open the possibility that you were not an idiot.

Then you had to go and close that door.

Posted by: Phat at November 27, 2010 01:15 PM (8tbum)

51
In all seriousness, Archie, ...

You are not to be serious with the Duncetm. You are to either a) mock it, b) ridicule it, or c) ignore it.

Posted by: Leftover Soothsayers at November 27, 2010 01:16 PM (fFMjt)

52 Why are we still in Oregon Territory?

Posted by: Pat Buchanan at November 27, 2010 01:18 PM (F5Gxy)

53 To be honest, if a country shelled our territory like the Norks did I'm quite sure there would be many more than just my little ole self rioting in the streets for a response.

Posted by: Drider at November 27, 2010 01:18 PM (wtDSn)

54 "The only time I believed Buchanan was when he admitted to boning Eleanor Clift." Ewww, an you imagine? And the whole you're riding her ass she's telling you you're a patriarchal sexist pig for doing her doggy style.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 27, 2010 01:18 PM (tJjm/)

55 In all seriousness, Archie, how do you propose to solve the problem of a nuclear-armed rogue state which oppresses its people and blackmails its neighbors for food?

john Ryan will offer up his anus quicker than you can say Hans Brix.

Posted by: toby928™ at November 27, 2010 01:18 PM (S5YRY)

56 Crap, mangled that sentence... but I think you get my grisly meaning...

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 27, 2010 01:19 PM (tJjm/)

57 I fought my war, Archie.  I'm too old to run now but I sure as hell can still shoot.  I wouldn't mind another go at it.  Maybe with a golf cart.

Posted by: SurferDoc at November 27, 2010 01:20 PM (o3bYL)

58 54 Why are we still in Oregon Territory? Posted by: Pat Buchanan at November 27, 2010 06:18 PM (F5Gxy) Because of the Jewish Lobby, Pat... because of the JEWS.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 27, 2010 01:20 PM (tJjm/)

59 27 I am wondering if the posters who want us to face off with NK have the spine to put themselves in harm's way or if they just want other people to do it for them ?

Yo, Archie!  Where ya been?

Posted by: Standard Lib Meme Regarding Iraq, 2003 at November 27, 2010 01:21 PM (F5Gxy)

60 I think all of his articles are just mad libs. They all tend to ask the same question, "Why are we still in _______?". Fill in the blank depending on what country is in the news.

--Actually, as with Europe, I agree even more regarding the ROK.  Are soldiers are there just as cannon fodder tripwire?  Fuck that.

Posted by: logprof at November 27, 2010 01:22 PM (BP6Z1)

61 45 Does anyone really listen to Buchanan anymore anyway?

I DO!

Posted by: Lew Rockwell at November 27, 2010 01:28 PM (F5Gxy)

62 Does anyone really listen to Buchanan anymore anyway?

I would, but I'm dead.

Posted by: Joe Sobran at November 27, 2010 01:30 PM (S5YRY)

63 60 54 Why are we still in Oregon Territory?
Posted by: Pat Buchanan at November 27, 2010 06:18 PM (F5Gxy)


Because of the Jewish Lobby, Pat... because of the JEWS.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 27, 2010 06:20 PM (tJjm/)

Fuck you!

Posted by: John Jacob Astor at November 27, 2010 01:30 PM (BP6Z1)

64 Quick! Somebody hit the RESET button!

Posted by: FireHorse at November 27, 2010 01:35 PM (sWynj)

65 @65: thanks, RD! Ummm, I mean, John.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 27, 2010 01:36 PM (tJjm/)

66 66 Quick! Somebody hit the RESET button! Posted by: FireHorse at November 27, 2010 06:35 PM (sWynj) Wanna borrow my Staples Easy Button?

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 27, 2010 01:37 PM (tJjm/)

67

(By support they mean real support, not like a Democratic politician support).

Preach it.  Notice how as soon as the party in the White House changed, although nothing really changed about the conduct of the wars, the Democrats jumped on board.  And even though their President never kept a single campaign promise he made about the wars (unless you think 50,000 = zero, and 2014 = 2009), they have hardly uttered a squeak about it.  And the only time I have seen the anti-war movement lately was their picture in the "missing kids" PSA on the side of a milk carton.

Democrats. Useless and traitorous filth, every one of them.

Posted by: sherlock at November 27, 2010 01:40 PM (thr9V)

68 I was in South Korea for 18 months. I came to truly admire and respect their people and their military. I still do. That said, I agree with the Patster that we should be getting out. We can continue our strong alliance without having troops on the ground.

Posted by: Bugler at November 27, 2010 01:42 PM (VXBR1)

69 Ewww, an you imagine? And the whole you're riding her ass she's telling you you're a patriarchal sexist pig for doing her doggy style.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 27, 2010 06:18 PM (tJjm/)

I only hope he was smart enough not to go face-to-face with that.

Posted by: 141Driver at November 27, 2010 01:45 PM (DXa7u)

70 Let's let loose 10,000 model airplanes into North Korean airspace.

The next day we should apologize profusely; "This is all just a huge misunderstanding, please accept our sincere apology"

.......then we'll do the same thing, the following day.
.

Posted by: gastorgrab at November 27, 2010 01:46 PM (H2LlS)

71 hello everyone,im wholesale supplier  online

Welcome to our website   

=====   http://www.1shopping.us/    =======

accept paypal and free shipping

We need your support and trust!!!

Dear friends, please temporarily stop your footsteps

To our website Walk around A look at

Maybe you'll find happiness in your sight shopping heaven and earth

You'll find our price is more suitable for you.

And we shall be offer you free gift about MP4 if you more order.

=====   http://www.1shopping.us/   ========

Posted by: xixi at November 27, 2010 01:47 PM (TrVxe)

72 Posted by: xixi at November 27, 2010 06:47 PM (TrVxe) Got any lace wigs?

Posted by: Bugler at November 27, 2010 01:50 PM (VXBR1)

73 All the talk won't change anything.

Barry Hussein Soetoro Obamadinijad will do nothing except sit on his hands and maybe invite Dear Leader over so he  can bow to him too.

We have a clueless affirmative action narcissist in the White House who is more interested in golfing and pie than some little Asian peninsula.

Posted by: TexBob at November 27, 2010 01:51 PM (7cXE7)

74 That said, I agree with the Patster that we should be getting out. We can continue our strong alliance without having troops on the ground.

Probably true, but not immediately after a Nork provocation of this magnitude.  Lil' Kim -- and the PRC -- would only see it as weakness and capitulation.  To say nothing of what South Korea would think of us for abandoning them in such a situation.

Posted by: blue star at November 27, 2010 01:59 PM (+c5Zr)

75 What I'm concerned about, is all those troops on Korea, which is stable now, if we pull them out, Korea might tip over from the sudden shift.

Posted by: Hank Johnson, super genius (D) at November 27, 2010 02:03 PM (DXa7u)

76 I agree with some of the earlier morons and I think there is some deeper leadership issues at play and they involve China.

Unless he gets so Ronery that he needs some SK mil action, I think what we're seeing is the outward manifestation of an internal leadership crisis in a very insular society.

Sometimes the best thing to do is to stand pat and prepare for the worst.

Posted by: Phat at November 27, 2010 02:05 PM (8tbum)

77 Posted by: blue star at November 27, 2010 06:59 PM (+c5Zr) Agreed. I meant a long-term, well-coordinated withdrawal.

Posted by: Bugler at November 27, 2010 02:07 PM (VXBR1)

78 We have a clueless affirmative action narcissist in the White House who is more interested in golfing and pie than some little Asian peninsula.

Posted by: TexBob at November 27, 2010 06:51 PM (7cXE7)

Don't forget basketball!

Is there a strong possibility that China encouraged this latest BS by NK, just so China could step in and show Obama who is the boss?

Posted by: Museisluse© at November 27, 2010 02:09 PM (DTfXb)

79 I meant a long-term, well-coordinated withdrawal.

How about a withdrawal to the Pusan defensive perimeter first.  Get the troops out of artillery range.

Posted by: toby928™ at November 27, 2010 02:10 PM (S5YRY)

80 Remember, we're not in Korea just for the sake of the Koreans... we've got an entire division stationed on the Asian mainland. That fact is not lost on China.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 27, 2010 02:13 PM (tJjm/)

81

While stationed at Kunsan AB in the early 70s (damn time sure flies by) the Koreans believed we were there so they did not find a reason to go North.  During this period the South Koreans were very paranoid about the North attacking again.

Don't know about today, but back then both sides ran jets towards the border to make the other side scramble.  Another operation was to fly along the border and do a little "over the line, behind the line" action to aggravate the other side.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at November 27, 2010 02:27 PM (f3vmC)

82

Send in a bunch of Tomohawks to wipe out key points. We've been playing games for way too long, lay waste and let the chips fall.

Who gives a fuck what China thinks?

Yeah I know, not likely since we have a pussy as CiC but if this shit keeps rolling down hill, we'll be paying for it long after Obama is taking a mulligan on the first par 4.

Posted by: ErikW at November 27, 2010 02:28 PM (tfNHk)

83 How about a withdrawal to the Pusan defensive perimeter first.  Get the troops out of artillery range.

Posted by: toby928™ at November 27, 2010 07:10 PM (S5YRY)

I agree in principle with pulling out and letting the SORKS defend themselves, but I think that would just embolden Kim Jong (mentally) Il, and we'd have to go in with a hot war on our hands

Posted by: Ombudsman at November 27, 2010 02:37 PM (c1oyg)

84 If NoKo collapses, there will be hundreds of thousands of (starving) refugees fleeing south. SoKo fears that. Which is why it really doesn't want to change the status quo all that much.

Posted by: OregonMuse at November 27, 2010 02:50 PM (3WrnJ)

85

Buchanan is a cockholster (or holster of cock if you prefer) but I think we should have left South Korea in 2003 when they couldn't send any combat troops to Iraq.   AND they wanted us to leave and they wanted to make kissy kissy with North Korea. Seriously, eff them.  Cold War is over.  What happens if they start shelling Seoul?  We can't get Kia's anymore? Boo fucking hoo. 

Norks go South they run out of land - its a peninsula.  And then what?  China is all cool with it? I think not. Japan hates getting nuked so they are gonna look at that kinda poorly.  We have less than a division there anymore - they are a tripwire to make sure that we would be involved.  Not interested. 

Reunify! 

 

 

 

Posted by: blaster at November 27, 2010 02:50 PM (MrMxG)

86 75Got any lace wigs?

We had some of those on our roses last year. Nasty little buggers.

Posted by: Gail at November 27, 2010 02:51 PM (f46PC)

87

Granted, it's been a few years, but I clearly remember the Korean populace being very aware of the threat on their northern border. I spent time in Seoul and inside the DMZ and noticed the DMZ was not and the cities and villages were on guard for anything, including infiltrators. at all times. I don't think things have changed. There are frequent drills and civil defense is a national pastime. This ain't the '50s. South Korea has been ready for 'em for decades.

2nd Platoon MADDOGS, Joint Security Area.

Posted by: Tommy Gunnar at November 27, 2010 02:51 PM (rQTdM)

88 The only reason North Korea is still around is Taiwan.

And oddly, the reverse is also true.

Posted by: toby928™ at November 27, 2010 02:52 PM (S5YRY)

89 79 stand pat

I never could stand Pat.

Posted by: Gail at November 27, 2010 02:56 PM (f46PC)

90

By the way, Ben, thanks for keeping this issue out there for discussion. Great job this week by all the sub-cob-loggers.

 

Posted by: Tommy Gunnar at November 27, 2010 02:59 PM (rQTdM)

91 If NoKo collapses, there will be hundreds of thousands of (starving) refugees fleeing south. SoKo fears that. Which is why it really doesn't want to change the status quo all that much.

Posted by: OregonMuse at November 27, 2010 07:50 PM (3WrnJ)

Well, could we take them in?

I know it's a logistical nightmare but those poor people could probably use a break from the tyranny they live under.

Posted by: ErikW at November 27, 2010 03:04 PM (tfNHk)

92 Why are we still in Oregon Territory?

Posted by: Pat Buchanan at November 27, 2010 06:18 PM (F5Gxy)

I fucking knew it!

Pat Buchanan is a stalking horse for La Raza!

Posted by: Deety at November 27, 2010 03:05 PM (Jb3+B)

93 Calling all human shields, calling all human shields, get thee to South Korea.  What, a Democrat is president now? Nevermind.....

Posted by: some dude at November 27, 2010 04:14 PM (RSfE/)

94 "Well, could we take them in?" Yeah 'cause we don't have enough poor people to support on the taxpayers' dime in the U.S. so let's import some more. Let Japan or China take them, makes a lot more sense.

Posted by: blogmocrat at November 27, 2010 06:01 PM (f1xfk)

95

The Airborne Laser Test Bed last I heard was successful and operational or cancelled, perhaps AOTA.  Depending on what you believe Obama and Russia secretly negotiated at the last START talk.  On the Boeing page I can't tell the exact status.   

Posted by: Beagle at November 28, 2010 11:02 AM (sOtz/)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
117kb generated in CPU 0.11, elapsed 1.2027 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.1238 seconds, 331 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.