As an April 6 article in Newsmax says it all: I believe this amounts to a fundamental misreading of the situation at hand. Although it is just about impossible to know how Kim Jong-un will next act (or react), it is a pretty good rule of thumb that bullies--and that is precisely what he is--are deterred only by counter-threats. Really serious counter-threats. Some on the left see this as "ratcheting up the rhetoric"; and they would prefer to ratchet it down a bit. This impulse, clearly, is grounded in a (most reasonable) desire to avoid a new war on the Korean Peninsula. And what rational person could possibly want that? But I am a very firm believer in the principle of peace through strength; and that, moreover, peace through appeasement can be found in precisely the same place as leprechauns and unicorns...
If the report I heard today is accurate, it would represent another misstep by the Obama administration, in my opinion. Reportedly, President Obama has determined that if North Korea should take military action, it will be met by the US with a "limited" (or "proportionate") response. This would be a huge mistake, I believe. Should North Korea take military action (presumably, against South Korea; it probably cannot reach the US with its missiles, notwithstanding Kim Jong-un's bluster), the US should totally devastate the Hermit Kingdom, and entirely collapse the DPRK, uniting Korea under the South Korean flag. Would China like this? Why, of course not! But that is not among my Top 10--or even among my Top 100--concerns...
Why, of course but with some adjustments! If I were the Chinese leader, I would be laughing with glee if the US could finish off the North Korean regime and destroy all his nuclear weapons and facilities. This is a Chinese tactic known as "killing somebody with another guy's knife". As in the Korean War, I would intervene in the last minute to save the remnants of the defeated regime.This time I would make sure my "dog" is forever tame and obedient, otherwise I would not hesitate to replace it with a new one.
pjohns wrote: But I am a very firm believer in the principle of peace through strength; and that, moreover, peace through appeasement can be found in precisely the same place as leprechauns and unicorns... Or wherever Neville Chamberlain is.
In a 1981 interview with Stanley Karnow, Pham Van Dong (North Vietnam's prime minister 1955-1976 and postwar Vietnam's prime minister 1976-1987) remarked: "...Vous savez, waging a war is simple, but running a country is very difficult." Pham lamented it was very difficult to govern postwar Vietnam but boasted it was simple to wage a war in the real world. He was the awesome Wizard of Oz behind the curtain of Vietnam War in defeating the mighty US forces and unifying Vietnam. However, once he came out from behind the curtain to run his postwar nation in the real world, he turned out to be a little man without the awesome power that people assumed he possessed. Thus seeking a solution to a problem in the real world has nothing to do with real entity or non-entity, but boils down to the nature of the problem, and the aptitude and character of the person involved. Pham Van Dong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pham_Van_Dong Wizard of Oz (character) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizard_(Oz) The Story Behind The Wonderful Wizard of Oz http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Banks/Wizard_of_Oz_parable.html
I've concluded that all of the lives of the Korean people aren't worth one single drop of American blood.
1. Right conclusion, but it has yet to conclude the long-drawn-out conflict on the Korean Peninsula. The Korean conflict and the Vietnam War have some parallel with each other: a. North Korea is an impoverished nation. So was North Vietnam during the Vietnam War. b. North Korea aims to defeat the greatest military power in the world. So did North Vietnam which had achieved its goal. c. The following two parallel factors are decisive in winning a war. First, as you have concluded "the lives of the Korean people aren't worth one single drop of American blood." Similarly, Vietnamese blood was/is dirt-cheap to the Vietnamese regime. The people running North Korea and North Vietnam (General Vo Nguyen Giap, for example) were/are ruthless and brutal, and were/are always prepared to take a gamble, irrespective of the cost in lives. The sophisticated and diabolical nature of the Vietcong and North Vietnamese military leaders was revealed in the massacre at the South Vietnamese City of Hue during the Tet Offensive launched on January 30, 1968 against South Vietnam. An estimated 7600 civilians were slaughtered or missing in the Hue Massacre. d. Napoleon explained long ago the vital importance of morale in war. No soldier likes to fight and put his life at risk when he feels that he is not backed by public opinion at home. As the Vietnam War prolonged, the American soldiers in Vietnam increasingly felt the backlash of opposition at home. They began to feel that they were fighting an unjust and unwinnable war. The largest demonstrations were held on April 24, 1971. In San Francisco about 300,000 people gathered, in Washington between 500,000 and 750,000. These were probably the biggest political demonstrations in US history. Former North Vietnam General Vo Nguyen Giap was alleged to have attributed American loss of the Vietnam War to media bias and homefront disruption. "Country Joe" McDonald contains the words: "Come on, mothers, throughout the land Pack your boys off to Vietnam Come on, fathers, don't hesitate Send your sons off before it's too late Be the first one on your block To have your boy come home in a box! "And it's 1, 2, 3, what are we fighting for? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn. Next stop is Vietnam. And it's 5, 6, 7, open up the Pearly Gates Yeah, there ain't no time to wonder why Whoopee! We're all gonna die!" 2. Following are excerpts of the article headlined "Thirty years after the end of the Vietnam War The fall of Saigon" at http://socialistworker.org/2005-1/541/541_08_FallSaigon.shtml (Begin excerpts) ...BY THE time the U.S. landed combat troops in Vietnam in 1965, millions of American, particularly African Americans, had become radicalized by the civil rights movement. This meant that millions of people were ready to be suspicious of -- or outright opposed to -- the policies of the U.S. government abroad, as well. The first national demonstration against the war was organized by Students for a Democratic Society -- many of whose members were involved in civil rights activism. It drew more than 30,000 people to Washington, shocking traditional antiwar groups that expected a much smaller turnout.... Nixon attempted to both escalate the war through a massive bombing campaign and de-escalate the impact of the war at home by withdrawing U.S. troops. The strategy was called "Vietnamization" -- having South Vietnamese forces take over the ground war, while the Americans provide the air cover and logistics. In reality, this was a way for the U.S. to get out of Vietnam without being seen as "defeated" by the NLF and the North Vietnamese. But "Vietnamization" was already a failed policy before it started. The war remained "Americanized" precisely because the Saigon government couldn't win against the NLF... Meanwhile, Nixon's policies produced the largest antiwar demonstrations in U.S. history, while rank-and-file soldiers and Vietnam veterans went into open rebellion against the war. In many ways, Nixon was forced to bring the war to end because of the disintegration of the U.S. Army on the ground in Vietnam... Since the end of the Vietnam War, it has been a constant complaint of the right wing that the U.S. could have won the war if didn't have to fight "with one arm tied behind its back." This ignores that horrible devastation that the U.S. inflicted on Vietnam. The U.S. dropped three times as much tonnage of bombs on Vietnam as was dropped in all of the Second World War. Added to this was the effect of chemical warfare--the use of defoliants like Agent Orange that destroyed huge areas of land, leaving behind a legacy of cancer and birth defects. The U.S. inflicted more than 1.5 million casualties on North Vietnam, a country of 27 million people at the time. If the same proportion of casualties were inflicted on the U.S., 20 million Americans would have died... (End excerpts) 3. Many people, especially those in the media, have been talking and speculating about the survival and collapse of the North Korean regime. They speak as though Kim Jong-un is so desperate and helpless that he is making bellicose rhetoric to seek a dialogue with the US for concessions, peace and mercy. Such talk and speculation of North Korean survival and collapse are terribly wrong. It's a misjudgment of the North Korean regime's determination to take over the South by force. North Korea is inspired by North Vietnam's victory in the Vietnam War. It has no problems surviving if it opts for peaceful development with economic aids from China and Russia. Like its North Vietnamese counterpart during the Vietnam War, the North Korean regime has two formidable "weapons" at its disposal against the US, that is, its ruthlessness and willingness to gamble away the lives of their people. The most dangerous period for South Korea and the US will be about 40 to 50 years later for the following reasons. a. After ruling for 40 to 50 years, Kim Jong-un, the "great successor", would have outlasted many leaders of China, the US, Russia, South Korea and Japan. At the age of 30 now, he is daring enough to challenge and declare war on the US. It goes without saying that by the time he reaches 80, he will swell with arrogance and self-importance to think he can equal Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Washington or Lincoln in stature. b. By that time, his generals will have enough of his tomfoolery and mockery at the US. They will demand him to deliver the goodies, that is, to take over South Korea by force. c. By that time, he will be tempted to leave his mark on history to unify the whole Korea by whatever means at his disposal before seeing his father and grandfather. d. The North Korean nuclear programme should be at an advanced stage 40 to 50 years later. By that time, North Korea's nuclear missiles should be able to reach the US mainland. Any meeting between North Korea and the US by then will not be a peace dialogue. Instead South Korea will look more like a plate of bulgogi (Korean grilled beef) on the table. North Korea will demand the unconditional surrender of South Korea or at least the unconditional withdrawal of all US forces to the US mainland. Without America agreeing to its conditions, the probability for another Korean War could not be ruled out by then. The Tet Offensive: the turning point in the Vietnam War – Part One http://www.marxist.com/tet-offensive-part-one.htm The Tet Offensive: the turning point in the Vietnam War – Part Two http://www.marxist.com/tet-offensive-offensive-part-two.htm How US imperialism was defeated in Vietnam http://www.marxist.com/vietnam-us-imperialism151002.htm Tet Offensive http://vietnamawbb.weebly.com/tet-offensive.html Hue Massacre , Tet 1968 http://ngothelinh.tripod.com/Hue.html Massacre at Hue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hue_Massacre General Giap on How U.S. Lost the Vietnam War http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_general_giap.htm The Fall Of Saigon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBO02RlPE6Q http://www.politicalforum.com/asia/290390-least-50-years-headache-china-japan-us.html
Is that to say that all those who opposed, say, the Bush policies in Iraq and/or Afghanistan--perhaps even opposed these policies on the Internet--were wrong, simply because they were not a part of the current administration?
Your words (to which, I was responding), were as follows: Is it really "mix[ing] apples and oranges," in your opinion, for me to inquire if you believe it was wrong for some to have opposed the Bush policies as regarding Iraq and Afghanistan? Or are you simply suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable for one to question the policies of a conservative Republican president, but out of bounds for one to question the policies of a liberal Democratic president?
