LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteWell, this sort of thing is not done with just one officer. It is done with two female officers, if you get my meaning.Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
I understand that we don't get any stratigic/monetary backing but shouldn't we at least get some trust from some of these countries for our aid/orginazation/funding of these aliances?
"Our citizenship in the United States is our national character. Our citizenship in any particular state is only our local distinction. By the latter we are known at home, by the former to the world. Our great title is AMERICANS…" -- Thomas Paine
Well, this sort of thing is not done with just one officer. It is done with two female officers, if you get my meaning.
North Korea may have an interest in warring with South Korea, China (very improbable), Japan, and Russia (also improbable), but the only interest that it has in fighting the United States is because we impede any chance that they have of expansion. Your statement seems to reinforce that we are the world's policeman, because it is our job to stop North Korea from causing mischief with it's neighbors.
Now what I'm saying, is that it isn't really our job to protect nations from a power that they don't really need protecting from anyways. The only protection that our allies need form North Korea is a nuclear guarantee that we will obliterate North Korea if they employ nuclear weapons against those nations that do not have retaliatory means. With a larger population and economy, once again there is no reason why South Korea should be unable to defend itself from it's northern neighbor.
S. Korea is quite capable of defending itself, however it lacks a manuever force to deliver the knockout blow to N. Korea and thus killing N. Korea.North Korea may have an interest in warring with South Korea, China (very improbable), Japan, and Russia (also improbable), but the only interest that it has in fighting the United States is because we impede any chance that they have of expansion. Your statement seems to reinforce that we are the world's policeman, because it is our job to stop North Korea from causing mischief with it's neighbors.
Now what I'm saying, is that it isn't really our job to protect nations from a power that they don't really need protecting from anyways. The only protection that our allies need form North Korea is a nuclear guarantee that we will obliterate North Korea if they employ nuclear weapons against those nations that do not have retaliatory means. With a larger population and economy, once again there is no reason why South Korea should be unable to defend itself from it's northern neighbor.
S. Korea military wants US military presence because once war starts, they wanted to finish N. Korea for good. But the civilians do not realize that importance since they fear anything that would lead to war.
To duplicate that kind of firepower the US 2ID deliver would require 10 years of stockpiling and training.
South Korea's military may wish to have the United States in Korea, and now that he is in office the South Korean president may recognize that America is important, however the population does not wish for America to be there. They elected the current government based largely on that fact. Therefore, we should oblige them, as there is no real reason for us to be there (it is not our problem if South Korea cannot finish of North Korea). American forces are already pulling out to a certain degree, and completing that withdrawal would free up American forces for service elsewhere.
And if the civilians fear war enough to remove their ability to finish it, they aren't really deserving of victory anyways. I'm afraid I always tend to lack sympathy for those who are the authors of their own troubles.
To an extent i agree. However you are advocating a less interventionist stance for the US. Whereas the current administration has publicly stated it is going to be the most interventionist ever.
I know. I may be conservative, but that does not mean that I agree with everything that this administration does. I dislike the fact that we are throwing resources around overseas, especially since the United States gets minimal benifits from doing so.
When it comes to the bad guys, as intervention was stated, I think this is a good thing. Too bad there aren't more good guys in the world to really scare these tyrants into submission. Sad more people would rather do nothing.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
A battle area of 4 to 10 kms wide and up to 60 kms deep, advancing at 20-30kms for division versus 2-6 kms wide and up to 25 kms deep, advancing at 2-6 kms for brigade.
But you would require more capable Colonels and Senior Colonels with just as capable staff and assets. Not saying their devotion to duty is any less than ours but their system is reliant on a few good generals doing almost all the decision making down to the regiment level. Our HQs are considerably bigger because our input assets are alot bigger. Theirs are more limited, thus, you put them where they're at maximun use, ie division.
Apples and oranges. Their system works for them. Ours work for us. Their system, however, is extremely reliant on a good General Staff (which they seemed more than capable of producing). Ours are more reactive, dependent on a good NCM corps. A good summary is that they reherse their battles while we train for them.
Chimo
There was no doubt that the Warsaw Pact was going to fight as a unified force, even if some of the allies are some sort of modern day penal battalions.
1) That is not your original arguement.
2) The US got its payback in spades and then some.
- An American is in command of over 2 million non-American military personnel plus all those wonderful toys including Leo 1s and 2s, Mirages, Harriers, Chieftans, etc.
- Before 11 Sept, the allies followed the Americans into 3 wars - Bosnia, Kuwait, and Kosovo (and the last one was over the objection of all the militaries), 4 wars if you count Somalia.
- But what really proved the Alliance's worth to the US is 11 Sept (funny how American civies have such short memories). All NATO air assets in North America (ie, those planes training in Labrador, Canada) took to the air to defend both Canada and the US. All ground troops were immediately put on alert and Canadian brigades were ready to move to New York for whatever help they can do.
- Following on 12 Sept, in the 1st time in Alliance history and a signal of the Alliance's worth, Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty was invoked. An attack on one is an attack on all. In other words, it was the Allies coming to the US's aid. And these were not empty gestures. Within one week, British 21SAS was already in Afghanistan. This was followed by special forces from all over the Alliance working under American command and direction. In all truthfulness, the US could not have done Afghanistan the way it did without all those special forces. The US didn't have that many. The Alliance went further by setting up the ISAF and took nation building off the US's hands.
Incidently, both the Kuwait and Iraq Wars could not have happenned without NATO. Both VII and V Corps were stationed in Europe.
Chimo
The unofficial reason is to prevent a war between South Korea and Japan.
Chimo
And I have a need-to-know because ...Well, this sort of thing is not done with just one officer. It is done with two female officers, if you get my meaning.
Now, read this Lima Charley. I DO NOT HAVE A WANT-TO-KNOW!
Then shouldn't someone tell the North Korean's that? I mean, NK keeps saying the reason why they developed nukes was because of the threat of the US. Or is it just an excuse?
An excuse and extortion. If the US had wanted to roll over them, the attack would have come long ago...
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: