On Fox, Robert Maginnis suggests military strikes on North Korea
From the June 16th edition of Fox News' Studio B:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
In April 2008, David Barstow reported in his New York Times exposé on media military analysts:
Another analyst, Robert L. Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who works in the Pentagon for a military contractor, attended the same briefing and recalled feeling "very disappointed" after being shown satellite photographs purporting to show bunkers associated with a hidden weapons program. Mr. Maginnis said he concluded that the analysts were being "manipulated" to convey a false sense of certainty about the evidence of the weapons. Yet he and Mr. Bevelacqua and the other analysts who attended the briefing did not share any misgivings with the American public.
Previously on Fox...
Kristol says "it may be worth doing some targeted air strikes" in North Korea, Hume agrees
The sad thing is even if this was a good idea our military is stretched so thin we probably couldn't pull it off.
Yes we could easily pull it off. Notice the date on my link:
Troop strength in RSK
While the tours are taking a toll on our soldiers don't confuse that with being stretched to thin. Since WWII, the US has contingency plans for a multiple theater scenario.
Gee, I wonder why he'd pushing for war.
Diplomacy is bad for business.
I'll ask you. What was Eisenhower telling us, in context, about the MIC?
Remember as Ike was leaving office that the Cold War was only fourteen years old. The space race was four years old. It was a time of hyper-spending and escalation of arms that we will never again see in our lifetimes. Ike's children have been quoted as saying his original line as he practiced the speech was the "military-industrial-congressional complex". We can only guess as to why he changed it.
Before we start to slag BW, just remember that when Hillary or any of our esteemed congressmen go on a little three hour tour of Baghdad guess who is doing their security? You guessed it. Blackwater.
One more observation on the link. I noticed it is heavy on the class warfare. Why make the point he was the richest guy in the armed forces? Did he serve his country honorably? Why does his background matter?
Remember as Ike was leaving office that the Cold War was only fourteen years old. The space race was four years old. It was a time of hyper-spending and escalation of arms that we will never again see in our lifetimes. Ike's children have been quoted as saying his original line as he practiced the speech was the "military-industrial-congressional complex". We can only guess as to why he changed it.
Before we start to slag BW, just remember that when Hillary or any of our esteemed congressmen go on a little three hour tour of Baghdad guess who is doing their security? You guessed it. Blackwater.
One more observation on the link. I noticed it is heavy on the class warfare. Why make the point he was the richest guy in the armed forces? Did he serve his country honorably? Why does his background matter?
THIS is not the issue at hand. At all. And you know it.
As for Blackwater, that's a mere iceberg tip. And you know it.
This IS the issue at hand. If you had read the speech then you would know this is the preface to the MIC line.
Please make your case for Blackwater being the tip of the berg. If this is what you're calling the "complex" then you need to hit the books more.
Sadly you don't know it.
The US would not see the end of 2009 as a country if they were.
ANYWAY...
The PROBLEM that these neocons don't grasp (big surprise) is one of the tactical disadvatages from the POV of our key allies (and thus our key interests) in the region. NK has enough conventional artillery positioned along the southern border to bascially level Seoul in about 20 minutes. They also have the capability to hit Tokyo. (Well... By HIT I mean that Tokyo is IN RANGE. To be fair they might not be able to hit the taget... their aim is about as precise as a Phil Niekro knuckleball, but I digress.)
So what to do? If we invade, there will likely be HEAVY civilian casualties on the side of our allies. Nuke 'em? Heavy civilian causualitioes on their side - to an unacceptable degree - plus the loss of diplomatic support the world over AND the fact that they're so close to SK - our ally - that we can't guarentee THEY won't have radioactive fallout coming their way if there's ever a slight southerly breeze.
Militarily speaking, it is the "land of lousy options." There's no really GOOD WAY to deal with them militarily. And that's a shame, becasue Kim Jong Il is a madman, and I don't trust him as far as I can throw him, diplomatically speaking. And, as we should all know by know, SANCTIONS, while necessary, are basically useless. (Look at Castro - he's still (basically) in power after FIVE of the US presidents who opposed him are DEAD.)
All that being said, I still sleep easy knowing that the cool head of my president, Barack Hussein Obama, will ultimately be calling the shots. No wars will start because of Cowboy Idiocy, and if a retaliation IS warranted... we'll show them the Chicago way. ("They pull a knife, you pull a gun. They sent one or your gusy the hospital, you send one of their's the the morgue! That's the Chicago way!" ~Sean Connery, the Untouchables)
KJ-Il has an opportunity here to deal with a reasonable western leader. He, and his conutry, will come to regret it if he squanders that opportunity.