- This topic has 450 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by
Allan from Fallbrook.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 8, 2009 at 2:19 PM #413068June 8, 2009 at 2:26 PM #412374
Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=dbapig]
The threat by NK that they will turn Seoul into a sea of fire is what it is, a threat.Trust me, no one wants ‘peace’ on the Korean peninsula more than Kim in NK. He’s got it good. Why lose it by starting a war that’s he’s sure to lose?[/quote]
I bet that’s what Neville Chamberlain was thinking about Hitler…
Interesting note from Wikipedia:
“Chamberlain believed passionately in peace for many reasons (most of which are discussed in the article Appeasement), thinking it his job as Britain’s leader to maintain stability in Europe; like many people in Britain and elsewhere, he thought that the best way to deal with Germany’s belligerence was to treat it with kindness and meet its demands. He also believed that the leaders of people are essentially rational beings, and that Hitler must necessarily be rational as well.”
[/quote]
Surveyor: Welcome back; always good to see you posting.
Interesting to note about Hitler and his various threats regarding his willingness to invade: He would have had a very hard time even subduing Czechoslovakia when he first started threatening to do so. Czechoslovakia had a first line military and was well prepared for invasion. Hitler essentially bluffed his way past Chamberlain and disarmed the Czechs without firing a shot.
At the outset of the 1940 campaign, the French were not only quantitively superior to the Germans in terms of armored fighting vehicles, they were qualitatively superior as well. That’s right, the French had better tanks (and more of them) than the Germans. It was inept leadership and a lack of fighting spirit that did the French in.
I don’t doubt that a war between North Korea and South Korea would be unbelievably bloody. I went to artillery spotting school up on the DMZ when I was in the Army (back in the ’80s) and a North/South war was a nightmare scenario. The terrain alone gives you the willies.
June 8, 2009 at 2:26 PM #412610Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=dbapig]
The threat by NK that they will turn Seoul into a sea of fire is what it is, a threat.Trust me, no one wants ‘peace’ on the Korean peninsula more than Kim in NK. He’s got it good. Why lose it by starting a war that’s he’s sure to lose?[/quote]
I bet that’s what Neville Chamberlain was thinking about Hitler…
Interesting note from Wikipedia:
“Chamberlain believed passionately in peace for many reasons (most of which are discussed in the article Appeasement), thinking it his job as Britain’s leader to maintain stability in Europe; like many people in Britain and elsewhere, he thought that the best way to deal with Germany’s belligerence was to treat it with kindness and meet its demands. He also believed that the leaders of people are essentially rational beings, and that Hitler must necessarily be rational as well.”
[/quote]
Surveyor: Welcome back; always good to see you posting.
Interesting to note about Hitler and his various threats regarding his willingness to invade: He would have had a very hard time even subduing Czechoslovakia when he first started threatening to do so. Czechoslovakia had a first line military and was well prepared for invasion. Hitler essentially bluffed his way past Chamberlain and disarmed the Czechs without firing a shot.
At the outset of the 1940 campaign, the French were not only quantitively superior to the Germans in terms of armored fighting vehicles, they were qualitatively superior as well. That’s right, the French had better tanks (and more of them) than the Germans. It was inept leadership and a lack of fighting spirit that did the French in.
I don’t doubt that a war between North Korea and South Korea would be unbelievably bloody. I went to artillery spotting school up on the DMZ when I was in the Army (back in the ’80s) and a North/South war was a nightmare scenario. The terrain alone gives you the willies.
June 8, 2009 at 2:26 PM #412855Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=dbapig]
The threat by NK that they will turn Seoul into a sea of fire is what it is, a threat.Trust me, no one wants ‘peace’ on the Korean peninsula more than Kim in NK. He’s got it good. Why lose it by starting a war that’s he’s sure to lose?[/quote]
I bet that’s what Neville Chamberlain was thinking about Hitler…
Interesting note from Wikipedia:
“Chamberlain believed passionately in peace for many reasons (most of which are discussed in the article Appeasement), thinking it his job as Britain’s leader to maintain stability in Europe; like many people in Britain and elsewhere, he thought that the best way to deal with Germany’s belligerence was to treat it with kindness and meet its demands. He also believed that the leaders of people are essentially rational beings, and that Hitler must necessarily be rational as well.”
[/quote]
Surveyor: Welcome back; always good to see you posting.
Interesting to note about Hitler and his various threats regarding his willingness to invade: He would have had a very hard time even subduing Czechoslovakia when he first started threatening to do so. Czechoslovakia had a first line military and was well prepared for invasion. Hitler essentially bluffed his way past Chamberlain and disarmed the Czechs without firing a shot.
At the outset of the 1940 campaign, the French were not only quantitively superior to the Germans in terms of armored fighting vehicles, they were qualitatively superior as well. That’s right, the French had better tanks (and more of them) than the Germans. It was inept leadership and a lack of fighting spirit that did the French in.
I don’t doubt that a war between North Korea and South Korea would be unbelievably bloody. I went to artillery spotting school up on the DMZ when I was in the Army (back in the ’80s) and a North/South war was a nightmare scenario. The terrain alone gives you the willies.
June 8, 2009 at 2:26 PM #412923Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=dbapig]
The threat by NK that they will turn Seoul into a sea of fire is what it is, a threat.Trust me, no one wants ‘peace’ on the Korean peninsula more than Kim in NK. He’s got it good. Why lose it by starting a war that’s he’s sure to lose?[/quote]
I bet that’s what Neville Chamberlain was thinking about Hitler…
Interesting note from Wikipedia:
“Chamberlain believed passionately in peace for many reasons (most of which are discussed in the article Appeasement), thinking it his job as Britain’s leader to maintain stability in Europe; like many people in Britain and elsewhere, he thought that the best way to deal with Germany’s belligerence was to treat it with kindness and meet its demands. He also believed that the leaders of people are essentially rational beings, and that Hitler must necessarily be rational as well.”
[/quote]
Surveyor: Welcome back; always good to see you posting.
Interesting to note about Hitler and his various threats regarding his willingness to invade: He would have had a very hard time even subduing Czechoslovakia when he first started threatening to do so. Czechoslovakia had a first line military and was well prepared for invasion. Hitler essentially bluffed his way past Chamberlain and disarmed the Czechs without firing a shot.
At the outset of the 1940 campaign, the French were not only quantitively superior to the Germans in terms of armored fighting vehicles, they were qualitatively superior as well. That’s right, the French had better tanks (and more of them) than the Germans. It was inept leadership and a lack of fighting spirit that did the French in.
I don’t doubt that a war between North Korea and South Korea would be unbelievably bloody. I went to artillery spotting school up on the DMZ when I was in the Army (back in the ’80s) and a North/South war was a nightmare scenario. The terrain alone gives you the willies.
June 8, 2009 at 2:26 PM #413073Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=dbapig]
The threat by NK that they will turn Seoul into a sea of fire is what it is, a threat.Trust me, no one wants ‘peace’ on the Korean peninsula more than Kim in NK. He’s got it good. Why lose it by starting a war that’s he’s sure to lose?[/quote]
I bet that’s what Neville Chamberlain was thinking about Hitler…
Interesting note from Wikipedia:
“Chamberlain believed passionately in peace for many reasons (most of which are discussed in the article Appeasement), thinking it his job as Britain’s leader to maintain stability in Europe; like many people in Britain and elsewhere, he thought that the best way to deal with Germany’s belligerence was to treat it with kindness and meet its demands. He also believed that the leaders of people are essentially rational beings, and that Hitler must necessarily be rational as well.”
[/quote]
Surveyor: Welcome back; always good to see you posting.
Interesting to note about Hitler and his various threats regarding his willingness to invade: He would have had a very hard time even subduing Czechoslovakia when he first started threatening to do so. Czechoslovakia had a first line military and was well prepared for invasion. Hitler essentially bluffed his way past Chamberlain and disarmed the Czechs without firing a shot.
At the outset of the 1940 campaign, the French were not only quantitively superior to the Germans in terms of armored fighting vehicles, they were qualitatively superior as well. That’s right, the French had better tanks (and more of them) than the Germans. It was inept leadership and a lack of fighting spirit that did the French in.
I don’t doubt that a war between North Korea and South Korea would be unbelievably bloody. I went to artillery spotting school up on the DMZ when I was in the Army (back in the ’80s) and a North/South war was a nightmare scenario. The terrain alone gives you the willies.
June 8, 2009 at 2:26 PM #412379Participant[quote=sd_matt]The song that keeps comin back to my head is Cult of Personality. [/quote]
Living Colour, right? I used to love that band.
June 8, 2009 at 2:26 PM #412615Participant[quote=sd_matt]The song that keeps comin back to my head is Cult of Personality. [/quote]
Living Colour, right? I used to love that band.
June 8, 2009 at 2:26 PM #412860Participant[quote=sd_matt]The song that keeps comin back to my head is Cult of Personality. [/quote]
Living Colour, right? I used to love that band.
June 8, 2009 at 2:26 PM #412928Participant[quote=sd_matt]The song that keeps comin back to my head is Cult of Personality. [/quote]
Living Colour, right? I used to love that band.
June 8, 2009 at 2:26 PM #413077Participant[quote=sd_matt]The song that keeps comin back to my head is Cult of Personality. [/quote]
Living Colour, right? I used to love that band.
June 8, 2009 at 3:33 PM #412394surveyor
Participanthi, allan!
For me, I am seeing a lot of parallels with the appeasement policies with Chamberlain and the current U.S. policies. Chamberlain believed that you could meet belligerence with kindness and meet its demands. This seems to be also the policies of our president, where he is willing to accept a nuclear Iran, try to satiate and bargain with North Korea, and sell out Israel to Hamas. History has already shown this particular tactic will not work.
One wonders when the president will figure this out.
As the Lakers showed last night, experience and history really matters…
June 8, 2009 at 3:33 PM #412630Participanthi, allan!
For me, I am seeing a lot of parallels with the appeasement policies with Chamberlain and the current U.S. policies. Chamberlain believed that you could meet belligerence with kindness and meet its demands. This seems to be also the policies of our president, where he is willing to accept a nuclear Iran, try to satiate and bargain with North Korea, and sell out Israel to Hamas. History has already shown this particular tactic will not work.
One wonders when the president will figure this out.
As the Lakers showed last night, experience and history really matters…
June 8, 2009 at 3:33 PM #412875Participanthi, allan!
For me, I am seeing a lot of parallels with the appeasement policies with Chamberlain and the current U.S. policies. Chamberlain believed that you could meet belligerence with kindness and meet its demands. This seems to be also the policies of our president, where he is willing to accept a nuclear Iran, try to satiate and bargain with North Korea, and sell out Israel to Hamas. History has already shown this particular tactic will not work.
One wonders when the president will figure this out.
As the Lakers showed last night, experience and history really matters…
June 8, 2009 at 3:33 PM #412942Participanthi, allan!
For me, I am seeing a lot of parallels with the appeasement policies with Chamberlain and the current U.S. policies. Chamberlain believed that you could meet belligerence with kindness and meet its demands. This seems to be also the policies of our president, where he is willing to accept a nuclear Iran, try to satiate and bargain with North Korea, and sell out Israel to Hamas. History has already shown this particular tactic will not work.
One wonders when the president will figure this out.
As the Lakers showed last night, experience and history really matters…
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.