OT: “Sing for Change” – the Obama Youth

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=dbapig][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Afx: There is quite a bit of ground between appeasement and invasion when dealing with a rational player (say Russia). You can bring everything from diplomatic to economic pressure to bear, including sanctions and embargoes.

As you find yourself moving further and further away from rationality (like with Iran), your options narrow. In the case of Iran, I think the best option is for change from within and the upcoming elections may wind up shocking a lot of people, including President I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket.

In the case of North Korea, we’ve tried everything from bribery (Clinton, 1994) to bullying and then backpedaling (Bush, 2000 – 2008) to “soft power” and diplomacy (Obama). None of this works because Kim could give a shit what the US does or says, he knows that ultimately we won’t invade the North; we cannot afford to (monetarily or militarily). He is holding all the cards and he knows it. The only country that can truly bring meaningful pressure is China and they don’t have much of an incentive to do so, either. The North stands as a counterweight to the South and a reunified Korea and is a cat’s paw for Chinese policy against Japan.

The North is unlikely to invade the South, because Kim knows neither he nor his regime will survive that conflict. However, it remains a credible threat and one that can be amplified by continued ballistic missile testing and the threat of nukes.

It’s a game of high speed chicken and, right now, Kim has bigger balls than anyone playing.[/quote]

Kim of NK looks like he’s got bigger ones but actually he’s the most desperate one. His health is failing and he doesn’t have a succession plan in order. His army is rusting away…
[/quote]

Dba: Everything about a Korean conflict is designed to negate American technological advantages: The terrain is Godawful and prevents a war of maneuver, which favors the current American “big iron” approach; NK has tons of cannon fodder to throw at us and a willingness to soak up casualties (and let’s be honest: America hates casualties); NK has the ability to deliver one hell of a first strike against Seoul and exact a propaganda victory at the outset; and, they really have nothing to lose.

During my time in the Army (1983 – 1988), we heard constantly from the USAF about “air superiority” and how it would turn the tide in the event of a Soviet/Combloc/Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. However, our Oplans were a good deal more sanguine on the subject and forecast a more realistic “air superiority neutral” scenario.

A lot of the talking heads opine that American air power would blunt or even turn back a North Korean invasion. Well, check out how well air power functions in countries with really shitty terrain and low tech opponents (like Afghanistan). The reality is always different than the scenario.

I did three years of counterinsurgency work in Central America and I’ll tell you that air power and artillery don’t mean dick in those type of environments. It’s Balls and Bayonets and the mofo most willing to bleed, wins.

[sd_matt]

[quote=afx114][quote=sd_matt]I wonder how much of Obama believes in appeasement and how much of him believes that he really is slick enough to disarm NK with words.[/quote]

What would you have him do? Invade North Korea?
[/quote]

Jump to conclusions if you want. There are alternatives to appeasement and war. Wasn’t it what Bush was doing? Not taking any sh$$? Sanctions?

Personally I would respond to each threat with a very small tightening of sanctions.I would also attempt to drive wedges into the regime by reaching out to Kims subordinates. If I can somehow get cooperation out of his subordinates I would relax or tighten the sanctions accordingly. Its a stretch but why not try to make Kim irrelevant? Perhaps help splinter the regime?

To bolster that I would increase aid on the condition that Americans are visibly handing over the aid. Again a stretch but why not? Lets try to work our tentacles into the regime? Do the same in Palestine.

[sd_matt]

[quote=afx114][quote=sd_matt]I wonder how much of Obama believes in appeasement and how much of him believes that he really is slick enough to disarm NK with words.[/quote]

What would you have him do? Invade North Korea?
[/quote]

Jump to conclusions if you want. There are alternatives to appeasement and war. Wasn’t it what Bush was doing? Not taking any sh$$? Sanctions?

Personally I would respond to each threat with a very small tightening of sanctions.I would also attempt to drive wedges into the regime by reaching out to Kims subordinates. If I can somehow get cooperation out of his subordinates I would relax or tighten the sanctions accordingly. Its a stretch but why not try to make Kim irrelevant? Perhaps help splinter the regime?

To bolster that I would increase aid on the condition that Americans are visibly handing over the aid. Again a stretch but why not? Lets try to work our tentacles into the regime? Do the same in Palestine.

[sd_matt]

[quote=afx114][quote=sd_matt]I wonder how much of Obama believes in appeasement and how much of him believes that he really is slick enough to disarm NK with words.[/quote]

What would you have him do? Invade North Korea?
[/quote]

Jump to conclusions if you want. There are alternatives to appeasement and war. Wasn’t it what Bush was doing? Not taking any sh$$? Sanctions?

Personally I would respond to each threat with a very small tightening of sanctions.I would also attempt to drive wedges into the regime by reaching out to Kims subordinates. If I can somehow get cooperation out of his subordinates I would relax or tighten the sanctions accordingly. Its a stretch but why not try to make Kim irrelevant? Perhaps help splinter the regime?

To bolster that I would increase aid on the condition that Americans are visibly handing over the aid. Again a stretch but why not? Lets try to work our tentacles into the regime? Do the same in Palestine.

[sd_matt]

[quote=afx114][quote=sd_matt]I wonder how much of Obama believes in appeasement and how much of him believes that he really is slick enough to disarm NK with words.[/quote]

What would you have him do? Invade North Korea?
[/quote]

Jump to conclusions if you want. There are alternatives to appeasement and war. Wasn’t it what Bush was doing? Not taking any sh$$? Sanctions?

Personally I would respond to each threat with a very small tightening of sanctions.I would also attempt to drive wedges into the regime by reaching out to Kims subordinates. If I can somehow get cooperation out of his subordinates I would relax or tighten the sanctions accordingly. Its a stretch but why not try to make Kim irrelevant? Perhaps help splinter the regime?

To bolster that I would increase aid on the condition that Americans are visibly handing over the aid. Again a stretch but why not? Lets try to work our tentacles into the regime? Do the same in Palestine.

[sd_matt]

[quote=afx114][quote=sd_matt]I wonder how much of Obama believes in appeasement and how much of him believes that he really is slick enough to disarm NK with words.[/quote]

What would you have him do? Invade North Korea?
[/quote]

Jump to conclusions if you want. There are alternatives to appeasement and war. Wasn’t it what Bush was doing? Not taking any sh$$? Sanctions?

Personally I would respond to each threat with a very small tightening of sanctions.I would also attempt to drive wedges into the regime by reaching out to Kims subordinates. If I can somehow get cooperation out of his subordinates I would relax or tighten the sanctions accordingly. Its a stretch but why not try to make Kim irrelevant? Perhaps help splinter the regime?

To bolster that I would increase aid on the condition that Americans are visibly handing over the aid. Again a stretch but why not? Lets try to work our tentacles into the regime? Do the same in Palestine.

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Arraya]Appeasement is for pussies. Real men preemptively strike…[/quote]

Arraya: Strike what? I know you were joking, but have you seen how the North has laid out their weapons factories and the power stations supplying those factories and the various NK bases? It’s pretty frickin’ smart: Nearly all of the power stations in the North are small- to mid-size facilities and widely dispersed throughout the country. You’d have to launch an assload of airstrikes and you’d lose a lot of planes taking out their infrastructure and command & control network.
[/quote]

NK, is something I really have not wrapped my head around. The complexities of the desert death cult dance and the delicate interlinking of energy and money in the ME is enough for my brain to handle.

As a humanist I deplore theocracies and nuclear weapons and together they are even more horrific.

However, It may seem odd to us, but Ahmadinejad is not an extremist by Iranian standards. He’s a moderate, who believes in modern science and technology as well as the old religion. He doesn’t like Israel – but that is hardly unusual for the region. Israel-bashing is politicians’ bread and butter in the Middle East.

No matter who was elected, we would have reached this point. One, Iran really does want nuclear energy. They have struggled to meet their OPEC quota for awhile now, and are painfully aware that their oil will not last forever. They want to prepare for the future (not to mention sell as much oil and gas as possible) Two, I’m pretty sure they want nuclear weapons even though it’s all speculation at this point but really how can you blame them after what happened to Iraq. Basically, they know it does not matter if they have weapons or not they will get blamed for it. Interestingly, the information coming out of the pentagon regarding their capabilities and intent is very conflicting. One day there will be a general indicating they are on the verge of having nukes the next week a report will leak that says they have no intention and a million years away capability wise. There is obviously infighting on the issue that goes beyond the president and has been going on since 06. Now, being on top of the 3rd or 4th biggest energy reserves makes them a target by default and the way they see it, nuclear weapons are probably their only chance for sovereignty. They know they would become an ash try if they ever used them.

We are discussing tipping points earlier and an attack on Iran could easily be a catalyst for WWIII given their strategic alliances.

I’m not sure if Obama’s distancing himself from Israel is more of a nudge-nudge, wink-wink kind of thing because it would limit Iran’s response on the world stage or it is genuinely how the hard-right paints him as being anti-Israel.

Either way, this fall should be the grand finale of the final play for the west and the fate of civilization as we know it. An attack on Iran would put us in a whole new world. I personally would not like to see it.

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Arraya]Appeasement is for pussies. Real men preemptively strike…[/quote]

Arraya: Strike what? I know you were joking, but have you seen how the North has laid out their weapons factories and the power stations supplying those factories and the various NK bases? It’s pretty frickin’ smart: Nearly all of the power stations in the North are small- to mid-size facilities and widely dispersed throughout the country. You’d have to launch an assload of airstrikes and you’d lose a lot of planes taking out their infrastructure and command & control network.
[/quote]

NK, is something I really have not wrapped my head around. The complexities of the desert death cult dance and the delicate interlinking of energy and money in the ME is enough for my brain to handle.

As a humanist I deplore theocracies and nuclear weapons and together they are even more horrific.

However, It may seem odd to us, but Ahmadinejad is not an extremist by Iranian standards. He’s a moderate, who believes in modern science and technology as well as the old religion. He doesn’t like Israel – but that is hardly unusual for the region. Israel-bashing is politicians’ bread and butter in the Middle East.

No matter who was elected, we would have reached this point. One, Iran really does want nuclear energy. They have struggled to meet their OPEC quota for awhile now, and are painfully aware that their oil will not last forever. They want to prepare for the future (not to mention sell as much oil and gas as possible) Two, I’m pretty sure they want nuclear weapons even though it’s all speculation at this point but really how can you blame them after what happened to Iraq. Basically, they know it does not matter if they have weapons or not they will get blamed for it. Interestingly, the information coming out of the pentagon regarding their capabilities and intent is very conflicting. One day there will be a general indicating they are on the verge of having nukes the next week a report will leak that says they have no intention and a million years away capability wise. There is obviously infighting on the issue that goes beyond the president and has been going on since 06. Now, being on top of the 3rd or 4th biggest energy reserves makes them a target by default and the way they see it, nuclear weapons are probably their only chance for sovereignty. They know they would become an ash try if they ever used them.

We are discussing tipping points earlier and an attack on Iran could easily be a catalyst for WWIII given their strategic alliances.

I’m not sure if Obama’s distancing himself from Israel is more of a nudge-nudge, wink-wink kind of thing because it would limit Iran’s response on the world stage or it is genuinely how the hard-right paints him as being anti-Israel.

Either way, this fall should be the grand finale of the final play for the west and the fate of civilization as we know it. An attack on Iran would put us in a whole new world. I personally would not like to see it.

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Arraya]Appeasement is for pussies. Real men preemptively strike…[/quote]

Arraya: Strike what? I know you were joking, but have you seen how the North has laid out their weapons factories and the power stations supplying those factories and the various NK bases? It’s pretty frickin’ smart: Nearly all of the power stations in the North are small- to mid-size facilities and widely dispersed throughout the country. You’d have to launch an assload of airstrikes and you’d lose a lot of planes taking out their infrastructure and command & control network.
[/quote]

NK, is something I really have not wrapped my head around. The complexities of the desert death cult dance and the delicate interlinking of energy and money in the ME is enough for my brain to handle.

As a humanist I deplore theocracies and nuclear weapons and together they are even more horrific.

However, It may seem odd to us, but Ahmadinejad is not an extremist by Iranian standards. He’s a moderate, who believes in modern science and technology as well as the old religion. He doesn’t like Israel – but that is hardly unusual for the region. Israel-bashing is politicians’ bread and butter in the Middle East.

No matter who was elected, we would have reached this point. One, Iran really does want nuclear energy. They have struggled to meet their OPEC quota for awhile now, and are painfully aware that their oil will not last forever. They want to prepare for the future (not to mention sell as much oil and gas as possible) Two, I’m pretty sure they want nuclear weapons even though it’s all speculation at this point but really how can you blame them after what happened to Iraq. Basically, they know it does not matter if they have weapons or not they will get blamed for it. Interestingly, the information coming out of the pentagon regarding their capabilities and intent is very conflicting. One day there will be a general indicating they are on the verge of having nukes the next week a report will leak that says they have no intention and a million years away capability wise. There is obviously infighting on the issue that goes beyond the president and has been going on since 06. Now, being on top of the 3rd or 4th biggest energy reserves makes them a target by default and the way they see it, nuclear weapons are probably their only chance for sovereignty. They know they would become an ash try if they ever used them.

We are discussing tipping points earlier and an attack on Iran could easily be a catalyst for WWIII given their strategic alliances.

I’m not sure if Obama’s distancing himself from Israel is more of a nudge-nudge, wink-wink kind of thing because it would limit Iran’s response on the world stage or it is genuinely how the hard-right paints him as being anti-Israel.

Either way, this fall should be the grand finale of the final play for the west and the fate of civilization as we know it. An attack on Iran would put us in a whole new world. I personally would not like to see it.

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Arraya]Appeasement is for pussies. Real men preemptively strike…[/quote]

Arraya: Strike what? I know you were joking, but have you seen how the North has laid out their weapons factories and the power stations supplying those factories and the various NK bases? It’s pretty frickin’ smart: Nearly all of the power stations in the North are small- to mid-size facilities and widely dispersed throughout the country. You’d have to launch an assload of airstrikes and you’d lose a lot of planes taking out their infrastructure and command & control network.
[/quote]

NK, is something I really have not wrapped my head around. The complexities of the desert death cult dance and the delicate interlinking of energy and money in the ME is enough for my brain to handle.

As a humanist I deplore theocracies and nuclear weapons and together they are even more horrific.

However, It may seem odd to us, but Ahmadinejad is not an extremist by Iranian standards. He’s a moderate, who believes in modern science and technology as well as the old religion. He doesn’t like Israel – but that is hardly unusual for the region. Israel-bashing is politicians’ bread and butter in the Middle East.

No matter who was elected, we would have reached this point. One, Iran really does want nuclear energy. They have struggled to meet their OPEC quota for awhile now, and are painfully aware that their oil will not last forever. They want to prepare for the future (not to mention sell as much oil and gas as possible) Two, I’m pretty sure they want nuclear weapons even though it’s all speculation at this point but really how can you blame them after what happened to Iraq. Basically, they know it does not matter if they have weapons or not they will get blamed for it. Interestingly, the information coming out of the pentagon regarding their capabilities and intent is very conflicting. One day there will be a general indicating they are on the verge of having nukes the next week a report will leak that says they have no intention and a million years away capability wise. There is obviously infighting on the issue that goes beyond the president and has been going on since 06. Now, being on top of the 3rd or 4th biggest energy reserves makes them a target by default and the way they see it, nuclear weapons are probably their only chance for sovereignty. They know they would become an ash try if they ever used them.

We are discussing tipping points earlier and an attack on Iran could easily be a catalyst for WWIII given their strategic alliances.

I’m not sure if Obama’s distancing himself from Israel is more of a nudge-nudge, wink-wink kind of thing because it would limit Iran’s response on the world stage or it is genuinely how the hard-right paints him as being anti-Israel.

Either way, this fall should be the grand finale of the final play for the west and the fate of civilization as we know it. An attack on Iran would put us in a whole new world. I personally would not like to see it.

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Arraya]Appeasement is for pussies. Real men preemptively strike…[/quote]

Arraya: Strike what? I know you were joking, but have you seen how the North has laid out their weapons factories and the power stations supplying those factories and the various NK bases? It’s pretty frickin’ smart: Nearly all of the power stations in the North are small- to mid-size facilities and widely dispersed throughout the country. You’d have to launch an assload of airstrikes and you’d lose a lot of planes taking out their infrastructure and command & control network.
[/quote]

NK, is something I really have not wrapped my head around. The complexities of the desert death cult dance and the delicate interlinking of energy and money in the ME is enough for my brain to handle.

As a humanist I deplore theocracies and nuclear weapons and together they are even more horrific.

However, It may seem odd to us, but Ahmadinejad is not an extremist by Iranian standards. He’s a moderate, who believes in modern science and technology as well as the old religion. He doesn’t like Israel – but that is hardly unusual for the region. Israel-bashing is politicians’ bread and butter in the Middle East.

No matter who was elected, we would have reached this point. One, Iran really does want nuclear energy. They have struggled to meet their OPEC quota for awhile now, and are painfully aware that their oil will not last forever. They want to prepare for the future (not to mention sell as much oil and gas as possible) Two, I’m pretty sure they want nuclear weapons even though it’s all speculation at this point but really how can you blame them after what happened to Iraq. Basically, they know it does not matter if they have weapons or not they will get blamed for it. Interestingly, the information coming out of the pentagon regarding their capabilities and intent is very conflicting. One day there will be a general indicating they are on the verge of having nukes the next week a report will leak that says they have no intention and a million years away capability wise. There is obviously infighting on the issue that goes beyond the president and has been going on since 06. Now, being on top of the 3rd or 4th biggest energy reserves makes them a target by default and the way they see it, nuclear weapons are probably their only chance for sovereignty. They know they would become an ash try if they ever used them.

We are discussing tipping points earlier and an attack on Iran could easily be a catalyst for WWIII given their strategic alliances.

I’m not sure if Obama’s distancing himself from Israel is more of a nudge-nudge, wink-wink kind of thing because it would limit Iran’s response on the world stage or it is genuinely how the hard-right paints him as being anti-Israel.

Either way, this fall should be the grand finale of the final play for the west and the fate of civilization as we know it. An attack on Iran would put us in a whole new world. I personally would not like to see it.

[Arraya]

[img_assist|nid=11277|title=I’m ronery, so ronery…|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=710|height=600]

[Arraya]

[img_assist|nid=11277|title=I’m ronery, so ronery…|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=710|height=600]

[Arraya]

[img_assist|nid=11277|title=I’m ronery, so ronery…|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=710|height=600]

[Arraya]

[img_assist|nid=11277|title=I’m ronery, so ronery…|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=710|height=600]

[Author]

Posts