North Korea attacks South Korea, South retaliates

[dom1104]

well said.

the U.S. has been ***** footing around for too long in this conflict. time to use our big stick instead of just waving it around in the air. the NK know we are *****s now. so its time to man up and b**** slap their asses with a nuke. I wont lose one nights sleep knowing a north korean has been turned into a crispy critter.

So THIS is the Ranger way eh Semper Fi?

We are all glad for our fighters, and we would be lost without our warriors, but on the same note, I am glad, VERY glad, that you follow orders from cooler heads.

I am very, VERY glad its not your fingers hovering over the red button.

I dont see "Nuke EVERYBODY" in that Ranger creed.

There is nothing wrong with being an elite soldier. There is definatly something very wrong with wanton destruction and nuclear suicide.

 

[LEaSH]

There is an influential faction of South Koreans that would like reunification. It's small, but large enough to complicate things.

There will not be nukes used there under this administration (not our nuke). China may or may not b-slap the North if it gets annoyed.

This will fade into a bruise and flare up later.

 

[Disposable Heart]

Its brainwashing that does not have a place in the politics of nation states, only on the battlefield. If we had used the Ranger Motto as our national political concept, we would be a tryannical entity in the world, constantly killing or being killed, and living in fear of constant retribution. We would live in constant fear, and our landscape and economy would be like Germany at the end of the World Wars, empty, sorrowfilled and useless.

I will agree, the North has terrorized the South for too long. But the indications, economic and political that the people of NK (not leadership) have had it are there! Punish the people who have no say in their government and only are in uniform because of fear of being shot in the back of the head? Let's use the once again antiquated and bludgening tool of militaristic political thinking instead of tackling the ACTUAL issue?

Maybe some want to just kill because they want to prove to themselves that they are heros instead of being one by saving lives instead of arbitrarily killing them. WHO ARE YOU TO MAKE THAT DECISION, whether someone who doesn't want to be in the NK gets toasted because we are compensating for our father's foolish mistakes?

 

[sparky241]

no offense, but I think a lot of people who talk about fallout dont realy understand what it is or its range and effects.

when chernobyle went up int he 80's it sent radiation all over europe. and was even said it hit the waters off our coast. because of the prevailing winds.

 

[sparky241]

Really? How many people suffered radiation poisoning more than a few miles after Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Was Russia affected? The US? Even Okanawa?



Fallacy of false dilemma. Both of you.

you forgot the fact that they were i differnt type of nuke. and much smaller than the ones we use today. get off you high horse and look what the repercussions mr warrior, both to the global economics as well as the ecosystems. dont understand fallout? please show me what i dont know and back it up.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So THIS is the Ranger way eh Semper Fi?

We are all glad for our fighters, and we would be lost without our warriors, but on the same note, I am glad, VERY glad, that you follow orders from cooler heads.

I am very, VERY glad its not your fingers hovering over the red button.

I dont see "Nuke EVERYBODY" in that Ranger creed.

There is nothing wrong with being an elite soldier. There is definatly something very wrong with wanton destruction and nuclear suicide.

Start with your last statement first. It's a false dilemma. There is no evidence that dropping a nuke would be "nuclear suicide". None. Wanton destruction? Yeah probably. Not suicide.

To your first statement I could not agree more. You have warriors. You have management. If you just turned the warriors on they would destroy everything. That's what warriors do. The quicker you annhilate it the quicker you go home. Oh, and the better the chances you get to go home with all your buddies.

You ever been in a position where you just wanted to push someone out of the way and do the job yourself, but you couldn't? That's the feeling we get.

Managers and diplomats are trained to kabuke dance. Warriors are trained to win.

 

[rambone]

Does anyone relish the use of nukes? Nope. But if the alternative is to surrender the South, what do you do? Walk away and lift your skirt for the whole world to see? That's the quickest way to kill American exceptionalism forever. I'm not down for that.

If you got 'em smoke 'em.

One exceptional thing about America is that we are $13,000,000,000,000.00 in debt right now. Maybe there is more to consider before provoking WW3 besides how tough it will make us look. I can see it as a terrific excuse for the Federal Government to nationalize industries, take away our remaining wealth and freedoms, and permanently send us into communism.

But at least communists don't wear skirts.

I am very, VERY glad its not your fingers hovering over the red button.

I dont see "Nuke EVERYBODY" in that Ranger creed.

There is nothing wrong with being an elite soldier. There is definatly something very wrong with wanton destruction and nuclear suicide.

Ditto.

 

[public servant]

Is your world a video game? Really?

 

[rambone]

 

[dom1104]

Start with your last statement first. It's a false dilemma. There is no evidence that dropping a nuke would be "nuclear suicide". None. Wanton destruction? Yeah probably. Not suicide.

To your first statement I could not agree more. You have warriors. You have management. If you just turned the warriors on they would destroy everything. That's what warriors do. The quicker you annhilate it the quicker you go home. Oh, and the better the chances you get to go home with all your buddies.

You ever been in a position where you just wanted to push someone out of the way and do the job yourself, but you couldn't? That's the feeling we get.

Managers and diplomats are trained to kabuke dance. Warriors are trained to win.

It seems we agree on more than we disagree about.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

One exceptional thing about America is that we are $13,000,000,000,000.00 in debt right now. Maybe there is more to consider before provoking WW3 besides how tough it will make us look. I can see it as a terrific excuse for the Federal Government to nationalize industries, take away our remaining wealth and freedoms, and permanently send us into communism.

But at least communists don't wear skirts.




Ditto.

I agree about the debt level. It is unacceptable, unsustainable, and indefensible.

Everything else is a false dilema. Start WW3? How do you know that? Are you in touch with the Chicoms? Russians? NATO? Gilligan's Island? Government use dropping a nuke as an excuse to do everything except plant corn in Alaska? Do you sit around all day and come up with this stuff or do you already have it written down?

Whatever happened to principles? We have an ally. That ally is under threat. When the time comes for us to step up we don't say gee, we're having trouble balancing our checkbook this month. Guess we need to let you fail.

Communists do wear skirts. Just not their women.

 

[Disposable Heart]

You ever been in a position where you just wanted to push someone out of the way and do the job yourself, but you couldn't? That's the feeling we get.

Managers and diplomats are trained to kabuke dance. Warriors are trained to win.

What you propose is military junta, the military takes over the affairs of a nation state "for the good of the people". I can understand and maybe even support such a thing in regards to our own soil, but to desire it to settle disputes of other nation states borderlines treason and totalitarianism. What happens if the military does what you say? Then we the people pay for the crimes of a few in our national command. Then someone gets tired of our crap and nukes us. Not a good picture huh?

Military hates when the politicos get involved in military matters. Is the inverse any better? No. The reason for consensus or pluralistic government is that all parties are heard and considered, not just one general's idea of what is right. They may have seemingly altruistic views, but in the end, they have their own bent, their own twist to them.

What is proposed there in your statement is no better than an African nation general taking over command of his country and killing others for THEIR ideals...

I am not anti-military. I am anti-military Junta or warlord...

 

[E5RANGER375]

What you propose is military junta, the military takes over the affairs of a nation state "for the good of the people". I can understand and maybe even support such a thing in regards to our own soil, but to desire it to settle disputes of other nation states borderlines treason and totalitarianism. What happens if the military does what you say? Then we the people pay for the crimes of a few in our national command. Then someone gets tired of our crap and nukes us. Not a good picture huh?

Military hates when the politicos get involved in military matters. Is the inverse any better? No. The reason for consensus or pluralistic government is that all parties are heard and considered, not just one general's idea of what is right. They may have seemingly altruistic views, but in the end, they have their own bent, their own twist to them.

What is proposed there in your statement is no better than an African nation general taking over command of his country and killing others for THEIR ideals...

I am not anti-military. I am anti-military Junta or warlord...

the politicians never let the warriors finish our task. if they did you wouldnt be reading about north korea, china or russia.

 

[rambone]

Everything else is a false dilema. Start WW3? How do you know that? Are you in touch with the Chicoms? Russians? NATO? Gilligan's Island? Government use dropping a nuke as an excuse to do everything except plant corn in Alaska? Do you sit around all day and come up with this stuff or do you already have it written down?

I don't know that WW3 WILL happen. How do you know it WON'T happen?

Yeah, war, especially world war, has been a great taker of our liberties. As we teeter on the brink of depression and/or economic insolvency, the Feds would have no trouble using the war as an excuse to take over anything they wanted to. A lot of people would clamor for government to do it.

Look at WW2 if you need any proof of this. Internment camps, property confiscation, seizure of industry, conscription.... I thought this was fairly evident that war destroys our liberty.

 

[teddy12b]

All I know is that if war broke out it'd be a blood bath like none of us have seen in our lifetimes and I don't want that. They've had lifetimes to lay minefields, setup artillary, and map out assults & airstrikes. I don't want that war to start back up. I served overseas and I've visited gravesites of friends who were killed on later deployments. I don't want that for anyone or for anymore American families.

I'd be willing to bet that most of the people in NK are just some poor SOB's who were born in the wrong country at the wrong time and have lived a crappy life. I pitty them, and I don't feel the need to nuke them because they were born into a country ran by A-holes.

I'd like to see some changes in management happen from within on NK's side. The best case scenario is a new NK leader who stops the war drums and starts talking about uniting with the south peacefully and eventually the US troops can come home. Now I'm a realist and I don't think that's ever going to happen, but I don't want to just settle for a blood bath where our troops are going to die as well. I don't think China is as closely tied to NK as it was back in the day and I think now it's got enough economic ties to the US that WW3 wouldn't break out. In any case, the situation over there is a total cluster and a perfect example of why politicians should let troops do there job swiftly and be done with it. Here we are all these years later with unfinished business that's not our own to begin with.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

What you propose is military junta, the military takes over the affairs of a nation state "for the good of the people". I can understand and maybe even support such a thing in regards to our own soil, but to desire it to settle disputes of other nation states borderlines treason and totalitarianism. What happens if the military does what you say? Then we the people pay for the crimes of a few in our national command. Then someone gets tired of our crap and nukes us. Not a good picture huh?

Military hates when the politicos get involved in military matters. Is the inverse any better? No. The reason for consensus or pluralistic government is that all parties are heard and considered, not just one general's idea of what is right. They may have seemingly altruistic views, but in the end, they have their own bent, their own twist to them.

What is proposed there in your statement is no better than an African nation general taking over command of his country and killing others for THEIR ideals...

I am not anti-military. I am anti-military Junta or warlord...

Really? I proposed a military junta? That's what you think I said? You think with all I have written I hate America enough to turn it into a banana republic?

Before I straight roast you and get banned let's look at what I said. First dom said, inter alia:

We are all glad for our fighters, and we would be lost without our warriors, but on the same note, I am glad, VERY glad, that you follow orders from cooler heads.

I am very, VERY glad its not your fingers hovering over the red button.

To which I replied:

To your first statement I could not agree more. You have warriors. You have management. If you just turned the warriors on they would destroy everything. That's what warriors do. The quicker you annhilate it the quicker you go home. Oh, and the better the chances you get to go home with all your buddies.

You ever been in a position where you just wanted to push someone out of the way and do the job yourself, but you couldn't? That's the feeling we get.

Managers and diplomats are trained to kabuke dance. Warriors are trained to win.

In case you forgot it, the statement I was referring to was:

We are all glad for our fighters, and we would be lost without our warriors, but on the same note, I am glad, VERY glad, that you follow orders from cooler heads.

I am very, VERY glad its not your fingers hovering over the red button.

So how from that can you possibly gather that I support a junta?

I don't know that WW3 WILL happen. How do you know it WON'T happen?

Yeah, war, especially world war, has been a great taker of our liberties. As we teeter on the brink of depression and/or economic insolvency, the Feds would have no trouble using the war as an excuse to take over anything they wanted to. A lot of people would clamor for government to do it.

Look at WW2 if you need any proof of this. Internment camps, property confiscation, seizure of industry, conscription.... I thought this was fairly evident that war destroys our liberty.

Same discussion, new fallacies. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

And I always thought that war was a tool of diplomacy used to ensure liberty. That's a pretty twisted view that we wage war on other nations to destroy our own liberty. Why would we do that when the government could just take them away with the swipe of a pen? (That was a rhetorical question. It do not require an answer, especially one lacking reason.)

 

[Disposable Heart]

You ever been in a position where you just wanted to push someone out of the way and do the job yourself, but you couldn't? That's the feeling we get.

Managers and diplomats are trained to kabuke dance. Warriors are trained to win.

I will once again, for the proof, state what you said. You desire to push aside political discourse and use the military without the consent of the people to perform acts of violence upon others.

Does diplomacy win? Yes, and it has on many occasions. Do warriors win? Yes, once again, on many occasions. But for warriors to percieve something as being a loss and then suggest "pushing aside" those who aren't winning (in context of your statement, the politicos) and "do the job yourself". What about that is not a clear cut description of a military coup or junta?

I am not trying to "prove someone wrong", I am trying to understand the chest thumping, "kill them all" mindset I see of quite a few online here. A warrior's job is to protect the nation. A politico's job is to represent the nation and command the military to protect the nation and it's interests. The military does not command the politicos and perform it's own actions. I am confused why so many here wish to cause such a horrible ill upon others who meerly want to exist but are forced into such a horrible situation by their unelected, undesired and fear mongering leaders as in the case of NK?

 

[teddy12b]

I think they were referring to the military as being a political tool when diplomacy has failed. Diplomacy can and should win, but it doesn't always and that's when the politicians have failed and the wars start. The arguement could be easily made that those who failed to prevent the war should not be in charge of those who are tasked to fight the war.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I will once again, for the proof, state what you said. You desire to push aside political discourse and use the military without the consent of the people to perform acts of violence upon others.

Does diplomacy win? Yes, and it has on many occasions. Do warriors win? Yes, once again, on many occasions. But for warriors to percieve something as being a loss and then suggest "pushing aside" those who aren't winning (in context of your statement, the politicos) and "do the job yourself". What about that is not a clear cut description of a military coup or junta?

I am not trying to "prove someone wrong", I am trying to understand the chest thumping, "kill them all" mindset I see of quite a few online here. A warrior's job is to protect the nation. A politico's job is to represent the nation and command the military to protect the nation and it's interests. The military does not command the politicos and perform it's own actions. I am confused why so many here wish to cause such a horrible ill upon others who meerly want to exist but are forced into such a horrible situation by their unelected, undesired and fear mongering leaders as in the case of NK?

OK I'll try. I think you're confused, not trolling. Here's a story.

I had a dog. His name was Sampson. He was an 85 pound protection trained Belgian Malinois. He was an absolute machine. If I cut him loose on something or someone, he would absolutely destroy it. If I told him to leave it, he did. He was my protector. An instrument of diplomacy. A genuine badass.

I controlled the keys. I pushed the button. He was eager to work, but deferred to me for permission. Sometimes I could see that he wanted to go after something, but I wouldn't let him. I could tell that he was frustrated.

We have a number of coyotes around our house. He killed four over the past year. I would never let him chase them into the woods. Too dangerous. Well, one night my GF let him out, there were coyotes in the yard. No one was there to control him. He chased them into the woods, and they killed him. He initiated his own action, and he's dead. I'm out a friend and a protector because of it.

That's what our military does. We are eager to do our thing. But we respect, accept, and understand hitting the button is not our call. Once that button is hit, look out.

Now, what I said was "Have you ever felt like ...". The key word is felt. I am not suggesting a course of action. I am explaining the apparent hyperbole by my brothers in arms to the uninitiated. You have to read what is written as written. The fact that you see something clearly not there exposes your bias.

Police protect the nation. Warriors protect our way of life. There's a huge difference. The "kill them all" mindset comes because that is what has been asked of we few. Because if you simply beat an enemy, they will look for round two. But if you destroy them, they never want to fight again.

Now as to why we wish horrible ill on others when they don't control their government, I respond thus. It is not my concern they are not in control. It is not my daughter's fault that their government is oppressive. No one in my family, my community, my country, has told these people to threaten us.

If it comes to it and the politicos push the button, they will release the hounds of hell. Until then the warriors are preparing for the coming battle. While the rest bad mouth them. It's been like that for 10,000 years. It will be like that for all eternity. Remember that it is the warrior's sacrifice that provides you the freedom and liberty to denegrate them.

 

[Disposable Heart]

We do agree on quite a few points stated in your last post Semper: We may differ on the "punish them all" concept (and that was a poor name for it, understandably), but I do feel better at night knowing that the Spartans sharpen their swords and keep watch over the pass to keep the Persians away.

I will say that I maybe over analyzed the "felt" statement. I, like Rambone, get very nervous when anything military wants to be political. We see things like military coups in other nations or things like that, we get very nervous when we see statements like that. BUT, it was an over analysis, pure and simple.

I did like your dog story. It did put it in a better perspective for me. I never meant to bad mouth the military, nor will I. (threadjack) I hold individuals responsible for their actions. That said, I met alot of bad vets and good vets. The bad ones will irrevocably blame "the military" for their poor choices after their service. The good ones blame the military for their successes .