Five Morons

why doesn’t north korea invade the USA? i mean we have nukes thus we should be invaded right?

Before anyone slams me for my last post you might want to read a little of the following. My angle, though it sounds like a conspiracy theory, is just eluding to the fact that “war” is never about what we’re told - no matter how much you’d like to believe.

Realize this was written in 1935

“War is a Racket”
by Major General Smedley Butler, 1935

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

"It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

“A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”…

Up to and including the Spanish-American War, we had a prize system, and soldiers and sailors fought for money. During the Civil War they were paid bonuses, in many instances, before they went into service. The government, or states, paid as high as $1,200 for an enlistment. In the Spanish-American War they gave prize money. When we captured any vessels, the soldiers all got their share - at least, they were supposed to. Then it was found that we could reduce the cost of wars by taking all the prize money and keeping it, but conscripting [drafting] the soldier anyway. Then soldiers couldn’t bargain for their labor, Everyone else could bargain, but the soldier couldn’t.

Napoleon once said,
“All men are enamored of decorations… they positively hunger for them.”

So by developing the Napoleonic system - the medal business - the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the Spanish-American War.

In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn’t join the army.

[b]So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side . . . it is His will that the Germans be killed.

And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies . . . to please the same God.[/b] That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.

Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the “war to end all wars.” This was the “war to make the world safe for democracy.” No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a “glorious adventure.”

Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month.

All they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill… and be killed…

…A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.

At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don’t shout that “We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation.” Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.

Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon’s shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles…

Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a “war to make the world safe for democracy” and a “war to end all wars.”

Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.

And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

In regards to the Vietnam War, I have to agree with rainjack, assuming I’ve read his posts correctly.

That war we never had a chance to win because of bad policy decisions that were made based not on what would be good for the military situation, but rather what would look good for the American people. This was not a single occurence, but rather policy in and of itself almost, from Eisenhower to Nixon.

On a side note, I think its interesting that Republicans, characterized as warmongers, were not responsible for getting the US bogged down in the Vietnam quagmire. If JFK, or more even Johnson, had stepped up to the plate and fought the war as it should have been fought, or stayed out of it completely, things would have wound up far differently then the halfassessed, misguided attempt that was made.

[quote]Moon Knight wrote:
In regards to the Vietnam War, I have to agree with rainjack, assuming I’ve read his posts correctly.

That war we never had a chance to win because of bad policy decisions that were made based not on what would be good for the military situation, but rather what would look good for the American people. This was not a single occurence, but rather policy in and of itself almost, from Eisenhower to Nixon.[/quote]

I think those decisions had very little to do with what would look good for America and much more to do with those in power in America making chess moves in an attempt to ensure American dominance on the World stage (poorly). The only people concerned with looks were those in the PR campaign behind presidential nominees. Acts of politics, that now seem fairly greedy, were allowed to control the acts of the military force…after the military had already been called to action. We might be saying the same thing, only in different words…but I think the bottom line is, we should have learned by now not to fall for everything we are told. I am amazed at the jehova-like reverence towards the Bush campaign.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
On what ZEB wrote:

Since when are puppet governments democratic? You are lost in a world of corporate propaganda.[/quote]

Puppet governments? You mean like the ones we set up in Germany and Japan after WW2? Get your head out of the liberal haters cloud and think again my friend!

[quote]Professor X wrote:
We might be saying the same thing, only in different words…but I think the bottom line is, we should have learned by now not to fall for everything we are told. I am amazed at the jehova-like reverence towards the Bush campaign. [/quote]

There’s a big, big difference in using your brain to think for yourself, and
Woodward&Bernsteining everything the President does.

There are plenty of things that Bush does/wants that I, and most of the conservatives on here, disagree with. And try as you may, there is no parallel between the War on Terror and Viet Nam.

Isn’t it a little bit ironic that you accuse some folks of “jehova-like reverence towards the Bush campaign”, and in the same breath hope that I get put on the “front line” for espousing an opinion that not even the President holds?

Is it only acceptable to have a different view if it agrees with your ‘different view’?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I think those decisions had very little to do with what would look good for America and much more to do with those in power in America making chess moves in an attempt to ensure American dominance on the World stage (poorly). The only people concerned with looks were those in the PR campaign behind presidential nominees. Acts of politics, that now seem fairly greedy, were allowed to control the acts of the military force…after the military had already been called to action. We might be saying the same thing, only in different words…but I think the bottom line is, we should have learned by now not to fall for everything we are told. I am amazed at the jehova-like reverence towards the Bush campaign. [/quote]

We probably both could be said to be right, as there were so many missteps taken in that war.

There are some events that took place(or rather didn’t), perhaps the greatest in my mind being the failure to take the war to the North, which were caused by posturing of sorts in the world political stage. The fear of China’s involvement, thus placing the US in a war it likely could not have won, especially with the forces available. Likewise, the matter of maintaining the illusion of the neutrality and sovreignty of Cambodia and Laos, was political in nature.

That said, the public opinion at home played a significant role I still believe. The military is an instrument of the people in this country, and without their support it is at best weakened, perhaps to the point of ensured failure. The political heads of the time did not make a concerted effort to win this public support and make it clear why we were over there, especially not to begin with. They chose instead to slowly build up troop strength with “advisors” and eventually ground troops. The reserves were not called up, due to fear of the public backlash. The same was another reason that the North did not find war on its soil. Tactics were limited to bombings, both to limit the scope of the war, the military cost, and to prevent Chinese intervention(which occured anyway).

There was also the matter of the US’ approach to the Vietcong. Some of the leaders at the time at least realized they were merely tools of the North, yet, the war was prosecuted as if they were independents(many were in fact North Vietnamese regulars who had crossed the border in a disguise of sorts). Why the confusion? I personally feel the government fell victim to the propoganda that was being fed to the citizens by the North Vietnamese. The citizens of this country were not clearly explained the nature of the war by the government(who repeatedly hurt its credability throughout the war in various ways), and were thus left to form the opinion that the Vietcong were independents being AIDED by the North, not a subversive element sent by the North(not to say all were from the North but the North sent many, and they in turn stirred up discontent or intimidated villages). Our government, following the will of the people, thus waged a war to counter the Vietcong, not the North. This had the cyclic effect of further causing the American people to ask why we were in another country, “oppressing” a people trying to bring about revolution much like we had in 1776. It also caused us to lack clear “wins”. The American people cannot get behind bodycounts, or the “victory” of repeatedly clearing “Hill 213”.

[quote]rainjack wrote:

There are plenty of things that Bush does/wants that I, and most of the conservatives on here, disagree with. And try as you may, there is no parallel between the War on Terror and Viet Nam.
[/quote]

Though I get sick of hearing newspersons using the word “quagmire”, comparing the war to Vietnam, or asking commentators whether they think we’re getting bogged down like in Vietnam, I think there are two similarities that are important to note.

First, the interest of the people in the war is waning, especially in the light of the media blitz going on to make it out as if we’re losing over there(I’m confident we’re not) and that we’re taking horrendous casualties. Any casualty is a very sad thing, and of course ideally we would take as few as possible, however, compared to other wars, we have taken relatively few. As well, there have been quite a few accidents in which large numbers of persons died in non-combat, yet the headlines read the same. Back to the point, if continued support for the war is not maintained by the majority of Americans, then we could potentially run the risks of struggling like we did in Vietnam.

Second, the insurgency in Iraq, like in Vietnam, is being contributed to heavily by outside terrorist cells, and perhaps other governments. Bush needs to address Syria and Iran or risk going around in circles, like was done in Vietnam. He seems to be headed in this direction, but I hope he does not back down due to poor public opinion.

I don’t think any country that has an address will use a nuke against the US or it’s troops. They would be responded to at a ration of 100:1. North Korea included.

This may include nations that support a terrorist group obtaining a nuke or other WMD. Let’s face it if Iran hands one to Al-Queda and they set it off in the US, and we link it to them, it’s all over for Iran.

All that being said, any nation that supports terrorism, State sponsored terrorism, will not be allowed to have a WMD during the Bush administration.

[quote]rainjack wrote:

There are plenty of things that Bush does/wants that I, and most of the conservatives on here, disagree with. And try as you may, there is no parallel between the War on Terror and Viet Nam.
[/quote]

You are the one who even brought up Vietnam in the first place with “We’ve lost one war in pur history, and that defeat was directly attributable to thinking like yours.” Now you blame me for creating a parallel?

[quote]
Isn’t it a little bit ironic that you accuse some folks of “jehova-like reverence towards the Bush campaign”, and in the same breath hope that I get put on the “front line” for espousing an opinion that not even the President holds?[/quote]

How is that Ironic? I would hope that anyone who downplays the military strategy and potential loss of life in a war situation as “quick and easy” would get to know what that experience is like up close and personal. I see no irony in that at all. I think you, like many, underestimate every other country on the planet. My only hope is that this never bites us in the ass one day. It has already surprised us in the amount of opposition faced in Iraq.

[quote]hedo wrote:
I don’t think any country that has an address will use a nuke against the US or it’s troops. They would be responded to at a ration of 100:1. North Korea included.

This may include nations that support a terrorist group obtaining a nuke or other WMD. Let’s face it if Iran hands one to Al-Queda and they set it off in the US, and we link it to them, it’s all over for Iran.

All that being said, any nation that supports terrorism, State sponsored terrorism, will not be allowed to have a WMD during the Bush administration.[/quote]

A country like North Korea does not have to worry about the ramifications of using a nuclear weapon (other than retaliation) like the U.S. does. If the U.S. responded in a 100:1 use of Nukes or anything remotely similar, that would be genocide. There are in fact civilians in North Korea, last time I checked. And that is a bold claim, hedo. There are in fact limits to what the U.S. can do, especially in four year. As apparently having WMDs requires a “regime change,” that is a large investment of money and troops. And we would have to see it through to the end, or it would fall back into tyranny. Though I guess a country without infrastructure couldn’t hurt us anymore, and that would be okay…

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You are the one who even brought up Vietnam in the first place with “We’ve lost one war in pur history, and that defeat was directly attributable to thinking like yours.” Now you blame me for creating a parallel?[/quote]

Many of the spokepeople for your side - namely Gin-Nosed Ted have gone to great lengths to try and draw parallels. You’re sitting on the same side of the fence as JTF. If blame happens to hit you on top of the head - maybe you should take a good look at where you’re sitting.

Ironic in that you preach at those of us who support the President for being mindless supporters, or ‘jehova-like’ belief. But when I offer up a belief that doesn’t jive with the Admin’s, or yours - I should be shuttled to the front of the line for disposal.

Your fear of North Korea sounds just like the fear your friends had of Iraq in 1990, and again in 2002.

I don’t underestimate anyone. You do. You underestimate the U.S. That’s what your side has done for years. Every time you are wrong. Every time. If you are going to align yourself with the still-spoiled baby-boomers, you are the one who really needs to learn to think for himself - as your are only regurgitating the quote of the day from hippies.com.

[quote]Orbitalboner wrote:
They had one goal, and that was to get rid of a mass murderer/dictator who may not have been a threat to America, but was certainly a threat.

[/quote]

correction scooter, the goal was to find and rid Iraq of WMDs. Finding Sadaam wasn’t the primary goal until the whole WMD turned up to be a cloud of dust.

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Many of the spokepeople for your side - namely Gin-Nosed Ted have gone to great lengths to try and draw parallels. You’re sitting on the same side of the fence as JTF. If blame happens to hit you on top of the head - maybe you should take a good look at where you’re sitting.[/quote]

That is utter bullshit and you know it. I have never claimed to be liberal yet you paint me as such and then put words in my mouth that I have personally never even heard myself. I don’t sit and watch much television, so your ridiculous post blaming me for the actions or words of another who I have never claimed to support are childish, inconsiderate, unprovoked, bullheaded, and self righteous. Look in the fucking mirror next time you paint an entire group of people with the same biased brush. Should I assume that all conservatives are this blind?

[quote]
Ironic in that you preach at those of us who support the President for being mindless supporters, or ‘jehova-like’ belief. But when I offer up a belief that doesn’t jive with the Admin’s, or yours - I should be shuttled to the front of the line for disposal. [/quote]

It was you who just accused me of holding the same ideas as “JTF” and “GIN-Nosed Ted”, wasn’t it? Who is JTF, by the way, and if you can paint entire groups of people as all thinking the same, why can’t I. Again, wake the fuck up.

[quote]

Your fear of North Korea sounds just like the fear your friends had of Iraq in 1990, and again in 2002. [/quote]

My friends? I was in highschool in 1990. I didn’t have any friends in power in government structure. I also don’t remember fearing Iraq in 2002. I stood against sending troops to die for reasons that have not been justified. It is “collective you” who now try to act as if WMD’s were a minor reason we invaded so you can sleep better at night. Anyone with any sense knows what we were told as the primary reasons at that time to enter Iraq. Only “you” seem to want to bury it quickly.

[quote]
I don’t underestimate anyone. You do. You underestimate the U.S. That’s what your side has done for years. Every time you are wrong. Every time. If you are going to align yourself with the still-spoiled baby-boomers, you are the one who really needs to learn to think for himself - as your are only regurgitating the quote of the day from hippies.com.[/quote]

This is pure ignorance. I don’t know any hippies and I am Generation X, not a baby boomer. You want to disregard the thoughts of others so badly that you relate anything that doesn’t kiss Bush’s ass as being part of some radical group from your, apparently ancient and pro-big-government, past. Understand one thing before you respond to me again…this is the year 2005 and many who hold views today that do not fall for everything told to us by this current govenment are not baby boomers or hippies. I shave my head and go to work on a military base daily. I have never grown my hair out into PCP hazed golden locks while wearing hemp clothing and bell bottoms. I was not born in the 50’s and 60’s. I didn’t go to high school in the 80’s or 70’s like you apparently did. Either find new names to box me into, or realize that I am not anything you have seen before.

[quote]hoosierdaddy wrote:
Orbitalboner wrote:
They had one goal, and that was to get rid of a mass murderer/dictator who may not have been a threat to America, but was certainly a threat.

correction scooter, the goal was to find and rid Iraq of WMDs. Finding Sadaam wasn’t the primary goal until the whole WMD turned up to be a cloud of dust.[/quote]

Unless the nukes were going to launch themselves, I'm pretty sure the main problem was the guy trying to procure and produce them.
I'm not a Bush clone if that's what you're thinking.  The Bush admin definitely did some rearranging of their primary goals after they deposed Sadaam to make it seem as if everything had been a glorious success.
I did not support them and thought their claims ridiculous at first, but the fact that innocent civilians are being killed indiscriminantly by sanctimonious extremists all whacked up on religious righteousness is evidence in itself that there is a major problem that needs to be addressed in that area.  
My bad though...the one goal they had was not to depose Sadaam, but to boost old curious George's prestige.  In my opinion it has worked.

[quote]veruvius wrote:
There are in fact civilians in North Korea, last time I checked. And that is a bold claim, hedo. There are in fact limits to what the U.S. can do, especially in four year. As apparently having WMDs requires a “regime change,” that is a large investment of money and troops.[/quote]

From what I can tell, there are many on this forum who believe that there are no limits to what America should or can do. It seems to a Bush free for all on the entire world. “Screw the UN and every other country that doesn’t see things our way. We’ll just nuke all of them until everyone is Republican”. I mean, that is the sentiment, right? In fact, screw any other country on the planet. I say BUSH WORLD is the next destination. You hear that Canada. You’ll be BUSH-ida by next Spring. North Korea? Yeah, right. BUSH-kia (we sell furniture and pottery too). Ah, Russia…though you could get away, huh…BUSH-IA. There, how does that taste!? What was that, Africa, you want some too!? BUSH-ica. Sounds sexy.

V

100:1 may be off.

The US public will demand a response, in kind, and much more severe. It is the primary reason why one of these nations have not tried it already.

Genocide…yep that about covers it. Fear is the deterrant. Always has been.

On what Orbitalboner wrote:

ok i had the wrong impression of you, i apologize, that originial post of yours was kind of confusing, but by the same token, your thinking is flawed, sadaam wasn’t really a religious fundamentalist, merely a tyrant of a dictator, which begs the answer to the question (which isn’t directed at you), if that was the final justification of invading iraq, then why aren’t we invading countries with other similar situations?

Anybody remember anything about drawing a line in the sand?
Thats where you draw a line and anyone who crosses it gets blown to bits.
Thats what were doing in Iraq.
It’s the alternative to fighting a multi-front war. Why split troops up over an entire region, and establish multiple chains of command, when you can consolidate your resources and have the enemy come to you?
The insurgents may be an impedance to progress, but they are not stopping it.
Cut the my party is smarter than your party shit and look at the actual strategy.

Just a side note on the concept of underestimation…

No matter how much confidence you have in your own forces, it is stupid to underestimate the enemy.

The concept of “underestimating” your own military is just plain silly and has no bearing. Of course having every confidence in your own military is a fine thing, but it should have no bearing on your analysis of the capabilities of a potential enemy.

History is full of losers who did not recognize a capability or an advantage until it was too late.

Thinking you are “untouchable” is just plain hubris. Perhaps you indeed are right now, but thinking it will over time, in fact, allow you to be left behind.