NationStates Jolt Archive

yeah, Im not a big fan of the whole "win the hearts and minds" nonsense. Im more for getting in there and taking care of business regardless of what people way think. And I aint rhetoric, Im spreading the message of hope and freedom.

Hey, look up Malaysia and the British operations there to take a look at 'Winning Hearts and Minds', and then look at Vietnam for the results of your 'Getting in there and taking care of business' attitude.

Hint: One worked better than the other

Hint Two: It wasn't Vietnam

yeah, Im not a big fan of the whole "win the hearts and minds" nonsense. Im more for getting in there and taking care of business regardless of what people way think. And I aint rhetoric, Im spreading the message of hope and freedom.

That just shows that you follow your emotion and not what makes sense. Winning hearts and minds is taking care of business. In case you havn't noticed, we aren't going to be able to stay in iraq for 20 yrs. We need to deny our enemy resources and that hearts and minds campaign does that. I geuss the moral of the story is to think before you speak.

Wait...US Abassador was right? How did he go after him?
"In April 1993, former President George Bush visited Kuwait to commemorate the victory over Iraq in the Persian Gulf War. During Bush's visit, Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 people allegedly involved in a plot to kill Bush using a car bomb.

the CIA independently reported that there was a strong case that Saddam Hussein directed the plot against Bush."
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/fbilab1/05bush2.htm

Have you ever questioned Bush or the US foreign policy ever? Or are you a good government drone that responded blindly to post-9/11 propaganda?

Have you ever considered President Bush's views or US foreign policy, or are you an anti-US-and-President-Bush drone who responds blindly to anti-Bush/US propaganda?

"In April 1993, former President George Bush visited Kuwait to commemorate the victory over Iraq in the Persian Gulf War. During Bush's visit, Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 people allegedly involved in a plot to kill Bush using a car bomb.

the CIA independently reported that there was a strong case that Saddam Hussein directed the plot against Bush."
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/fbilab1/05bush2.htm

Hmmmm....interesting.

Have you ever considered President Bush's views or US foreign policy, or are you an anti-US-and-President-Bush drone who responds blindly to anti-Bush/US propaganda?
Bush and US are not synomonous. Thank God.

Have you ever considered President Bush's views or US foreign policy, or are you an anti-US-and-President-Bush drone who responds blindly to anti-Bush/US propaganda?

Oddly enough, yes. I found Afghanistan to be a fairly good idea, given the terrorist links there, although it hasn't been entirely successful there yet. He was also a good leader for your nation in the period directly after 9/11. However, after Afghanistan I can't see many good points. Iraq was an insane move, given there were more threats to the US like North Korea, and it hasn't exactly turned out 100& successful. Iran is also a godawful move that, if he does strike, will merely polarise middle eastern opinion against you completely and may well lead to a full-scale regional conflict.

That just shows that you follow your emotion and not what makes sense. Winning hearts and minds is taking care of business. In case you havn't noticed, we aren't going to be able to stay in iraq for 20 yrs. We need to deny our enemy resources and that hearts and minds campaign does that. I geuss the moral of the story is to think before you think.
I follow what makes America great. we will be able to stay in Iraq for 20 years we the best military in the world and its important for our interests in the region. The hearts and minds thing in my book is just a bunch of liberal nonsense. Why should we care about "respecting their customs" and our "image" and whatever. I say either you gonna like us, or we gonna kill you if you act up. To me thats simpler.

I follow what makes America great. we will be able to stay in Iraq for 20 years we the best military in the world and its important for our interests in the region. The hearts and minds thing in my book is just a bunch of liberal nonsense. Why should we care about "respecting their customs" and our "image" and whatever. I say either you gonna like us, or we gonna kill you if you act up. To me thats simpler.

You know, replace 'Iraq' with 'Vietnam' and you could be an advisor to President Kennedy or Johnson on the Vietnam conflict.

That didn't work out either.

You know, replace 'Iraq' with 'Vietnam' and you could be an advisor to President Kennedy or Johnson on the Vietnam conflict.

That didn't work out either.
me, bieng an advisor to a democrat? yeah right

me, bieng an advisor to a democrat? yeah right

If you crane your neck back hard enough, you should be able to spot my point sailing high above your head.

I follow what makes America great. we will be able to stay in Iraq for 20 years we the best military in the world and its important for our interests in the region. The hearts and minds thing in my book is just a bunch of liberal nonsense. Why should we care about "respecting their customs" and our "image" and whatever. I say either you gonna like us, or we gonna kill you if you act up. To me thats simpler.
....

Oh wow... so people who think like this really do exist... That's so funny!

....

Oh wow... so people who think like this really do exist... That's so funny!
He's a far-leftist whose other nation was deleated for flamming, and who now masquerades as a far-rightist. Quite frankly, I have trouble telling the difference. :D

He's a far-leftist whose other nation was deleated for flamming, and who now masquerades as a far-rightist. Quite frankly, I have trouble telling the difference. :D
Even with this knowledge I cannot help arguing with him.

If you crane your neck back hard enough, you should be able to spot my point sailing high above your head.
I dont get it.

He's a far-leftist whose other nation was deleated for flamming, and who now masquerades as a far-rightist. Quite frankly, I have trouble telling the difference. :D
do you have prove? how could you possible know my political views?

I follow what makes America great. we will be able to stay in Iraq for 20 years we the best military in the world and its important for our interests in the region. The hearts and minds thing in my book is just a bunch of liberal nonsense. Why should we care about "respecting their customs" and our "image" and whatever. I say either you gonna like us, or we gonna kill you if you act up. To me thats simpler.

Your ignorance amazes me. We are the best military in the world but we can't stay in country for 20 years. That is just insane. The hearts and minds thing is a proven military concept which hundred bled to formulate. We should respect their customs because it is the only way to win. We can't kill everyone that crosses us because we don't have that kind of manpower and because that is just not morally exceptable. Its not like we are being all nice and friendly to insurgents, we are being respectful to the rightful owners of those countries who are helping that country grow.

I understand that there is a real possibility that war will never occur. But that doesn't mean that we don't prepare for one in the event that it occurs.
This was raised before: why does the country with an absurd number of missiles need to "prepare" for the one who may get one or three and never use the one or three? I mean: what do you need to do?
The one thing I've seen American authorities do, and I'm not sure it counts as preparation, is to go into that Armageddon stance and use it as an excuse to tell us how we should understand that anything America does is justified. This should be unacceptable for an American citizen as well, but you can picture that it becomes grim and worrying for any other world inhabitant.

We are the best military in the world but we can't stay in country for 20 years.

We can't kill everyone that crosses us because we don't have that kind of manpower and because that is just not morally exceptable.
Yes we can, we are still in Germany aren't we?

why?

Yes we can, we are still in Germany aren't we?

why?
TO KEEP THOSE NAZIS DOWN! OO-RAH!

This was raised before: why does the country with an absurd number of missiles need to "prepare" for the one who may get one or three and never use the one or three? I mean: what do you need to do?
The one thing I've seen American authorities do, and I'm not sure it counts as preparation, is to go into that Armageddon stance and use it as an excuse to tell us how we should understand that anything America does is justified. This should be unacceptable for an American citizen as well, but you can picture that it becomes grim and worrying for any other world inhabitant.

We need to prepare because nuking the north koreans into submission is not acceptable to the US military. We need to prepare because moving a force large enough to attack into north korea will require much prior planning and forces already in place. We need to prepare because we are the only ones who can and will. We are the only nation capable of invading a power such as NK at this time. We have to make sure that every possible contingency that we react to would go off with out a hitch.

Yes we can, we are still in Germany aren't we?

why?

Do you really think sustaining combat operations and training operations are the same thing? YOU have not been in the middle east. YOU have no experience. YOU have no expertise. YOUR irresponsible and irrational thoughts are just ignorant. We are not taking losses in Germany. We are not burning up our supply of vehicles in Germany. Think before you speak.

I love The UN abassadorship. Take a serious thread about nuclear war, throw him in, and the result? An absolutely hilarious thread.

:D

We need to prepare because nuking the north koreans into submission is not acceptable to the US military.

Then why build all those hundreds of nukes? What were you gonna do with them, if not "bomb into submisson"?
And submission to what?

We need to prepare because moving a force large enough to attack into north korea will require much prior planning and forces already in place. We need to prepare because we are the only ones who can and will. We are the only nation capable of invading a power such as NK at this time. We have to make sure that every possible contingency that we react to would go off with out a hitch.

So, you are preparing for invading them? Because then, I have to tell you, he's justified in trying to defend himself...
I keep seeing this imperial philosophy: "if I want to invade you, it's my bussines; if you want to prepare yourself, it's a crime".

Then why build all those hundreds of nukes? What were you gonna do with them, if not "bomb into submisson"?
And submission to what?



So, you are preparing for invading them? Because then, I have to tell you, he's justified in trying to defend himself...
I keep seeing this imperial philosophy: "if I want to invade you, it's my bussines; if you want to prepare yourself, it's a crime".

We built those bombs for a soviet threat. We are not preparing for invasion, we are preparing for defending south korea. We would attack into the DPRK only to stop their war against the south. If we were invading, we wouldn't need as much preparation until the event was to occur. I was simply stating that we need to have the capabilities in place to respond to any aggressive manuevers against the south by the north. We need to be able to get a force large enough to push NK forces from the south back into the north.

We built those bombs for a soviet threat.

"For a Soviet threat" is euphemistical: what you mean is "for to whipe out the Soviet Union" (as the Soviet Union built its own for to whipe you out). That's what "meeting a threat" means. Whiping out was, is, and will be acceptable for the one who takes it in view. Let me remind you the first instance of nuclear use...

We are not preparing for invasion, we are preparing for defending south korea. We would attack into the DPRK only to stop their war against the south. If we were invading, we wouldn't need as much preparation until the event was to occur. I was simply stating that we need to have the capabilities in place to respond to any aggressive manuevers against the south by the north. We need to be able to get a force large enough to push NK forces from the south back into the north.

Again, you assume that is in the cards. Based on what? The fact that South Koreans are investing in the North? The fact that South Koreans are keeping North Koreans alive in front of starvation? The fact that NK has two other nuclear neighbours who are just dreaming of the day NK will launch an attack, nuke, get nuked, and give the US the chance to rearm Japan (beside the other horrible problems posed by such events)? The fact that NK is not backed by anyone this time around? The fact that NK fears a US invasion on its own territory more than it aims to conquer South Korea?
Step out of the 1950s dystropia, dude.

Again, you assume that is in the cards. Based on what? The fact that South Koreans are investing in the North? The fact that South Koreans are keeping North Koreans alive in front of starvation? The fact that NK has two other nuclear neighbours who are just dreaming of the day NK will launch an attack, nuke, get nuked, and give the US the chance to rearm Japan (beside the other horrible problems posed by such events)? The fact that NK is not backed by anyone this time around? The fact that NK fears a US invasion on its own territory more than it aims to conquer South Korea?
Step out of the 1950s dystropia, dude.

And you know what is going through the minds of the DPRK leadership? I'm just saying that it wouldn't be best to underestimate anyone. Underestimating NK would be like underestimating the bird flu. Its might not be highly likely that anything would happen but your better off safe than sorry. Do you really support being unprepared?

Do you really think sustaining combat operations and training operations are the same thing? YOU have not been in the middle east. YOU have no experience. YOU have no expertise. YOUR irresponsible and irrational thoughts are just ignorant. We are not taking losses in Germany. We are not burning up our supply of vehicles in Germany. Think before you speak.
once again, thanks for the flaming. The bottomline is that the US will most likely have bases in Iraq for 10years or more, I believe the President stated this a few days ago. This is not a bad thing and by then the place will be stable and our role there will be for peacekeeping and training operations. Plus it will give us great influence in the region.

And you know what is going through the minds of the DPRK leadership? I'm just saying that it wouldn't be best to underestimate anyone. Underestimating NK would be like underestimating the bird flu. Its might not be highly likely that anything would happen but your better off safe than sorry. Do you really support being unprepared?

1.It is very unlikely that will happen.
2."Preparing for it" can only be done, and probably has already been done, theoretically.
3."Preparing for it" has nothing to do with what we are told is a part of the package deal, namely the anti-UN campaign the US has embarked upon. It also has nothing to do with the sickening lies we have to take from the Bush administration.

1.It is very unlikely that will happen.
2."Preparing for it" can only be done, and probably has already been done, theoretically.
3."Preparing for it" has nothing to do with what we are told is a part of the package deal, namely the anti-UN campaign the US has embarked upon. It also has nothing to do with the sickening lies we have to take from the Bush administration.

Just what is your position on NK? Do you believe that we should allow them to do whatever they want? To acheive nuclear superiority in the region? To allow their people to suffer just because it affects you in no way? That just because Bush lies about a topic means that that topic is not a threat to the security of the world? And by the way, what other way is there to prepare than theoretically?

Just what is your position on NK? Do you believe that we should allow them to do whatever they want? To acheive nuclear superiority in the region? To allow their people to suffer just because it affects you in no way?
I have to wonder who you're replying to. It's like you are arguing with a chimera of what you consider would be opposing you, and not with a person who has stressed some points. If you can't remember them, I will post them again.
That country is by now obtaining some sort of nuclear superiority wether you want to or not. You are contradicting yourself, since you told me you were only gonna prepare theoritically anyway: I don't see how theory would prevent them from getting the bomb.
As to absolute superiority in the region, I have already proven to you that is not the case: not only is the US armed against the NK with 500 nuclear weapons to 1, but so are China and Russia (you might think that they are not "armed against NK", but let's theoretise about what would happen if NK decides to use a bomb).
The suffering of the NK people is in no way connected to the nuclear threat, nor could it have been mended in any way by now. We are all apalled at what has happened and happens, but that does not have anything to do with the issue. Dubya is dropping "totalitarianism" and "enemies of freedom" into the dabate when it's obvious that it is a non-sequitur.

That just because Bush lies about a topic means that that topic is not a threat to the security of the world?
"The world"? Again, even the hypothetical implies a bomb launched by the NK into some unlucky direction, and then no more NK on the face of the Earth. For the goddamn 45th time, that is very unlikely to happen.
"The security of the world" is to be compared with your own statement: "just because it affects you in no way".

And by the way, what other way is there to prepare than theoretically?
I understand that you have more expertise than I, so you tell me if massing your troops in expectation, arming your cannons, manuevering etc. don't count as preparation other than theoretical. That I don't wanna see happening, and neither do you.

I have to wonder who you're replying to. It's like you are arguing with a chimera of what you consider would be opposing you, and not with a person who has stressed some points. If you can't remember them, I will post them again.
That country is by now obtaining some sort of nuclear superiority wether you want to or not. You are contradicting yourself, since you told me you were only gonna prepare theoritically anyway: I don't see how theory would prevent them from getting the bomb.
As to absolute superiority in the region, I have already proven to you that is not the case: not only is the US armed against the NK with 500 nuclear weapons to 1, but so are China and Russia (you might think that they are not "armed against NK", but let's theoretise about what would happen if NK decides to use a bomb).
The suffering of the NK people is in no way connected to the nuclear threat, nor could it have been mended in any way by now. We are all apalled at what has happened and happens, but that does not have anything to do with the issue. Dubya is dropping "totalitarianism" and "enemies of freedom" into the dabate when it's obvious that it is a non-sequitur.


"The world"? Again, even the hypothetical implies a bomb launched by the NK into some unlucky direction, and then no more NK on the face of the Earth. For the goddamn 45th time, that is very unlikely to happen.
"The security of the world" is to be compared with your own statement: "just because it affects you in no way".


I understand that you have more expertise than I, so you tell me if massing your troops in expectation, arming your cannons, manuevering etc. don't count as preparation other than theoretical. That I don't wanna see happening, and neither do you.


My comments on the security of the world and how it affects you were on two different topics. One on war, the other on starvation. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean that you don't make preperations in order to deter that threat in the case that it does arise. Who says that a war involving NK will even include nuclear weapons? They could start a war with the south to gain control and simply use the threat of nuclear weapons as a tool to prevent US intervention. The NK supposedly do have a capable military. At least compared with SK. I think that they would have much to gain in a conflict of this nature which is proabley more likely.

Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean that you don't make preperations in order to deter that threat in the case that it does arise. Who says that a war involving NK will even include nuclear weapons? They could start a war with the south to gain control and simply use the threat of nuclear weapons as a tool to prevent US intervention.

As oppoosed to them being met with the nuclear threat posed by the US in the event? Not to mention what China and Russia are likely to do to them for playing with fire.

The NK supposedly do have a capable military. At least compared with SK. I think that they would have much to gain in a conflict of this nature which is proabley more likely.

And, again, what gives you indication that they want to invade SK? All the bilaterals? All the investments? The fact that Kim has certainly learned to adapt himself to a freer market?