Rumsfeld's at it again!

[dsm]

Well, now that Iraq's military has been "pacified", attention can turn to North Korea:

US draws up plan to bomb North Korea's nuclear plant (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1512&u=/afp/20030422/wl_afp/nkorea_us_australia_030422065641&printer=1)

It seems that Rumsfeld thinks that the only good military is a military that's in use:


The second plan, contained in a classified memo reportedly circulated by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, argues that Washington's goal should be the collapse of Kim Jong-il's regime.


And we still have almost two years until we can vote them out of office...

:mad:

[Skeptical Greg]

Sounds good to me...

Downer told ABC radio on Tuesday that the Pentagon undoubtedly had "contingency plans for all sorts of things they could do in North Korea, militarily."That's the military's job, to draw up contingency plans, but the American administration strategy, as the President explained to me three weeks ago, is to ensure that there is a successful diplomatic solution here," he added.

How do you think it works?

We just tell a B-52 crew to " ....saddle up, we'll give you the details when you are at 40,000 feet"...

[Supercharts]

"Citing "well-informed sources close to US thinking", The Australian newspaper said the plan also included a US strike against North Korean heavy artillery in the hills above the border with South Korea "

A_U_P works for the Australian media?

[dsm]

Originally posted by Diogenes

How do you think it works?


Contingency plans from the military planners in the Pentagon is one thing. Political goals from the President's cabinet is another thing entirely. Publicly, they've been saying that they have no plans to attack North Korea, but, obviously emboldened by military success in Iraq, Rumsfeld is considering different ideas. :rolleyes:

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by dsm

Political goals from the President's cabinet ...You mean politicians and administrations, have political policies and goals the wish to see implemented?:eek:

Is this anything like an agenda?

You mean nobody else has one?

[dsm]

Originally posted by Diogenes
You mean nobody else has one?

The missing word is "coherent".

Just as they should've asked it in the case of Saddam, if they overthrow Kim Jong-Il, then what? :rolleyes:

[Skeptical Greg]

Publicly, they've been saying that they have no plans to attack North Korea....


Are you really that naive?

There are plans and there are Plans..

Can you imagine that there might be plans (blueprints) to build a house, but no one with actual ' plans ' to build that house. No money, changed their minds, etc...


That aside, politicians lie. Surprised?

[Michael Redman]

It would be foolish for the Depertment of Defense to not even consider plans to attack all possible threats that may arise in the forseable future. This sounds like contingency planning to me, not the intended course of the administration.

I hope.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by dsm


The missing word is "coherent".

Just as they should've asked it in the case of Saddam, if they overthrow Kim Jong-Il, then what? :rolleyes:

The only sure thing.. No more Kim Jong-Il.. It's a start.

But he has nothing to worry about, unless he decides to camp out at a certain nuclear power plant...

[dsm]

Originally posted by Diogenes
There are plans and there are Plans..


Don't be naive -- of course that's understood.


That aside, politicians lie. Surprised?


No. It's the naivete of the Administration that showed itself in the handling of Iraq that is rearing it's head again in the handling of North Korea. It's obvious that Rumsfeld (and possibly Cheney) believes in "gunboat diplomacy" and has signficant access to Bush (I'm still not sure of his beliefs). Last time, we were lucky that Iraq didn't have a credible WMD infrastructure to employ. This time, we know that North Korea has the WMDs and are already nervous about a US invasion. Most likely the US military would be able to handle North Korea, but what would the "fallout" be and what happens after that?

:eek:

[Nately]

Stories like this come out every once and awhile, and they miss the point every time.

The US has been preparing for a second North Korean invasion of the South for the last 50 years. There are "plans" to bomb all kinds of targets in North Korea. It's not a surprise that the US military has thought about how they would go about striking Yongbyon. And during times of crisis, it's also not surprising that plans for military responses are made. If things go sour in a hurry and the President asks about his military options, you don't want to be the guy that has to say "Uh, we hadn't really thought about that."

There are plans in existence for all kinds of operations, both likely and unlikely. Sometimes plans are drawn up just for the practice. In fact, I think the US Army drew up a detailed plan for invading Canada back in the 20's or 30's. There was obviously no intention to do so, but it provided a scenario in which to work.

[Skeptical Greg]

Last time, we were lucky that Iraq didn't have a credible WMD infrastructure to employ.

Really?

Tell this to everyone who is all in a twist because we haven't found a credible WMD infrastructure..


You can't please anyone..:rolleyes:

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Nately
Stories like this come out every once and awhile, and they miss the point every time. snip...



Thanks for taking the time to put this together..

I know sometimes it's hard to tell, but some of us actually understand some of this...;)

[LTC8K6]

We have plans to attack all sorts of countries in all sorts of ways.

Even our present allies.

We have plans to take out all manner of targets all over the world.

Hopefully, the vast majority of these plans will never have to be brought out, dusted off, and freshened up.

It would be incredibly naive not to have them, imo.

The world scene is ever changing, and you can never tell what will happen next with your enemies or your allies.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Nately
There are plans in existence for all kinds of operations, both likely and unlikely.

The existence of "plans" is not the point. The question is the "goals" of the Administration and are they well thought out. They may have won the war in Iraq, but they stand a good chance of loosing the peace. Are they going to try for a repeat in North Korea? :rolleyes:

[dsm]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Really?

Tell this to everyone who is all in a twist because we haven't found a credible WMD infrastructure..

You can't please anyone..:rolleyes:

Ummm. Your point? :confused:

Iraq said that it didn't have WMD. The US never knew for sure that they did, but the US assumed Iraq did and attacked with that in mind. So far, no credible "smoking gun" has been found, so the US has been lucky in that the consequences of fighting a country that has and will use WMDs has not happened.

Would we be so lucky with North Korea where everyone already knows they have WMDs?

:rolleyes:

[Skeptic]

So? It's a CONTINGENCY plan. That's part of the pentagon's job. No doubt, during the cold war, there were many plans drawn up on how exactly to bomb Russian nuclear plants in case of war, too--in fact, it would have been a serious blunder if they didn't exist. This doesn't mean the contingency of such a war was hoped for.

As George Carlin said, "if Easter Island gives the US some s--t tomorrow, there's a plan in the pentagon somewhere how to take out Easter Island". Probably true. That hardly means, however, that that's what the US WANTS to do.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Skeptic
So? It's a CONTINGENCY plan.

Read the quote again. Rumsfeld is saying that "Washington's goal should be the collapse of Kim Jong-il's regime". That's not a contingency plan -- that's a step in establishing political policy!

:eek:

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by dsm
Contingency plans from the military planners in the Pentagon is one thing. Political goals from the President's cabinet is another thing entirely. Publicly, they've been saying that they have no plans to attack North Korea, but, obviously emboldened by military success in Iraq, Rumsfeld is considering different ideas. :rolleyes:
The goal is removal of North Korea's regime. That's been a goal for a very long time. Who doesn't want that crazy bastard gone?

This does not mean that bombing or some other form of military attack is the best means to reach that goal. Bombing is merely one of many options. The most ideal option might be gradual economic reform within NK.

You're wrong to claim that military action in North Korea is, itself, a goal of the US.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Skeptic
So? It's a CONTINGENCY plan. That's part of the pentagon's job. No doubt, during the cold war, there were many plans drawn up on how exactly to bomb Russian nuclear plants in case of war, too--in fact, it would have been a serious blunder if they didn't exist. This doesn't mean the contingency of such a war was hoped for.

As George Carlin said, "if Easter Island gives the US some s--t tomorrow, there's a plan in the pentagon somewhere how to take out Easter Island". Probably true. That hardly means, however, that that's what the US WANTS to do.

Sounds like my ' plans ' vs 'Plans' theory.. Nice to have it presented in a bit more eloquent manner.. I need all the help I can get.

[corplinx]

My guess is Rumsfeld _doesnt_ want more war because it actually hinders his sweeping plans to modernize the military. He has been trying to get these plans started ever since he came on board and unfortunately afghanistan and iraq have delayed them.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by corplinx
My guess is Rumsfeld _doesnt_ want more war because it actually hinders his sweeping plans to modernize the military. He has been trying to get these plans started ever since he came on board and unfortunately afghanistan and iraq have delayed them.

I guess I missed the part where our army was second to other nations. I sorta thought we were the model for a modern army. Silly me! I'm sure the only reason Rumsfeld wants a stronger army is so he WON'T use it.

The reason we went to Iraq was to send a message to the rest of the world: we can kick your ass, and we will if we want to. The international protests against war in Iraq were music to Rumsfeld's ears. That meant that the rest of the world heard the message loudly and clearly. In Rumsfeld's twisted mind, the rest of the world should go to bed every night fearing the might of the US.

But I do agree with your statement that Rumsfeld plans to modernize the army - if by "modernize" you mean substantially increase defense spending. This has been a cornerstone of his beliefs for many years. His name is attached to the following:

"Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next. "

The above may sound reasonable to you, but it scares me. It is a stepping stone to establishing US hegemony. Not my idea of a better world. "Moral clarity..." - what a pompous statement. Call it for what it is: Might makes right. The ends justify the means. My country, right or wrong. Insert big puke here.

[Jim Lennox]

Dr. Chinese's quote comes from the Project for the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm). The chaps who are going to keep you all busy for the next 97 years.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DrChinese


It is a stepping stone to establishing US hegemony. Not my idea of a better world.

Why not?

Would you prefer UN hegemony?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DrChinese


I guess I missed the part where our army was second to other nations. I sorta thought we were the model for a modern army. Silly me! I'm sure the only reason Rumsfeld wants a stronger army is so he WON'T use it.


We have a great military but its still inefficient. We have learned much about warfare in the past 100 years. However, we still have a military with too many bad habits and paradigms from the cold war and even ww2. We have shifted strategy away from what some call "big army" thinking, however our logistics, bases, and a command structure are still geared for the "big army" mentality.

In short, we need a needle and not a sledgehammer. War is surgery now and not an onslaught. The Iraq conflict was the prrof of concept (with Panama serving as an earlier example) of this. We have the thinking in place, we just need to restructure to reflect it.

Have you read the Rumsfeld plan?

[Jim Lennox]

Why not? Would you prefer UN hegemony?

This is a false dilemma isn't it? There are more options than US or UN hegemony.

As for why not, I suspect it might annoy a few people.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox


There are more options than US or UN hegemony.



No? I thought the goal of a lot of "progressive" thinkers was to give the UN more power in governing the world. Or to eventually have a global government.

What other options are there?

I think global government is inevitable.

[Jim Lennox]

I think global government is inevitable.

I think we are all going to kill each other before it can happen.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


Why not?

Would you prefer UN hegemony?

You know, the US only has 5% of the world's population.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


You know, the US only has 5% of the world's population.

Thanks for sharing, Ill store that tid-bit in my file of trivial facts. :)

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


You know, the US only has 5% of the world's population.

Do you prefer UN hegemony?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


You know, the US only has 5% of the world's population.

Yeah, but its the best 5% quality wise!

[Jim Lennox]

Yeah, but its the best 5% quality wise!

So you're saying your population (i.e. people) is 'better' than any other country's?

Isn't that the definition of racism?

Yep, thought so.

The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

From here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=racism)

But don't worry, you don't believe that race accounts for differences in human character.

Arabs are the same as americans aren't they?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox


So you're saying your population (i.e. people) is 'better' than any other country's?

Isn't that the definition of racism?

Yep, thought so.



Strawman, the people in the US come from many different backgrounds and races.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Tony


Strawman, the people in the US come from many different backgrounds and races.

Then let's replace racism with supremacism as in

"Supremacist: an advocate of supremacy of a particular group (as in race)" from Webster's Dictionary.

Is it OK to call you and EvilYeti Supremacists now?

Zee

[Tony]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman




Is it OK to call you and EvilYeti Supremacists now?



What kind of supremacist?

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Tony


What kind of supremacist?

Gee, your short time memory doesn't reach back more than a few posts?

The kind of supremacist that believes that the US (as the group of people who make 5% of the the world population, i.e. the group of US citizens) are also the best 5% quality wise.

Zee

[Tony]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


Gee, your short time memory doesn't reach back more than a few posts?

The kind of supremacist that believes that the US (as the group of people who make 5% of the the world population, i.e. the group of US citizens) are also the best 5% quality wise.

Zee

so what kind of supremacist would that make him? Not one based on race.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Tony


so what kind of supremacist would that make him? Not one based on race.

How about Nationality?

Zee

[Tony]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


How about Nationality?

Zee

Ok, mabey. I dont want to speak for evilyeti. But why is thinking you are better than everyone else a bad thing? If he is wrong you should be able to demonstrate why.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Tony


Ok, mabey. I dont want to speak for evilyeti. But why is thinking you are better than everyone else a bad thing? If he is wrong you should be able to demonstrate why.

1. I never said it was a bad thing.
:D
2. But I believe it's a dangerous thing.

If one individual says " I'm better than everybody else" I wouldn't call him a supremacists but an Idiot.

Now if a group characterized by a single property e.g. nationality says "We are better than any other group (again based on that property)" I see some problems due to a vast over-generalization.

A statement like Yeti's would make ANY US citizen better (quality wise) than ANY non US citizen. Now what qualities would those be? There are some - like military strength - where the statement is true. There are others - like ecological behavior - where it's not true and there are a LOT where the decision is open to debate.

Apparently, a generalization like the above is not likely to be correct and even less likely to be accepted by all compared groups.

Thus, I find it's a bad idea to base one's actions on supremacist ideas or to even use them in a discussion.

Zee

[Tony]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


1. I never said it was a bad thing.




:D

2. But I believe it's a dangerous thing.

It can be.


If one individual says " I'm better than everybody else" I wouldn't call him a supremacists but an Idiot.

Now if a group characterized by a single property e.g. nationality says "We are better than any other group (again based on that property)" I see some problems due to a vast over-generalization.

A statement like Yeti's would make ANY US citizen better (quality wise) than ANY non US citizen. Now what qualities would those be? There are some - like military strength - where the statement is true. There are others - like ecological behavior - where it's not true and there are a LOT where the decision is open to debate.

Apparently, a generalization like the above is not likely to be correct and even less likely to be accepted by all compared groups.

Thus, I find it's a bad idea to base one's actions on supremacist ideas or to even use them in a discussion.

Im not gonna argue with this, I guess it boils down to what you think is superior.

Nothing is stopping you germans from joining us in our arrogance. Then we can say "WE" are better than everyone else.
:D

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Tony

.....Nothing is stopping you germans from joining us in our arrogance. Then we can say "WE" are better than everyone else.


The Germans already took 2 bites at the apple of world domination, and many Germanic individuals later assisted diligently in building the current US military capabilities.

The USSR also had a bunch of nibbles at the apple.

What do we want? Sitting in circle singing Kum-Ba-Yah has not worked to date. Does anyone actually think human nature has changed for the better? I don't, and political power with all that entails still comes from the barrel of a gun held by boots on the ground.

And yup, I am all for the boots being controlled by USA personnel.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by hammegk

Does anyone actually think human nature has changed for the better? I don't, and political power with all that entails still comes from the barrel of a gun held by boots on the ground.

And yup, I am all for the boots being controlled by USA personnel.

The purpose of civilization is to "raise the bar" with respect to human nature. Human nature itself may not be changing, it is our behavior which is changing as we become more "civilized" (don't laugh, cynics). Our behavior is a reflection of the choices we make. I - and you - and others in the world - can make better choices. That leads to a better civilization - or not, as the case may be.

Democracy allows power to be shared across a wider base. In my book, democracy is the civilized expression of politics and power.