A Liberal Marines Progressive Perspective

Marines are defenders of the republic and the Constitution. That is our oath, that is our purpose, that is our calling. Many are Democrats. This is the journal of one such Marine. This leatherneck's progressive perspective is as follows...

My Photo
Location: Southwest, United States

U.S. Marine,0300 MOS,eight years in,honorably discharged,college-educated. To all the damned trolls, you better believe there are liberal Marines. Read "War Is A Racket" by 2-time Medal of Honor recipient Maj.Gen.S.D.Butler, plus Lewis B. Puller, Jr.'s "Fortunate Son" and maybe then you'll understand. Semper Fi!

Play M.L.1775 Theme Song

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

By Dawn's Early Light: On the Brink of the Second Korean War Posted by Hello
Good morning to everyone. I'm running late, way behind my schedule, so going to make a post and jet. It's a very overcast day (so far) here in the American Southwest...kind of cool and breezy out too. Listening to 'Crosby, Stills and Nash' right now...they're awesome. Topic of discussion this morning is the likelihood of an upcoming military clash on the Korean peninsula. I, like so many other "junior journalists", posted previously about the concern so many shared over the President's rather bellicose remarks during his press conference last week (28 April 2005, http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/10275) in terms of the effect of those statements on the North Korean leadership (especially Kim Jong-Il) and the potential for those ill-conceived statements to have far-reaching and unpalatable consequences (to say the very least). As predicted (by myself and so many others), the President's insensitive and misguided statements seemingly have exacerbated the already tenuous, delicate and fragile situation on the Korean peninsula to the point of no return (http://www.kfmb.com/stories/story.11493.html); hey, maybe that's what the President wanted all along. First, North Korea (three days after the President's press conference) test-fired a short range missile in the direction of Japan on 1 May 2005 (http://i-newswire.com/pr18104.html). The missile fell harmlessly into the Sea of Japan, but (as you could imagine) the gesture did not go over well, especially on the Japanese home islands. And now, we are all waiting with bated breath as rumours continue to swirl fast and furious about intelligence stating all the signs are there indicating North Korea is preparing to test a nuclear device in the near future (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1096966.cms). The stakes have become so "jacked-up" that the 'Bulletin of Atomic Scientists' (http://www.thebulletin.org/index.htm) reset the current time on the nuclear clock from nine minutes-to-midnight to seven minutes-to-midnight (midnight, of course signifying nuclear war). The current time of seven minutes to midnight is the same time the clock was set at when it was first established back in 1950 (http://www.thebulletin.org/doomsday_clock/) indicating that the perception of the danger of catastrophic events is on the same order as it was during the Cold War (sidenote: 1950 is the same year the first Korean War was started). In other words, we are right on the brink of going over the cliff; and with the current President and his little clown posse at the wheel, our chances of avoiding war on the peninsula aren't looking so good. If the North Koreans do (in fact) test a nuclear device, be it underground (still bad, but not as aggressive) or above-ground for all the world to see (very bad and very aggressive and indicative of a heightened, belligerent posture), the stakes on the peninsula will be at a level unseen since those early summer days of 1950. If the test should go ahead, the United States will have only three options that I can foresee; of course, there's always the "X" factor/option (representative of the unknown). But for all intents and purposes, the United States wil have three options per a North Korean nuclear test:

1) Attack North Korea-this would not be good, but the mission would (of course) be to neutralize North Korea's nuclear projection capability, as well as, their nuclear proliferation and production capability (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5027.htm). The mission would also include (no doubt) "going for broke", or, the complete deconstruction and reconstruction of the North Korean political apparatus from the top down (in other words, "Operation Adios Kim Jong Il"). This would be a bloody mess and the likelihood of the introduction and implementation of nuclear weaponry vis-a-vis mission accomplishment (on both sides, i.e., the U.S. using tactical nukes on the battlefield and North Korea using tactical nukes on the battlefield and, quite possibly, strategic nukes lobbed at Hawaii and/or the West Coast of the United States) are better than fair to middlin'. In fact, if I was a betting man (and I'm not) I'd say the odds are in favor of seeing a Second Korean War that would include the implementation of nuclear weaponry as an offensive weapons system in the tactical and strategic spheres of battle/warfare.

2) Quarantine/Blockade of North Korea- the United States could instigate and execute a naval/aerial blockade of North Korea (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-blockade.htm). Of course, the United States would more than likely do this under the auspice and aegis of the United Nations (to dilute the political impact and political force of the blockade, http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-04-28-voa16.cfm) and the blockade would more than likely be called something else, i.e., international containment zone, or temporary restrictive area, etc. But either way, it would be a blockade and a blockade is an act of war; and the North Koreans are smart enough to know that the United States would be the main "mover and shaker" in the establishment of said blockade, even if such a blockade is under the cover of a United Nations action. So again, a blockade would equal an even more angry and hostile North Korea and so we find ourselves at total war's doorstep. One of the only real questions concerning the effectiveness of such an action would be, if the U.S. did slap a blockade on the North Koreans, would the Chinese (North Korea's ally and neighbor to it's north) leave it's borders open; thus allowing the North Koreans an economic lifeline that would render any blockade pretty much impotent and without much bite.

3) Strategic, surgical strikes on North Korea's nuclear weapons/proliferation sites- this would equal sorties of American air power and naval power (like Israel did to Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, http://www.rense.com/general56/kjune.htm) targeting North Korean nuclear sites with pin-point, surgical accuracy in an attempt at rendering North Korea a country that is "nuclear weapons incapable" (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5026.htm). This is probably the most attractive option to many in the National Command Authority, but they know (as so many of us do) that any action on our part like that would only trigger total war. So, once again, we find ourselves at the doorstep of war.

Ladies and gentleman, in short, this is not good...not good at all. Of all the players, the South Koreans have the most to lose in my assessment. They are connected to North Korea geographically (they share the same peninsula), as well as, familially; and any war, although terrible for all those involved, would be absolutely catastrophic for the people of South Korea. To be frank, I feel so sorry for them...anytime the tempers begin to flare on the peninsula, the South Korean government (for the most part) is always quick to downplay and minimize the situation like a family that is in denial of the true proportions of a problem within its home. They do this because they have so much to lose, on so many levels, if actual war breaks out on the peninsula (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030228-dprkwar01.htm). Most older South Koreans experienced the first Korean War of 1950-1953 first hand (in that they were in-country at the time) and they KNOW what war is...and civil wars are (generally) the most vicious and cruel in terms of the sheer magnitude and brutishness; so it is no surprise that they want to avoid war with their North Korean brothers and sisters at all costs. Of course, our current President doesn't really understand that because he's lacking in brainpower. In closing, if North Korea goes ahead and conducts a nuclear test, the situation on the Korean peninsula will change overnight, both dramatically and exponentially. With a nuclear weaponized North Korea (which is clearly unacceptable, as most of the major world players have indicated), there will be no more discussion concerning "six-party talks" or any party talks for that matter...the focus will shift to the conducting of total war on the Korean peninsula. And make no mistake, the North Korean's not only have the military capability and power to "bring the funk" in a way unseen since World War II, they also have the political will...this will be nothing short of an all or nothing venture for Kim Jong Il and the North Korean regime. Last time around, North Korea had the comfort of knowing that the Soviets wouldn't allow the situation to get too out of control, but now (with the Soviet Union gone and the Chinese unlikely to enter the fray via the Yalu River like they did in October of 1950) North Korea will have to "go for the gusto" on its own, just to hold on to what it's got...and they definitely want to hold on to what they've got! In short, this will be a much tougher, determined and resolute foe than the North Korea we faced in the summer of 1950. It must be understood that there is a rancor and burning hatred in the hearts of Kim Jong Il and the North Korean leadership towards the United States that has been building for sometime now (http://militaryweek.com/archived-nokorea.shtml)
...the stakes have never been higher. The clock is ticking ladies and gents, let us hope that we haven't run out of time. Semper Fidelis


Blogger idiotx said...

A N. Korea more powerful and resolute thanks to people like Madame Albright and Jimma Carter who allowed N. Korea to get sustanance and fuel for years while supposedly foregoing their nuclear dreams. Which we now know they lied and were doing what they "promised" the great peace warrior and madame diplomat they would not. They didnt just start that program when Bush took over. You know that right?

Blockades are definately an act of war, but so is having nukes and threatening a country with them which is exactly what N.Korea has been doing to us ever since we exposed their clandestine program, not to mention their threats to Japan and threats of spreading them (nuke technology) around which in this day and age is also an act of war.

S. Korea's left leaning government is bold with the US doing their bidding on the border. Let us pull out and leave them and see how bold they are. It is typical behavior of countries we protect for years. See Europe. I am not for war at all, but leaving Korea and Iran alone because you want to wait and war it up with a democrat admin. you support philosophically is foolish beyond belief. We can argue the "details" of the mission we face but not whether or not the "mission" is worthy. It is. It was worthy in the non-UN sanctioned war in Bosnia. It was worth it in the non-UN sanctioned war in Vietnam. And it is worth it in this great borderless Governmentless (minus a few obvious ones) non-UN sanctioned war on terror (bad name should be war on Islamic Fundamentalists) that even when Bush is gone will be waged. I will shake my head when you Liberal warriors put your support behind the war when the same war is being waged by madame President Hillary- but I at least will support it. Not try to run the admins goals into the dirt to the cheers of militants the world over just to try and chink the armor of an administration I dont support. I just wish the soldiers godspeed in their mission, and I wish wisdom on our military leaders to help them achieve their goals of victory. lastly I will say while I cannot support your politics, I thank you for your service and godbless and protect you if your in harms way.

6:05 PM  
Blogger ASmithIII said...

Just the facts:
-In 1985, United States intelligence sources revealed for the first time the construction of a secret nuclear reactor 90 kilometers north of the capital, Pyongyang. Who was president? Ronnie Raygun. Secretary of Defense and Corporate Welfare? Dick Cheney. Bonus fact; in Reagan's second term Cheney asked for and got a reduction of ten full divisions from the Army.
-In 1994, President Carter , acting as a special envoy for President The Big Dog Clinton, negotiated terms for the first dialogue in 40 years between the United States and North Korea. Only in bizarro world of Republican fairy tales are "talks" considered appeasement. At no time in the presidencies of 4 Republicans (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or Bush the First) did tough talk dissaude North Korea from pursuing its goals by even one degree.
-Following two days of talks with President Carter, President Kim agreed to freeze North Korea's nuclear program in exchange for the resumption of a dialogue with the United States. That breakthrough led to the first dialogue between the United States and North Korea in 40 years. Subsequent talks between the two countries resulted in two agreements, reached in October 1994 and June 1995, in which North Korea agreed to neither restart its nuclear reactor nor reprocess the plant's spent fuel. Construction was halted on two additional plants, and all three will be replaced with safer light-water reactors, which cannot produce weapons-grade materials. The beginnings of the agreed "Framework".
Which benefitted at least one Republican by the name of Little Donnie Rumsfeld, who sat on the board of a company which sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil" . So what's the story Donnie, NK was good then and evil now? Or they were evil then and now , but you still have all the moral substance of a wart riddled Bush toadie?
--Time and dates: North Koreans kept to the Framwork and guess what, The plutonium processing at Yongbyon and elsewhere stopped, and IAEA inspectors were allowed back into North Korea. The plutonium processors were sealed with IAEA seals. Flash forward to the "where is that darn WMD" crowd, actual construction for the two light-water reactors began in August 2001, way behind schedule. KEDO poured the concrete for the first reactor in August 2002, but suspended the project on December 1, 2003. As recent evidence points out, NK resumed manufacturing nukes, because the Bush-Bolton crowd doesn't scare them one bit. I bet Kim is still crying from that knuckle slap by Condi "911 Commission liar" Rice.

-- March 6, 2001: At a joint press briefing with the Swedish foreign minister, Secretary of State Colin Powell says that the administration “plan[s] to engage with North Korea to pick up where President Clinton left off. Some promising elements were left on the table and we will be examining those elements.” What was the former Pentagon chief refering to? A deal with North Korea to eliminate its medium- and long-range missiles and end its missile exports had been “tantalizingly close” at the end of the Clinton administration.

-Only months after Rummy took office, AWOL Bush ended the policy of engagement and negotiation. So did Kim takes his hurt feelings and go sit in a corner and cry? Hardly. Pyongyang warned that it would respond by building nuclear missiles. Which it has done. Which begs the question, why has BushCo acted against America's long term interests? Why does this administration's self loathing spill over into a loathing for democracy and enlightened self interests.
-Confusion reigns: Does the Bushtanic stand for anything, say what it means, or means what it says? "North Korea expelled the inspectors last year and withdrew from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in January at about the same time that the Bush administration authorised $3.5m to keep ABB's reactor project going." The BushSquad yells, Hey Kim, you can have another 3.5 mill, but we're not talkng to you anymore.

--AND--In March 2002, Bush refused to certify North Korea's compliance with the 1994 Agreed Framework, but said the U.S. would continue deliverying oil for energy to North Korea anyway. Something President Big Dog would never have done. Clinton talked firmly and carried a big stick, Bush whines and has his stick stuck in NO WMD-raq.

*July 20 1977, North Korea signs a "Type 66" agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The agreement allows the IAEA to monitor the Soviet-supplied 2MW IRT-research reactor and 0.1MW critical assembly located at Yongbyon. --Accomplishments like this on the Bush watch between ignoring memos that say Al Qaeda attack immient and taking vacations ? Zero.

12:12 AM  
Blogger idiotx said...

nice how your obvious knowledge of history blames only republicans, and according to you the only time we had reasonable behaviour from the Koreans is when Carter chatted with them and got them to stop it! Amazing when the dust settled after the Clintons left, North Korea hadnt in fact stopped anything. It's a very succinct and well stated whitewash you are trying to put forth. I can find fault in evry administration as it pertains to threats against the US. You seem to only find fault in one. Also while you disrespect Bush I notice you give your sideways praise to the despots that threaten us today. I guess that goes right along with your swiss cheese version of history. I also have a hard time figuring out whether or not you even think the N koreans are even a problem. Sounds like the only problem you think we face is Bush. I do appreciate the fact you dont let your obvious education stand in the way of your blind hatred of the US...at least when its not run by a leftist lapdog. You only have 3 more years to try to run your country into the ground, then if Hillary wins in 08 you can "all of a sudden" become a war supporter when the next attack happens. Oh thats right, you will just blame Bush for the attack. Oh well. Try to make your argument next time with all the facts and a little less spit, slobber and disrespect.

4:06 PM  
Blogger idiotx said...

Ignoreing memos? whats more imminent than 2 US embassys blowing up? (no response) Kobar towers where our troops were sleeping being blown up? (no response) USS cole bombed and sailors killed? (no response) WTC bombing in 93? (no response). So your feined worry over a memo from a Clintonista is far from damning. We at least responded when it happened fool. Your glaringly obvious water fetching is so comman its comman place any more. Keep drooling, its almost over. Hillary in 08!

4:13 PM  
Blogger ASmithIII said...

You might want to stop foaming at the mouth long enough to get some mental help at Emotional Distress hotline 1-800-LIFENET or The National Mental Health Association 800-969-6642 ,read a few facts and stop being an America hating sheep.

"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." -James Madison

Trolls still have a tendency to merge 9-11 into Iraq, according to the 9-11 Commisiion and even honorary Saudi Bandar Bush , Iraq had nothing to 9-11. Iraq/Saddam while evil had nothing to do with the blowing up of two embassies or the Cole attack . The 19 men who carried out the hijackings and 9-11 came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other Arab countries, but none of them came from Iraq. Ironically, Egypt is a major center for terrorist recruiting and is second only to Israel in recieving american foreign aid. Saudi Arabia is the homeland of Osama bin Laden. The Bush family is so close to the Saudis that that they named him Bandar Bush and Bush was in business with Salem bin Laden. Its just ironic that the two countries that had the closest ties to terrorism and 9-11 were not considered worthy of declaring war on and converted to real democracies.

**According to the public record, the Administration made
counterterrorism such a "top priority" that it never once convened
its task force on counterterrorism before 9/11, downgraded counterterrorism at the Justice Department ( behind drug dealers), and held only two out of more than one hundred national security meetings on the issue of terrorism. Meanwhile, the White House was cutting key counterterrorism programs -- Bush himself
admitted that he "didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism before 9/11. This negligence
came at roughly the same time that the Vice President held at least 10 meetings of his Energy Task Force and attended at least six meetings with Enron executives .Finally, the White House threatened to veto efforts putting more money into counterterrorism , tried to cut funding for counterterrorism grants (10), delayed arming the unmanned airplanes that had spotted bin Laden in Afghanistan, and terminated "a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaida suspects in the United States .

Similarly, Newsweek reported that internal government documents
show that, before 9/11, the Bush Administration moved to
"de-emphasize" counterterrorism . When the "FBI officials
sought to add hundreds more counterintelligence agents" to deal
with the problem, "they got shot down" by the White House.

--Khobar Towers? The fence surrounding the Khobar Towers housing complex had not changed substantially since US forces first occupied the complex in 1990 ( King Bush the first). The 4404th Wing (Provisional) initiated extensive force protection measures beginning in November 1995. These initiatives focused on the threat from a bomb penetrating to the interior of Khobar Towers. The Wing did not take adequate protective measures to meet other viable terrorist threats to service members and facilities in the Dhahran area. These threats included attacks by stand-off weapons, assassination and/or kidnapping of individuals, ambush of vehicles, and stand-off bombs. The security infrastructure and systems at Khobar Towers proved inadequate to deter and defend against the June 25, 1996 terrorist bomb attack. This was despite significant efforts by the United States and Saudi Arabia to enhance security of the facility following the November 13, 1995 bombing of the Office of the Program Manager, Saudi Arabian National Guard in Riyadh. Clinton did not micro-manage the military. Looking for someone to blame?, write the Pentagon and Bush's friends, the Saudis. Who perpetrated the attack? Again the Saudis. Should Clinton have declared war on the Saudis, Bush hasn't.
Just the facts on the embassy bombings: MORE irony, in 2001 G. W. Bushtista, knowing that the Taliban was in some way providing cover for bin Laden still sent them a check for $43 million and told the USAN subs that had cruise missles aimed at them per President Bill's orders, were told to stand down. Even though that money was ostensibly for food, it was in fact aiding those that had attacked USA soil. That is by any definition treason. Could it be that Bush the right-wing alcoholic cokehead cared more about the pipeline deal with Unical, then about who he gave american tax dollars to. Clinton retaliated for an East African U.S. Embassy bombing by firing 70 cruise missiles at a suspected bin Laden terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. No he didn't hit bin Laden, but its been four years and Bush not only hasn't gotten him yet, but by moving resources away from Afghanistan, let Laden slip away at Tora Bora three years ago.

USS Cole? -- destroyer USS Cole was anchored at a port in Yemen in October 2000, three months before the Big Dog left office. While it was suspected that Al Quaeda was behind the attacks, it was not known for sure, the investigation into the Cole bombings only concluded once AWOL took office and he did nothing .

WTC bombing in 93?-- 6 civilians killed. 9-11-2000, Bush in office sometimes -3000 killed. The World Trade Center bombing was carried out by a group headed by Ramzi Yousef, who is serving a 240-year prison term, thanks to Bill. This happened a few months after President William Jefferson Clinton, the working man's president took office. Bill didn't whine and complain and try to blame it on Bush Number One. He kicked ass and didn't get 2000 of america's best and brightest killed in Iraq based on lies about WMD. Except for some girly man gossip on right-wing web sites, there has in fact been no link established between Saddam and WTC93. Compare that to 3000 military and close to 100,000 innocent men, women, and children people killed while Bush was commander-in-thief. Liberals fought and won two world wars so that wing-nuts can sit around and whine in English instead of German or Japanese.

Bushistas are criminally negligent: The warnings provided by intelligence agencies to the FAA were far clearer and more specific than the bald face lies told Condoleezza Rice to the 9/11 commission when she reluctantly conceded the existence of a presidential briefing that warned of impending Al Qaeda attacks. Rice had dismissed those warnings as "historical," but according to the newly released section of the 9/11 report, an astonishing 52 of the 105 daily intelligence briefings received by the FAA -- and available to Rice -- before the Sept. 11 attacks made specific reference to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

Given this shocking record of indifference on the part of the administration, it is politically understandable that it tried to prevent the formation of the 9/11 commission in the first place, and then for five months prevented the declassification of key sections of the final report. Commission members, including its Republican chairman, Thomas Kean, stated in the past that there was no national security concern that justified keeping those sections of the report from the public.

An administration that resisted spending the tens of millions required to fortify airline security before 9/11 is nearing the $300-billion mark on Afghanistan and Iraq. And declassified documents have unmistakably said the latter had nothing to do with 9/11. Meanwhile, those countries that at least indirectly did, most notably "allies" Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, have been let off the hook. And as of today and the last 4 years, there have been more Americans and more internationals killed on BushBoy's then Bush One and Clinton combined.

--Proof Bush Fixed The Facts--

"In emotionless English, Dearlove tells Blair and the others that President Bush has decided to remove Saddam Hussein by launching a war that is to be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction." Period. What about the intelligence? Dearlove adds matter-of-factly, "The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

At this point, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw confirms that Bush has decided on war, but notes that stitching together justification would be a challenge, since "the case was thin." Straw noted that Saddam was not threatening his neighbors and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."


Patriotism means to stand by the country (the Constitution). It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."Teddy Roosevelt

12:52 AM  
Blogger idiotx said...

it's nice how you start your conversation by shitting in your hand and wiping it all over the walls just before you tell me how educated you are. Then do your best to edit history in such a way to make Michael Moore proud. You have repeated yourself several times of how Bush was so negligent on info given to him by the Clinton fellows. The info on Iraq was also given to him by Clintons fellows. And since Al Quaida had been attacking us and Clinton never saw fit to react, Bush did the same thing with the Al Quaida info, nothing. Difference is when we WERE attacked we did something.Why do you feel such disdain for the president who did finally do something. Sadly it's only because of party. Did you know our troops are still in the illegal warzone of Bosnia? Does that make you mad? So what was our justification for Bosnia? Or the aspirin factory in Sudan? Wasnt that an act of war by Clinton? Firing on a sovereign nation? What about all the missles fired into Bagdhad? Did that make you mad? Were you on your soapbox then? Before you run to your textbook for another quote or convenient fact the answer is no. Being belicose and waving your sword and threatening countries is only kosher when its a democrat admin doing the posturing right? I say posturing because since the democrats started vietnam (then conviently turned anti war late in the game) they have done evrything within their means to shed any signs of power (not their own of course, just the military)... and barring Clintons few daliances with his military....have avoided anything remotely resembling defending the US or its intrests. Your feeble attempts to pretend Bill Clinton did all he could do, shows how disengenuous you are. Your intellect rules supreme in the circles you run I am sure. The amount of words you used to slough off all the responsibilities (by your standards) the former president had when it came to responding to terrorism in the 90's is laughable. But I had faith they had our best intrests in mind. 9-11 changed that for everyone but the enlightened ones such as yourself. I have a feeling ,like I have repeated, if this was 1998 you would be pro-war, and in 2008 if Hillary wins you will be pro war. Your logic just allows you to put your countrys intrests aside when your pary isnt in power. At the very least your type seems to only question "power" when the moniker next to the power is (R).

2:35 AM  
Blogger answer-man said...

ps I'm having a little trouble sending comments so if I do it twice please excuse me and I apologize.

2:30 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home