Bush Missile to Probe Lil' Kim's Cavern

[GuyJean]

Us To Deploy New Missiles In S.Korea To Destroy WMD In N.Korea
http://au.news.yahoo.com/041220/3/s94u.html

e United States will deploy missiles to South Korea in 2005 with the aim of destroying underground facilities for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in North Korea, a U.S. think tank said.

"The (U.S. President George W.) Bush administration plans to deploy a new set of missiles to South Korea next year that are designed to destroy the underground installations where the North Koreans are storing their WMDs," the Center for American Progress (CAP) said in a report carried on its Web site (http://www.americanprogress.org)..

The report, "The Road to Nuclear Security," said the U.S. rhetoric that it will not bargain with North Korea until its nuclear weapons program is terminated has been scaled back in recent months following pressure from China and South Korea.

The report assumed that North Korea possesses at least eight nuclear weapons

Hopefully, it's not Rummy and Wolfy making plans for this one..

Gj

[plaid_knight]

Holy f-ck. That's horrifying to contemplate. Bush Inc. has already demonstrated that it is far too incompetent to handle military conflicts, and now with their greatly weakened armed forces they want to go after someone who actually has nuclear weapons?

[dingosatemybaby]

Holy f-ck. That's horrifying to contemplate. Bush Inc. has already demonstrated that it is far too incompetent to handle military conflicts, and now with their greatly weakened armed forces they want to go after someone who actually has nuclear weapons?

Yeah, Iraq's a quagmire. People aren't being dropped into paper shredders any more, and Kurd's aren't being gassed, and the Shiites are finally getting some political representation, so dingo supposes it's not all bad.

And Afganistan is turning out pretty well. Karzai appointed three women to the Afghan cabinet. Amazing strides forward in a country that was very much in the Dark Ages before September 11. But Gayjean likes his gals burka'd, clitorectoried, and beaten into submission. ]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/24/wafg24.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/12/24/ixworld.html[/url]

[GuyJean]

[quote="dingosatemybaby"]But Gayjean likes his gals burka'd, clitorectoried, and beaten into submission. ] Only on stage..

I think it's way too early to call either Afghanistan or Iraq a 'success'. But I've heard the opium trade is thriving, and the oil pipleline will bring some jobs.

The Kurds were gassed by the poisons the US sold Saddham to ensure he stayed in power.. Remember when Bin Laden and Saddham were our friends? I guess they were a 'success'..

GJ

[FG Lurker]

The Kurds were gassed by the poisons the US sold Saddham to ensure he stayed in power.. Remember when Bin Laden and Saddham were our friends? I guess they were a 'success'..

Hehe, you're expecting people's memories to go back too far! And besides, everyone knows that if it happened before 9/11 then it's all forgotten now.

Ian

[SovietSupreme]

Bush is enemy of the people. Iraq is great example of his poor leadership. If my great Soviet Union could not win in the middle east with Afghanistan, what makes Amerika think it can? Soviet Union has best military on Earth. Bush still can not find bin laden after 4 years? He should have gone after him and not Iraq.

[plaid_knight]

American Military Deaths in Iraq: 1041 (and counting)
American Wounded in Iraq: 9981 (and counting)
Iraqi Civilian Casualties: 100,000 (and counting)
And let's take a look at some news articles courtesy of
your friendly neighborhood Google:
"I think the drop in the delayed-entry program and Guard recruitment are warning signs of serious recruitment and re-enlistment problems coming next year," said Charles Moskos, a noted military manpower expert and sociology professor at Northwestern University. "I know the Pentagon's line is that they can manage this, but the fact is, they just don't have enough boots on the ground. I think they're standing on a precipice."

Hmm. That doesn't sound good.


"We should be honest and admit that it is very unlikely the Army will not need those 30,000 extra troops permanently, and even with them, it will be stretched thin for the foreseeable future, because it was not sized with these wars and this level of effort in mind," said Dan Goure, a longtime Army expert with the Lexington Institute, a defense consulting company.

A reader would think that our military has been weakened by a
war of choice.


Compare that with where the Army is today -- brigades, sometimes entire divisions, deploy for 12 to 15 months at a time to Iraq and Afghanistan and are given only 12 months' downtime back home before they have to depart again for another year abroad. A year back home may sound like a lot of time, but it isn't. Under that scenario, troops get a short vacation and then have to ramp up quickly to retrain, get all their equipment up to snuff, replace departed soldiers, and prepare for a new mission. To do all of that in a year is a stretch. It's easy to see why virtually no one believes the service can maintain its present level of effort without potentially catastrophic results on morale, retention, and recruiting. As the Pentagon learned in the 1970s, when an overextended and underfunded military devolved into the infamous "hollow force," such a 1-to-1 ratio of deployments to downtime, with yearlong combat tours, will eventually break the force.

This doesn't sound good.

After spending 19 of the past 21 months deployed to Iraq and the Middle East on back-to-back tours, he recently returned to Baumholder and found himself unable to pick out his youngest daughter in the "Welcome Home" crowd. In the almost two years her father was gone, Julianne Baker, now 12 years old, had grown nearly a foot.

"I know the strains that back-to-back deployments can put on a great relationship and a great family. There's a threshold beyond which people will say, 'I just can't give any more,' " said Baker, who is anxiously awaiting his brigade's fourth-quarter re-enlistment figures. The demographic group Baker worries about most is married soldiers who are nearing the midcareer mark -- about 10 years in uniform -- but have yet to make a lifetime commitment to the military. Those experienced captains, senior noncommissioned officers, and seasoned warrant officers are the heart of a modern, high-tech army, and not easily replaced. "If we start losing those midcareer soldiers because their wives are unhappy and saying, 'Don't you dare re-enlist,' then the Army will be at risk," Baker said. "That's essentially how we broke the professional Army we took into Vietnam. At some point, people decided they could no longer weather the back-to-back deployments."

Yikes.


Nevertheless, the transfer of sovereignty and Saddam's impending trial raise a number of serious issues. First, and most basic: Has anything changed for average Iraqis? While the United Nations, Arab League, Organization of the Islamic Conference and European Union have all recognized the interim Iraqi government, this means very little for Iraqis who must contend daily with the hazards of the new Iraq. The now defunct CPA and the U.S. military have rehabilitated major portions of the country's infrastructure, built schools and resupplied hospitals, but Iraqis still do not have reliable access to basic services. And despite the approximately $20 billion invested -- which is primarily Iraq's own money, thanks to the return of Iraqi oil production -- most Iraqis are experiencing significant economic hardship.

Of course, much of the Iraqis' misery can be attributed to the still tenuous security situation. While remnants of the old regime and foreign jihadists press their insurgency, Muqtada al-Sadr is keeping his options open. In one sermon the cleric signals his desire for a political role in the new Iraq, and in the next he calls on Iraqis to resist the continued occupation.

The occupation is, in fact, the crux of the issue. Al-Sadr's message and that of the other insurgent groups tend to resonate with so many Iraqis because, despite the transfer of political authority, 138,000 U.S. troops remain there. Unfortunately, there are no good options for Washington. Any new administration will be faced with the Catch-22 of the U.S. presence in Iraq: U.S. forces cannot leave because the Iraqis cannot provide security themselves, but the longer the U.S. troops remain, the more likely violence will continue. Average Iraqis are caught in the crossfire, further embittering them toward the United States.

We must really be winning their hearts.
As for Afghanistan, the Taliban got away, Bin Laden got away, and the opium lords are still in power.

[FG Lurker]

Interesting read.

As for Afghanistan, the Taliban got away, Bin Laden got away, and the opium lords are still in power.

Actually, the opium lords are back in power. One of the things the Taliban did that was actually decent in the eyes of the west was crush the opium trade. Now that the Taliban is gone, opium is coming back -- quickly.

[dingosatemybaby]

Interesting read.

As for Afghanistan, the Taliban got away, Bin Laden got away, and the opium lords are still in power.

Actually, the opium lords are back in power. One of the things the Taliban did that was actually decent in the eyes of the west was crush the opium trade. Now that the Taliban is gone, opium is coming back -- quickly.

With all due respect to Lurker's always-interesting posts, I have to agree with Plaid Knight in saying that the opium lords are STILL in power, rather than BACK in power, because I don't imagine they fared all that badly under the Taliban. Their product was mostly for export and they provided much-needed revenue for the Taliban to blow shit up and administer beatings to people they caught listening to Indian cassette tapes, as well as stonings to rape victims. But I do have to retract my previous assertion that the Afganistan adventure has been pretty successful. Marginally successful might be a better way of putting it. The country will ultimately end up having to be partitioned, as will Iraq (not really such a bad thing, as the present borders are British colonial relics). And, as has been pointed out on this thread, the major problems of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia still remain.

[FG Lurker]

A few news storries:

The Lies About Taliban Heroin

Is Taliban Heroin Worse than Northern Alliance Heroin?

End of Taliban will bring rise in heroin

While their motivation for the poppy ban was more related to self-promotion than anything else, the ban was effective in stopping poppy production in Taliban controlled areas.

Ian

[FG Lurkor]

[FG Lurker]

o[/b]r]

Very funny motherfucker.

Don't be such a pussy and hide behind someone else's identity.

[Taro Toporific]

[GuyJean]

Don't be such a pussy and hide behind someone else's identity.

Kore wa pen desu..

GJ

[FG Lurker]

Don't be such a pussy and hide behind someone else's identity.

Kore wa pen desu.. ]
Yah, that wouldn't surprise me at all. He comes across as enough of a wanker to pull something like this.