Germany Lost the War... So What?

The key issue is the determination of the scope of
the threat, and its immediacy, versus our resources and constraints, and
with the diplomatic aspect tossed in as well. The US went into Afghanistan
and Iraq--and gee whiz, the Libyans and Iranians suddenly became amenable to
peaceful diplomatic solutions. The DPRK is still on the burner, but without
the support of either the CIS or the PRC

I think you miss my point. It is one thing to take on countries like
Afghanistan and Iraq. It is another to take on a nuclear power like
China.

It is interesting that no nuclear power eg Britain, France, Russia,
China, Israel, India or Pakistan reacted like Libya or Iran.


it is only a matter of time before
we get what we want--so why start pounding the swords on the shields?


The history of the world shows that those that beat their swords into
plowshares will plow for those that don't.




Brooks






--
How many public servants care enough about their department agenda that
they would be willing, if it received a budget cut to take a pay cut?

Observations of Bernard - No 46

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1aa2ee4ab5f1cc5d98991a@news...
The key issue is the determination of the scope of
the threat, and its immediacy, versus our resources and constraints, and
with the diplomatic aspect tossed in as well. The US went into
Afghanistan
and Iraq--and gee whiz, the Libyans and Iranians suddenly became
amenable to
peaceful diplomatic solutions. The DPRK is still on the burner, but
without
the support of either the CIS or the PRC

I think you miss my point. It is one thing to take on countries like
Afghanistan and Iraq. It is another to take on a nuclear power like
China.

Why should we "take on" China? As long as they keep their threats towards
Taiwan in the "threat" category, is there any reason we should be slobbering
at the opportunity to militarily confront the PRC? Especially when they are
working *with* us vis a vis the DPRK?


It is interesting that no nuclear power eg Britain, France, Russia,
China, Israel, India or Pakistan reacted like Libya or Iran.

Why do you find that interesting? We identified Iran as being in our focus,
and Libya had long been subject to not only US but also UN action, so the
fact that they have interpreted US actions a bit differently than the other
nations (which the US does not currently have any major disagreements with)
should not be surprising. None of those other nations you list has any
reason to fear US military action against them. Did you think we should be
rattling our sabres towards France merely because of some policy
disagreements? Pakistan not only allowed US overflights for OEF, but also
provided limited basing support, and has handed over captured AQ members.
Why would you think any of them should, or even could, consider the US as a
"foe" in the current situation?



it is only a matter of time before
we get what we want--so why start pounding the swords on the shields?


The history of the world shows that those that beat their swords into
plowshares will plow for those that don't.

Uhmmm...OK. And irrelevant. We have lots of nice, lethal, and very shiny
spears, and we have proven that we know how to use them. That does not mean
that we have to use them in every instance, now does it? Again, the
non-military option is being used against the DPRK right now, and I don't
see the DPRK getting anything but weaker, so why the rush to arms?

Brooks

In article MPG.1aa2ee4ab5f1cc5d98991a@news,
Bernardz writes:
The key issue is the determination of the scope of
the threat, and its immediacy, versus our resources and constraints, and
with the diplomatic aspect tossed in as well. The US went into Afghanistan
and Iraq--and gee whiz, the Libyans and Iranians suddenly became amenable to
peaceful diplomatic solutions. The DPRK is still on the burner, but without
the support of either the CIS or the PRC

I think you miss my point. It is one thing to take on countries like
Afghanistan and Iraq. It is another to take on a nuclear power like
China.

If that were really the situation, we'd had 50 years where, by your
reckoning, we could have/should have invaded the DPRK. (With which,
btw, we, and the UN, are still at war with. Armistices are not end to
the conflict, they are cease-fires.) But we didn't do so.
In fact, the situation wrt the U.S. Armed FOrces, andth eDPRK hasn't
changed much at all.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster