quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by AirForceAggie:

First, please get the chip off your shoulder and please stop shouting. We're having a discussion here. There is nothing personal here. I wasn't being patronizing to you. rather, you were slamming the other guy because he never served. I was just pointing out that I had served and that I disagreed with your opinion. Kosolvo and Bosnia were modern wars and they were won entirely with air power. No ground forces were involved until the end of the fighting and only as occupational peacekeeping forces. Even in Desert Storm, by the time the ground forces were involved, the enemy was basically finished. I never said the Korean War would be won solely by air power alone. However, with complete command of the air, the NK army will be crippled in any advance. Size and large number of people does not mean squat in a modern warfare environment. The Israelis proved it in the Arab Israeli wars. Even the Brits defeated a larger Argentinian force in a mountaneous climate of the Falklands. The bottom line is that NKs will lose in a conventional war against the south. That is my point. As for the current administration having the will, remember, they said the same thing of Truman and he did have the will to send troops to Korea. So, please, if you want to discuss, then let's discuss. There is nothing personal here. However, there is no need to shout.

Good post!

Especially when you consider that all of us are really on the same page!

No one is saying, "Ahh come on, the guys just got a bad press," or North Korea really wants peace, why don't we compromise."



Since we ARE on the same page, there's no need to get angry with each other...

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by AirForceAggie:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:


Well, I will ignore your patronization and reply...
YOU somehow think that I hold the DPRK military in some sort of esteem, I DO NOT!!!...
Secondly, if you think that what happened in Iraq, will happen here, NO IT WON'T!...
IT IS DIFFERENT GROUND!...
Remember this, NO MODERN CONVENTIONAL WAR HAS BEEN WON WITHOUT CONTROL OF THE AIR B-U-T, NO MODERN CONVENTIONAL WAR HAS BEEN WON BY CONTROL OF THE AIR ONLY!!!...
You must take and hold the ground and that is the purpose of the U.S.A.F., U.S.N., U.S.C.G., to prepare the way and support the MAN WITH THE RIFLE!!!...
Unless the war goes nuclear and that will not happen, at least not on the part of the U.S. and THEN, if it IS initiated by the DPRK, which, it might just be, then the administration, MUST HAVE THE WILL TO REPLY IN KIND...
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION HAS THAT WILL!!!...
It will be like Truman and MacArthur, once again...
IMHO...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

First, please get the chip off your shoulder and please stop shouting. We're having a discussion here. There is nothing personal here. I wasn't being patronizing to you. rather, you were slamming the other guy because he never served. I was just pointing out that I had served and that I disagreed with your opinion. Kosolvo and Bosnia were modern wars and they were won entirely with air power. No ground forces were involved until the end of the fighting and only as occupational peacekeeping forces. Even in Desert Storm, by the time the ground forces were involved, the enemy was basically finished. I never said the Korean War would be won solely by air power alone. However, with complete command of the air, the NK army will be crippled in any advance. Size and large number of people does not mean squat in a modern warfare environment. The Israelis proved it in the Arab Israeli wars. Even the Brits defeated a larger Argentinian force in a mountaneous climate of the Falklands. The bottom line is that NKs will lose in a conventional war against the south. That is my point. As for the current administration having the will, remember, they said the same thing of Truman and he did have the will to send troops to Korea. So, please, if you want to discuss, then let's discuss. There is nothing personal here. However, there is no need to shout.

Your conclusion is totally incorrect and just as the other poster can't grasp a tactical situation due to his lack of service, you have a problem because of your branch of service...
This is not a slam, though it sounds like it, I'm sure, it was however, not meant to be...
The U.S.A.F. cannot take and hold the ground, it is not their job to do so and they are not expected to do so...
The whole purpose for the U.S.A.F. in modern conventional war is to prepare the ground, from the air and to reduce the will of the enemy to fight by hitting his strategic areas in his homeland, pure and simple...
They then supply the ground forces with the supplies as needed and support tactically with air power when artillery and Naval bombardment and Marine and Naval air is not available...
The purpose of the Navy and the U.S.C.G., is to clear the seas, strike the enemy's naval forces, prevent the enemy naval forces from attacking U.S. assets, maintain control of the seas and supply the ground forces with supplies, so that they may prosecute the war and when amphibious forces require support and landing to supply the same and maintain positive control of the invasion beaches...
The ground forces that take and hold the ground are the U.S.M.C. and the U.S.A....
The support that cannot be provided by their own assets are provided by the other forces, with the exception of the U.S.M.C., which has a "symbiotic" relationship with the U.S.N....
That is the way that it is, in a conventional war...
Should the war proceed to a global strategic nuclear conflict, then the U.S.A.F. and the U.S.N. becomes the "BIG STICKS" of nuclear conflict...
I have no "chip" on my shoulder, suggest you take your own advice to heart...
Again, that is not meant to be patronizing, though I'm sure that it sounds so...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by AirForceAggie:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:


Well, I will ignore your patronization and reply...
YOU somehow think that I hold the DPRK military in some sort of esteem, I DO NOT!!!...
Secondly, if you think that what happened in Iraq, will happen here, NO IT WON'T!...
IT IS DIFFERENT GROUND!...
Remember this, NO MODERN CONVENTIONAL WAR HAS BEEN WON WITHOUT CONTROL OF THE AIR B-U-T, NO MODERN CONVENTIONAL WAR HAS BEEN WON BY CONTROL OF THE AIR ONLY!!!...
You must take and hold the ground and that is the purpose of the U.S.A.F., U.S.N., U.S.C.G., to prepare the way and support the MAN WITH THE RIFLE!!!...
Unless the war goes nuclear and that will not happen, at least not on the part of the U.S. and THEN, if it IS initiated by the DPRK, which, it might just be, then the administration, MUST HAVE THE WILL TO REPLY IN KIND...
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION HAS THAT WILL!!!...
It will be like Truman and MacArthur, once again...
IMHO...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

First, please get the chip off your shoulder and please stop shouting. We're having a discussion here. There is nothing personal here. I wasn't being patronizing to you. rather, you were slamming the other guy because he never served. I was just pointing out that I had served and that I disagreed with your opinion. Kosolvo and Bosnia were modern wars and they were won entirely with air power. No ground forces were involved until the end of the fighting and only as occupational peacekeeping forces. Even in Desert Storm, by the time the ground forces were involved, the enemy was basically finished. I never said the Korean War would be won solely by air power alone. However, with complete command of the air, the NK army will be crippled in any advance. Size and large number of people does not mean squat in a modern warfare environment. The Israelis proved it in the Arab Israeli wars. Even the Brits defeated a larger Argentinian force in a mountaneous climate of the Falklands. The bottom line is that NKs will lose in a conventional war against the south. That is my point. As for the current administration having the will, remember, they said the same thing of Truman and he did have the will to send troops to Korea. So, please, if you want to discuss, then let's discuss. There is nothing personal here. However, there is no need to shout.

Your conclusion is totally incorrect and just as the other poster can't grasp a tactical situation due to his lack of service, you have a problem because of your branch of service...
This is not a slam, though it sounds like it, I'm sure, it was however, not meant to be...
The U.S.A.F. cannot take and hold the ground, it is not their job to do so and they are not expected to do so...
The whole purpose for the U.S.A.F. in modern conventional war is to prepare the ground, from the air and to reduce the will of the enemy to fight by hitting his strategic areas in his homeland, pure and simple...
They then supply the ground forces with the supplies as needed and support tactically with air power when artillery and Naval bombardment and Marine and Naval air is not available...
The purpose of the Navy and the U.S.C.G., is to clear the seas, strike the enemy's naval forces, prevent the enemy naval forces from attacking U.S. assets, maintain control of the seas and supply the ground forces with supplies, so that they may prosecute the war and when amphibious forces require support and landing to supply the same and maintain positive control of the invasion beaches...
The ground forces that take and hold the ground are the U.S.M.C. and the U.S.A....
The support that cannot be provided by their own assets are provided by the other forces, with the exception of the U.S.M.C., which has a "symbiotic" relationship with the U.S.N....
That is the way that it is, in a conventional war...
Should the war proceed to a global strategic nuclear conflict, then the U.S.A.F. and the U.S.N. becomes the "BIG STICKS" of nuclear conflict...
I have no "chip" on my shoulder, suggest you take your own advice to heart...
Again, that is not meant to be patronizing, though I'm sure that it sounds so...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

It't certainly true that I haven't served, but I know enough to realise that human wave attacks, no matter how dedicated the attacked, went out with WWI.

Now it may be that I know more than you grant me. How much ammunition can an infantryman carry? And how much ammunition can he be supplies with through a border, that is NOT jungle, not desert, but the most observed and targeted border in the history of human warfare?

They are going to be leaving THEIR fortrifications to invade someone elses, and if history is any judge, they are dead meat.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

First, massed formation attacks, DID GO OUT WITH WW-I, then the Imperial Japanese used them in WW-II, i.e. Banzai charges and intended to do so, should the "home islands" be invaded, see their preparations to repel a U.S. invasion of same...
The DPRK used them in their first Korean conflict with the ROK, in 1950-1953...
The DPRK used those tactics through out the war, in all phases of the war, the initial invasion, the repelling of U.N. forces from on the PRC border and in the "hill" phase of the war...
The terrain in the Korean peninsula, where the previous conflict was fought and that this one will be fought, is primarily mountainous and does not lend itself to massed formations of armor and for maneuver and support of same...
The terrain is primarily, infantry terrain, for lack of a better term...
The DPRK has no centralized P.O.L or weapons sites, except for it's nuclear facilities and launch sites, they also have a numerous mobile scud launchers and though it has not been established that the scuds would be nuclear capable, I would err on the side of caution, in such a case...
To answer the "air power" proponents, I would say that the DPRK, cannot be "bombed into the stone age", they are still there and their supply system is or will be, similar to what the north used in Vietnam, i.e., the "Ho Chi Minh trail"...
That is what I believe, "in a nutshell"...
Will we win any conflict with the DPRK?...
Absolutely, given time, support and the will of the American administration and people...
Will we be bloodied?...
I hope not but, unfortunately, I believe that we and the ROK will be, should the conflict that appears to be brewing, happen...
Again, I hope that it does not...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:

Both of those examples (Kosovo and Bosnia) are not correct. There were ground forces involved in both of them, just not US forces. Kosovo had the KLA and Bosnia had the Bosnian and Croatian forces. Allied Force appeared to do massive damage to the Serbs, but later it was discovered many of the targets destroyed were decoys. Plus the Serbs with 60s and 70s technology were able to detect and shoot down an F-117. Desert Storm is a horrible example since Iraqi forces were concentrated in open desert positions and just sat there during the air campaign. Iraq allowed us to build up our forces for 6 months with no response, N Korea would not do that.

Massed armor formations make an easy target, dispersed infantry does not.

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

Your conclusion is totally incorrect and just as the other poster can't grasp a tactical situation due to his lack of service, you have a problem because of your branch of service...
This is not a slam, though it sounds like it, I'm sure, it was however, not meant to be...
The U.S.A.F. cannot take and hold the ground, it is not their job to do so and they are not expected to do so...
The whole purpose for the U.S.A.F. in modern conventional war is to prepare the ground, from the air and to reduce the will of the enemy to fight by hitting his strategic areas in his homeland, pure and simple...
They then supply the ground forces with the supplies as needed and support tactically with air power when artillery and Naval bombardment and Marine and Naval air is not available...
The purpose of the Navy and the U.S.C.G., is to clear the seas, strike the enemy's naval forces, prevent the enemy naval forces from attacking U.S. assets, maintain control of the seas and supply the ground forces with supplies, so that they may prosecute the war and when amphibious forces require support and landing to supply the same and maintain positive control of the invasion beaches...
The ground forces that take and hold the ground are the U.S.M.C. and the U.S.A....
The support that cannot be provided by their own assets are provided by the other forces, with the exception of the U.S.M.C., which has a "symbiotic" relationship with the U.S.N....
That is the way that it is, in a conventional war...
Should the war proceed to a global strategic nuclear conflict, then the U.S.A.F. and the U.S.N. becomes the "BIG STICKS" of nuclear conflict...
I have no "chip" on my shoulder, suggest you take your own advice to heart...
Again, that is not meant to be patronizing, though I'm sure that it sounds so...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

Originally posted by AirForceAggie:

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:

Both of those examples (Kosovo and Bosnia) are not correct. There were ground forces involved in both of them, just not US forces. Kosovo had the KLA and Bosnia had the Bosnian and Croatian forces. Allied Force appeared to do massive damage to the Serbs, but later it was discovered many of the targets destroyed were decoys. Plus the Serbs with 60s and 70s technology were able to detect and shoot down an F-117. Desert Storm is a horrible example since Iraqi forces were concentrated in open desert positions and just sat there during the air campaign. Iraq allowed us to build up our forces for 6 months with no response, N Korea would not do that.

Massed armor formations make an easy target, dispersed infantry does not.

The ground forces in both cases were neglible. The KLA basically had small arms and no heavy weapons to speak of. The only ground forces in that campaign to speak of were Allied special forces calling air strikes. Before that, the KLA was pretty much routed by the Serbs. The terrain there is just as mountainous as Korea. The same with Bosnia. The Bosnian Army had no heavy weapons to speak of to deal with the Serb Armor. Even though there were many targets that were decoyed, there were enough destroyed that the Serbs came to the tables twice. As for the f-117, it wasn't because the Serbs defeated the stealth technology as you are implying. It was the magic bb that got the bird. If you throw up enough lead into the sky, on occasion, one will hit the aircraft and that is what happened to the F-117. Even durint Desert Storm, there were Allied aircraft that suffered the same fate. In both cases, it didn't stop the allied air offensive and neither would the NKs. Finally, the Korean border does not allow for dispersed infantry. To be effective in assaulting the fortified positions of SK and American positions, it will take mass infantry assaults to knock them out. Where you have mass infantry, you have cluster bombs and artillery to kill them.

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by Thud357L:
Sunliner, what makes you think that President Obama is a sugar butt wimp?

Before his two terms are over I believe he will have kicked more azz than Bush. The main difference will be that he will be decisive and he will win his fights and he won't crow about it. Just business as usual.

The main reason he will win is because he actually respects his military and listens to their advice. The pro's know what they are doing and a smart leader gives the pro's what they need and then takes the credit for being smart enough to give the pro's what they need.

The prior admin's M.O was to not to listen to the military, not give them what they needed and to point fingers at them after their bumbling leadership failed. Obama is too smart for that.

First, by your reference to Bush in your post, you presuppose that I'm a "bushie", I AM NOT!...
I didn't agree with Bush's policies on anything and I made that completely clear, I only supported his statement, that "We must win the global war on terror!", nothing else!...
Now, as to your second assumption, Obama listens to no one, he does what he thinks is right, irrespective of whether is is or not, that is his style of management, i.e., see how he tried to ram "cap and trade" through...
Though it is not required for a President to have military service, Obama has none and per the typical actions of most, if not all democratic administrations, he has a tendency to want to cut the military, to use the money for "social programs", this in and of itself, is not wrong, I am just noting the trait of most democratic administrations...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:

Maybe not, the Germans broke through Belgian lines in 1940 with a very small contingent of troops. With Allied Force the military losses had little effect on the Serbs, only once attacks were made on infrastructure and the threat of ground forces seemed very possible did the Serbs come to the table.

Air superiority is a powerful tool, and there is no doubt the North Korean air force which is mainly equiped with MiG-21s would be swept from the sky.

In the end we would win, but faced with thousands of artilley pieces and SRBMs it would be a very costly war. I don't think there is a quick win with North Korea, and I certainly don't want to find out.

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

First, massed formation attacks, DID GO OUT WITH WW-I, then the Imperial Japanese used them in WW-II, i.e. Banzai charges and intended to do so, should the "home islands" be invaded, see their preparations to repel a U.S. invasion of same...
The DPRK used them in their first Korean conflict with the ROK, in 1950-1953...
The DPRK used those tactics through out the war, in all phases of the war, the initial invasion, the repelling of U.N. forces from on the PRC border and in the "hill" phase of the war...
The terrain in the Korean peninsula, where the previous conflict was fought and that this one will be fought, is primarily mountainous and does not lend itself to massed formations of armor and for maneuver and support of same...
The terrain is primarily, infantry terrain, for lack of a better term...
The DPRK has no centralized P.O.L or weapons sites, except for it's nuclear facilities and launch sites, they also have a numerous mobile scud launchers and though it has not been established that the scuds would be nuclear capable, I would err on the side of caution, in such a case...
To answer the "air power" proponents, I would say that the DPRK, cannot be "bombed into the stone age", they are still there and their supply system is or will be, similar to what the north used in Vietnam, i.e., the "Ho Chi Minh trail"...
That is what I believe, "in a nutshell"...
Will we win any conflict with the DPRK?...
Absolutely, given time, support and the will of the American administration and people...
Will we be bloodied?...
I hope not but, unfortunately, I believe that we and the ROK will be, should the conflict that appears to be brewing, happen...
Again, I hope that it does not...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

Sunliner in 1950 there were no fortrifications. Today is 56 years later, and if the North wants a war, they are going to have to go through 56 years of work. They are not going to be able to chug through the mountains, they are not going to ambush us as Choison.

And in a war of fortrifications, a couple of hundred yards, and you've reached your supply line limit. There are no handy jungles in the demilitirised zone to hide in. There are no obscure mountain trails. This is the most mapped and observed place on earth.

It's a human created labyrynth of hell.

I would like Obama to force the issue ASAP, because if the, to quote your complimentary expression, "little pot bellied pig" has the time to create nuclear weapons, it's going to be really rough. Tough as it will be, and I don't doubt that part of your observations, it will get a lot tougher later on.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by AirForceAggie:

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:

Both of those examples (Kosovo and Bosnia) are not correct. There were ground forces involved in both of them, just not US forces. Kosovo had the KLA and Bosnia had the Bosnian and Croatian forces. Allied Force appeared to do massive damage to the Serbs, but later it was discovered many of the targets destroyed were decoys. Plus the Serbs with 60s and 70s technology were able to detect and shoot down an F-117. Desert Storm is a horrible example since Iraqi forces were concentrated in open desert positions and just sat there during the air campaign. Iraq allowed us to build up our forces for 6 months with no response, N Korea would not do that.

Massed armor formations make an easy target, dispersed infantry does not.

The ground forces in both cases were neglible. The KLA basically had small arms and no heavy weapons to speak of. The only ground forces in that campaign to speak of were Allied special forces calling air strikes. Before that, the KLA was pretty much routed by the Serbs. The terrain there is just as mountainous as Korea. The same with Bosnia. The Bosnian Army had no heavy weapons to speak of to deal with the Serb Armor. Even though there were many targets that were decoyed, there were enough destroyed that the Serbs came to the tables twice. As for the f-117, it wasn't because the Serbs defeated the stealth technology as you are implying. It was the magic bb that got the bird. If you throw up enough lead into the sky, on occasion, one will hit the aircraft and that is what happened to the F-117. Even durint Desert Storm, there were Allied aircraft that suffered the same fate. In both cases, it didn't stop the allied air offensive and neither would the NKs. Finally, the Korean border does not allow for dispersed infantry. To be effective in assaulting the fortified positions of SK and American positions, it will take mass infantry assaults to knock them out. Where you have mass infantry, you have cluster bombs and artillery to kill them.

quote:

Originally posted by AirForceAggie:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

Your conclusion is totally incorrect and just as the other poster can't grasp a tactical situation due to his lack of service, you have a problem because of your branch of service...
This is not a slam, though it sounds like it, I'm sure, it was however, not meant to be...
The U.S.A.F. cannot take and hold the ground, it is not their job to do so and they are not expected to do so...
The whole purpose for the U.S.A.F. in modern conventional war is to prepare the ground, from the air and to reduce the will of the enemy to fight by hitting his strategic areas in his homeland, pure and simple...
They then supply the ground forces with the supplies as needed and support tactically with air power when artillery and Naval bombardment and Marine and Naval air is not available...
The purpose of the Navy and the U.S.C.G., is to clear the seas, strike the enemy's naval forces, prevent the enemy naval forces from attacking U.S. assets, maintain control of the seas and supply the ground forces with supplies, so that they may prosecute the war and when amphibious forces require support and landing to supply the same and maintain positive control of the invasion beaches...
The ground forces that take and hold the ground are the U.S.M.C. and the U.S.A....
The support that cannot be provided by their own assets are provided by the other forces, with the exception of the U.S.M.C., which has a "symbiotic" relationship with the U.S.N....
That is the way that it is, in a conventional war...
Should the war proceed to a global strategic nuclear conflict, then the U.S.A.F. and the U.S.N. becomes the "BIG STICKS" of nuclear conflict...
I have no "chip" on my shoulder, suggest you take your own advice to heart...
Again, that is not meant to be patronizing, though I'm sure that it sounds so...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

You forget, I was an enlisted cav scout in the Army before I was an Air Force officer. In addition, I was on the tactical side of the AF being a glcm officer. As such, I am very much aware of what land forces are capable of. As I mentioned before, I don't believe that Korea will be won entirely by the air. However, you can't deny that the ROKs and the USAF can't achieve total air superiority. Throughout history, no military that has had total air superiority has lost militarily. That is my point and you have yet to disprove that point.

quote:

Originally posted by Thud357L:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by Thud357L:
Sunliner, what makes you think that President Obama is a sugar butt wimp?

Before his two terms are over I believe he will have kicked more azz than Bush. The main difference will be that he will be decisive and he will win his fights and he won't crow about it. Just business as usual.

The main reason he will win is because he actually respects his military and listens to their advice. The pro's know what they are doing and a smart leader gives the pro's what they need and then takes the credit for being smart enough to give the pro's what they need.

The prior admin's M.O was to not to listen to the military, not give them what they needed and to point fingers at them after their bumbling leadership failed. Obama is too smart for that.

First, by your reference to Bush in your post, you presuppose that I'm a "bushie", I AM NOT!...
I didn't agree with Bush's policies on anything and I made that completely clear, I only supported his statement, that "We must win the global war on terror!", nothing else!...
Now, as to your second assumption, Obama listens to no one, he does what he thinks is right, irrespective of whether is is or not, that is his style of management, i.e., see how he tried to ram "cap and trade" through...
Though it is not required for a President to have military service, Obama has none and per the typical actions of most, if not all democratic administrations, he has a tendency to want to cut the military, to use the money for "social programs", this in and of itself, is not wrong, I am just noting the trait of most democratic administrations...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

Naw, you're jumping to a conclusion, I'm not casting you as a Bushie, I'm just pointing out differences that I see.

Domestic legislation and foriegn policy are different agendas. All evidence supports the fact that he does listen to his military and calls upon the best talent rather than partisan yes men.

Sure he's cutting the military budget, he has to, but he's making intelligent choices and putting the money where we need it for our present conflicts at the expense of what we may need in future conflicts.

Prior service for a President has absolutely no bearing. It's about intelligence and temperament. That's why he makes a better CIC than John McCain. Not saying McCain doesn't have the intelligence but he is totally lacking in temperament.

quote:

Originally posted by AirForceAggie:

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:

Maybe not, the Germans broke through Belgian lines in 1940 with a very small contingent of troops. With Allied Force the military losses had little effect on the Serbs, only once attacks were made on infrastructure and the threat of ground forces seemed very possible did the Serbs come to the table.

Air superiority is a powerful tool, and there is no doubt the North Korean air force which is mainly equiped with MiG-21s would be swept from the sky.

In the end we would win, but faced with thousands of artilley pieces and SRBMs it would be a very costly war. I don't think there is a quick win with North Korea, and I certainly don't want to find out.

On your last point, I agree with you. A war won't be an easy win with NK. I fully agree that they are a tough and determined foe. However, my contention all along is that we will have air superiority. With air superiority, our ground forces will prevail.

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by Thud357L:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by Thud357L:
Sunliner, what makes you think that President Obama is a sugar butt wimp?

Before his two terms are over I believe he will have kicked more azz than Bush. The main difference will be that he will be decisive and he will win his fights and he won't crow about it. Just business as usual.

The main reason he will win is because he actually respects his military and listens to their advice. The pro's know what they are doing and a smart leader gives the pro's what they need and then takes the credit for being smart enough to give the pro's what they need.

The prior admin's M.O was to not to listen to the military, not give them what they needed and to point fingers at them after their bumbling leadership failed. Obama is too smart for that.

First, by your reference to Bush in your post, you presuppose that I'm a "bushie", I AM NOT!...
I didn't agree with Bush's policies on anything and I made that completely clear, I only supported his statement, that "We must win the global war on terror!", nothing else!...
Now, as to your second assumption, Obama listens to no one, he does what he thinks is right, irrespective of whether is is or not, that is his style of management, i.e., see how he tried to ram "cap and trade" through...
Though it is not required for a President to have military service, Obama has none and per the typical actions of most, if not all democratic administrations, he has a tendency to want to cut the military, to use the money for "social programs", this in and of itself, is not wrong, I am just noting the trait of most democratic administrations...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

Naw, you're jumping to a conclusion, I'm not casting you as a Bushie, I'm just pointing out differences that I see.

Domestic legislation and foriegn policy are different agendas. All evidence supports the fact that he does listen to his military and calls upon the best talent rather than partisan yes men.

Sure he's cutting the military budget, he has to, but he's making intelligent choices and putting the money where we need it for our present conflicts at the expense of what we may need in future conflicts.

Prior service for a President has absolutely no bearing. It's about intelligence and temperament. That's why he makes a better CIC than John McCain. Not saying McCain doesn't have the intelligence but he is totally lacking in temperament.

Don't know where to start with what you posted, so I won't...
President Obama's attitude is self evident and if someone can't see it, they are still operating on, "He's my guy and everyone else be d@mned!", not saying you are but, that is the attitude that some have...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

Originally posted by Thud357L:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by Thud357L:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by Thud357L:
Sunliner, what makes you think that President Obama is a sugar butt wimp?

Before his two terms are over I believe he will have kicked more azz than Bush. The main difference will be that he will be decisive and he will win his fights and he won't crow about it. Just business as usual.

The main reason he will win is because he actually respects his military and listens to their advice. The pro's know what they are doing and a smart leader gives the pro's what they need and then takes the credit for being smart enough to give the pro's what they need.

The prior admin's M.O was to not to listen to the military, not give them what they needed and to point fingers at them after their bumbling leadership failed. Obama is too smart for that.

First, by your reference to Bush in your post, you presuppose that I'm a "bushie", I AM NOT!...
I didn't agree with Bush's policies on anything and I made that completely clear, I only supported his statement, that "We must win the global war on terror!", nothing else!...
Now, as to your second assumption, Obama listens to no one, he does what he thinks is right, irrespective of whether is is or not, that is his style of management, i.e., see how he tried to ram "cap and trade" through...
Though it is not required for a President to have military service, Obama has none and per the typical actions of most, if not all democratic administrations, he has a tendency to want to cut the military, to use the money for "social programs", this in and of itself, is not wrong, I am just noting the trait of most democratic administrations...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

Naw, you're jumping to a conclusion, I'm not casting you as a Bushie, I'm just pointing out differences that I see.

Domestic legislation and foriegn policy are different agendas. All evidence supports the fact that he does listen to his military and calls upon the best talent rather than partisan yes men.

Sure he's cutting the military budget, he has to, but he's making intelligent choices and putting the money where we need it for our present conflicts at the expense of what we may need in future conflicts.

Prior service for a President has absolutely no bearing. It's about intelligence and temperament. That's why he makes a better CIC than John McCain. Not saying McCain doesn't have the intelligence but he is totally lacking in temperament.

Don't know where to start with what you posted, so I won't...
President Obama's attitude is self evident and if someone can't see it, they are still operating on, "He's my guy and everyone else be d@mned!", not saying you are but, that is the attitude that some have...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

Now you're blowing smoke. You're talking about a "self evident attitude". You could give an example that illustrates that "he listens to no one". I think there is a reason he has chosen cabinet members from the left and the right. The inside scoop is that he listens to everyone and encourages the reticent to speak up. Or do you think this is all just for show and that he has his mind made up before he goes in? The past President surrounded himself with like minded yes men and those that had a differing opinion were summarily dismissed. That evidence is hard and inescapable. President Obama sees the pitfalls of that and has decided that better decisions can be made when one considers different POV's. I feel the same. So far he's pizzed off the right, the left and the center on various policy decisions. That's what pragmatists tend to do. That works for me.

I'll respect your opinion but it just doesn't hold water.

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

Then why should I express it?...
What Obama does is self evident...
Next...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

Originally posted by AirForceAggie:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

Then why should I express it?...
What Obama does is self evident...
Next...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

How about we put the Obama discussion to another thread and keep this one on Korea?

quote:

Originally posted by Canuck_Centaur:
This is an updated thread. Please scroll down and go to the last page for the latest update.

And here we go again:

++http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090611/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_nkorea_nuclear

quote:

AP source: NKorea may be prepping new nuclear test

23 mins ago
WASHINGTON – A U.S. government official says North Korea may be preparing for its third nuclear test as the United Nations considers new sanctions on the dictatorship for conducting an underground nuclear explosion in May. Word of a possible new test comes from an official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the information publicly.

North Korea conducted an underground explosion on May 25, its first since a 2006 atomic test.

A draft U.N. resolution proposed Wednesday would impose tough sanctions on North Korea's weapons exports and financial dealings and allow inspections of suspect cargo in ports and on the high seas. North Korea has threatened to retaliate if new sanctions are adopted...