Korea
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-07-2017, 11:42 AM
RE: Korea
(05-07-2017 10:06 AM)yakherder Wrote:  
(04-07-2017 08:34 PM)Stevil Wrote:  How come USA get to have long range missiles and other countries don't?

If USA initiates a strike against North Korea, well, as much as I don't like the NK regime, I'd be supporting NK on this one.

Are all repubicans Gung Ho?

Fairness is an irrational concept. You want those whose interests are in line with yours to have leverage over those whose interests are not, whether that leverage comes in the form of military might, economic domination, or control of resources that could either benefit or be used against you.
Sure, but on an international scene, the world doesn't take too well to aggressors. Are we to take NK's development of rockets as aggression or USA's blustering in reaction to NK's development of rockets as aggression?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 11:45 AM
RE: Korea
(05-07-2017 09:12 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(04-07-2017 08:34 PM)Stevil Wrote:  How come USA get to have long range missiles and other countries don't?

If USA initiates a strike against North Korea, well, as much as I don't like the NK regime, I'd be supporting NK on this one.

Are all repubicans Gung Ho?

Aye. Republicans join the military 2 to 1 over democrats. The U.S. Military is about 25% democrat, 50% Republican and 25% right leaning independent.

We are not afraid to fight.
Oh, I don't think its about fear. I'm not afraid to go out in public without a gun.

It seems to me that many republicans are just busting to get into a fight. Like they are either angry at something or feel some need to prove themselves, how manly they are.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Stevil's post
05-07-2017, 12:15 PM
RE: Korea
(05-07-2017 09:12 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Aye. Republicans join the military 2 to 1 over democrats. The U.S. Military is about 25% democrat, 50% Republican and 25% right leaning independent.

We are not afraid to fight.

Where are you getting those numbers? When I was active duty, there was no way for anyone to know, or poll, military people to get their political opinions. Religion is reasonably straightforward, as is is listed in our personnel files. Political affiliations or leanings were highly discouraged from being discussed, and not allowed on any census of (active duty) military personnel. So no one, not even the people at the top, could answer a question about how military people voted, or party preferences, or opinions on anything political. As it should be. The closest thing I ever saw to a logical, (possibly) statistically valid study was done by looking at the Home of Record listed for each person and cross-referencing it with percentage of party affiliations in that area. And that was pretty inconclusive, though a slightly higher rate of enlistees had HoRs in rural Southern areas that generally lean right. I can think of a whole string of reasons why such "supposed correlation" of HoS and politics could be invalid.

I've been retired for a while, so maybe something has changed, or someone has found a way to get valid data on military members. If so, I haven't seen it - but it's not like I see every news item on the military. I do know that a lot of Talking Heads think it is "common knowledge" that the military is more right-leaning, but they appear to be pulling it out of their asses, because they can show no valid data to support their "everyone knows" idea.

TL;DR: As far as I know, no one, including me, knows the political leanings of the active duty military.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like Rockblossom's post
05-07-2017, 12:34 PM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2017 12:41 PM by yakherder.)
RE: Korea
(05-07-2017 11:42 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-07-2017 10:06 AM)yakherder Wrote:  Fairness is an irrational concept. You want those whose interests are in line with yours to have leverage over those whose interests are not, whether that leverage comes in the form of military might, economic domination, or control of resources that could either benefit or be used against you.
Sure, but on an international scene, the world doesn't take too well to aggressors. Are we to take NK's development of rockets as aggression or USA's blustering in reaction to NK's development of rockets as aggression?

I would define both as acts of aggression and base my approval or disapproval on which country or alliance would benefit me, those I care about, or my own allies were it to have the leverage to attempt to impose its will. That will could range from trade route control to anti climate change initiatives. While the current administration isn't necessarily pushing for such initiatives, the US government is more likely to change hands than the North Korean government in the near future. In addition, despite recent politics, the Commonwealth, the European Union (excluding perhaps Bulgaria), and the US are still more mutually dependent on each other than they are on the intentions of North Korea and its assumed allies. Our interests would therefore be more attainable without having a nuclear capable North Korea as part of the global equation.

Aggression in and of itself is neither good nor bad, and the intentions of those utilizing aggression as a tool are generally a mix of both. Weigh those objectives and take your pick.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 01:06 PM
RE: Korea
(05-07-2017 12:15 PM)Rockblossom Wrote:  
(05-07-2017 09:12 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Aye. Republicans join the military 2 to 1 over democrats. The U.S. Military is about 25% democrat, 50% Republican and 25% right leaning independent.

We are not afraid to fight.

Where are you getting those numbers? When I was active duty, there was no way for anyone to know, or poll, military people to get their political opinions. Religion is reasonably straightforward, as is is listed in our personnel files. Political affiliations or leanings were highly discouraged from being discussed, and not allowed on any census of (active duty) military personnel. So no one, not even the people at the top, could answer a question about how military people voted, or party preferences, or opinions on anything political. As it should be. The closest thing I ever saw to a logical, (possibly) statistically valid study was done by looking at the Home of Record listed for each person and cross-referencing it with percentage of party affiliations in that area. And that was pretty inconclusive, though a slightly higher rate of enlistees had HoRs in rural Southern areas that generally lean right. I can think of a whole string of reasons why such "supposed correlation" of HoS and politics could be invalid.

I've been retired for a while, so maybe something has changed, or someone has found a way to get valid data on military members. If so, I haven't seen it - but it's not like I see every news item on the military. I do know that a lot of Talking Heads think it is "common knowledge" that the military is more right-leaning, but they appear to be pulling it out of their asses, because they can show no valid data to support their "everyone knows" idea.

TL;DR: As far as I know, no one, including me, knows the political leanings of the active duty military.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-fe...le/2578367
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118684/milita...lican.aspx
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/milit.../84132402/

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 01:09 PM
RE: Korea
(05-07-2017 12:34 PM)yakherder Wrote:  
(05-07-2017 11:42 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Sure, but on an international scene, the world doesn't take too well to aggressors. Are we to take NK's development of rockets as aggression or USA's blustering in reaction to NK's development of rockets as aggression?

I would define both as acts of aggression and base my approval or disapproval on which country or alliance would benefit me, those I care about, or my own allies were it to have the leverage to attempt to impose its will. That will could range from trade route control to anti climate change initiatives. While the current administration isn't necessarily pushing for such initiatives, the US government is more likely to change hands than the North Korean government in the near future. In addition, despite recent politics, the Commonwealth, the European Union (excluding perhaps Bulgaria), and the US are still more mutually dependent on each other than they are on the intentions of North Korea and its assumed allies. Our interests would therefore be more attainable without having a nuclear capable North Korea as part of the global equation.

Aggression in and of itself is neither good nor bad, and the intentions of those utilizing aggression as a tool are generally a mix of both. Weigh those objectives and take your pick.
Well, USA are going on a "America first" policy, pulling out of global trade agreements, out of Environmental protection agreements, actively criticising their allies. This country which gets all bolshy about other countries owning WMD or ICBMs, this country which has far more ICBMS and nukes than the rest of the world combined. USA pulled out of a defense pact with NZ, disbanning ANZUS because NZ chose to go nuclear free. Downgrading us from allies to "friendlies".

Are we to support USA in military confrontation with NK? Seems we have much more to gain economically from aligning ourselves with China and UK. We are an export driven nation, we need to survive on foreign trade.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
05-07-2017, 01:28 PM
RE: Korea
(05-07-2017 01:06 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-fe...le/2578367
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118684/milita...lican.aspx
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/milit.../84132402/

Interesting articles, though the Gallop one is probably the only one with any statistical validity. I don't know much about the first paper, but the Military Times does online polls of its readers that are "at will" - and are simply ignored by most people. I certainly never answer them. And there's no requirement to be military or a veteran to subscribe to MT or any of its service specific papers. I don't know what percentage of the subscribers are military or veterans, so I don't know what any of their poll numbers mean, really.

So how does this:
[Image: e4cizu5dik2f7tehmug5gw.gif]
align with your views of the military and politics? (And I'm really asking, not trying to make any specific point.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rockblossom's post
05-07-2017, 01:37 PM
RE: Korea
(04-07-2017 06:51 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Do sanctions even work against NK? The countries so poor and dominated by the ruling elite that I would think all it would do is make the regular people suffer more. Not that the ruling elite seem to give a shit about that.

A solution, to avoid war, might be too support/fund a coup to form a government that's much more willing to talks.

Yeah - we do so good with "regime change."



Meanwhile, this is the reality the world faces.

[Image: 2shitheads.jpg]

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
05-07-2017, 01:42 PM
RE: Korea
(05-07-2017 01:09 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-07-2017 12:34 PM)yakherder Wrote:  I would define both as acts of aggression and base my approval or disapproval on which country or alliance would benefit me, those I care about, or my own allies were it to have the leverage to attempt to impose its will. That will could range from trade route control to anti climate change initiatives. While the current administration isn't necessarily pushing for such initiatives, the US government is more likely to change hands than the North Korean government in the near future. In addition, despite recent politics, the Commonwealth, the European Union (excluding perhaps Bulgaria), and the US are still more mutually dependent on each other than they are on the intentions of North Korea and its assumed allies. Our interests would therefore be more attainable without having a nuclear capable North Korea as part of the global equation.

Aggression in and of itself is neither good nor bad, and the intentions of those utilizing aggression as a tool are generally a mix of both. Weigh those objectives and take your pick.
Well, USA are going on a "America first" policy, pulling out of global trade agreements, out of Environmental protection agreements, actively criticising their allies. This country which gets all bolshy about other countries owning WMD or ICBMs, this country which has far more ICBMS and nukes than the rest of the world combined. USA pulled out of a defense pact with NZ, disbanning ANZUS because NZ chose to go nuclear free. Downgrading us from allies to "friendlies".

Are we to support USA in military confrontation with NK? Seems we have much more to gain economically from aligning ourselves with China and UK. We are an export driven nation, we need to survive on foreign trade.

The current administration in the US will eventually end. China is merely taking advantage of the current situation.

In any case, I'm not worried about China. For previously mentioned reasons, I can benefit personally from a strengthened China and, while I don't believe for a second that most of China's leadership gives half a shit about the environment, they're tactical minded enough to realize that playing the game to impress the word benefits them more economically than trashing the environment to cut costs.

It's North Korea and their increasing level of cooperation with Russia that is an issue, given that the only failed solutions accepted by the increasingly soft and complacent global organizations attempting to control their actions are begging and more sanctions.

Whether you position yourself to feed off the global leverage imposed by the US or China, you'll be competing with an increasingly influential counter alliance that will hinder your ability to achieve your objectives, whatever they might be.

Personally I wish China would invade North Korea, thereby cutting off Russia from direct access and forcing us to turn our attention elsewhere.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes yakherder's post
05-07-2017, 01:47 PM
RE: Korea
(05-07-2017 01:37 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
(04-07-2017 06:51 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Do sanctions even work against NK? The countries so poor and dominated by the ruling elite that I would think all it would do is make the regular people suffer more. Not that the ruling elite seem to give a shit about that.

A solution, to avoid war, might be too support/fund a coup to form a government that's much more willing to talks.

Yeah - we do so good with "regime change."



Meanwhile, this is the reality the world faces.

[Image: 2shitheads.jpg]

And besides, proxy wars are more of a Hillary thing. Trump isn't subtle enough for that kind of tactic. He prefers strategies he can tweet about.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes yakherder's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: