What I worry about is how North Korea might handle a complete breakdown internally. All it would take at this point is one failed harvest and they are going to be in a world of hurt. If their people become so hungry that they lose fear of the government. They might turn on it figuring they are going to starve anyway so what is the government going to do, kill them?
How would the government react to that? Would they "punch out" in a blaze of glory going down in a nuclear war rather than go out as an utter and complete failure?Comment Posted By crosspatch On 5.07.2006 @ 14:59
Kerry is to politics what an "ambulance chaser" is to law practice. He finds an issue and injects himself into the center of it for personal profit. He did it with Vietnam, he did it with US support for anti-Sandanistas (Contras)in Nicaragua and he is doing it now.
I think he graduated from the Jessie Jackson Limelight Acadamy.Comment Posted By crosspatch On 29.06.2006 @ 23:24
I hope this amendment goes up in flames (pun intended). This isnâ€™t a conservative agenda. This is a Republican agenda.
So, where does one register for The Conservative Party ?Comment Posted By crosspatch On 27.06.2006 @ 18:37
I see flag burning as grave desicration. And I agree with Sphincter on the issue that it is designed to hurt. It is designed to push emotional buttons and is quite effective at pushing mine. That flag is all many have left of a loved one. To burn that flag is to pee on the graves on people's friends and family who died defending their community and other people such as JFK who have inpired this country in great deeds (Kennedy inspired us to reach for the moon).
Maybe when that flag no longer drapes the caskets of our heroes, you can convince me. In the meantime, burning a flag is a slap at everyone who has one of those pieces of cloth in a tri-corner frame somewhere in their home reminding them of a loved one.Comment Posted By crosspatch On 27.06.2006 @ 14:38
I am all for pulling their press credential. The criteria for a Pentagon press pass is to pass a background security check. I don't see how any employee of the NYT could pass a security check at this point.Comment Posted By crosspatch On 27.06.2006 @ 14:46
I continue to believe that the most important step in national reconciliation is the death of Saddam. I say this for reasons that more more cultural than anything else.
Many of the Baathist leadership have pledged their loyalty to Saddam. They cannot recognize the current government as long as Saddam lives. While it is true that his is an obviously lost cause, there is more cultural dishonor in abandoning one's oath of loyalty than there is in resisting even one's own tribal leadership in support of a new government. While the resistance to one's tribal leadership in support of the government is certainly viewed with disappointment, it is understandable and accepted as a sad reality which is better than dishonoring one's tribe by going back on one's loyalty.
With Saddam out of the picture, leading members of the insurgency would then be free to cast their lot with their tribal leadership and come to some agreement with the government. Until that happens, many have no other choice but to continue to resist.
Step two in the healing of Iraq (after the formation of the government, which is now complete) must be the dispatch of Saddam Hussein. Until then, we are peeing into the wind.Comment Posted By crosspatch On 24.06.2006 @ 19:17
While I certainly agree that we need to stem those leaks, there is a larger issue. The issue is one of responsibility we as members of a community have to protect each other to the extent that we can. When, for example, the NYT publishes timetables and troop deployment plans, it places Americans in danger.
Let me put it a different way. If a relative or friend of mine gave me classified information and I posted it on the Internet, could I get away with it? Somehow I doubt it. The idea seems to be that it doesn't so much matter who leaks it as it seems to matter who it is leaked to which seems somehow goofy to me.Comment Posted By crosspatch On 24.06.2006 @ 20:15
Don't look now but the NYT just did it again. Noticed a posting pointing to this article over at Sweetness & Light.
A report on the contents of a classified briefing by General Casey on troop drawdown plans in Iraq.
NOW I am REALLY getting angry.Comment Posted By crosspatch On 24.06.2006 @ 19:25
The problem with NOT going against them legally is that there sseems to be no other way to dissuade publication of such materials.
Imagine if the public reaction against them was as stong as the reaction they helped precipitate against the government during the Vietnam era. Imagine marches, people ripping out Times boxes, setting bundles of The Times alight, marching to the headquarters, damaging the vehicles of the employees ...
See? We are a long long way from the people taking the kind of action against the Times that they would want to precipitate against our government. But if it ever gets so bad that ordinary moms and dads (as opposed to people who protest as a hobby or for a living) take to the streets and announce they have had enough, Lord help them.Comment Posted By crosspatch On 24.06.2006 @ 18:08
My only point of contention with the White House and the Republican Congress, and I guess with you and other conservative bloggers, is the lack of specificity of a stated specific goal for victory in Iraq.
I will speak for myself and say that when the government of Iraq is able to assume the security situation in all provinces and informs us that the last of our troops are no longer needed, the victory has been won.
That process started today when Iraq assumed 100% control of Muthanna province and we announced that ALL multinational forces were being redeployed out of the province. Province by province, Iraq will take control of the situation and we will no longer be needed.Comment Posted By crosspatch On 23.06.2006 @ 01:50