VABills Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 Just because a defense scenerio is drawn up doesn't me it will be executed. There are thousand of predefined plans for various scenerios all with one to many options available to the leadership. So basically if something happens, the President is given 10 different options, and him and the advisors will decide which to execute. Hell the President probably isn't aware of most scenerio/option sets.
UConn James Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 Yup. I'd be pretty damn worried if the military didn't have those types of contingency 'If X does this, we do this' plans. Doesn't mean it will happen, just a bunch of different scenarios for the sitting president to pick from after getting advice from his JC (On Edit: these initials do not stand for Jesus Christ). Maybe I'll just stay mum as to whether this admin had any of these in Gulf II.... Kim Jong-Il, however, will undoubtedly spin this to his people that the US was GOING to nuke them in '98 but that he somehow averted this catastrophy. They therefore must give their further allegience to him and continue to fund his paranoid military build-up, including his own somewhat-limited nuclear capability, while his people starve. That piece on "60 Minutes" last year was just chilling as to what they're indoctrinating the youth with. We can only hope that his govt implodes of its own weight soon b/c whatever we're doing isn't working.
KRC Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 Bill and Uconn James are correct about the different scenarios. You need to have plans for every scenario. This plan has been around since 1973, and is regularly updated. From what I understand, mentioning details of a plan, along with mentioning the plan number is classified. This does not add up, that the goverment would declassify this information. As far as Uconn James' points about the DPRK using this for rhetroic, they have been using this as rhetoric since 1998, when the plan was leaked to the press.
ASCI Posted November 8, 2004 Author Posted November 8, 2004 The declassified documents also said the U.S. had kept nuclear weaponry in South Korea until at least 1998, despite officially claiming it had withdrawn all nuclear warheads in 1991. I don't know, but it looks to me more then just one of many possible scenarios. Looks more like an operational counter-strike.
Dave in VA Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 Why did you title the original post (You go Bill, hero of the left) as you did? It appears to be some attempt to mock (?) action that transpired under the Clinton regime, yet if you read the article, it clearly warns that the Bush admin would do the same or more ("The report also came amid concerns that President George Bush will take a tougher stance with North Korea during his second term.") Just curious why you apply a double standard.
ASCI Posted November 8, 2004 Author Posted November 8, 2004 Why did you title the original post (You go Bill, hero of the left) as you did? It appears to be some attempt to mock (?) action that transpired under the Clinton regime, yet if you read the article, it clearly warns that the Bush admin would do the same or more ("The report also came amid concerns that President George Bush will take a tougher stance with North Korea during his second term.") Just curious why you apply a double standard. 107527[/snapback] That’s just my point; it’s a double standard. It's ok if a liberal president is tough and uses nukes as a possible solution as long as he "feels our pain", but not a conservative president because he's wrong minded on the issues and also just looking to enrich his oil buddies some how.
VABills Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 That’s just my point; it’s a double standard. It's ok if a liberal president is tough and uses nukes as a possible solution as long as he "feels our pain", but not a conservative president because he's wrong minded on the issues and also just looking to enrich his oil buddies some how. 107639[/snapback] There's oil in North Korea?
Campy Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 That’s just my point; it’s a double standard. It's ok if a liberal president is tough and uses nukes as a possible solution as long as he "feels our pain", but not a conservative president because he's wrong minded on the issues and also just looking to enrich his oil buddies some how. 107639[/snapback] Let it go man. Clinton left office 4 years ago.
ASCI Posted November 8, 2004 Author Posted November 8, 2004 There's oil in North Korea? 107666[/snapback] The “he’s doing it for oil” mantra is the libs answer to the entire Bush polices that they disagree, right?
ASCI Posted November 8, 2004 Author Posted November 8, 2004 Let it go man. Clinton left office 4 years ago. 107670[/snapback] We must learn from the mistakes of the past or we are billsfanone to repeat them repeat them repeat them repeat them. !@#$ !@#$
Like A Mofo Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 Let it go man. Clinton left office 4 years ago. 107670[/snapback] I agree, but Libs must also learn to let go too!!
Recommended Posts