If media leaks are to be believed, President Obama will attempt to chart a middle way in Afghanistan, sending more soldiers but not as many as General Stanley McChrystal would like. The New York Times describes the emerging strategy as “McChrystal for the city, Biden for the country,” a blend of the diametrically opposed approaches advocated by the general (who favors a counterinsurgency strategy) and the vice president (who wants to do counterterrorism operations only). The Times writes that “the administration is looking at protecting Kabul, Kandahar, Maza-i-Sharif, Kunduz, Herat, Jalalabad and a few other village clusters, officials said.” In the rest of Afghanistan, presumably, operations would be limited to a few air raids and Special Operations raids. Other media reports suggest that the administration is looking to send 10,000 to 20,000 troops — not the 40,000 that McChrystal wants.
To read more of this COMMENTARY Web Exclusive, click here.
Greenwald, explain our options with North Korea.
filifuster, liberation.
Appeasement by England in 1938 was a consequence of almost a decade of carelessness, a policy of doing little and “hoping for the best”. I fear that we are repeating that mistake; we will be forced to appease North Korea and Iran in their nuclear programs, because of years of carelessness by both of our political parties. Like Chamberlain, President Obama will get more than his fair share of the blame if the consequences of this appeasement are realized when he is in office.
#1 fuster. Options? How about a massive military attack? One that stops when the North Koreans have no ability to nuke anyone, ever. The secondary benefit is the message such an attack will send Iran.
I bet we just give them a stern lecture, though.
Steven from Indiana
Steven, Seoul an acceptable price? Who the heck are the North Koreans going to nuke other than South Korea?
Hmmm… so fuster thinks the reason that NK is building longer and longer range missiles is so they can eventually circumnavigate the globe and sneak-attack SK from the south? Brilliant!
#5 Yes, you’re right, fuster. What was I thinking? Let’s stick with the firm lecture. We can use the same one on Obama’s teleprompter that he gives to Iran.
You might want to stock up on Kimchi, though. May become hard to get.
Steven from Indiana
Seriously, fuster? North Korea has the Taepodong missile program because all Kim wants to be able to threaten with nukes is South Korea?
Well, this discussion always gets bogged down in simplistic categories. Not ragging on you personally, fuster, a lot of people do it.
The Kim regime may have an actual concept outlined for using nuclear weapons, but it’s not to serve that concept that the nukes are being developed. First and foremost, North Korea wants nukes for deterrence. Kim thinks having them will immunize his regime from attack. Pyongyang regards the possession of nukes as a survival strategy.
Second, nukes give him status and something other nations want (like Iran, Syria, and perhaps Venezuela, and who knows about others down the line). This expands his options for profitable outside contact.
Only as a measure in extremis would Kim have a plan in which he is “going to nuke” another nation. That includes South Korea. Kim doesn’t plan on first use of nuclear weapons, as that would be suicidal for his regime. China doesn’t want a blow-up on the Korean peninsula, she wants it divided and in stasis, until the US gives up on it. If Kim goes ’round the bend and looks like he is actually going to attack — with or without a nuke — China will do her best to step in and settle his hash without letting his actions spiral out of control.
The value Kim’s energetic boundary-pushing has for Beijing is that it serves as a means of testing the will of the US by proxy. China is likely to give him enough leash that the test will be serious. Unless we want to just start a war now, and go ahead and take on the reunification of Korea, the tightwire we will be walking involves not overreacting to Kim’s provocations, while also not giving him reason to think we’ve been neutralized — and staying on top of any proliferation activities Kim tries to bring off.
NK could/would nuke anyone/everyone in the region other than China but I don’t think that’s the danger with them. Unlike Iran, that wants nuclear weapons in order to exert influence over the Middle East, North Korea is most likely looking to sell. They have no resources and further sanctions will only make the situation worse, increasing their need for something to sell. Steyn mentions a few of the potential buyers but terrorist organizations, possibly through Iran or Syria, are another possibility. What about Venezuela? Or Cuba? Bolivia? No reason to believe nuclear proliferation will stay out of our hemisphere. Obama, just like Bush and Clinton before him, is naive if he thinks this can be contained without a military component.
Unfortunately, you have to use the military occasionally for the threats to be credible. The cool thing about stealth aircraft is that you can’t see them on radar and we have lots of them. If we institute a policy of bombing reactors and centrifuges built by rogue states and drop the policy of moral equivocation, the world will be better off.
“Hmmm… so fuster thinks the reason that NK is building longer and longer range missiles is so they can eventually circumnavigate the globe and sneak-attack SK from the south? Brilliant!”
No, you’re right, CK – they’re planning an attack on DC and NY and LA – because they – like Iran, have no interest in survival – they just SOOOOOO crazy…
go hide under the bed…
“If we institute a policy of bombing reactors and centrifuges built by rogue states and drop the policy of moral equivocation, the world will be better off.”
until, of course, they unleash a dirty bomb in Times Square as revenge. And then you can moralize that they hated us for our freedom…
“#1 fuster. Options? How about a massive military attack?”
You ready to watch another 36,000 American servicemen die in Korea? And countless South Koreans?
Don’t you arm-chair generals ever learn?
Seriously, JED. Who is North Korea going to nuke other than the South?
I said no more than that and I meant to more than that. Massive military intervention is going to get Seoul blown up. Koehl suggests that the damage to Seoul and it’s population won’t be devastating, but
his answer is all best-case and certainly doesn’t factor non-conventional attack.
Your response indicates the danger inherent in inaction, suggests that the Nk list of threatened targets would expand (to include, I would guess, Japan) but doesn’t directly state another likely target.
Simplify things for me, Dyer, name names.
fester demands too much indulgence; the degree of simplification required is potentially approachable, but not achievable.
12- Warp, say oops.
14- This is good. You can cheer up and act human! Good for you and us!
You indulge a little less and I’ll demand a little less and who knows what we might achieve!!!
I recall a Bugs Bunny cartoon (or maybe it was another character) in which Bugs challenged someone to “Oh yeah, well step over that line.” Then he retreated to challenge about another line, and so forth.
We’ve been drawing lines in the sand for Kim to step over for the thirty years or so since he took over from his dad. If he can be said to have taken over from his dad. I understand that the old man’s stuffed or freeze dried corpse is still nominally in charge. And maybe it is since who knows what goes on in Kim’s head.
Mark Steyn is rarely wrong; but in this case there is nothing at all unusual about the inevitability of Kim doing pretty much what he (or his old man’s corpse) wants with no consequences. He might suffer consequences were he to actually start an invasion of the south and kill some large proportion of the 36,000 troops that we still have in South Korea against all reason.
#12 While watching a replay of the Korean war would be terrible, a replay of WWII, with bigger guns, is even less appealing. Don’t you appeasers ever learn?
Steven from Indiana
“Seriously, JED. Who is North Korea going to nuke other than the South?”
Yep, because Hitler only stopped his conquest after invading Poland and the Japan didn’t want to expand its rule past Singapore and the Phillipines. Two-bit dictators have a habit of having an expansive worldview when it comes to their ambitions.
Oh, and let’s not forget that North Korea doesn’t mind selling its technology to even more dangerous enemies of America, such as Iran. You liberals need to wake up to the harsh reality that nothing can be solved with just talk when dealing with very bad guys.
Chris, I’m long on board with finding the best means to solve problems, but suggest to you that North Korea, of itself, isn’t a massive problem. It is a primarily a localized problem and interdiction of arms shipments will keep it localized.
I started out asking for an options list, certainly inclusive of military action. Anyone who can show that military action that doesn’t lead to many thousands of dead South Koreans has my ear (excepting the AA member, he always merits a different part).
The road to NK runs through Beijing. The US must convince the chicoms that it is in their best interest to pull the plug on Kim. How to do that is the real issue behind this dilemma. Perhaps threatening the chicoms that Japan and or Taiwan would go nuclear? Another option would be to assassinate the NK leadership. Any other suggestions out there?
The current world equilibrium looks to me like it was in 1912. A whole lot of countries are pissed off at a whole lot of other countrys. What everyone has in common is that no one wants to break the stalemate,no one wants to strike first,but everyone wants to strike back. The stalemate was broken in 1914 in Sarajevo,and all the dominos fell. Our stalemate will be broken inevitably,there are any # of variables. The international economic crisis adds a lot of volitility. My hope is that if we get sucked into the next big war,that we realize that the winner of WW3 has to gain a huge amount of assets as a result of victory not only to pay for the war,but to shore up its home economy,it hope that us. I would guess that a lot of these assets are oil mineral,and real estate.
#22, 2nd to last line,that’s us.
“I started out asking for an options list, certainly inclusive of military action. Anyone who can show that military action that doesn’t lead to many thousands of dead South Koreans has my ear (excepting the AA member, he always merits a different part).”
fuster, is the line between using military action and not using it dependent on whether there will be “many thousands of dead South Koreans” or not? I don’t want to see and dead SKers either. Or Americans. Or innocent NKers. But there are going to be dead people if you use military action. Otherwise, what’s the point of having a military at all?
I expressed my idea to you a few days ago of arming Japan with “loaner” nukes. Lots of them. Enough to wipe out much of China if they were ever fired in that direction. And then take them back once NK has verifiably gotten rid of of all its non-conventional weapons, presumably thanks to Chinese pressure. You didn’t much like that idea though.
What ideas do you have to solve this problem, if any? You may think it’s not worth worrying about because NK is a “local” problem. I happen to think it’s a little less “local” when they’re selling their technology to states like Syria.
As a side note, from a moral standpoint, I have no problem with us murdering the likes of Kim Jong-Il, or the mullahs, or Chavez. Send a missile right down their respective chimneys. They deserve such an end for the way they treat their citizens and/or for their support of terrorism. I say this without addressing the obvious ramifications – it’s merely from a moral standpoint.
Over the last decade the free world faced a decision. They would either create a firewall againts the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous and unstable regimes, or they would do nothing. When North Korea developed nuclear weapons during the Clinton Administration despite the standard useless paper agreements, nothing was done. And then they spread to Pakistan and then India, and are now on the verge of spreading to Iran and probably Syria. At some point the decision was made that the risk associated with living under the potential nuclear umbrella of rogue states was worth accepting. This calculation was pushed by the ultimate logic of the left’s antiwar position that effectively became the usual mix of isolationism and pacifism in the face of a developing threat. Any attempt to counter this calculation is mindlessly denounced as alarmism or warmongering. And so we have freely chosen our brave new world, freely accepted the expodentially increased risk of nuclear conflagration and mass atrocity, and in the act celebrated our supposed sophistication and farsightedness. Not only did the storm gather but we seeded the clouds. Now we get to watch the result, and should it all fall apart, will the self-styled smart and worldly people who encouraged this result make anything effort at atonement? Of course not.
anything=any
24- Ritchie, I certainly think it’s worth worrying about NK and have no squeamish,” lily-liberal” objection to using the military.
My thinking about avoiding a military invasion of NK is based on my very simple assumptions that
1) NK mainly threatens Koreans
2) invading NK is going to actuate the death of Koreans
As long as we can find ways to keep the NK threat from becoming much larger, we might as well continue our policy of waiting for the rotted tree to topple.
I can’t see how we can use a Japanese threat as a spur to Chinese action against Korea, mainly because I don’t have a damned bit of understanding as to the current relationship between NK and China.
“As long as we can find ways to keep the NK threat from becoming much larger, we might as well continue our policy of waiting for the rotted tree to topple.”
It’s about 50 years to late for this, doncha think? And they’ve tried everything except finishing the Korean Conflict. I think it’s about time to finally finish it.
Chris, brush up on the events of the Korean War. Try to remember why, after we wiped up the North Koreans, we weren’t able to finish.
#3
Didn’t take long for the reductio ad Hitlerum, did it? As usual, a misplaced analogy.
If Gates means what he says, what’s he gonna do? There are some options short of war. If Gates doesn’t mean what he says, he should shut up already. Nothing worse than bluster followed by a climb-down.
“28
Chris Bolts Sr. Says:
May 30th, 2009 at 4:30 PM
“As long as we can find ways to keep the NK threat from becoming much larger, we might as well continue our policy of waiting for the rotted tree to topple.”
It’s about 50 years to late for this, doncha think? And they’ve tried everything except finishing the Korean Conflict. I think it’s about time to finally finish it.
”
is that what you worry about every day in your life? “finishing” the korean war? Is it really a bone in your throat that one part of some country on the other side of the world is communist and one is normal?
WHy don’t you take this desire to finish things and chest beating bravery and apply it to your life in a way that can help you and possibly your community, rather than wasting your energy on a situation you aren’t close to.
I think China has north korea under control and know alot more about them than we do.
fuster, every war can be fought to a conclusion, but I’m willing to bet that both sides didn’t want to engage anymore and retreat back to their borders. In fact, this is what wikipedia.org says:
“The rest of the war involved little territory change,[29]:175-177 large-scale bombing of the north,[29]:175-177 and lengthy peace negotiations, which began on July 10, 1951 at Kaesong.[29]:145 Even during the peace negotiations, combat continued. For the South Korean and allied forces, the goal was to recapture all of South Korea before an agreement was reached in order to avoid loss of any territory.[29]:159 The Chinese and North Koreans attempted similar operations, and later in the war they undertook operations designed to test the resolve of the UN to continue the conflict. Principal military engagements in this period included the Battle of Bloody Ridge[29]:160 and Battle of Heartbreak Ridge[29]:161-162 in 1951, the Battle of Old Baldy, the Battle of White Horse, the Battle of Triangle Hill and the Battle of Hill Eerie in 1952, the sieges of Outpost Harry, the Battle of the Hook and the battle for Pork Chop Hill in 1953.
“Territory changed hands in the early part of the war until the front stabilized.
The peace negotiations went on for two years,[29]:144-153 first at Kaesong, and later at Panmunjon.[29]:147 A major issue of the negotiations was repatriation of POWs.[29]:187-199 The Communists agreed to voluntary repatriation but only if the majority would return to China or North Korea, something that did not occur.[29]:189-190 Since many refused to be repatriated to the communist North Korea and China, the war continued until the Communists eventually dropped this issue.[29]:242-245
“In October 1951, U.S. forces performed Operation Hudson Harbor intending to establish the capability to use nuclear weapons. Several B-29s conducted individual simulated bomb runs from Okinawa to North Korea, delivering “dummy” nuclear bombs or heavy conventional bombs; the operation was coordinated from Yokota Air Base in Japan. The battle exercise was intended to test “actual functioning of all activities which would be involved in an atomic strike, including weapons assembly and testing, leading, ground control of bomb aiming,” and so on. The results indicated that nuclear bombs would be less effective than anticipated, because “timely identification of large masses of enemy troops was extremely rare.”[72][73][74][75][76]
“On November 29, 1952, U.S. President-elect Dwight D. Eisenhower fulfilled a campaign promise by going to Korea to find out what could be done to end the conflict.[29]:240 With the UN’s acceptance of India’s proposal for a Korean armistice, a cease-fire was established on July 27, 1953, by which time the front line was back around the proximity of the 38th parallel, and so a demilitarized zone (DMZ) was established around it, presently defended by North Korean troops on one side and by South Korean, American and UN troops on the other. The DMZ runs north of the parallel towards the east, and to the south as it travels west. The site of the peace talks, Kaesong, the old capital of Korea, was part of the South before hostilities broke out but is now part of the North. North Korea and the United States signed the Armistice Agreement, with Syngman Rhee refusing to sign.[77]”
So, according to the analysis above, the North and the South just wanted to go behind their borders, but that DID NOT resolve the conflict. Instead, both sides continued down their respective paths: the North grew more belligerent and isolated, while the South integrated and became more democratic. I’m willing to bet that the North also grew a little more resentful of the South and its progress and sought solace in its nuclear program. Now, 50 years later, we have a much more dangerous North Korea with the ability to do massive damage on an important ally in the region. If the U.S., the UN and the South Koreans had all realized that this would be the outcome of the Armistice, then they probably would’ve decided to finish the war against the North Koreans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDTu-JBDlzs&feature=player_embedded
ron paul gives the conservative view (contrary to steyn )
lester, the problem when liberals substitute their “diplomacy” in the middle of a conflict is that the conflict never gets resolved and one side ends up more in resentful of the other. Wars must be fought till there is an overwhelming winner, and that winner happens to be the side that stands for freedom and liberty. That is why you don’t see more issues coming up between the US and Germany and the US and Japan, but you see this between the US and Russia, Israel and the Palestinians, the North Koreans and the South Koreans, and you see the misery of the Vietnamese after the Viet Cong won.
The delay of the end to the Korean Conflict only made things worse for everyone involved. And don’t be too sure that the Chinese has the North Koreans under control. If they did, then the North wouldn’t be doing the things that they are doing…unless it is the intention of the Chinese to allow the North to do these things to apply a bit of pressure to the U.S. We don’t know for certain, but one thing I do know is that after 50 years of diplomacy, our situation vis-a-vis North Korea is not satisfactory.
Chris, I don’t much care about the analysis above, and instead will treat you to my analysis.
After we broke the NK offensive, we beat the piss out of them. We drove through North Korean territory until something very large and very non-Korean stopped us.
Non-Koreans prevented our finishing the job then. Unless we figure out what the position of those very same non-Koreans, don’t even think about applying more finish.
Yes, the Chinese also helped, fuster, but we were also beating the Chinese as well (based on casualty count). However, not finishing the fight then has made us more worse off than where the Chinese and the North Koreans are now. This untenable situation was created because of what did not occur 50 years ago. Now, the North Koreans can strike at any moment, regardless of what the Chinese do or say.
Chris, give me a break. Do you really think that inflicting more casualties on the Red Army indicates that we were beating them? I know you know better than that.
Who can the North Koreans strike, other than the South Koreans?
It doesn’t look to me like you want a serious answer to your question, fuster, since it keeps changing.
“Who can the North Koreans” strike isn’t the same question as “Who are the North Korean GOING TO strike.”
And neither question is the right one to understand North Korea, or this situation. The right question is, “Whom do the North Koreans want to be able to threaten?”
The answer, in order of escalation:
South Korea
Japan
America
North Korea does not specifically or actively intend to strike anyone. North Korea wants the capability to strike — South Korea, Japan, and America — so that North Korea can hold our actions hostage to that capability. The principle scenario North Korea has in mind today is preventing an invasion from the south by a US-led force, and forcible reunification under a regime governed from Seoul.
(It is mainly Kim Jong-Il and the senior membership of the Communist Party who object to this future. Those are also the main folks who fear that there is any proximate danger of invasion.)
That would be “principal” scenario…
Here is an idea that I have tossed about in my head. When the NK set up their Taedong missile, why doesn’t the UN rent a cruise missile from someone other than the US, paint it all blue with UN markings and punch a large hole in the setup? These things are suppost to be able to fly through a window. Besides, the NK are in violation of umpteen UN resolutions and what’s a tiny little explosion between friends. Maybe, it could drop leaflets on the way in explaining to the NK who did it and include a strongly worded message not to mess with the big tough UN and next time they plan a test the same think will happen. Hardly worth shelling the hell out of Soul you would think. Hmm maybe not. A way to keep the nukes at home. Sigh – Just a fantasy about the UN and the west getting some cajones.
fuster, yes, one way of determining if you are beating an enemy is by casualty count. Of course, another way to lose a war is to also use propaganda to erode support for the other side.
And who can the North Koreans strike? Japan, South Korea, Alaska and Hawaii, assuming that estimates of the traveling distance of their long-range missiles are correct. Even so, South Korea and Japan are verifiable targets and they are our allies. Are we not to stand with our allies because we have to satisfy some type of anti-war sentiment? No wonder Japan and South Korea are feeling a little antsy right about now.
JED, if I ask you a question 6 hours ago, try somehow to find it within yourself to forgive me if a question asked of someone else is not exactly the same.
The intent of the question remains the same. I hope that people understand that NK isn’t likely to begin raining nukes and that measures taken against them shouldn’t necessarily be tailored to that eventuality.
Chris, yes, yes, yes, SOMETIMES casualty counts are a fine determinant, but not when the US is sending men against an enemy with endless men and no political opposition to expending those men.
“I hope that people understand that NK isn’t likely to begin raining nukes and that measures taken against them shouldn’t necessarily be tailored to that eventuality.”
fuster, had you considered simply saying that? I’ve found that people understand what I intend to say far more often when I just say it, than when I ask questions designed to elicit preconceived responses.
Just a thought.
Chris, I’m long on board with finding the best means to solve problems, but suggest to you that North Korea, of itself, isn’t a massive problem. It is a primarily a localized problem and interdiction of arms shipments will keep it localized.
They have already threatened to attack SoKo if interdiction is continued. What seems difficult for you to understand is that NoKo is selling things to enemies of the US, and in fact of civilization itself. They are not deterred by Obama’s smooth talk. In fact, it confirms their own impressions that he is talk and nothing else. They are conducting an advertising campaign right now. They are having a sale on missiles and nuclear warheads.
The only card we have to play is Japan, by encouraging them to become a nuclear power. That would get China’s attention and China controls NoKo. Will Obama do this ? Of course not.
44- And a fair thought, JED.
I might have actually done just that, on this same topic, once or twice.
Hi, Mike. I do understand that NK has sold, and will again attempt to sell, bad things to bad people. My good friend JEDyer and I agree, and have, at other times, both said, that interdicting the seaborne sales is a way to stop such sales.
“Chris, yes, yes, yes, SOMETIMES casualty counts are a fine determinant, but not when the US is sending men against an enemy with endless men and no political opposition to expending those men.”
Well, fuster, Japan had endless men with no political opposition, but we managed to get them to surrender by dropping two atomic bombs on them. Now, I’m not advocating dropping nuclear weapons on China or North Korea, but taking a huge loss of casualties by a technologically advanced opponent can make armies with large numbers rethink putting all of their eggs in one basket.
Chris, Japanese manpower available to oppose us was not even close to the number of troops that the Chinese could have committed to the Korean peninsula. A much larger population, no commitment to field an army elsewhere (Japan had to keep an army in China during WWII), and, importantly, no trouble transporting the men made a big difference.
Yes, fuster, that is true, but the underlying point is that America had the ability to blunt Chinese advancement if it wanted to reach that far into its arsenal. Now, the situation is much different.
I agree that North Korea is not going to nuke anyone anytime soon, but that isn’t the issue here. The issue is when North Korea will decide to nuke anyone. As some would like to say, France having nukes is not so much a big deal, but having an unstable regime like North Korea something different entirely.
#47 fuster Are you sure we can interdict 100% of such seaborne shipments? It seems like the NKs sold enough nuclear material to Syria for them to construct a facility of some sort…under everybody’s schnozes. How many shipments have we seized so far? If my memory serves me correctly, the NKs are better at seizing our ships than we are at seizing theirs.
Maybe we could outsource the interdiction business to the Somali’s?
Steven from Indiana
#46 Consider yourself warned. Next time they bring out the hemlock!
Steven, we have stopped NK missile shipments. I would bet the ranch that it’s way easy to track every large ship going out of North Korea.
As for the Syrian sale, I’m not sure that NK supplied anything other than plans and labor.
#54 Catch and release? Have we ever kept a seized N. Korean missile shipment?
Regarding your comment that your “not sure” the NKs supplied anything but plans and labor to the Syrians…That’s comforting.
Steven from Indiana
Steven, if we get to the point where we’re considering a bloody invasion, we probably won’t be too eager to “release”. I would think that you would be happy about the possibility of catching a shipment or two,because it would make it a hell of a lot easier to get serious support for the bloody stuff.
52-Much appreciated, aard. There are days when I’m sure these crazy kids and their sophistry will be the death of me.
fuster…it took us several days to locate a large oil tanker seized by pirates in Somalia. Are you sure we can catch every ship leaving N. Korea?
Steven from Indiana
Everything coming out of NK on NK ships is flat easy. Here’s a short summary of a longer report.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5247LB20090306
Steven, be a sport and let filifuster win. We must be kind to the obsessed.
Thanks fuster…The Reuter’s link will allow me to sleep well tonight. Especially the part about N. Korean WMDs being shipped on allied vessels or aircraft.
Going for 200 posts, again?
Steven from Indiana
Steven, if China’s in on it, what good is blowing up NK?
And no, not going for much longer, but have nothing against talking to you. Sleep well. The world will still be here in the morning.
Thank you fuster for acknowledging my kibbitz to your conversation. From my slight reading I’ll bet Ben Franklin could be quite insufferable also to his detractors. Glad I changed “we’ll” to “they” in the post, since I may share the politics but certainly not the bandwidth of any of the regulars.
And now for something completely different…!
I have made a discovery. Those readers of Commentary familiar with Robert Hughes’ comprehensive if not over-done “The Fatal Shore” about the penal colony history of Australia will recall “The Rum Song.” Hughes gave a wonderful explication of the lyrics but I believe never gave a tune for it. The lyrics are:
Cut your name across me backbone,
Stretch me skin across a drum,
Iron me up to Pinchgut Island
From today till Kingdom Come!
I will eat your Norfolk Dumpling
Like a juicy Spanish plum,
Even dance the Newgate hornpipe,
If you’ll only give me rum!
My discovery is this. The lyrics fit PERFECTLY
I’d like some of what you’ve been drinking.
The lyrics fit PERFECTLY to the tune of “The Beverly Hillbillies” theme!
Try it! Catchy, huh?
You’ll be singing it all day I betcha!
So…I wonder what the real tune should be?
It just fits so well to The Beverly Hillbillies…oh well.
Take it easy
Take it hard
Take me home
A baseball card
Don’t care what
Don’t care who
Just be sure
You take me too
Good night and May God Bless.
“lester, the problem when liberals substitute their “diplomacy” in the middle of a conflict is that the conflict never gets resolved and one side ends up more in resentful of the other.”
oh come on. we aren’t in the middle of a conflict with north korea.
the neo cons foreign policy seems to be built around the notion that the united states has unlimited resources. It’s sort of like how Marx solved all the economic problems in the world by eliminating private property and competition.
and similarly ridiculous. I mean , JE Dyer and co. drerss it up with all this macheviellian stuff but what they are saying is spend spend spend and COMMIT time and effort and eventually we will be able to have all the people we don’t lke: north korea, russia, syria, etc under de facto martia law.
66-Dyer may be a little out there on one or two things, but not there’s no evidence of belief in Martian law.
de facto martial law meaning containment a la saddam in the 90′s. she wants the united states to control the worlds airspace and waterways and to leave it to our governments judgement as to who gets to use those freely or not. in general, she feels the neoconservatives in the thnk tanks in DC know best which of these nations have these priveleges.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/KE21Dg01.html
DPRK invaded by delicious cakes
test
test3