Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

The big mistake

April 30, 2013

I am sick and tired of the escalating threats being made by North Korea and now the news media is indicating that this insane North Korea's military has been authorized to attack the U.S....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(34)

gavinf56

May-01-13 8:31 AM

Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion Chuck.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SteelerFan

May-01-13 8:28 AM

Chuck you are so FoS!!

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

May-01-13 8:21 AM

It's not real for Gavin and Richardson but it is real to China and North Korea. Since it did not happen over night, it is not happening.

We want to see more ships; wait you have cuts to deal with, your more ships are on hold.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

May-01-13 8:03 AM

richardson - 2:52 AM

"Actually: The "Korean War" was a "police action". Who could have guessed?"

At the time it took place, it was called the "KOREAN CONFLICT."

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

richardson

Apr-30-13 10:53 PM

For commenters claiming a US Naval buildup in the Pacific: As of April 4 there are 5 carrier groups assigned to the 7th Fleet. Nimitz in repair in Washinton. Carl vinson and the Ronald Reagan in home port, San Diego. The George Washington and the John C Stennis are presently deployed in the Pacific.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Apr-30-13 8:42 PM

No problem Buff. Enjoy your evening, and fwiw, I don't know how you get a disagree for that.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Apr-30-13 6:57 PM

How many times must I tell you, Gavin? Call me buff, all my friends do..

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Apr-30-13 6:18 PM

Well BuffTrev1, I just got home and checked Global Security dot org.

There are no extra carrier groups located in the area.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Apr-30-13 4:53 PM

It's incredibly vibrant, and by our standards here, crowded.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Apr-30-13 4:44 PM

I can't imagine living in Seoul, a scant twenty miles from the DMZ, although I'm sure it's a vibrant city..

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Apr-30-13 4:12 PM

Yes, debate would have been more appropriate.

Funny thing, we seem to be more worried about North Korea than the South Koreans. Their attitude is " ho hum, here they go again".

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Apr-30-13 3:35 PM

Not at all, Gavin.. I stand by every word, like always. I think it is entirely likely that we've moved additional assets into the region that the general public is completely unawares of. It seems as though you are the one playing games with words, the intent of both Charles and mines postings is quite valid.. imho, of course. BTW, I'd argue that 'argunent' is far too strong a word..

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Apr-30-13 3:21 PM

..and for the record, we only have 10. The USS Enterprise was inactivated last year.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Apr-30-13 3:02 PM

Purely supposition in order to add validity to you and Chuck's argument, eh BuffTrev1?

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Apr-30-13 2:33 PM

We have 11 carriers, no other nation has more than 1 (Newsweek). I can't swear to it but I'd be willing to wager we have one in the region..

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Apr-30-13 1:50 PM

It wasn't a carrier task force. It was a missle defense group. Defensive, not offensive.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Apr-30-13 1:45 PM

Lol.. semantics, no, Gavin? In addition, an increased naval presence likely means a carrier task force, thereby increasing our air capabilities, including the use of drones..

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Apr-30-13 1:01 PM

A "renewed commitment" is not an agreement, and let's be realistic, the commitment has always been there and is nothing new. The increased presence was a show of force AFTER North Korea started their sabre rattling. There are no plans or agreement in place for an increase in ground or air forces in the area. The only thing we did was increase our naval presence in the short term.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Apr-30-13 12:46 PM

Hi Richardson.. I think the claim you made about the number of ships is in accurate. I think that nonsensical claim was first made by mitt during a debate and was subsequently debunked. Gavin, I think it is accurate, as Charles stated, that the US has increased its military presence in the region, to support both Japan and S. Korea in the wake of N. Korean bluster..

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Apr-30-13 12:44 PM

Gee I guess you forgot about the much ballyhooed trip Obama took to Asia visiting various countries pledging a renewed presence in the Pacific militarily and economically. He(Obama) has pivoted US military attention to this area. China doesn't like it and has been very vocal about it. He has made 'agreements' that have irked China.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Apr-30-13 12:28 PM

Who would that be and what agreements?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Apr-30-13 11:49 AM

The US has made agreements with her allies in the Pacific, to strenghten her presence there. China and her allies don't like it and have said so.

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

richardson

Apr-30-13 10:41 AM

Reeder, in regard to US buildup in the Pacific Arena. If this were true, which it is not, any buildup should be in response to China's increasing naval presence in the Pacific Rim. My understanding is that the number of ships in our Navy has never been lower.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Apr-30-13 10:17 AM

"The new dictator of North Korea is showing he is his father's son. China seems not all that interested in starting a conflict or letting a 'buffer' state start one either. This could be a reaction to the rebuilding of armed forces in the Pacific arena by the US and her allies." - CMReeder

*

...Or, even...China (unlike U.S. "conservatives") having LEARNED the lesson of what can happen, when partnering-up with some idiot-son who feels a "need" to out-shine his Daddy.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Apr-30-13 8:23 AM

Surprise I agree with what Gavin posted. MacArhtur while adept on the battle field was a loose cannon in the arena of government.

The new dictator of North Korea is showing he is his father's son. China seems not all that interested in starting a conflict or letting a 'buffer' state start one either. This could be a reaction to the rebuilding of armed forces in the Pacific arena by the US and her allies.

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 34 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web