Chile Forum

JHyre wrote:Run a search for Ryogyong hotel in Pyongyang, North Korea, Esquire article by Eva Hagberg

Don't have to go that far, the article in question is ion today's news in the front page of Yahoo ( or should I said Microsooft) under the header 'Worst building in history'....

Really impressive , it almost matched in ugliness the Senate building , here in Valpo....

I did not know if i can link the article..sorry

zulu789 wrote:. . . . 'Worst building in history'....

Really impressive , it almost matched in ugliness the Senate building , here in Valpo . . . .

Unbelievable, isn't it? "How one (massive, overgrown, super-costly) building helped ruin one of the most beautiful cities in the world." (And I'm not talking about Pyongyang.)

zulu789 wrote:. . . . the front page of Yahoo ( or should I said Microsooft) under the header 'Worst building in history'. . . .

OT, but it does look as though you won't need to differentiate between the two for much longer.

I am not advocating the kidnapping innocent people. What I am saying is they are fighting the wrong sort of war.

This sort of thing happens in every war. Very few know that we spent the first years of WWII running away from the Germans and Japanese ships at every encounter, until all the old school generals where replaced or ships sunk. It was only then we started fighting a war. I believe something similar is going on here.

This is the sort of war where engaging the enemy on the battle field is loosing by definition. Sending in a battalion of soldiers with tanks and helicopter at $100,000+ million dollars to catch one potential teenage suicide bomber leads to the sort of collateral damage that generates more terrorists and waists resources, but sure makes for nice footage on fox and cnn.

Kidnapping innocent people = bad, we agree. The problem is knowing who is bad, who is not, who needs whacked, who needs kidnapped (which is presumably less bad than whacking someone) and how much oversight the above gets. Too little oversight creates KGB, too much (which is what we have right now) ruins the tool and only leaves extreme options (e.g., do nothing or invade). In our present zero-defect world, the instant an error is made (and it will happen), we are the bad guys.....judging from much of what I see on this forum, the US is the bad guy in Iraq (we are the ones minimizing collateral damage and putting far more money into that country that we are pulling out) and Sadaam the victim (used WMD against neighbors, own country, invaded two neighbors, harbored PLO terrorists, killed hundreds of thousands of own people, the list goes on). Either way, there will be imperfection - innocents whacked/kidnapped vs. big wars fought, I would think the former is less bad. BUT as long as we engage in conspiracy theories (Bush knew all along & lied with cooperation of massive conspiracy in intel agencies and press, he did to help oil companies, etc.), there will never be a reasonable chance of the "less bad" solution working, b/c the screamers with their inane theories will (and in fact, have) make the political cost of doing anything too high. We will sit, ala 1933-1940, do nothing and make the eventual cost in blood and treasure much, much higher - THAT is the fruit of taking conspiracy theories seriously and ignoring facts to the contrary....in the case of Iraq, it means accusing Bush of every heinous act known to man sans any proof insread of recognizing the arguments for invading and disagreeing in a rational manner. Sadly, it is much easier to scream epithets and make vile accusations than it is to recognize the other side's arguments and actually marshal facts & reasoning of one's own....and our drama-loving, left-leaning press abets such behavior. I see a lot of shrill theories on this site and can understand why the originators would want to become expats. The real question: How can we get Alec Baldwin to expatriate as well?

BTW, tanks in Iraq make terrible headlines every time a US Soldier or Iraqi civillian dies, which happens in war, much as we try to minimize the chances. Bush went in spite of knowing such headlines would follow. Predictably, the US press is gunning for another Tet - we won, Cronkite convinced America to lose. Why did Abu Grahib get non-stop coverage, even though it was dealt with as the crime it was (BTW, compare Us military crime rate to that of any demographically similar sized group of young men & women - military comes out on top), but incenced Arab opinion......while images of four contractors mutilated by "insurgents" (terrorists) were withhold for fear of angering American public? Makes you wonder who the press trusts (hint: not Americans) and who it sympathizes with.

Finally, as discussed on State of the States, our perceptions of what's going on in the US (and what's not) are radically different. Which innocents have disappeared over here? I missed out on that.

Hyre

Charles, it's a bad war. The military men make do with the constraints placed upon them by the politicians, who botched the planning for this war (as, generally, they botch the planning for any -- not that the generals do a great deal better!)

admin wrote:. . . . Very few know that we spent the first years of WWII running away from the Germans and Japanese ships at every encounter, until all the old school generals where replaced or ships sunk. It was only then we started fighting a war. . . .

As one who spent eighteen years in the military, after a fashion (my father was a career soldier, a West Pointer), whose grandfather wore stars in the Second World War (one of your "new-school generals"), and who made history his own career (doctoral work in American history), I must tell you that this is simply not true. The offensive was regained quickly (why do I write "regained"? do you not know that by June of 1941 we were already involved in fighting against the Germans in the North Sea, although they were under the strictest of orders not to fire upon us?). It's true that we did put less effort into the war in the Pacific (ironic name) until after defeating the Germans and Italians; but that is simply because the Japanese were considered less deadly (to Americans, obviously not to the Chinese) and our resources were limited to the ability to wage a strong offensive on but one front at a time ('sound familiar?).

It make me remember the paralell war of opinions during the war between Chile, Peru and Bolivia in 1879. Any strategic and tactic decision is arguable, war is uncertain by nature and is not rare that things happen different as expected. Sometimes bad decision in short term may tunrn into good in the long, I guess there are many people making his duty at middle east and I doubt they are all engaged into a huge conspiracy.

The important to agree is who is the enemy and if it worth to figth them up to defeat them, there will always be costs, It is a war, but must be balanced with the cost of a defeat. I guess that islamic fundamentalist are a real and present danger, they are decided to impose their ideas worldwide in a nazi fashion and I think it worth kick their asses before they grown more. Strategic and tactic may be always matter of discussion but the main point is that too much discussion on this issues may lead to a Vietnam effect, the worst is to loose the war of opinion because all those who sacrified their lives turn on useless. It is good thing to critize, but not at point to risk the suceed.

So what you want, what it is your solution, past can not be changed and we can not jump in the future too, it is what it is. If you have the opportunity to live in Chile you will lern that there are way more freedom that the State, at the at least Chilean die in Chile an not overseas