Onward Christian Soldiers?

e-mail from Christian Counter Culture | 04/01/2003 | Michael S. Horton, PhD

[lockeliberty]

Keep me pinged when you guys resume your debates.

P.S. Thanks for the investment TIPS.

[restornu]

I was very leary of GWB, all I could of was GB and NWO etc.

It was ruff for me to thing a Buch could really be so American!

It was Rush pointing out certain things over time I saw things that I had missed. I am so glad that I VOTED for Bush and he won! Even if my voted didn't count. I knew it was the right choice.

What I don't understand is why when we have voices out there who help keep the moral and focus on GOOD. Courage and strength that others feel the need to nick away at the foundation.

I don't understand faulfinders, underminders etc?

No one is perfect if some one is echoing some of my thoughts, and good is winning that is all that is important!

I will go for weeks or days and not listen to Rush or Hannity etc.

But I thank God they are there!

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

My concern was not about a few silly college students protesting but rather my understanding was that the newly elected President was elected based on an anti-American platform. With any politician I understand that they emphasis certain policies in order to get elected and then back off a pure idealogical position once they are elected. Nevertheless, if the current President is against action in N. Korea it appears we would have to spend a considerable amount of political capital secure his support for an ROK invasion of N. Korea. Your point about the missle launch is the type of event that could sway their government and hopefully renewed cooperation. Your contention that are troops in S. Korea are only a symbolic deterrence appears to me to be correct. However, that symbolism seems to me to be important and the removal of those troops would send a message to the region that would not be to our benefit in the short term.

i am not certain that i have made my point clear for which i am at fault. My contention is that Kim Jong Il has all but taken out an advertisement in the Washington Post saying that he has hostile intentions and will attack either the United States or the Republic of Korea (south Korea). i seriously doubt that we will have to worry about initiating combat with the DPRK.

Let me tell you this about our South Korean allies: They have one of the toughest armies on the planet! The Korean Capitol Division joined the United States in the Vietnam war. Within two months the Viet Cong and NVA AVOIDED their sector! The Koreans had a rather unique and accurate way of doing "body counts"...they simply cut an ear off a dead enemy, and put it on a necklace. In point of fact, the ROK has been preparing for this war since the last one ended. Colonel David Hackworth, a veteran of the Korean and Vietnam conflict visited Korea in 1994 when Kim Il Song died and his observations of the preparations of the ROK for that war are interesting. His conclusion then was that we ought to pull our forces out of Korea, and perhaps back to Japan. The Koreans of both North and South have an almost religious fanaticism about protecting their land from foreign invasion, including each other.

That's the good news. The bad news is that the People's army of the DPRK is pretty tough too. When that conflict flares up (not "if"), The Eighth US Army will be on the short end of the stick for a while, having only half of the Second Infantry, the 25th Light Infantry Division out of Hawaii, the Third Marine expiditionary force out of Okinawa and the other half of the 2nd ID out of Ft. Lewis, WA. The Japanese, only being about 500 miles away will no doubt send an entire Corps (3-5 divisions) for a start, and the Austrailians will no doubt send a division.

Iraq it will NOT be! You can count on the fact that we and our allies are going to take HUGH causualties on the ground, and inflict even larger ones.

The China question seems to me to be most delicate and complex in this situation. Potentially I see China as our greatest threat in the long run. It would not surprise me to learn that China offered to the U.S. the willingness to take out Kim Jong but the U.S. refused not wanting China to occupy half the Korean peninsula. Your analysis about Kim's lack of rational decsion making abilities and his Marxist ideology seems to me to be the strongest arguements for action against his regime. Without China's support Kim must feel "boxed in" and his willingness to engage in evil actions because he has nothing to lose probably increased.

China is indeed, the real big question. Will they support us? Will they move on Thaiwan? (i doubt this, they don't have the amphibious assets to put troops ashore, and it is suspected that Thaiwan has nukes too, not something that you want to find to be true the hard way!). As i have posted previously though, they do business with the ROK to the benefit of both, and want that to continue, and Kim Jong Il just may be crazy enough to launch one at Bejing if his back is against the wall.

I was unaware of much of that information. (38) My senses tell me that once Saddam's regime is gone and we feel relatively comfortable regarding the security of Iraq we will start to spend the political capital necessary to resolve the N. Korean problem. While I believe the case against N. Korea will be driven by more contemporary issues the facts you provided should certainly be part of our case against N. Korea.

The main problem i see in our future is logistical. Those units in Iraq will have to be rested, refurbished, and refitted, (assuming that they are not tied up with years of "occupation duty"). We have neither sufficient combat power to project, nor the rapid deployment capability to get what we do have to a certain point quickly. Rumsfeld's comments about being able to fight a two-front war are pipe dreams. Maybe we could do it if we took every cargo ship, airliner, and activated all Reserve and National Guard formations in the country, And took veterans my age (mid to late 40's) and younger who would only need a refresher basic (i'm still in decent shape).

We should not be so "doom and gloom", because in the final analysis, God is STILL sovereign over His Universe. i am actually optomistic, because i see it ending differently than in a big mushroom cloud. Look, the N. Korean Generals are not stupid, (else they wouldn't be generals), and can count just as well as we can. They know that they can only sustain operations for about 60 days given their logistical base, and they know how the conflict Must end. It would not surprise me to see one of those generals ensure that the "Dear Leader" dies from "acute Lead Poisoning" (rapidly ingested!), and they cut a deal with the allies as quickly as possible.

Again, thanks for facts that I was unaware of. I had heard that Russian Siberia was oil rich but unaware of the Sprately Islands. It puzzles me why Russia has not taken greater advantage of that resource. I can only guess that they are still developing these wells for production. I agree we have appeased N. Korea long enough and hope to see the screws start to tighten here very soon. Thanks for your service to our country.

Put simply, Capitol. Siberia is one of the most hostile environments on the Planet, second only to Antartica. There is virtually no infastructure, and the climate is hospitable only about three months of the year. The Russians have simply never had the money to exploit what is the world's biggest treasure house. Putin's reforms are stablising the government, so look for that to happen soon.

My service was no big deal, it was in the worst US army in history, the post-Vietnam army of Ford and Carter. It amases me the madness that a human being will tolerate.