Hi Happy Genius:

My Memorial Day memories are of a different nature.

I was a little over five years old when WWII ended. We were fortunate enough to be in the American occupied zone, and the American soldiers proved to be generous toward the vanquished, particularly to us children.

One adult who spoke some English told me to go to the American soldiers, hold out my hand and say pleadingly "A little bit chocolate?"

I did not know what it meant, but the formula worked. I seldom got chocolate, but I almost always got something: powdered milk, instant coffee, bread, butter, jam, instant pancake mix, all kinds of canned fruit, chewing gum and sometimes even cigarettes (Lucky Strike—they were the American Army issue and sometimes my lucky strike :-) To this day I associate the flavour of canned apricots, peaches or pineapple with those kind-hearted American soldiers.

HG, with what passes for "thoughts" around here, I would hardly call yours "immature".  Kim Jong Il seems to be doing about as much damage to his own country as a leader can, while destabilizing Asia, but if you're cynical, you point out that North Korea doesn't have oil.

I don't share your obvious life experiences, and I can only imagine war, but from what I know, I don't want it for myself or my children.  I know there will always be groups and countries that need to be opposed, but I keep thinking there has to be a better way than to send our young adult generation to fight and die in streets filled with people who may or may not want their presence.  A strategic nuke or two?  I don't know.  I only know that what we're doing now doesn't seem to be the answer, and neither is doing nothing.

After reading John Hersey's Hiroshima, I decided that there was no justification in use of that weapon ever again. Yes, there is some reason to think that Kim needs to neutralized both politically and militarily. However, even if you accept that this is necessary (I'm not 100% convinced that military action is the way to go), a surgical conventional strike, using bunker busters if needed, can do that just as easily as The Bomb. Ditto for taking out his launch capabilities. Even a low yield nuke is going to create fallout and flash that will injure people well beyond your intended target. Worse, if you miss, you've just handed him a pretext to use his own nukes against the South or maybe even Japan. Just because we are "out of range" doesn't mean we can be cavalier about provoking him. We need to consider the consequences for others, not just outselves. And, finally, if we intend to send a message to the North Koreans and others that possession and use of these weapons is not acceptable, then sending that message with a nuclear strike just opens us to accusations of hypocrisy.

Mendalla

Yes. I read it in the New Yorker...(Where it took the whole issue)...

I agree with all of your post...

...and perhaps should put an 's' after that last word...

Mine was mere incohate opinion without much going on in my think box...

There's a lot of confusion up there...

I really hate war and the idea of it.

It's great adventure...thrilling (when not boring)

You really get along -- profoundly --with your group.

Not really boring there alsways something interesting to do...

There's the flag! The ferver of patriotism Hot dog!  Let's go! I love it!

Oh. I hate it.

There are times when I dont make sense, even to me.

.

The greatest thing I learned (and this long after I ended service) was that it is so easy to be convinced that the thing to do, and be proud of, was to kill other people. Easy. Logical. Reasonable, No argument about THAT. Until those continual informative lectures died down in your brain and analysis creeps in....'

It's amazing what listening to a marching band can do....

Or listening to Rush Limbaugh, I guess.

Isn't it interesting that we line-draw at the use of nukes?...Just exactly where IS the ' don't kill too many at a time' law kick in?

76mm White Phosphorus shells?

50 cal machine gun?

GATLING gun? :-)

Six shooter?

Long bow?

Sharp rocks?

There I go , think-box on "off" again....

Regards...

Hey, that's right! (Pushing the 'don't care') button. That's a relief!

Hell, the way things are going, its going to be free - and available  at the nearest beach.

The United States has never gone thirty years with being at war...has fought both neighbors...

(I'm an American) I face the unpleasent fact that we are war-like. War-like people. Sounds like something out of ancient history. It will be in forth-coming history-books: "Self destructive, ignorant, blindly-led warlike creatures were destroyed by the technology they invented..."

Wonder. What date do you put on that book?

(lifting wine-glass) To "A better Way!"

(lifting re-filled wine glass) To being in total agreement with Chasen!

I can't blame you for  your confusion. Even for one who's never taken part in a war,there's confusion. And there is no simple answer.

Any bombing of North Korea of any sort  hardly be carried out without North Korea having time to launch its missiles. the great lesson of Korea was underlined in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The US, for all its 2000 or so missiles cannot risk an attack on a country that has even one. That's why so many countries are now working hard at getting one - including at least two countries in Latin America.

The nuclear bomb is a deterrent - as we were told so long ago - but only if both sides have them. They never told about that part. The numbers don't matter. What matters is having them.

The US has warned North Korea many times. But it has never attacked. Because it has retaliation.  The US and Israel have both threatened to attack Iran, and may very well do so. So why is Iran a threat to world peace but North Korea isn't? Because Iran doesn't have a bomb.

The US has never attacked a country that has a nuclear weapon. That means the nuclear arms race is far from over.

Is it time to get rid of them everywhere? Certainly. But the last attempt failed under Bush. And it failed because Bush cheated. Instead of dismantling weapons, he put them in storage. The US is not likely, under any president, to seriously reduce its stockpile. Its military, as the world knows by now, is not as powerful as it appears to be.

No. Confusion is perfectly understandable.

Hi, Arminius

Aliways nice to hear from you

Your whole being is of a different nature!

( Hey! Does that make me bi-polar?)

When it comes to getting something positive said around here...I'll call on you...

I've got a lot of smile in me from that..

When WWII ended, I was 18, just graduated from high school, and thought "Wow, no war for me then" ,,,

Yeah. I always seem to fail at predicting...(which is generally, a good thing...)

AND at analysing, e.g.,:

As I believe that the main/only/continual teaching of Jesus was God's kingdom residing in you now, but only when you become awake to see that...and you have a large chunk of that.

Probably why you no longer kick little puppy dogs.....

Hi, graeme

No. Confusion is perfectly understandable.

Thanks for being intelligent about it. The Chinese curse of 'interesting times' are upon us

do you think anybody knows what life is going be like 20 years hence?

The world desccends to savagery?

War decreases population to a few who survive with a 'flood' story, and have peace burned into their DNA?

New energy source(s) bring shared prosperity to everyone?

Where do you vote? I wanna vote for #3 --I'll be 103 and I wanna enjoy it. (OK, Arm, I wanna enjoy IT) :-)

Interested in a WC admin position?

Not on your life!