[Rushtalk] North Korea

Stephen A. Frye s.frye at verizon.net
Thu Apr 11 19:29:40 MDT 2013


Dennis, you can have your way.  You have no idea what I am saying.  Well, if
you don't understand my desire to avoid loss of life, so be it.  I have to
admit, I am totally befuddled.  It never occurred to me that a strong,
sincere desire to avoid such loss of life would be met with vehement
resistance.  I find myself at a sad loss.

 

From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On
Behalf Of Dennis Putnam
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 5:01 PM
To: rushtalk at csdco.com
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] North Korea

 

Previously I stated I wanted any missile launched from PRK to be shot down.
Your response was to chastise me for wanting to rush into war.  That is what
started this discussion. I have no idea what you are saying any more.

On 4/11/2013 7:44 PM, Stephen A. Frye wrote:

Over and over I have stated that such is NOT what I want.  All I have
written is that I don't want to see people killed.  Why is this such a bad
idea?  Is in un-American to not want people killed?  Is it un-Conservative
to not want people killed?  You continue to harp on "well, then you must
just want to see where they land."  No, Dennis, I don't.  But you obviously
want to believe that I do, so go ahead.

 

I am  Vietnam Vet.  I served in this man's Navy.  I have seen people -
shipmates - killed.  Don't you dare to presume that I want that again.  I
don't EVER want to see that again, and I truly resent your implication -
especially when I have made the opposite quite clear.  I have seen enough
death to last more than a lifetime, and I'd like to see us go to great
lengths to avoid it, if possible.  I guess that doesn't fit with your
wishes.  Too bad.

 

From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On
Behalf Of Dennis Putnam
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 4:35 PM
To: rushtalk at csdco.com
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] North Korea

 

You mean the same military that told Navy Seals to stand down when Benghazi
was under attack? Good choice Stephen. 

So I take it from your response you want to see where it lands first.

On 4/10/2013 6:45 PM, Stephen A. Frye wrote:

According to senior military leaders, neither extreme is necessary.  I will
defer to their judgment.  I urge caution, and when I see and hear our
leaders speak, I hear caution.  Even our senior military leaders do not want
to over-react.  Are you pre-empting their experience and wisdom?  Why is
caution so wrong, Dennis?  Why is it so wrong to not want people killed?

 

From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On
Behalf Of Dennis Putnam
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:06 AM
To: rushtalk at csdco.com
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] North Korea

 

Hoping doesn't cut it. It is really up to PRK isn't it? They claim they are
ready to "test" a missile. Do you think we should shoot it down immediately
or see where it lands first?

On 4/9/2013 10:23 PM, Stephen A. Frye wrote:

No, Dennis.  I am just hoping we can avoid getting anybody killed.  Silly
me.

 

From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On
Behalf Of Dennis Putnam
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 6:58 PM
To: rushtalk at csdco.com
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] North Korea

 

That is what I've been saying and you seemed to have been disagreeing. The
PRK has communicated that it is an eminent threat. We have to take that
seriously and any launched missile has to be presumed to be an attack.

On 4/9/2013 6:58 PM, Stephen A. Frye wrote:

Police shoot when they truly believe it's a last resort.  Let's behave the
same way.

 

From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On
Behalf Of Dennis Putnam
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 6:12 AM
To: rushtalk at csdco.com
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] North Korea

 

I guess for the same reason police are allowed to shoot suspects when
threatened BEFORE they are shot themselves.

On 4/8/2013 9:54 PM, Stephen A. Frye wrote:

This couldn't play any better into their hands and plans if it were
scripted.

 

Why are we always so anxious to go to war?  Is all out war with North Korea
what we really want?  Haven't we had enough war for a while?  Isn't war
something we should strive to avoid?

 

From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On
Behalf Of Dennis Putnam
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 8:59 AM
To: rushtalk at csdco.com
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] North Korea

 

However, you look at it, they have made their threats. We now should take
them at their word. Launch a missile, assume it is targeting the South or
the US and shoot it down. If military aircraft leave their airspace assume
they are making good on their rhetoric and shoot it down. We should not have
to wait until someone dies to defend ourselves or the south.

On 4/8/2013 11:37 AM, Tom Matiska wrote:


The 1953 cease fire was not a peace treaty and did not formally end the war.
Technically a state of war has existed since 27 May 2009 when N. Korea
declared itself no longer bound  by the cease fire,    but to restart the
war for that reason is not so simple.

S. Korea never signed the cease fire.  That leaves only China and U.S. as
the remaining signatures, but it formally wasn't their war. The U.N.
resolution was passed when the PRC was an outsider looking in.  ROC held the
U.N. seat then.

Fashion today is for a govt body to formally declare war.  We seem to forget
that an act of war counts. The next Korean  war will (re)start with a bang,
not a govt vote.

Tom    


--- On Mon, 4/8/13, Dennis Putnam  <mailto:dap1 at bellsouth.net>
<dap1 at bellsouth.net> wrote:









From: Dennis Putnam  <mailto:dap1 at bellsouth.net> <dap1 at bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] North Korea
To: rushtalk at csdco.com
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013, 8:43 AM

They already have. They have voided the treated and publicly stated they are
at war. We should simply treat it as though they meant it.

On 4/7/2013 8:43 PM, Stephen A. Frye wrote:

They don't.  They want to think that someone else has started it.  Let's
not.

 

From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On
Behalf Of Richard Whitenight
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 4:25 PM
To: Rushtalk Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] North Korea

 

Dennis, it's so difficult for me to believe that they would even want to
start a conflict, because they should know that any attempt at war on their
part would destroy their country in a short period of time. All you have to
do is look at their country at nighttime and realize there's no power to
even turn on lights at night.

On Sunday, April 7, 2013, Dennis Putnam wrote:

All bluster. All their technology is decades old and in poor condition
including small arms. Their missiles cannot carry nuke warheads yet.
However, since they say they are in a state of war against the US and the
south, I'd shoot down any missile launched anywhere in the country and say
it is self defense based on their statements of war. I'd also shoot down any
military aircraft that leaves their airspace.

On 4/7/2013 7:12 PM, Richard Whitenight wrote:

e="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;"> 

I don't know about y'all, but the situation with North Korea has me worried.
What say y'all?



-- 
Regards,
Richard Whitenight
Arlington, Texas
"Show your support for the Wounded Warrior Project
<https://support.woundedwarriorproject.org/Default.aspx?tsid=167&campaignSou
rce=CDRO&source=B100108> "
Vietnam - Oct 68 to April 69 & Oct 69 to Oct 70

God bless America and our men and women in uniform.

 










_______________________________________________
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

 


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk











_______________________________________________
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

 










_______________________________________________
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

 









_______________________________________________
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

 








_______________________________________________
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

 







_______________________________________________
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

 






_______________________________________________
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20130411/37d6c44d/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list