War-Game Guidance On The Korean Peninsula

Mark Thompson:
.
Will these latest events speed or impede resumption of the six-party talks, and why or why not?
.
What is the South Korean response, both officially and in terms of public opinion, and why?
.
Of the “nearly 30,000 U.S. troops,” nearly 9,000 are Air Force. What’s the reason for this force configuration, both stated and unstated?
.
Thanks so much in advance for this important, additional information, Mark Thompson.

Stuart Zechman:
.
Why do you insist on the overuse of everyone’s full name when you respond? I’m an avid swampland reader, don’t have a lot of time to write though, but it feels a little forced, the whole ‘So, Mark Thompson, what do you think, Mark Thompson?’
.
Otherwise great questions, and your input is always great – here especially the note about SK public opinion, which we don’t get to read much of if at all.
.
Thanks Stuart Zechman. :)

Of the “nearly 30,000 U.S. troops,” nearly 9,000 are Air Force. What’s the reason for this force configuration, both stated and unstated?
.
Because a suprise attack would first be by air and the AF would have to show down the attempts to knock out our air/ground support (Seoul is only about 25 miles south of the DMZ).
.
The “unstated” goal would be to to have that same AF deliver something other than a few conventional artillery shells in retaliation (if you get my drift) that would ensure that any attempted ground attack would never get very far, and, in fact, there would not be much left to launch much of an attack.
.
I was there during the so-called “tree-cutting” incident. Trust me, that wasn’t just napalm and “500-pounders” they were loading.

freekeir:

“Why do you insist on the overuse of everyone’s full name when you respond?”

That’s a great question.
.
I guess it’s just a style that has developed from the time when almost all Swampland pro writers were completely condescending to us commenters, and virtually ignored everything we wrote –especially that swine Jay Carney– even though we knew they were actually reading us.
.
The journos hadn’t really gotten the point of the whole “blog” thing yet, and so were apparently reading questions and comments as not directed to them.
.
So I adopted this mechanism by which I tried to communicate

“Hey you! Yes, you! You, the pro writer! We’re down here in commentary interacting with you in an intelligent way, not like those idiots commenting over at Jake Tapper’s blog.
.
It’s a two way conversation these days! Yes, I’m talking to you! Please provide links and/or quotes to support these assertions! It’s the internet, so you can do that. Oh, and try not to do He Said/She Said, thanks in advance…“.

, even if it meant I was being clunky and repetitive.
.
Since they keep turning over the pro writers here, I just kept doing it all of the time, so that the point of blog commentary was constantly being made to them.
.
Maybe I’ll stop doing that, if I get enough feedback telling me that it’s A) unnecessary and B) completely f*cking irritating.

Heh.
.
And *I* have always stuck with the convention that we are all on a first name basis, calling the prose pros by their first names, or, sometimes, their initials. (KT, JNS)
.
This, of course, is an attempt to convey the same message SZ has been trying to convey–that this isn’t a hierarchical medium, and the discussion is not about any sort of personal attack.

Exactly.

sweet – by Jay’s reckoning that’d make me FK. That’s an awesome tag.
.
And Stuart, your reasons make sense. I’d got the impression you were trying to be condescending to the writers in some way – I don’t think anyone calls me by my full name except passport control. I wasn’t a regular reader back in Carney’s day.
.
FK out.

Personally, I like the first name or initials thing much better than the full name. By using the bloggers’ first names or initials, we are humanizing them and inviting feedback from them on our comments. The same can’t be said for use of the full names. Yes, it might get your point across, stuart, but I think its a bit more annoying than anything else. There are much easier ways to get your point across.
.
p.s. I’m not a frequent poster on these blogs because I’m so busy, but I do try to read the swamp on a daily basis–usually while I’m at the office.

Guys… Personally I think you may have got off topic on this slightly!

Also try to write in a lesser mans language!!! I already had to Google what “Unilateral military act” meant and it was demeaning ha