Friday--October 18
, 2002—Ground Zero Plus 401
Bomb Korea & Iraq With
Pledges Of Vigilance

Cliff McKenzie
   Editor, New York City Combat Correspondent News

       GROUND ZERO, New York City, October 18 -- It's a shell game.   You watch the pea under the shell being whipped around by the master of deception--sure you have your eye on the one covering it.  But when the con man lifts the shell you are sure contains the pea--nothing.   You lose.

     I felt kind of like the guy watching the shells being whisked about and finding my shell empty this morning when I read the headlines about North Korea suddenly having nuclear capability.
      As I recall it, we lost 54,246 American lives in the Korean war(1950-1953), and mobilized over 5.7 million troops in the Armed Forces fighting and supporting the war.  That's a stark contrast to the 500,000 troops deployed in the Gulf War and the 148 battle deaths reported by the U.S. and an estimated 10,000 deaths for the Iraqis.
      Measuring just the blood lost of 54,246 versus 148, it would seem the scales are tipped over North Korea being a far more Terroristic State than Iraq--at least from historic viewpoint, that is.
      At eight pints of blood per person, our dead fighting the Korea War accounted for 433,968 pints versus 1,184 in the Gulf War.   It would seem our attention toward Iraq as the leading international Terrorist would pale compared to North Korea--at least if measured by blood loss. 

Korean War propaganda poster

     And if anyone might hold a grudge against the United States, it might be North Korea who lost over 500,000 soldiers in the war, and an estimated 2.5 million civilian deaths.    Adding fuel to the fire, the Chinese are estimated to have lost 1 million soldiers supporting North Korea's fight.
       Like many Americans, I was tossed off center this morning when the headlines blared out that our ally, Pakistan, had given North Korea the tools to expand its nuclear capacity.   Pakistan even tested North Korean missiles, helping streamline their ability to send nuclear holocaust to whomever threatened them, or, to whom they wished to threaten.
       Does this mean we need to swivel our guns away from Saddam and aim them at North Korea?  
       Or does it mean we now can replace Saddam Hussein's "face of evil" with the likeness of  Kim Jong-il, the North Korean leader?
       On January 29 during his State of the Union speech, President Bush called North Korea an "evil" nation, accusing it of seeking to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, as well as selling missiles to rogue states.
       North Korea's announcement of its nuclear capabilities throws a wrench into the plans America has of using "nuclear threat" as a primary reason for attacking Iraq.   By all standards of "threat elimination," we should be mobilizing against North Korea.   We already have nearly a half million pints of blood invested in that country.
       Complicating matters is the recent negotiations between North and South Korea to stabilize relations. And, of course, there is China standing behind North Korea--it's big brother who lost 8,000,000 pints of blood against the Americans in the Korean War.   More will be revealed when China's president, Jiang Zemin, meets with President Bush next week at Bush's ranch.

Kim Jong-il and George W. Bush

       If the battle of Terrorism were a chess game, it appears America is being checked by Korea's flaunting of its nuclear capacity.   What to do?
        It seems to me that the idea of a War on Terrorism fought by a single nation or limited numbers in an attempt to quash them into submission is turning out to be a rabbit chase--no sooner do you drive one rabbit out of a hole and send the dogs in chase than another pops out and heads in another direction.   As heads swivel and policy pundits rush to refocus strategy to maximize support, the circus ring fills with players.
       Who will pop up next?
        From my perspective, the battle against Terrorism is not about smashing the "evil ones" with sledgehammers from afar, but rather rallying the Parents of Vigilance from within.      

        Nuclear proliferation threatens the entire world, not just a few nations.   Access to such unlimited power creates a forum for abuse of power.    And the people most concerned about that abuse should be the citizens of each nation more than those outside its borders.   If there were a nuclear war, the epicenter would certainly be those with the weapons.
        The key solution, I believe, is to attack the conscience of the people--the mothers, fathers, grandparents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins and loved ones of the children.   Only when a revolution of spirit rises up from the grass roots of any nation does real change occur.  Imposing change from outside creates resentment, and sets back the "right of individuals" to command their destiny.

       If we bomb Iraq or North Korea, it should be with Pledges of Vigilance.




Oct 17--400 Days From Ground Zero

©2001 - 2004,, All rights reserved -  a ((HYYPE)) design