Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree42Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 29th, 2017, 12:33 PM   #31
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,797
So far, it seems like the political divide on how to deal with North Korea is whether the Democrats or Republicans have the best solution to destroy North Korea!

Did any liberals or conservatives ever consider that maybe North Korea has a right to defend itself? And after the Bush/Obama Regime Change Wars...especially Libya...destroyed after agreeing to end their WMD programs, why the hell would or should North Korea do anything other than make sure they are too big of a toxic pill for the American Empire to swallow?

Going back to the Cold War days, the excuse for never formally ending the Korean War..aside from the armistice signed to cease hostilities in 1953..was that the "dominoes" would fall if the US pulled their troops out of South Korea and made a full peace agreement with the North. So what has the excuse been since the end of the Soviet Union and China's turn to capitalism?

So far, the American Empire has tried to break up and dissolve Russia and other former east bloc republics..to make them smaller and weaker and more divided along ethnic and religious lines, while the enthusiasm for China's capitalism ended when their economic growth continued on and started to threaten to supercede America! After all the years of hearing that we would have world peace if it wasn't for the threat of communism, we have ended up finding out and confirming that the greatest threat to our collective survival is right in Washington!

If Bush had signed that formal peace treaty with North Korea instead of reading David Frum's lines adding North Korea to "The Axis of Evil" the Kims wouldn't have ramped up their nuclear and missile programs and made them the threat they are today! North Korea is only a threat to the US because American foreign policy made it so!
right to left is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 04:20 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
No worries. DJT said, "Do not try us."

Kim just tried us.

Stay tuned.
I asked for you, or any one else criticizing Trump, to analyze the situation, and give a resolution to this geopolitical issue!
Sensible is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 04:50 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,865
Of course, NKorea has a right to defend itself, but Kimmie likes to flex his muscles. He's showing off and sending the message that THEY can defend themselves...if needed.

AND I don't think it's any coincidence that Kimmie has ratcheted up his show of force at the same time Trump ascended the throne.
Clara007 is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 05:06 AM   #34
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 25,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensible View Post
I asked for you, or any one else criticizing Trump, to analyze the situation, and give a resolution to this geopolitical issue!
But your dear leader promised us that he would succeed where his predecessors failed with North Korea. He said it was easy. Why don’t you ask Don the Con for that answer that he promised you he had ?
Thanks from imaginethat and RNG
Camelot is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 05:31 AM   #35
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 34,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
So the long range ICBMs and the powerful hydrogen bomb are 100% the Republican President's fault obviously.
Not really see post 17. But facts never got in the way of your trump hate
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 06:59 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelot View Post
But your dear leader promised us that he would succeed where his predecessors failed with North Korea. He said it was easy. Why don’t you ask Don the Con for that answer that he promised you he had ?
Well because you seem to think geopolitical issues are so easy what would you do? No one knows what Trump is doing because he doesn't have a press conference and tell the enemy what we are doing.
Thanks from Jimgorn
Sensible is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 10:35 AM   #37
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 25,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensible View Post
Well because you seem to think geopolitical issues are so easy what would you do? No one knows what Trump is doing because he doesn't have a press conference and tell the enemy what we are doing.
I never claimed the North Korean issue was “easy”. Just the opposite. As the Con criticized his predecessors, I held that, short of all out war, there is nothing that can stop their nuclear program now.
Camelot is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 11:17 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelot View Post
I never claimed the North Korean issue was “easy”. Just the opposite. As the Con criticized his predecessors, I held that, short of all out war, there is nothing that can stop their nuclear program now.
So you are ready for war? Wouldn't that put you at odds with your leftist friends?
Sensible is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 12:14 PM   #39
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
Of course, NKorea has a right to defend itself, but Kimmie likes to flex his muscles. He's showing off and sending the message that THEY can defend themselves...if needed.

AND I don't think it's any coincidence that Kimmie has ratcheted up his show of force at the same time Trump ascended the throne.
This is what happens when you get all your information and news from CNN, Google feeds and Facebook! Do your sources ever cover the Joint Military Exercises conducted by the US and allied vassal states- South Korea and Japan? Specifically, the drills practicing landing and ground assault drills? If this was about "containing" or "neutralizing" the "North Korean Threat," then why would they have spent the past 15 years trying to perfect quick assault and invasion plans to get them accomplished as quick as possible?

One reason only: North Korea is already a "hard target" according to military analysts who crunch the numbers and run all the possible conflict scenarios that could erupt on the Korean Peninsula. What they come up with consistently is that the North would be destroyed by overwhelming US&allied force..even without the use of nukes, BUT so would South Korea AND thousands of US troops garrisoned there, because..even without North Korea's limited nuclear threat, they have thousands of long-range artillery pieces complete with reserve unit crews who train frequently to do fast mobilization and get to their guns and start firing south as quick as possible. As former Chief of Staff for Colin Powell- Lawrence Wilkerson has stated many times, he hasn't seen any strategy or plan drawn up yet by military planners that would guarantee taking out all or even most North Korean artillery..even with the use of nuclear weapons...which would poison the region...and likely begin WWIII as China and Russia take reprisals on US territory! And then there's the millions of NK footsoldiers and the long rumored array of tunnels and suspected embedded North Korean agents lying in wait in the South.

Even prior to the public acknowledgment by North Korea that they had a nuclear weapons program, the conventional North Korean threat should have been taken seriously enough by the US to want to normalize relations and remove the threat of Regime Change expressed openly by Bush II just prior to the Iraq Invasion.

Speaking of Wilkerson, he had this to say regarding the new Trump Admin's threats back in April:
Wilkerson on North Korea Crisis: U.S. Should Stop the Threats & Own Up to its Role

Quote:
AARON MATÉ: You know, you mentioned the history of U.S.-North Korean agreements, the recent history, and you talked about throwing rocks on both sides. Well, you have an inside take on this because you worked for the Bush administration, which abandoned the Clinton agreements, the key one being North Korea agreeing to freeze plutonium production.

There also was some sort of indirect deal about buying up North Korean missiles. But President Bush abandoned this policy. Can you tell us what happened there and how that helped lead to today?

LARRY WILKERSON: Well, our intelligence community, really I don't think can say whether the chicken came first, or the egg in this case. What we do know is that the money that we had promised, that the Europeans had promised, for the light water reactors, which were supposed to replace the dangerous plutonium-producing reactor at Yongbyon, actually didn't come across.

Europeans pretty much put up their billions, but our Congress was very reluctant, and in the end didn't put up hardly anything. And in terms of the heavy fuel oil shipments we promised, the Congress was either dilatory in shipping it, or didn't ship it to the amounts that were agreed to, or both.

So, the North Koreans, as Jim Kelly, our Assistant Secretary for East Asia and Pacific found out October 2002 -- when he visited Pyongyang and talked with Yi Jung and Kang Sak-ju -- found out that they probably did hedge their bets, and had a secret program for enhancing uranium, to back up the plutonium program we had frozen.

Whether they did that because we weren't living up to our end of the deal, or they did that to hedge their bets, is still a question I think. But if either way, let's just look at that.

We had frozen the most dangerous aspect of their program at Yongbyon, reprocessing plutonium, making a plutonium-based bomb. So, we had at least eliminated half of it, and at that point we didn’t have any nuclear weapons.

Now we've got ten or twelve nuclear weapons, and we don't have any agreement at all. We're not talking. We're not doing anything. So, the negotiations in the past, even if they only half worked, they worked a whole lot better than the non-negotiations of, say, my administration after October 2002.

Regarding lessons learned from Libya........

AARON MATÉ: On the subject of U.S. policy influencing North Korea's thinking, there was a piece in the New York Times yesterday analyzing the current crisis. And they made an interesting point near the end, where they pointed to the fact that Libya, under Colonel Gaddafi, they made an agreement with the U.S. about giving up on their nascent nuclear program, in return for some financial relief.

Now, the financial relief never came, and then of course when you had this uprising against Gaddafi years later, the U.S. joined the side of the uprising and actually helped overthrow Gaddafi.

And the Times says that this experience has heavily influenced the leaders in North Korea. That actually, Libya is often talked about in North Korean strategic writing and discussion.

LARRY WILKERSON: Absolutely. Look at Iraq and the invasion in 2003. Many have maintained, and I think with some reason, that it was an illegal war. Look at Libya. Look at the strike on Syria recently. If I were someone out there looking around and considering my threats, and I thought a nuclear weapon would help me, at least in some ways, to keep that threat from coming my way and overthrowing my regime, I'd surely want to build one.
I was there when we did what you just described briefly with Gaddafi. Tony Blair was wined and dined, and Condi Rice, and everyone was all hunky-dory loving Muammar Gaddafi at that particular point. And then suddenly we'd move a few years down the road, and bang, everybody's getting rid of him. And we haven't seen a good analysis of that conflict, yet.

AARON MATÉ: SO, let me ask you, I mean, this is speculation, but do you think if President Bush had lived up to Clinton's commitments, and also perhaps not put North Korea on the infamous, 'Axis of Evil', whether you think North Korea would have nuclear weapons today?

LARRY WILKERSON: I'm not sure. That's a hard question to answer. It's a hypothetical; I'm not sure what the situation would be. If I... let me put it this way as a military professional, if I were Kim Jong-il, or Kim Il-sung, or Kim Jong-un, I would want to hedge my bets against a power that arrayed itself in front of me as threateningly as the U.S. does.

If I look out from Pyongyang –- now, I'm trying to be *empathetic. I'm not condoning the Kim dynasty or anyone in North Korea. I'm simply saying I'm being empathetic -- I'm looking out from Pyongyang into the Pacific. I'm looking out across the inland seas; I'm looking down at the ROK, the Republic of Korea. I see 600,000 highly trained ROK troops. I see B2s on Guam; I see Vincent aircraft carriers steaming towards the Peninsula. I see all this threat to me; I'd want a nuclear weapon, too.

So, if you want the bottom line, there isn't anybody in the world today, after seeing us invade Iraq, after seeing us bomb Syria, after seeing us do –- we're at war with seven or eight countries right now in terms of drones. We're flying across their borders and killing people inside their territory.
So, if I were anyone in the world who thought my regime was in trouble, I'd think the trouble came from the United States, and I'd want a nuclear weapon too. That's not at all to say I condone the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I'm simply stating the obvious. I'm stating the rational obvious.

Reliving history......

AARON MATÉ: Since we're talking history, I want to go back even further to the wider historical context for U.S.-North Korea tensions. We often don't hear about the impact of decades of U.S.-North Korean tensions. And specifically the Korean War going back to the 1950s, and I want to read you a quote from Air Force General Curtis LeMay, who headed the Strategic Air Command during the Korean War.

He said, "Over a period of three years or so, we killed off – what – 20% of the population." And Dean Rusk, who was later Secretary of State, he said the U.S. bombed, quote, "...everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing on top of another."
Talk to us about this context that we often don't talk about.

LARRY WILKERSON: Well, this was a really bloody war, there's no question about it. The North invaded the South, the South responded by retreating all the way to Pusan. The United States was ill prepared for the war, and so joined them in that retreat, and then held out at Pusan until Douglas MacArthur, of course, conducted the brilliant amphibious invasion at Incheon.

And we cut off the North Koreans, and then we pursued them all the way to Bealu(?), with Douglas MacArthur, saying, no Chinese will enter the war, telling Harry Truman that on Wake Island, when they met. And then the Chinese intervened with some 300,000, quote, "volunteers", unquote, and then the casualties really mounted, as we fought three years of bloody stalemate. Finally coming to an end at approximately the same point we started. But we had preserved South Korea.

And that was a great deal. It turns out that South Korea is one of the few, if not the only, major country in the world that has gone from being a debtor nation, to a creditor nation, in one generation. And is a flourishing democracy now.

So, in the long run, that turned out all right for South Korea. But for the other millions of Koreans north of the DMZ, it put them in the so-called, Hermit Kingdom. And it gave them, as you said, these memories of the times when the Chinese intervened, the United States was on their territory. Even had Douglas MacArthur recommending that nuclear waste be sowed all across North Korea, in order to make it unpalatable, and to keep the Chinese out, and so forth.

Yeah, the history is a long, bloody history. But the history since that 1953 truce agreement, peace agreement that was not, but truce, ceasefire, and we still have the war condition going on. Look at the DMZ. It spans the country right now at the point where we stopped. We have a lot of bitter feelings on both sides, I think.
Most people probably couldn't tell you what those feelings were really about today, on either side. In the North, the people were kept so poor, and so ill fed and in such conditions of poverty that the regime holds on by essentially keeping them worshipful of Kim, and not eating very much.

In the South, you have this robust, dynamic, successful economy. I think if you were to leave the situation alone, that is to say a great power like the United States, or for that matter, Japan or China, were not making it different every day by their very shadow of their power, you would probably already have North and South having worked out reconciliation.

*You'd have unification, and the capital would be Seoul, not Pyongyang. And you'd have a whole bunch of Koreans in the North joining a whole bunch of Koreans in the South, and becoming a very dynamic economy over time, a generation, let's say. And maybe even giving China some competition, which is one reason why I think China likes that buffer zone between it, and that very prosperous, economically vivacious South Korea.
*empathy...now there's a word totally mawked and maligned by both liberal and conservative discourse in America today! And that's half or more than half the problem right there. Because as Wilkerson shows, North Korea has its own point of view on the world, and its own interests in survival and maintaining its regime after witnessing the betrayals and broken promises given to other former communist governments around the world after 1989.

*I think Wilkerson is offbase on this observation! Until the mid-70's, North Korea had a stronger and more robust economy than the military-run South, and the great leap forward of the South Korean economy..fueled by export-driven manufacturing didn't begin until the 80's, as the Soviet Union went into decline and became a less valuable trading partner for the North. And ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, North Korea has turned inward and focused on building that military deterrence to ward off the kind of overrunning and erasure that happened to the former East Germany after the Berlin Wall fell in 89. I'm sure the North Korean leadership as well as many of its people have been heariing the stories of disgruntled and disillusioned former east Germans who got freedom to travel and buy stuff/but have no money to do it with, as their country was overrun by West German investors and foreigners with money to buy up everything of value. So, so much for the capital moving from Pyongyang to Seoul!

Wilkerson on North Korea Crisis: U.S. Should Stop the Threats & Own Up to its Role
right to left is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 12:26 PM   #40
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 25,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensible View Post
So you are ready for war? Wouldn't that put you at odds with your leftist friends?
Nope, you didn’t read closely. War would be foolish.
Camelot is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
fires, hit, korea, missile, north, shows, world



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
S. Korea President Bluntly Warns Trump Do Not Unilaterally Attack North Korea skews13 Current Events 36 August 25th, 2017 10:25 AM
North Korea Test Fires a Nuke RNG Current Events 48 January 28th, 2016 03:48 PM
What Do You Think About North Korea's Plan To Launch Kwangmyongsong-3 Long Lange Missile? ilovekorea Current Events 1 March 21st, 2012 03:47 PM
N. Korea threatens US; world anticipates missile highway80west Political Talk 4 August 4th, 2009 10:04 PM
Bush: World will respond to North Korea nuclear test CNN Current Events 2 October 9th, 2006 07:29 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.