North Korea

[2ndRateMind]

So, North Korea is on the verge of uniting a thermo-nuclear warhead with an inter-continental ballistic missile system. When it does this, it will be entirely capable of levelling any given American city, and maybe several of them.

And North Korea is not a friend of America.

When it is so capable, it is likely to act. Not with an initial pre-emptive strike, but at the very least with nuclear blackmail: 'Remove your troops from South Korea, or Dallas gets it!' 'Remove your troops from Japan, or New York gets it!'

Of course, America has anti-missile missiles, but it would be foolish to rely on a 100% rate of effectiveness. And it would only take 1 missile to get through to devastate a city, which would mean a death toll in the millions, a huge disruption of the economy, and incalculable damage to the environment.

It seems that the time for action has arrived. But what should that action be? What would Jesus do?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

What you are doing here is judging things as "good or bad" which is the poisoned knowledge as told in the Bible and it is always the wrong way to judge anything.

North Korea is not just bad for us, but evil.

Viewing North Korea as the bad guys or the bad side, while the USA occupied south Korea is the good guys or the good side - is just untrue nonsense.

South Korea is not occupied by USA, that is just untrue nonsense

The Korean people have their own rights whether God given rights or human rights to their own self determination and independence, and the USA is the one who violates those rights by the brute force of the American military.

And the Korean people have exercised that right and chosen South Korea as the rightful government, who has asked the USA for military aid.

Whether Korea would be better off or worse off is none of our business, and the Korean people had the right to make their own choices and the USA violated that, and we still continue to violate the people of Korea.

It became our business when the government has asked for military support.

The USA needs to stop acting as if we are the Big-Daddy of the world, especially when our own Country is not a wholesome example for others to follow.

You might have a tiny point when you are talking about the Middle East, but the same does not apply to Korea. This is a clear moral thing to back South Korea. This isn't some unilateral decision, the West is doing the right thing here. The RIGHT thing, as opposed to what is good/beneficial for us.

[JP Cusick]

What you are doing here is judging things as "good or bad" which is the poisoned knowledge as told in the Bible and it is always the wrong way to judge anything.

North Korea is not just bad for us, but evil.

You are using two different words to mean the same - "bad and evil" - and they do not mean the same.

The word "evil" is intended as a verb having action, and North Korea did not do anything wrong.

The USA does wrong as the USA orchestrated the evil war in Korea against the Korean people, 1950-1953, and so the action of the USA were wrong and thereby were evil, but that does not judge anything as "good or as bad" which distorts reality.

The USA went on with our unjust hostilities against Korea, and we the USA broke the armistice in 1958 by putting nuclear weapons into Korea, and we maintain the violent threats against Korea forever after - and this is evil, this is our America doing evil action against innocent Koreans.

You can go on and on about how you judge Korea as bad bad bad, but you name nothing specific that the Koreans did that was wrong to do.

And this = Anti-Americanism In Korea:

South Korea is not occupied by USA, that is just untrue nonsense

I say it is completely obvious that the USA wants to occupy the entire Korea by invading the north too.

And the lascivious American personnel and US soldiers view the Korean population as our sinful Brothel away from home.

[Furrowed Brow]

South Korea is not occupied by USA, that is just untrue nonsense

The US currently has 12 bases in South Korea and in 2017 there are over 37,000 personnel deployed. I think if 37,000 troop of any foreign nation were stationed in an area about the fifth the size of California some might be inclined to call that occupied. It would be nonesense to call it anything else.

The shared characteristic of any occupying colonial force is to say we are friends and we are here to help you. Next comes a string of governments that support and normalise the occupation.

It is true South Korea rebuilt itself from a pile of rubble ....it is true their economy has been a tremendous success...these considerations are not evidence against an occupation.

On the face of it this is a tale of dictatorship in the north versus a free democracy in the south but that would be superficial response. From the 1950s to 1980s South Korea was run by a series of anti communist hard liners. This slice of history looks fractious with coups and rigged elections. The model is not dissimilar to the rise of Pinochet in Chile and Suharto in Indonesia. Both were too nasty and too canny to be called stooges but they were American tools. South Korea cost America far more dearly to bring it into the fold. the details of who specifically happened to be in power was less important to America than it was always a strong anti communist.

It is right to argue America's presence since the end of the war has been beneficial for South Korea. Compared to the north that is surely correct. If an occupations is done well this does not mean it is is not an occupation.

The comparisons to Chile and Indonesia is useful but ought not be stretched too far. South Korea is different because there was no significant appetite for left wing politics. But rest assured if a powerful progressive movement had emerged America would have intervened albeit covertly. And the history of Sout Korea would be more attuned with the history of South America and Indonesia rather than the soft occupation has experienced.

It is true South Korea is presently democratic, with the US and South Korea forming an alliance....so they are friends. It is also true South Koreans are the most pro American outside of America. But none of this means this is not an occupation. Though maybe it would be more accurate to stick to the term soft occupation. But soft or hard it is an occupation.

Put it this way if North Korea falls tomorrow the US will not say job done time to leave.They have strong strategic interests that require military bases on the peninsular. If a political party were to arise that looked like they might ask the Americans to leave...well no...that will never be allowed to happen even if that means some suspicious deaths and convenient scandals and a return to a harder style of intervention that has been the hallmark of America foreign policy for the last 100 years.

It seems obvious but ought to be pointed out that if suddenly there was a revolution and South Korea flipped into a socialistic left wing politics America would not give up is bases much like its retention of Guantanamo bay in Cuba.

[Bust Nak]

You are using two different words to mean the same - "bad and evil" - and they do not mean the same.

I am not using they to mean the same, I chose different word exactly because I want to convey to separate meaning.

The word "evil" is intended as a verb having action, and North Korea did not do anything wrong.

That's nonsense. There is plenty of thing North Korea did wrong. It has an abysmal record for human rights, and before you say USA has a bad record, sure, but North Korea is worse.

The USA does wrong as the USA orchestrated the evil war in Korea against the Korean people, 1950-1953, and so the action of the USA were wrong and thereby were evil, but that does not judge anything as "good or as bad" which distorts reality.

It's s civil war, the USA took the side of the south for the Korean people.

The USA went on with our unjust hostilities against Korea, and we the USA broke the armistice in 1958 by putting nuclear weapons into Korea, and we maintain the violent threats against Korea forever after - and this is evil, this is our America doing evil action against innocent Koreans.

North Korea is not Korea. The North does not own Korea.

You can go on and on about how you judge Korea as bad bad bad, but you name nothing specific that the Koreans did that was wrong to do.

The North's oppression of the Korea people is top of the list.

And this = Anti-Americanism In Korea:

What about it?

I say it is completely obvious that the USA wants to occupy the entire Korea by invading the north too.

And the lascivious American personnel and US soldiers view the Korean population as our sinful Brothel away from home.

You say a lot of things. How about proving it?

[Bust Nak]

The US currently has 12 bases in South Korea and in 2017 there are over 37,000 personnel deployed. I think if 37,000 troop of any foreign nation were stationed in an area about the fifth the size of California some might be inclined to call that occupied. It would be nonesense to call it anything else.

Occupation implies seizure of foreign territory. Mere presence does not mean occupation. South Korea is a sovereign state and the Korea people controls it's own destiny, thanks largely to US presence.

...On the face of it this is a tale of dictatorship in the north versus a free democracy in the south but that would be superficial response.

Indeed, nothing more need to be said.

It is right to argue America's presence since the end of the war has been beneficial for South Korea. Compared to the north that is surely correct. If an occupations is done well this does not mean it is is not an occupation.

That South Korea has the power to ask the US forces to leave does however mean it is not an occupation.

Put it this way if North Korea falls tomorrow the US will not say job done time to leave. They have strong strategic interests that require military bases on the peninsular.

So too, do the Koreans require US military presence. It's mutually beneficial.

If a political party were to arise that looked like they might ask the Americans to leave...well no...that will never be allowed to happen even if that means some suspicious deaths and convenient scandals and a return to a harder style of intervention that has been the hallmark of America foreign policy for the last 100 years.

That's pure speculation.

It seems obvious but ought to be pointed out that if suddenly there was a revolution and South Korea flipped into a socialistic left wing politics America would not give up is bases much like its retention of Guantanamo bay in Cuba.

What choice does it have though but to pull out?

[Furrowed Brow]

Occupation implies seizure of foreign territory. Mere presence does not mean occupation.

Things can be far more complicated and nuanced than that. Take The French Vichy government of WWII. Northern France was physically occupied by German forces, Southern France was not physically occupied, the Vichy government was the nominal government for the whole of France, whilst Vichy was the capital of the free zone, and yet the Vichy government was clearly a tool of the Germans. It does not matter the German forces limited themselves to the North. France was occupied, Southern France was not free from that occupation. Take The British Raj states during the the British Empire. The Raj states were independent principalities whose powers and remit was decided by the British Empire. The smaller Rajs had no rights outside of those decided by the empire.

The hallmark of an occupied nation is the limits for self determination permitted by the colonial power. If troops are stationed on sovereign territory and the kind of government permitted is restricted by the colonial power either official through treaty or unofficially through bribery, secret service and basic fear of going against the greater power. True South Korea is a softer example of what that means.

If a political party were to arise that looked like they might ask the Americans to leave...well no...that will never be allowed to happen even if that means some suspicious deaths and convenient scandals and a return to a harder style of intervention that has been the hallmark of America foreign policy for the last 100 years.

That's pure speculation.

It is a greater speculation to think the same basic tools of American foreign policy and the drive for hegemony are not in play as they have always been in play. The dark side of American foreign policy is too well documented to be called speculation. If South Korean had a large left leaning population they would not be as democratic or so free as they now feel they are.

It seems obvious but ought to be pointed out that if suddenly there was a revolution and South Korea flipped into a socialistic left wing politics America would not give up is bases much like its retention of Guantanamo bay in Cuba.

What choice does it have though but to pull out?

They have the choice of a major military power. Like they had the choice to retain Guantanamo bay. If South Korea suddenly became atto American, America would behave in much the same way as Russia did in Crimea top preserve their bases. Why would you ever doubt South Korean self determination would trump America self interest. Only America will decide when if ever they leave the pensiula.

[Bust Nak]

Things can be far more complicated and nuanced than that. Take The French Vichy government of WWII...

I can grant you that it is more complicated and nuanced than that, but listen to yourself, Vichy government? Colonial power? Are you suggesting that the Korean people are not in control, or worse, less in control than the north Koreans?

It is a greater speculation to think the same basic tools of American foreign policy and the drive for hegemony are not in play as they have always been in play. The dark side of American foreign policy is too well documented to be called speculation. If South Korean had a large left leaning population they would not be as democratic or so free as they now feel they are.

But they are free thanks to American forces.

They have the choice of a major military power. Like they had the choice to retain Guantanamo bay. If South Korea suddenly became atto American, America would behave in much the same way as Russia did in Crimea top preserve their bases.

You are seriously comparing Guantanamo bay to Crimea? Guantanamo bay has the blessing of Cuba.

Why would you ever doubt South Korean self determination would trump America self interest.

It doesn't need to trump America self interest, it would be in America interest to play nice with South Korean.

Only America will decide when if ever they leave the pensiula.

And they will decide to leave when they are forced to.

[amortalman]

So, North Korea is on the verge of uniting a thermo-nuclear warhead with an inter-continental ballistic missile system. When it does this, it will be entirely capable of levelling any given American city, and maybe several of them.

True, but having the capability does not mean they will use it.

And North Korea is not a friend of America.

The same can be said of Russia and they've had nuclear missiles a long time and have yet to use them for the obvious reason of mutual annihilation. I suspect that NK has as much sanity as Russia.

When it is so capable, it is likely to act.

Why would it be likely to act?

Not with an initial pre-emptive strike, but at the very least with nuclear blackmail: 'Remove your troops from South Korea, or Dallas gets it!' 'Remove your troops from Japan, or New York gets it!'

IF they made such a threat it would amount to nothing more than a threat. To carry it out would mean instant annihilation of their country. They won't be making such an idiotic threat.

Of course, America has anti-missile missiles, but it would be foolish to rely on a 100% rate of effectiveness. And it would only take 1 missile to get through to devastate a city, which would mean a death toll in the millions, a huge disruption of the economy, and incalculable damage to the environment.

True again. But look, that's not going to happen unless it happens through mishap which is entirely possible, but unlikely. We may not like their government but they're not stupid.

The thing is, it's too late in the game to make empty threats such as "I'm going to take care of North Korea" as our president did a few months ago. Kim Jong Un stood up to him because he knew he wasn't about to start a nuclear war. Trump backed off and decided to use less violent ways to bring pressure on NK. Maybe it will have some effect but it won't make NK give up their nukes. About the best we can hope for is some kind of agreement between the two countries.

It seems that the time for action has arrived. But what should that action be? What would Jesus do?

Best wishes, 2RM.

It's probably too late for "action." North Korea is a card-carrying member of the nuclear age. The president hasn't asked for my advice but if he did I would tell him to back off the bully talk. Recognize NK's right to mutual deterrence and work out a peaceful agreement.

WWJD? Nothing.

[Furrowed Brow]

Very slow reply. I've been doing other stuff that took me away. My apologies.

Things can be far more complicated and nuanced than that. Take The French Vichy government of WWII...

I can grant you that it is more complicated and nuanced than that, but listen to yourself, Vichy government? Colonial power? Are you suggesting that the Korean people are not in control, or worse, less in control than the north Koreans?

Of course North Korea is a truly dreadful place and probably the least free place on the planet. And of course South Korea is an affluent and much better place to live. But that can all be true and the American presence and influence over South Korea still be a soft occupation. A soft occupation is still an occupation.

But they are free thanks to American forces.

South Korea went through a period of authoritarian leadership before it arrived at the relative benign state it is today. American forces fought to see right wing despots run South Korea.

The presence benign period has been achieved through a world class economic performance that saw significant raising of standards of living and the general rejection of left wing politics on the South Korean population. But in the unlikely event left wing politics were to ever threaten to redefine South Korea then watch the present South Korean political class and America bare their teeth. For example if a political movement arose that threatened to pivot South Korea away from America and towards China watch the rhetoric change. History shows that the first response would be to ferment instability leading to the installing of a right wing despot. This political backdrop is the limit of South Korean freedom. This is a political reality of living life under the American umbrella. There are too many examples across South America, Africa and Asia to name individually that prove the point. But I definitely suggest you check out the history of Indonesia. If you are not aware I also suggest you become acquainted with Operation Gladio Italy 1970/80s. Italy had the largest communist party in Western Europe. To discredit left wing politics in Italy Nato/CIA sponsored right wing terrorists groups in a series of killings and bombings in order to put the blame on left wing groups. This includes the Bologna train bombing of 1980 that killed 85 people. To prevent Aldo Moro forming a coalition government with the communists the ex prime minister was kidnapped and murdered. This case is well documented and all the details eventually came out in Italian courts.

The point to raising these other examples that on face value have nothing to do with South Korea is that they inform the South Korean experience of life under the American umbrella and what they could expect if they tried to move from under it or move towards a more left wing form of politics or pivot toward China. There is a context to South Korean freedom and that contact is the presence of American military and the strategic importance of South Korea to American interests.

You are seriously comparing Guantanamo bay to Crimea? Guantanamo bay has the blessing of Cuba.

Huh?

America originally annexed Guantanamo in 1898. After a brief period of America government the Treaty of 1903 allowed America to lease the base to "preserve the independence of Cuba" but the Teller Amendment restricted Cuban independence. After the collapse of the Palma government America began a four year pacification of Cuba. There then followed a period of complaint governments that protected American interests on Cuba. Things began to destabilise from around the 1940s. By the time Castro America took over America stopped paying the lease as they did not recognise the Castro regime. Castro tolerated Americas presence out of political pragmatism. He feared a move on the bay would invite an American invasion. Though he did turn the water off once.

The history of the Guantanamo bay is a paradigm of how neo-colonial power is exercised. Whilst there have been Cuban governments friendly to America and content with the lease to say the presence of the American naval base has Cuba's blessing is a sanguine reading of history to say the least.

It doesn't need to trump America self interest, it would be in America interest to play nice with South Korean.

Quite so. In this sense the occupation of South Korea has over the long term proved a success. Still an occupation though. America will play nice just so long as playing nice meets their interests. As there seems no obvious challenge to that policy and South Korea provide an important military footprint for America in that region the cosy relationship between South Korea and America will probably continue for a long time to come.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 29 by Furrowed Brow]


"Of course North Korea is a truly dreadful place and probably the least free place on the planet. And of course South Korea is an affluent and much better place to live. But that can all be true and the American presence and influence over South Korea still be a soft occupation. A soft occupation is still an occupation. "

Lovely to watch Nth and Sth Koreans shake hands as both peoples are hopeful for friendlier political relations. But watch threatening Pence! He was sitting at the Olympics not as a guest but as if he owned the country, disgraceful!

For those who think Nth Korea is a dreadful place, have yu though of why? Did you know that US killed millions and destroyed the the country in 1950s? That's in my lifetime perhaps yours also.

North Korea 'a country like no other', say Australian holidaymakers ...
www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-06/north-ko ... ../9116050

"The North Korean state provides free education, free medicine, free hospitals and they even provide free housing," Mr Ferguson said. Tourists are only allowed to visit North Korea on officially sanctioned tours. They are escorted by a ..."