Another GOP Intervention Call….

Sunday night arrives and finds me once again watching the late game with the hopes that a player or two will really do well so that my fantasy football team won’t lose yet another game. And one of my players is in the locker room having his hand evaluated. Some weeks things just don’t go my way, lol. As I was sitting here throwing insults at the television, I was perusing the news stories, checking out what people had to say on the morning talk shows. As I did I ran across this particular story that just rubbed me the wrong way. Personally, I like John McCain. I think he is a good guy, one of the few in Washington DC that really does want to simply make things better, regardless of which side of the aisle proposes the solution. But it appears that, like the rest of the yahoos in Congress, his memory does not function in an effective way. Despite suffering blistering criticism for the interventionist policies that caused such widespread dislike for George Bush, McCain and the GOP learned nothing at all. We find McCain making the circuit calling for “regime change” in North Korea.

Let me get one thing out of the way before I say anything else. I don’t like North Korea. I served in South Korea, including quite a bit of time spent up on the DMZ. I think that the leadership of North Korea is horrid. They don’t care a single bit about the actual citizens of North Korea. They are as incompetent as can be imagined in setting a course forward that would help the country to improve. And they are completely out of control in terms of how they deal with other nations, particularly their neighbor to the south.

In other words, I also believe that a regime change in North Korea would be a good thing for both the international community and more important, for the people of North Korea. There is no harm in wishing that the country’s leadership would change hands so that North Korea could begin the long path towards a better life for her citizens. However, wishing it were so is really the extent that I am willing to go.

John McCain said on the morning shows that he is calling for a regime change in North Korea. He didn’t come out and say we should attack North Korea or that we should invade North Korea. I am glad at least for that. But he proposed that China should be exerting force on North Korea in order to get them back in line. I would not have had a problem with him saying that he would like China to initiate actions to get them under control. But he led with that term….. “regime change”.

I don’t believe that it is our place to call for a regime change in any country. We are welcome to wish for it. We are welcome to accept a new regime more warmly than the previous one. We are well with in our rights to refuse to trade with North Korea. We are well within our rights to be in South Korea, at South Korea’s request, in order to help deter the North from coming across the border, which they would most certainly attempt to do if we were not there. I am OK with our participating in military exercises with South Korea regardless of whether North Korea likes it or not.

But we don’t have the right to take action in order to cause a regime change. That includes levying sanctions, invading, assassinating, attacking, or even exerting pressure on our allies to take action to cause such (as McCain seems to be doing here).

Whether they are good or not is irrelevant. North Korea is a sovereign nation. Did the esteemed members of the GOP learn nothing from the voter’s rebuke of their “regime changing” actions in the past? We instituted a regime change under the guise of fighting terror in Afghanistan. That sure has gone well. We instituted a regime change in Iraq as another part of the war on terror. That also won huge swaths of voters over in 2008. In the past we instituted regime changes across the globe, including our pals Iran, who continually thank us for helping them in that way….

Overall, I believe that the voters in the United States are first and foremost becoming very war weary. They simply don’t want to be involved in another conflict. Heck, the majority don’t want to be involved in the two we are currently in. And more voters are also becoming less enamored with the idea that we should be facilitating or instigating a regime change in any country other than the United States, which perhaps needs a regime change as much as anyone (and I mean both parties getting kicked to the curb).

And I wonder if Senator McCain is willing to accept the premise that we have a hand in the way that North Korea is acting these days. We have helped to enforce sanctions against the country, essentially starving them to the point of desperation. With the help of the United Nations, we have crippled the North to the point where they are unable to do anything but act out. Furthermore we have responded to these outbursts in the past by granting them aide and concessions. Even Pavlov’s dog learned that ringing the bell meant goodies. In essence, we have taught North Korea that in order to get help they should act out or threaten others. What did we expect they would do?

As I said, I don’t like North Korea at all. In the past I have adamantly proposed that they are a very dangerous nation that we are going to be forced to deal with eventually. I know that the good Colonel has also gone on record saying that things like this were coming. Couple their recent mortar attacks with the reports coming out about their nuclear aspirations and realities, and you start to get an idea of how dangerous they really are.

So what do all of you think? Should we be calling for a regime change in North Korea? If you believe that we are within our rights to do so, how far is it that you would be willing to go to make it happen? If you were the one calling the shots, what would you do? I will try to weigh in throughout the day on your thoughts and further expand on my position.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. N. Korea will change – the son of Kim will start the slow shift back to “normality”

    He is western educated – unlike his father who was mostly Soviet trained.

    The shift must follow the Chinese prescriptions – slow as to not tip the military into revolt as they begin to lose their premier position in Korean life.

    I think that is why China takes such a soft hand to N.K. – they are patient knowing that in 30 years from now, N. Korea will transition – and China needs to be there to help from its own lessons hard learned to help NK to to that shift.

    In the mean time, shelling the DMZ while it the midst of a “war game” is not a good idea – I cannot believe how blunt stupid the US/S.Koreans are in running war games in this manner.

    • Agreed.

    • Wasn’t the unibomber Harvard educated? Since when does a “western education” mean that people will necessarily be inclined to “shift back to “normality””? Weren’t there a number of other terrorists who went to western schools?

      Isn’t it at least as likely that a “western education” means he will be able to manipulate the West better since he has a better understanding of our culture? Manipulating the West is, after all, N. Korea’s national past-time.

      You see, N. Korea needs us. They need us the way the Soviets needed us. They need us the way Israel needs Iran. Without the Boogieman, the people will have no one to blame for their lousy living conditions and poverty and starvation and poor sanitation and lack of services and corruption and militarized societies and so forth. But if the government can point elsewhere, they can say “hey, it’s not us. We want to give you everything, but we have to protect you from the evil Others who want to destroy you,” well then, not only can they deflect attention, but they can actually rally support of the people behind the government.

      I think you’re seeing things the way you want them to be. It’s not in Kim’s interest to allow a shift. It’s in his interest to make waves until we bribe him (as we always do). Then he’ll be quiet for a few more years until the cycle repeats. Also, if he is seen as too western, the hardliners will promptly execute him, whereas he can establish his bona fides if he rattles the saber.

      Now, be honest: which scenario seems more likely?

      • Mathius,

        Your review is myopic.

        The situation in N. Korea is unsustainable, as the was the situation in Soviet Russia unsustainable, as was the situation in Communist China unsustainable, as was the situation in Cambodia unsustainable…. you get the picture.

        It is very much in Kim’s interest to shift least he be overthrown by revolt.

        It is far better to be the agent of the change then the victim of the change.

        Thus, the key is where he got his education. The Western education will have provided him such history lessons and we will see how well he learned them.

        • I’m having trouble coming up with any examples of dictators who voluntarily opted to relinquish power and be the “agent of change.” Perhaps you have a few on the top of your over-sized brain?

          • Deng
            Hu

            …both Chinese… for just two examples.

            List of tyrants that resisted change:

            Louis XVI
            Charles I
            Hitler
            Pot
            Nicolae Ceauşescu
            …etc.

            • Excellent reply, and thank you for providing evidence to support my claim. Off the top of your (over-sized) head, you list:

              Two who modernized.

              Five (and an etc) who did not.

              Assuming that this is representative of the proportions, your assumption that he will modernize seems to be, at the very least, betting against the odds. I thought you were a poker player.

              I raise 3 coins. (careful, I’ve got a lot of ingots to back up my hand). Sometimes, it makes sense to fold the occasional hand, no?

              • Mathius,

                We are not debating “odds”.

                You asked specifically for examples, and got what you requested.

                Example:
                Though Deng came up through Mao’s league – he recieved and accepted advice from
                Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who advised Deng to open up and institute reforms, as well as to stop exporting Communist ideologies in Southeast Asia.

                He listened.

                My point is simple:
                The Son has a Western education – and he has seen the ease of wealth of the West.

                The same thing happened to Russia in reverse during the 1980 Olympics.

                For the first time, the common Russians got to see common Westerners up close – and the common Westerners were commonly wearing jeans and T-shirts that only the elite of Russia could afford. This changed the game. Soviets fell less than a decade later.

                Once the experience of the West is felt, it is permanent.

                He wants to be rich and powerful and free from the threat of overthrow.

                The best way to achieve that is to provide trinkets to the masses.

                Change is coming to NKorea.

              • is that a ‘call’ or a ‘re-raise’? If so, how much? I want to know so that I can show up at your bunker in a few years to collect.

              • Mathius,

                It is a fixing of the game.

                You cannot win.

                You cannot even break even.

                You will leave the cave penniless, but drunk and happy.

                The next morning you may realize you are no longer drunk.

              • BF: Sir, you’re drunk!

                Mathius: I may be drunk, but you’re ugly. And tomorrow, I’ll be sober.

              • Mathius,

                I maybe ugly to you.

                But I am richer then you, and the ladies do not think I am ugly.

              • I’m married. It no longer matters what the ladies think. Only Emilius.

            • “Louis XVI”

              To be fair he did try and make some changes to the justice system, was a case of too little, too late though. Vive la République

          • Good point. I don’t even see elected officials doing that, much less dictators. Power usually has to be removed, but it cannot be done by outside forces. A revolt is all that will work.

            Still, if the US stayed out of it, it would be harder to make us the boogyman.

    • BF, your statement here shows just how naive you really are. Only an absolute fool (or a died in the wool hardline Communist)could ever make the statement that Jong Il’s son would ever bring about “normalcy” to North Korea!

      FYI – The shelling of that island by the north was a show of how “tough” Jong Il’s son is going to be, and that he will carry on the traditional “Mouse that roared” diplomacy that always gets more aid money from the United Nations.

      In other words, or to put it in terms that even a Mensa member can understand – NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE in North Korea.

      • “Nothing is going to change”

        Well…. no, I think there is a possibility things might change. They might get worse.

      • Papadawg,

        NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE

        However, a simple review of history demonstrates the ridiculousness of your statement.

        The same thing was said of China – but it changed.
        The same thing was said of Vietnam – but it changed.
        The same thing was said of Russia – but it changed.

        …and on and on…

        The shelling by NKorea was in response to the shelling by SKorea.

        It started with the USA/SKorean war games – purposely exercised so to aggravate the NKoreans.

        The US and SKorea are testing the NKoreans, not the other way around. And they may force a war if they are not careful (and as they are foolish enough to play war, they are not careful….)
        Only those who have a vested interest in the status quo argue that things cannot change. Thus, those that profit from war and violence will work to try to keep things as they are….

        • Please explain your definition of “changed”.

          30 million Chinese control 1.2 billion other Chinese after murdering over 50 million and use them as slave laborers paid 150 dollars a year from their government.Yeah thats a BIG change.

          Russia is once again flexing their economic and military muscle thanks to the fresh infusion of oil money into their veins.They control their satellite countries with an iron fist.(Georgia anyone?)

          Vietnam? Vietnam?

          Oh you mean that country that is about to become a province of China?!?

          • Texaschem,

            Review my post to Papadawg.

            If you do not keep up with geopolitical change you will make major mistakes in advocating certain policies.

            Re: Russia
            Russia has no “iron grip” on any satellite. It has no ability to project power beyond its own borders.

            Chechen is a good example – after 15 years it still cannot be restrained.

            The Kyrgyzstan Crisis and the Russian Dilemma

            Germany and Russia Move Closer

            By Peter Zeihan

            STRATFOR often discusses how Russia is on a bit of a roll. The U.S. distraction in the Middle East has offered Russia a golden opportunity to re-establish its spheres of influence in the region, steadily expanding the Russian zone of control into a shape that is eerily reminiscent of the old Soviet Union. Since 2005, when this process began, Russia has clearly reasserted itself as the dominant power in Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Ukraine, and has intimidated places like Georgia and Turkmenistan into a sort of silent acquiescence.

            But we have not spent a great amount of time explaining why this is the case. It is undeniable that Russia is a Great Power, but few things in geopolitics are immutable, and Russia is no exception.

            Russian Geography, Strategy and Demographics

            Russia’s geography is extremely open, with few geographic barriers to hunker behind. There are no oceans, mountains or deserts to protect Russia from outside influences — or armies — and Russia’s forests, which might provide some measure of protection, are on the wrong side of the country. The Russian taiga is in the north and, as such, can only provide refuge for Russians after the country’s more economically useful parts have already fallen to invaders (as during the Mongol occupation).

            Despite its poor geographic hand, Russia has managed to cope via a three-part strategy:

            1. Lay claim to as large a piece of land as possible.
            2. Flood it with ethnic Russians to assert reliable control.
            3. Establish an internal intelligence presence that can monitor and, if need be, suppress the indigenous population.

            Throughout Russian history, this strategy has been repeated until the Russian state reached an ocean, a mountain chain, a desert, or a foe that fought back too strongly. In many ways, the strategies of the Kremlin of 2010 are extremely similar to those of Catherine the Great, Ivan the Terrible or Joseph Stalin.

            But it is no longer the 17th century, and this strategy does not necessarily play to Russia’s strengths anymore. The second prong of the strategy — flooding the region with ethnic Russians — is no longer an option because of Russia’s demographic profile. The Russian birth rate has been in decline for a century, and in the post-Cold War era, the youngest tranche of the Russian population simply collapsed. The situation transformed from an academic debate about Russia’s future to a policy debate about Russia’s present.

            The bust in the birth rate in the 1990s and 2000s has generated the smallest population cohort in Russian history, and in a very few years, those post-Cold War children will themselves be at the age where they will be having children. A small cohort will create an even smaller cohort, and Russia’s population problems could well evolve from crushing to irrecoverable. Even if this cohort reproduces at a sub-Saharan African birthrate, even if the indications of high tuberculosis and HIV infections among this population cohort are all wrong, and even if Russia can provide a level of services for this group that it couldn’t manage during the height of Soviet power, any demographic bounce would not occur until the 2050s — once the children of this cohort have sufficiently aged to raise their own children. Until 2050, Russia simply has to learn to work with less. A lot less. And this is the best-case scenario for Russia in the next generation.
            The Kyrgyzstan Crisis and the Russian Dilemma

            Simply put, Russia does not have the population to sustain the country at its present boundaries. As time grinds on, Russia’s capacity for doing so will decrease drastically. Moscow understands all this extremely well, and this is a leading rationale behind current Russian foreign policy: Russia’s demographics will never again be as “positive” as they are now, and the Americans are unlikely to be any more distracted than they are now. So Russia is moving quickly and, more important, intelligently.

            Russia is thus attempting to reach some natural anchor points, e.g., some geographic barriers that would limit the state’s exposure to outside powers. The Russians hope they will be able to husband their strength from these anchor points. Moscow’s long-term strategy consistently has been to trade space for time ahead of the beginning of the Russian twilight; if the Russians can expand to these anchor points, Moscow hopes it can trade less space for more time.

            Unfortunately for Moscow, there are not many of these anchor points in Russia’s neighborhood. One is the Baltic Sea, a fact that terrifies the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Another is the Carpathian Mountains. This necessitates the de facto absorption not only of Ukraine, but also of Moldova, something that makes Romania lose sleep at night. And then there are the Tien Shan Mountains of Central Asia — which brings us to the crisis of the moment.
            The Crisis in Kyrgyzstan

            The former Soviet Central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan is not a particularly nice piece of real estate. While it is in one of those mountainous regions that could be used to anchor Russian power, it is on the far side of the Eurasian steppe from the Russian core, more than 3,000 kilometers (1,800 miles) removed from the Russian heartland. The geography of Kyrgyzstan itself also leaves a great deal to be desired. Kyrgyzstan is an artificial construct created by none other than Stalin, who rearranged internal Soviet borders in the region to maximize the chances of dislocation, dispute and disruption among the indigenous populations in case the Soviet provinces ever gained independence.

            Stalin drew his lines well: Central Asia’s only meaningful population center is the Fergana Valley. Kyrgyzstan obtained the region’s foothills and highlands, which provide the region’s water; Uzbekistan gained the fertile floor of the valley; and Tajikistan walked away with the only decent access to the valley as a whole. As such, the three states continuously are jockeying for control over the only decent real estate in the region.

            Arguably, Kyrgyzstan has the least to work with of any of the region’s states. Nearly all of its territory is mountainous; what flat patches of land it does have on which to build cities are scattered about. There is, accordingly, no real Kyrgyz core. Consequently, the country suffers from sharp internal differences: Individual clans hold dominion over tiny patches of land separated from each other by rugged tracts of mountains. In nearly all cases, those clans have tighter economic and security relationships with foreigners than they do with each other.

            The Kyrgyzstan Crisis and the Russian Dilemma
            (click here to enlarge image)

            A little more than five years ago, Western nongovernmental organizations (and undoubtedly a handful of intelligence services) joined forces with some of these regional factions in Kyrgyzstan to overthrow the country’s pro-Russian ruling elite in what is known as a “color revolution” in the former Soviet Union. Subsequently, Kyrgyzstan — while not exactly pro-Western — dwelled in a political middle ground the Russians found displeasing. In April, Russia proved that it, too, can throw a color revolution and Kyrgyzstan’s government switched yet again. Since then, violence has wracked the southern regions of Jalal-Abad, Batken and Osh — strongholds of the previous government. In recent days, nearly 100,000 Kyrgyz residents have fled to Uzbekistan.

            The interim government of Prime Minister Roza Otunbayeva is totally outmatched. It is not so much that her government is in danger of falling — those same mountains that make it nearly impossible for Bishkek to control Osh make it equally difficult for Osh to take over Bishkek – but that the country has de facto split into (at least) two pieces. As such, Otunbayeva — whose government only coalesced due to the Russian intervention — has publicly and directly called upon the Russians to provide troops to help hold the country together. This request cuts to the core weakness in the Russian strategy.

            Despite much degradation in the period after the Soviet dissolution, Russia’s intelligence services remain without peer. In fact, now that they have the direct patronage of the Russian prime minister, they have proportionally more resources and influence than ever. They have proved that they can rewire Ukraine’s political world to expunge American influence, manipulate events in the Caucasus to whittle away at Turkey’s authority, cause riots in the Baltics to unbalance NATO members, and reverse Kyrgyzstan’s color revolution.

            But they do not have backup. Were this the 19th century, there would already be scads of Russian settlers en route to the Fergana to dilute the control of the locals (although they would certainly be arriving after the Russian army), to construct a local economy dependent upon imported labor and linked to the Russian core, and to establish a new ruling elite. (It is worth noting that the resistance of Central Asians to Russian encroachment meant that the Russians never seriously attempted to make the region into a majority-Russian one. Even so, the Russians still introduced their own demographic to help shape the region more to Moscow’s liking.) Instead, Russia’s relatively few young families are busy holding the demographic line in Russia proper. For the first time in Russian history, there is no surplus Russian population that can be relocated to the provinces.

            And without that population, the Russian view of the Fergana — to say nothing of Kyrgyzstan — changes dramatically. The region is remote and densely populated, and reaching it requires transiting three countries. And one of these states would have something to say about that. That state is Uzbekistan.
            The Uzbek Goliath

            After the Russians and Ukrainians, the Uzbeks are the most populous ethnicity in the former Soviet Union. They are a Turkic people who do not enjoy particularly good relations with anyone. Uzbekistan’s ruling Karimov family is roundly hated both at home and abroad; the Central Asian country boasts one of the most repressive governing systems in modern times.

            Uzbekistan also happens to be quite powerful by Central Asian standards. There are more Uzbeks in Central Asia than there are Kyrgyz, Turkmen, Tajiks and Russians combined. The Uzbek intelligence services are modeled after their Russian counterparts, interspersing agents throughout the Uzbek population to ensure loyalty and to root out dissidents. It is the only country of the five former Soviet states in the region that actually has a military that can engage in military action. It is the only one of the five that has most of its cities in logical proximity and linked with decent infrastructure (even if it is split into the Tashkent region and the Fergana region by Stalinesque cartographic creativity). It is the only one of the five that is both politically stable (if politically brittle) and that has the ability to project power. And it is also the only Central Asian state that is self-sufficient in both food and energy. To top it all off, some 2.5 million ethnic Uzbeks reside in the other four former Soviet Central Asian states, providing Tashkent a wealth of tools for manipulating developments throughout the region.

            And manipulate it does. In addition to the odd border spat, Uzbekistan intervened decisively in Tajikistan’s civil war in the 1990s. Tashkent is not shy about noting that it thinks most Tajik, and especially Kyrgyz, territory should belong to Uzbekistan, particularly the territory of southern Kyrgyzstan, where the current violence is strongest. Uzbekistan views many of the Russian strategies to expunge Western interests from Central Asia as preparation for moves against Uzbekistan, with the Russian-sponsored coup in Kyrgyzstan an excellent case in point.

            From March through May, Uzbekistan began activating its reserves and reinforcing its Fergana border regions, which heightened the state of fear in Bishkek from shrill to panic mode. Given Uzbek means, motive and opportunity, Moscow is fairly confident that sending Russian peacekeepers to southern Kyrgyzstan would provoke a direct military confrontation with an angry and nervous Uzbekistan.

            In STRATFOR’s view, Russia would win this war, but this victory would come neither easily nor cheaply. The Fergana is a long way from Russia, and the vast bulk of Russia’s military is static, not expeditionary like its U.S. counterpart. Uzbek supply lines would be measured in hundreds of meters, Russian lines in thousands of kilometers. Moreover, Uzbekistan could interrupt nearly all Central Asian natural gas that currently flows to Russia without even launching a single attack. (The Turkmen natural gas that Russia’s Gazprom normally depends upon travels to Russia via Uzbek territory.)

            Yet this may be a conflict Russia feels it cannot avoid. The Russians have not forward-garrisoned a military force sufficient to protect Kyrgyzstan, nor can they resettle a population that could transform Kyrgyzstan. Therefore, the Russian relationship with Kyrgyzstan is based neither on military strategy nor on economic rationality. Instead, it is based on the need to preserve a certain level of credibility and fear — credibility that the Russians will protect Kyrgyzstan should push come to shove, and Kyrgyz fear of what Russia will do to it should they not sign on to the Russian sphere of influence.

            It is a strategy strongly reminiscent of the U.S. Cold War containment doctrine, under which the United States promised to aid any ally, anytime, anywhere if in exchange they would help contain the Soviets. This allowed the Soviet Union to choose the time and place of conflicts, and triggered U.S. involvement in places like Vietnam. Had the United States refused battle, the American alliance structure could have crumbled. Russia now faces a similar dilemma, and just as the United States had no economic desire to be in Vietnam, the Russians really do not much care what happens to Kyrgyzstan — except as it impacts Russian interests elsewhere.

            But even victory over Uzbekistan would not solve the problem. Smashing the only coherent government in the region would create a security vacuum. Again, the Americans provide a useful corollary: The U.S. “victory” over Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the Taliban’s Afghanistan proved that “winning” is the easy part. Occupying the region over the long haul to make sure that the victory is not worse than the status quo antebellum is a decade-to-generational effort that requires a significant expenditure of blood and treasure. Russia desperately needs to devote such resources elsewhere — particularly once the United States is no longer so preoccupied in the Middle East.

            Russia is attempting to finesse a middle ground by talking the Uzbeks down and offering the compromise of non-Russian troops from the Collective Security Treaty Organization, a Russian-led military organization, as an alternative to Russian forces. This may resolve the immediate crisis, but neither the Uzbeks nor the challenges they pose are going anywhere. And unlike Russia, Uzbekistan boasts very high demographic growth.

            The bottom line is this: Despite all of Russia’s recent gains, Moscow’s strategy requires tools that the Russians no longer have. It requires Moscow delving into the subregional politics of places that could well bleed Russia dry — and this is before any power that wishes Russia ill begins exploring what it and the Uzbeks might achieve together.

            • How does posting an article proving that although difficult the soviets have a desire to increase their holds on satellite countries negate the fact that they are doing it?

              • Texaschem,

                You obviously missed the conclusion, so I will post it again.

                The bottom line is this: Despite all of Russia’s recent gains, Moscow’s strategy requires tools that the Russians no longer have. It requires Moscow delving into the subregional politics of places that could well bleed Russia dry — and this is before any power that wishes Russia ill begins exploring what it and the Uzbeks might achieve together.

              • Well we will just disagree then.Russia is by no means a “has been” in regards to being a world power player.

      • PD,

        I leave open the possibility that the son will change things for the better. Will he live up to my hope? Who knows….

        But the bottom line is that his western education has given him the opportunity to learn from history and have a view of things that is different from the ideological viewpoint of his father. He may or may not choose to do things differently because of this. But the key is that there is no basis to treat him one way or the other. He hasn’t given us a show of anything that tells us of his character or his intentions. The shelling on the island was done by the father… with son in tow. At this point, the son may be playing along until the father dies. Who knows?

        USW

        • “I leave open the possibility that the son will change things for the better. Will he live up to my hope? Who knows….”

          You may do that, however I live in the real world where past actions have all too often predicted the future with a not-so-alarming regularity.

  2. The US is the “Murphy” of Murphy’s Law. If there is any way we can screw this situation up we will.

    The US, along with a number of other nations, carries some of the responsibility for the current state of North Korea.

    We do not belong trying to press other nations (China specifically) into forcing a change of regime.

    I’m with BF. His take seems the realistic path North Korea will end up going down.

  3. I’m with BF also.

    McCain’s use of the term ‘regime change’ is a handy distraction from the rapidly collapsing ecomony and budding police state. The herd will focus on Korea and the term ‘regime change’ and forget all about the TSA and its violating of the 4th Ammendment. The herd will cease to pay attention to what the Fed is doing; they will not even know of the events in Europe. The nightly news will consist of stirring up talk of nuclear war in the Koreas, and cheering the ‘recovered’ economy. All hail Obama.

    Go back to sleep Rip Van Winkles….

  4. Tough nut to crack. I do not share BF’s view but am willing to give it a chance. However, I, too, have spent some serious time on the DMZ. I know what the situation is…I read the intel reports to this very day….for another 1.5 years anyway. NK will not go away and it will not become a capitalist country and it will not adopt western ways. But, I do not care. Leave North Korea alone. Let it starve and let it die a normal death. Let China worry about it, North Korea is a puppet state anyway, and let China feed them. We have no responsibility at all to do anything with them. USW, my friend, you and I will part ways here…just a little. The “War Games” started two days ago…..50 miles from the DMZ. There is no threat to the DMZ and North Korea and there are no intrusions….as there have been none in forever. The no fly zones are very strict and followed to a “T”. There are no submarines within territorial waters and no Aircraft carriers within 150 miles of the DMZ. There are no troop movements on the DMZ as part of the War Games. The War Games have gone on for over 35 years and no attack has yet taken place and will not. They are, however, a show of force. Also, do not confuse war games with drills (South Korea routinely has drills on the defense of their islands…and I mean routinely….several times per year. They are seperate….completely seperate.) (I wonder why no one mentions the joint War Games between North Korea and China that happens every two years. I wonder why no one mentions the four 6 lane maintained roads from China munitions plants to North Korea…I wonder why no one mentions the three fighter (aircraft)training schools on the China border training North Korean pilots much like that of our own Fighter training schools in Miramar and Nellis…….but I guess that is a thread of another subject.)

    The Korean War was never over, as you know. It is simply a cease fire that has extended since 1953. There have been 137, to date, requests from NATO and from South Korea to formally end the war and start normal trade relations. All requests have been turned down by North Korea and its regimes. North Korea is a rogue nation and “Son of Kim” is not going to change it. But, I am willing to give it time and see if the “western educated” dip shit will follow through. I do not believe it but ONLY time will tell….nothing else. All we can do is speculate…and roll the dice.

    We have a defense treaty with South Korea. In order to pull out, we have to disolve the defense treaty. Ok, I do not have problems with this. Disolve it. Along with it disolve NATO….they are the most ineffective unit next to the UN I have ever had the displeasure of serving in and with and I have been with both. Disolve the UN as well. Save the money. Next, I would arm South Korea with the same nukes that the North has and point them that way. Send the Carrier group south to Taiwan but keep the pact of cooperation with South Korea that is also currently in place. The South China Seas do not belong to China. They are free waters for the time being. (China has other things in mind). Establish trade with North Korea if you wish, I do not care as long as the trade is perfectly even. NO TRADE DEFICITS. (You will find that North Korea is not interested in this and they are not interested in feeding their millions. It is the only way to control them…the millions)

    The minute the United States leaves, be prepared for the destabilization of the South Korean Government through China. Be prepared for horrendous trade wars with South Korea. Be prepared for the unequivocable invasion of South Korea by the North. South Korea cannot stop the North alone unless you arm South Korea with a like number of nukes. Now, why would North Korea, with China backing, attack the South? (1) To finish what they started ( and, no, US hegmony is not the reason for the problems in the region). To unite the Korean Peninsula into one Korea….under the influence of China. Why? To increase China’s trade and economic control of the region targeting Japan and Taiwan and to do it fast. China would IMMEDIATELY blockade South Korea without US naval forces there. There will be no world intervention and there will be no NATO or United Nations intervention. They need to form a new coalition of the gutless wonders of the world. Without the United States….NATO is gone. (Again, I do not care.) Without the United States, the United Nations is gone…it is already rife with corruption and ineffective anyway. (Again, I do not care).

    What John McCain represented is old thinking. BUT…..I agree that regime change is necessary but not backed by the United States. We should pull out and leave it alone….all of it. North Korea will not go away…now or twenty years from now….but…….let it happen on its own and then see what happens. We can all speculate…..and that is all it is. You cannot, in this case, go to history. History is being made…not repeated now.

    NOw, we all know we will not pull out….too bad. But, it would be interesting because the same people on this blog for it….will be yelling about it in 20 years. Sigh….

    • I’m a little confused D13-you mention some pretty bad things happening if we pull out-yet you say to do it. Then you say people who want to pull out now-will be yelling about it in 20 years if we actually pulled out now. Could you clarify a little what you mean or what I misunderstood?

      • Certainly!

        I am for pulling out for two reasons: (1) economics – we have our own problems and we can save a boat load of money and apply it differently and (2) it is time to stop being the world’s policeman and using our assets to do it. Let the region devolve.

        Here is what would happen (in MY…not Wikileaks…opinion) that we have to be prepared for: Warfare is not just bullets and bombs and nukes….it is also economics which often times is much more powerful. The United States is at war, economically, with China. Like it or not. There are several factors that back this up…start with trade and go from there. We have done what the old Soviet Union did…..spent ourself into oblivion. We were ONCE the great economic power of the world….and it is not too late to do so again but we better start now.

        What I was pointing out in my opinion, is the mentality and thinking of the Oriental mind….they operate on a different level than we do and we refuse to understand it…the same with the Islam way of thinking…we refuse to understand it. We wish to assume that everyone is peaceful when they are not and we refuse to accept that they are not. They have very looooong memories and they are vveeeeeeerrryyy patient….we live in a microwave world. We want it now. Remember how when the Apple IIc came out? WOW….we were amazed and revelled in the fact that it only took three minutes to hook up and get information. Now, we get pissed if we do not have access in nanoseconds. We are the same way in world thinking.

        Fast forward……….China has but one objective. To be the dominant world power economically AND militarily. We proved that in our early years and China learned from the lessons we have forgotten. So, they are patient and observant and learn from their mistakes. China, Persia (Islamic), Rome, Egypt, and the United Kingdom were far greater hegmonic powers than the United States during their times but made drastic mistakes. China has learned from the expansion of the United States…and the mistakes we have made.

        My point is all of this is that if we were to pull out…..I surmise what would happen. China has also learned from us….a strong military prevents disruption of economic expansion as well and how to use the military to economically expand.

        I agree that we should not be there…not any longer….or anywhere for that matter. My only comment is to be prepared for the consequences. We are not a favored nation because we have been successful and we are independent. We can be economically dominant again…..but pull in the benevolence and quit trying to be all things to everybody. The consequence of a pullout in that region…will mean that South Korea will cease to exist. It cannot exist without the United States. Now, is that bad? If you feel that we are the saviour of the world….then you will see it as bad.

        I agree with the pull out the military and go whole hog into economics with a strong military to protect our interests….our shores. Do not be the nice guy and have trade imbalances. It will be tough to compete with the likes of China because they make it prosperous to invest over there (relatively no corporate taxes). they have what amounts to slave labor and they have managed to combine a militaristic government and an economic government at the same time. Make no mistake about the China government……it is militaristic and in total control of the country….BUT…..they have learned that their arsenal includes economics….and economics makes the nuke powerless except as a deterrent to military attack.

        My point is that, yes, a regime change is necessary but it is not our responsibility. I was pointing out that relinquishing our current assumed responsibilities on the Korean peninsula, simply plays into the the hands of the Chinese….who are behind all of this. My decision, that USW asked for, is to not play with this. We are in it or we should be out of it. I know the consequences of getting out.

        So….pull out. Leave the region alone and prepare for the consequences of it. I think we become a much stronger nation as a result.

        Any clearer? maybe like dirty water instead of mud?

        • Also, VH….China has learned well….the use of surrogates.

        • Yes, much clearer- Thank You 🙂

          It is not that I think we are the savior of the world. But when it comes to S. Korea-we took on that responsibility. To now step back and allow the people of S. Korea to be decimated and their freedoms to be stolen from them-just makes my stomach knot up into a painful ball. It just seems wrong based on it’s just wrong. But I will contemplate your words because I also know we have to protect our own people. But I’m pretty sure doing something that is wrong to save ourselves will in the long run cost us more.

          • As I said….tough nut to crack…yes, we have a defensive treaty with S. Korea and it rubs me wrong also, however, my allegiance is to my country….USA. Not to Korea or the world. At some point in time, we must yank the string and welfare line in…maybe this is the starting point. I do not know the answer. But I do know economics and I know the world chess game very well. I do know the intracacies of the military and how it has been used…both good and bad and I know whom our enemies are…I am not naive at all despite some that think otherwise.

            I think that if we arm the S. Koreans with the same weapons that the North has and protect the South China Sea and the Yellow Sea (economic survival here), then there can be some parity and we can leave with honor. But I stick with the world issue as well. Leave everywhere and reduce our military to defense posture with first strike capability…we can save one hell of a lot of money and let the regional issues solve themselves.

            This pious little “Son of Kim” is nothing more than another dictator that, like our politicians in Washington, will be infected with power and headlines and N. Korea will still extort food and aid from the world. It will matter not if we ease all sanctions against N. Korea. The politics will not change and the issues will not go away.

            USW used Pavlov’s Dog…..it is alive and well…and until the dog is starved and told no….it will continue….until you run out of gimmies. Then it will bite you in retaliation.

            • Taiwan would be next go go…along with any influence the US once had in that region.I am not so certain pulling out is the solution here.We all know that our presence there is meant as a check to China in the first place.

            • I agree that any goodies have to stop. I agree with alot that you are saying. And I want to make it clear that I am not accusing you of recommending that we act dishonorable as you said this is a complicated issue. But I have a couple questions.

              I don’t really grasp the difference between protecting the seas only. What type of actions would we react to- what type of actions would we stay out of?

              If it is in our national interest to protect the waterways isn’t that easier to do if we also help protect those in the region that agree with and will help us to do so?

              And if we only protect the waterways aren’t we more in danger of having to take action after China takes over the region, making China stronger and any necessary actions more likely to cause WW3?

            • Bottom Line says:

              Colonel,

              I concur with your assessment and subsequent solution.

              The Korean peninsula is not our responsibility, but we accepted that responsibility nonetheless. Now, S.Korea is dependent upon us.

              If we just simply leave, S.Korea is toast. That would, arguably, be morally irresponsible.

              We should set them up with whatever they need to secure their sovereignty, then get the hell outta there, …and STAY the hell outta there.

              We need to retract our bishop to a position behind our pawn chain.

              🙂

    • D13,

      I am a little confused on this comment from you…

      USW, my friend, you and I will part ways here…just a little. The “War Games” started two days ago…..50 miles from the DMZ. There is no threat to the DMZ and North Korea and there are no intrusions….as there have been none in forever. The no fly zones are very strict and followed to a “T”. There are no submarines within territorial waters and no Aircraft carriers within 150 miles of the DMZ. There are no troop movements on the DMZ as part of the War Games. The War Games have gone on for over 35 years and no attack has yet taken place and will not. They are, however, a show of force….

      I don’t know that we have parted ways at all. I never mentioned these war games in my article other than saying that I am OK with them. I participated in these in the past (T. Spirit and others). I like them both as a training tool and a show of force to others in the region.

      • Hey USW…I will go back and read it again…I took the posture that you thought the war games were provacative….let me read again.

        • Uh Oh……My bad, USW. I combined my answer to F and yours in the same thread…sorry bout that. The War Games comment was actually meant for BF…tied into your article….hate it when that happens….sorta like calling in friendly fire in the confusion.

          I stand corrected sir…..by the way…did your scenarios take place on the DMZ as war games or drill responses?

  5. “I don’t believe that it is our place to call for a regime change in any country.”

    I disagree. We have a treaty that requires us to fight with S.Korea if attacked
    by N. Korea. 28,000 US troops in country, plus the carrier group. Basic logic, we have a “dog in this fight”, which makes it legitimate for us to voice our opinion. Add to that, we believe in free speech, so exercising that right is proper. I’m sure Chavez, Libia and Iran will be sharing their words of wisdom.

    McCain speaking out on this is a good thing. He is just a senator, so his words can be used by the President to suit his advantage. He can truthfully say that McCain has no power to act, other than talk. He can also inflate McCain’s influence, that the coming election could be determined by how this is handled.
    Put pressure on China to chain their dog, or the President will have to act forcefully to silence McCain and his followers.

    “If you were the one calling the shots, what would you do?”

    The USS Pueblo would mysteriously sink. I think D13 is correct, that China will claim the South sea if we do not maintain our presence. International law has been established on the freedom of the sea’s, but just as we have seen out freedom here in the USA diminished, we could see the same thing happen internationally, which is not in our interests.

    • Yes sir…we can call for it and should. We have a right to our opinion.

      • Sure we have a right, but is it constructive? They see us as their worst enemy. We are the evil Americans who are responsible for everything bad in their lives. I can’t even begin to imagine the kinds of propoganda they much be fed over there.

        Imagine that your worst enemy, someone who would love nothing more than to destroy you, called you up and told you that you should completely change your life around. Even if the advice is good, are you likely to listen or double-down on your current position?

        • Matt,

          Aren’t you a poker fan? “but is it constructive?”
          “China seeks urgent talks”
          S. Korea, with the US’s backing, raises instead of calling.

          http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703609204575641401450762206.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us

          China Envoy Seeks Urgent Talks on Korea

          By GORDON FAIRCLOUGH And EVAN RAMSTAD

          SEOUL—China said mounting tensions on the Korean peninsula in the wake of a deadly North Korean artillery attack on the South are “worrying” and called Sunday for emergency consultations in Beijing, as the U.S. and South Korea started large-scale naval drills in the Yellow Sea.

          Beijing’s diplomatic initiative followed a hurried weekend visit to Seoul by China’s top foreign-affairs official, State Councilor Dai Bingguo, and other Chinese officials, and appeared aimed at restarting a series of six-party talks that for years have sought to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear-weapons ambitions.

          Authorities ordered people on this island into bomb shelters for a brief period Sunday morning, five days after it was attacked by North Korean artillery. The alert was lifted shortly after. Watch a clip from inside a shelter.

          North Korea threatens retaliation if its territory is violated during joint U.S.-South Korean war exercises. Video courtesy of Reuters.

          Seoul reacted coolly to the Chinese proposal, with the foreign ministry saying it would “take note of” Beijing’s suggestion.

          But an official in the South Korean president’s office said President Lee Myung-bak told Chinese emissaries Sunday that now is not the “right time” for disarmament talks with the North.

          Mr. Lee also delivered an unusually blunt message to Mr. Dai in a Sunday meeting, calling on Beijing, North Korea’s main ally, to take a “more fair and responsible position” on Korean issues and to play “a new international role that is in line” with post-Cold War realities,

        • Hey Matt….howzit going, my friend? Hmmmmmm….is it constructive? Constructive towards what? The propganda over there, in N Korea, is not really that bad. I have read scores of it. The main propaganda is against the South….whom is the “American Puppet”. The N Korean people are more suppressed than that of China and are force fed lots of things. But there is radio free Korea that beams messages and pictures into N Korea.

          Of course, if someone were to call me and say change your life, as you put it….I would tell them to take a long walk off a short gangplank into shark infested and DPM waters. However….appeasement over the years has proven futile. N Korea plays brinkmanship very well. It also has the backdoor effect of allowing China to see what defensive posture that the South takes everytime the NK’s fire a rocket or torpedo or just plain shoot someone. An American officer dares not show himself on the DMZ…he WILL BE sniped purposely from the North side. So…constructive….prolly not.

          When do you stop ignoring the North provocations? Have a what if for you…..

          Ready? Grab a grog….. What if there were no more War Games in the region. What if the Americans pulled off the DMZ and comes home…..and the North continues to fire into the South and talk of War using whatever excuse they want to…(ie: defensive drills on a South Korean island triggers a North artillery attack…figure that one out)…

          What would you expect the South Koreans to do?

          • I don’t know what to tell ya. I’d love to get off that border, but S. Korea has been a good friend of ours for a long time and I’d hate to fail to stand by our friends.

            What kind of man abandons his friends when they need him (even if they are always needing him)? I have no problem jumping ship on 90% of our foreign engagements including Iraq and Afghanistan and doing so within the hour. But Korea has always been supportive of us, and they want us there. Without us, they go boom. It’s a tough call for me.

            It’s on our head if we abandon our allies.

            • Mathius,

              has been a good friend of ours for a long time

              Please provide your criteria for being “a good friend” and how SKorea has achieved these criteria.

              • Well, for starters, they haven’t been shooting at us. That’s a major requirement of all my friends.

                Likewise, I don’t think they’re sponsoring terrorists. That, too, is a requirement of all my friends.

                I can honestly say that Buck has never shot at me, nor has he ever funneled money to Al Queda. I don’t know that I’d be looking forward to getting drinks with him if he did.

                But my definition of a good friend may differ from yours.

              • Mathius,

                Then 95% of the world “is your good friend” and you will commit the blood and treasure to defend them, true?

                Interestingly, Rwanda fits your definition, yet no US defended them, nor Congo nor Angola ….etc….

              • Black Flag

                Can you name any countries that YOU consider Friends of the USA?

                Please share with us YOUR criteria for a FRIEND of the USA.

              • Nations that benefit economically!

    • Carter’s razor rest on the sound assumption that doing the opposite of whatever James Earl Carter prescribes will probably place American foreign policy on the right track, or very close to it. Fans of “Seinfeld” may quickly appreciate the power of “doing the opposite,” but even those previously unfamiliar with the concept should have no trouble acknowledging its utility in this case.

      North Korea’s deliberate and unprovoked artillery attack on South Korea’s Yeongpyeong Island, which killed four South Koreans and wounded a score of others, got President Obama up at 3:55 a.m., the phone call that Hillary Clinton claimed she was uniquely qualified to handle. Having taken the call, Obama (with Hillary at his side), once again has an opportunity to weaken America’s position in the world. Will he take it?

      Ex-President Carter certainly wasted no time pushing Obama in the direction of craven appeasement. Writing in the Washington Post barely a day after the guns fell silent — for now — Carter urged that Obama listen to North Korea.

      Listening to America’s enemies is a hallmark of Carterism. Carter listens like a prison psychiatrist listens to hardened criminals, but without the psychiatrist’s appreciation that the patients are dangerous and manipulative psychopaths. Carter embodies liberalism’s conceit that criminals, cheats, malingerers, and malcontents are not really bad, just misunderstood.

      So since the key hallmark of Carter’s razor is doing the opposite, the first thing we should do is not listen to North Korea’s regime. Listening to a government that lies, cheats, and operates based on motivations even Carter concedes “no one can understand” is a complete waste of time, reduces the stature of the United States, and rewards the regime for what are frankly its murderous policies.

      Carter further advises that his own one-on-one diplomacy with the North Koreans during the Clinton administration, to restrict reprocessing plutonium fuel rods, produced “positive results.” North Korea celebrated Carter’s success by detonating a plutonium bomb and now has at least seven plutonium-based nuclear weapons. Carter blames this on George W. Bush for his “complete rejection of nuclear explosives” in North Korean hands.

      Presumably, according to Carter, this complete rejection led the North Koreans to produce the weapons. So are we to assume that Carter and Clinton didn’t completely reject the prospect of a North Korean bomb? If that was the case, what was the point of Carter’s diplomatic mission?

      Even Carter admits that despite his “successful” diplomacy, North Korea violated the “agreed framework” and began acquiring enriched uranium in order to produce a uranium device. They evidently did this — in Carter’s confused telling — while not developing a plutonium device. At least until they did.

      So, using Carter’s razor, we know that another thing that must not be done under any circumstances is to send Jimmy Carter back to North Korea to negotiate another “framework.”

      Probably President Obama — or at least “3 a.m. Hillary” — should have known this. Nonetheless, they sent Carter to Korea this past July, ostensibly to secure the release of a wrongly detained American citizen, and evidently to sound out the North Koreans on reaching some sort of accord regarding their continued aggressive arms programs. Carter relayed the North’s desire for a “denuclearized Korean Peninsula.” In other words, a return to the status quo before the North nuclearized the peninsula. This, of course is just nonsense, which even Obama may have understood.

      So according to Carter’s razor, we know that Carter should not be used even to deliver messages to or from the North Koreans.

      Finally, Carter advises that North Korea is willing to end its nuclear programs and conclude a permanent peace treaty to replace the armistice from 1953.

      Using Carter’s razor, we know that the first proposition is an outright lie — because Jimmy Carter believes it.

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/carters_razor.html

      • “Finally, Carter advises that North Korea is willing to end its nuclear programs and conclude a permanent peace treaty to replace the armistice from 1953.”

        I cannot fathom that anyone actually believes this at all.

      • LOI

        North Korea’s deliberate and unprovoked artillery attack on South Korea’s Yeongpyeong Island,

        Bull.

        the firing came days after four people on a nearby island were killed in a Northern artillery attack. Pyongyang said that was a response to shelling by the South, which was conducting a live-fire drill exercise.

        Seoul said its troops did not fire towards the North. But Pyongyang’s foreign ministry said yesterday that shells were “bound to drop inside [the North’s] territorial waters”. It does not accept the Yellow Sea border, drawn unilaterally by the US at the end of the Korean war.

        • Flag,

          Bull? You talk about “Kim’s interest”, and what he will do to advance his interest. I think you overlook one thing, he’s CRAZY! Don’t try reason and logic to explain his actions, just doesn’t work out. That does not mean he may not achieve some of his goals, crazy works sometimes.

          Are you going to give me a pass on the Pueblo?

          • LOI,

            He’s crazy

            Ah, that is the complete essence of the problem.

            You’ve bought into the brainwashing that everyone who is not an American ally must be “crazy”, therefore Kim is “crazy”.

            You then continue to argue from that premise: therefore, he is crazy and that allows you (the US) to do anything and all things around NKorea including being crazy.

            First, Kim is not crazy. No man who can rule a nation can do so without being incredibly self-aware. As such, he is as far opposite of crazy as the definition allows.

            Ruthless? Evil? Sure. But none of that makes him crazy.

        • Yes…BF…that is exactly what happened. There are lots of territorial waters all over the world that have different claims and are not recognized…..

          But, do drills that fire into the water provoke an artillery attack on civilians? Is it not you that makes the claim that there should me measured responses? It matters not that N Korea wants a large territorial limit which is , I think, 13 miles on the Western Commercial Fishing Zone. What if South Korea claimed those same waters? Who is right?

          What if the United States suddenly declared the Gulf of Mexico territorial waters? Does not make us right but it is defensible.

          From your own revered Wikileaks : “Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea[1], is a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state. The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state, although foreign ships (both military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it; this sovereignty also extends to the airspace over and seabed below.

          The term “territorial waters” is also sometimes used informally to describe any area of water over which a state has jurisdiction, including internal waters, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and potentially the continental shelf.

          A state’s territorial sea extends up to 12 nautical miles from its baseline. If this would overlap with another state’s territorial sea, the border is taken as the median point between the states’ baselines, unless the states in question agree otherwise. A state can also choose to claim a smaller territorial sea.

          Conflicts still occur whenever a coastal nation claims an entire gulf as its territorial waters while other nations only recognize the more restrictive definitions of the UN convention. Two recent conflicts occurred in the Gulf of Sidra where Libya has claimed the entire gulf as its territorial waters and the U.S. has twice enforced freedom of navigation rights, in the 1981 and 1989 Gulf of Sidra incidents.

          So, if South Korea claims the same waters and conducts drills, as it regularly does, and those waters overlap…who is correct?

          • D13,

            Yes…BF…that is exactly what happened. There are lots of territorial waters all over the world that have different claims and are not recognized…..

            But, do drills that fire into the water provoke an artillery attack on civilians?

            So, in disputed waters, your plan is to aggravate the situation to the maximum degree so to ensure a war starts….

            Brilliant…

            • Absolutely not…never said that at all. As you stated…who benefits by a war? You and I both know that North Korea plays brinkmanship…but their brinkmanship cannot be played by firing into empty waters. It can be made by firing on “innocent civilians”…and the talk of war. Take a look at the War Games…far from territorial waters and land. Russia plays war games over the Allutians all the time. We do not fire on them. The Russian Navy runs sea blockade and naval routines all the time off Canada and the United States and we do not fire on them. The American Navy conducts drills and naval games off the Russin Coast as well…they do not fire on us.

              So..to answer your question with a question…what does the benefit of hitting a hard target give North Korea in undisputed lands?

              • I suggest….the benefit of extorted aid as always. That is why I say…Pull out…and lift all the sanctions. Would you support a total withdrawal, lifting of all sanctions, and arming S Korea the same as the Norht?

            • You didn’t answer the question. The fact is that the South shot shells into the WATER while the North shot shells into PEOPLE.

              The shelling of the island was NOT a response to the South Koreans shooting into the water. IT was an attack on innocent civilians, something you would be lambasting the US for had this situation been reversed. Your slip is showing, sir….

              • USWep,

                So the US would be “just fine” with China bombarding the uninhabited coastline of Alaska?

                Of course the next response of the US would be to sink the Chinese navy, right?

                So the NKorean response was attacking a heavily armed island of SKorea.

                Geopolitically, the US and NKorean response is the same to the same incident

              • I disagree that they are the same, as the waters in question in North Korea are heavily disputed.

                As for the US. If China bombarded an uninhabited stretch of water that happened to be US territory, I would absolutely NOT support sinking their navy or taking any other action that resulted in the taking of human life. That is like pulling a gun and shooting someone because they spilled water on your pants.

                I am still lost as to how you justify North Korea killing innocent people in South Korea because some shells landed in uninhabited water. It seems to go completely against your stances in the past.

              • Bottom Line says:

                USW, Flag,

                The north’s response was overkill.

                The south’s use of live ammo was provocative, or at least stupid.

                Q: Who’s in the right?

                A: Neither

              • I agree that the South was provocative. I also agree that this didn’t give the North the right to mortar innocent people. I cannot see how BF is justifying this.

              • Just my opinion-BF has 2 iron clad rules. 1. You never support any action if it involves a government. Except. 2. When it can’t be helped-then you blame everything on the hegemonic power.

              • Bottom Line says:

                VH – “When it can’t be helped-then you blame everything on the hegemonic power.”

                I think you’re right, and I can’t say I disagree with him.

                It’s the same difference between defending yourself against being assaulted by an adult equal vs. a small child throwing a tantrum on you.

                Are you justified giving the same response to the child as you would an adult?

              • Big difference between a temper tantrum and killing people.

              • Bottom Line says:

                VH,

                Big difference, same principle.

                Is it a legitimate threat?

                What is the appropriate response?

            • Truthseeker says:

              BF, so let me get this straight. You said that a rock has never killed a person with a Gun. Your stance on this is quite perplexing becuase it goes against your believe on Israel vs Palestine on Rocks vs Guns. It also goes against your Mexican border belief. You are really losing your grip on this. The rock was SK shelling a disputed but uninhabited Sea (not a NK lake or something). NKs response was to purposely target and shell a habited island.

              GG

              • GG,

                -Rock vs Gun-

                The point was then: a man throwing rocks at 20 feet is hardly a threat to a man with a gun and the man with a gun has no right to kill that man throwing rocks.

                My stance on Israel vs. Palestine is that innocent people are being systemically slaughtered and ghetto’d by a policy.

                My stance here is the US and SKorea purposely risked an violent incident by running war games and shelling disputed waters.

                If, as it appears you beleive, that the US/SKorea were good little boys not looking for a war, then they would have happily shelled some other pieces of water somewhere else (as there is a lot of uncontested water elsewhere).

                But they did not.

                They chose THAT place.

                They knew why they chose THAT place.

                It was not an accident.

                It was a design.

                A design to provoke a response.

                They got what they wanted.

              • And the person who throws a rock at a person with a gun purposely risks a violent incident.

                They chose that action.

                They knew it would provoke a response.

                They got what they wanted.

                You are all twisted on this one BF. You are allowing your hatred for the US to override your principles. If you were consistent in your beliefs about acts of violence against non-violent people you would be on the other side of this issue.

              • USWep,

                You are bizarrely confused.

                I am not nor have I said that I agreed with NKorea.

                You are so blinded by misguided patriotism, you cannot distinguish at all the circumstances around the shelling.

                If the war games did not occur there, with the resulting shelling of NKorean waters (disputed or not), the counter shelling would not have occurred.

                Since you cannot proscribe cause/effect, you will consistently be in error when it comes to resolutions in politics.

              • Truthseeker says:

                So Hamas, by randomly firing into Israel territory, deserves to be shelled at RANDOM by Israel even though they do their best to only target Hamas? Yes you did not say that NK was justified in what they did but it does read like you are defending them. Perhaps you should clarify? Just pointing out the obivious like “they provoked me and I decided to kill people” instead of saying that NK’s response was a grave overreaction would shed some light on your thoughts.

        • Truthseeker says:

          So BF, here is a snippet from this mornings Fox News Article:

          “Won told lawmakers in a private briefing Wednesday that South Korea had intercepted North Korean military communications in August that indicated Pyongyang was preparing to attack Yeonpyeong and other front-line islands. Won didn’t expect that attack to be on civilian areas and considered it a “routine threat,” according to the office of lawmaker Choi Jae-sung who attended the closed-door session.”

          This was planned from the get go, regarless of where SKorea would have aimed their shells.

          • TS:

            Utter rubbish.

            An “after the fact” speculation:

            “Hey, they were going to shell the islands, so our shelling of their waters was not the cause – it was merely a case of coincidence!”

  6. I only spent four days in South Korea . . . and that was during a blizzard a very long time ago!

    All I know is that it appears that North Korea became Communist China’s unwanted stepchild when the Soviet Union imploded and collapsed, and they have been trying to get rid of it ever since. Communist China is not stupid, they have observed just how much trying to compete in the cold war caused the downfall of the Soviet Union, and how badly the recent and currant administrations in DC have mismanaged the U.S. economy. My guess is that after the recent meetings between the Kim family and the Communist leadership of China, the decision was made to try and get the U.S. into another shooting war (or regime change scenario) to hasten the collapse of the U.S. government.

    Why do I believe this? Before any of you were born (except maybe D13) Chairman Mao set about the Communist Chinese policy to isolate China from the rest of the world for an extended period of time with the express goal of staying out of the cold war and see who would win it – then take on the winner with the exact same tactics that was used to defeat the loser. This is EXACTLY what is happening now.

    I do not like John McCain for the simple reason that he has his head stuck up his rectum. D13 is right when he said that we need to stay out of North Korea and let them die a “normal” death, we do not need to fall into the same traps that we laid out for the Soviet Union. If we fall into those traps, we will be speaking Communist Chinese within ten years.

    • Papadawg,

      My guess is that after the recent meetings between the Kim family and the Communist leadership of China, the decision was made to try and get the U.S. into another shooting war (or regime change scenario) to hasten the collapse of the U.S. government.

      Why do I believe this?

      You must explain what benefit China gains by a crippled US?

      You must explain why, if the goal is to cripple the US, that China does not do this with the most effective weapon in its arsenal – economics.

      If the goal is to cripple the US, why hasn’t China done this already?

      Therefor, it is NOT China’s goal to cripple the US.

      Thus, the roots of your post simply makes no sense.

      It is NOT in China’s interest to have a war on its borders – it is not in the interest of any nation to have a war on its borders.

      The Chinese entry into The Korean war was to prevent the placement of US troops on Chinese borders. The Chinese have never changed this attitude.

      A war in Korea will bring China into the fray – not with any degree of supporting NKorea, but preventing US troops along Chinese borders.

      • Very true…on most of it. China does not want a conflict with the Americans on their borders. Too much risk….however, if the United States were gone….no risk….except in economics. While China does not want American troops on its borders, and I agree with your assessment of same, I disagree with your premise that China does not want a weakened America. It does not want a strong America at all….the value they have falters…but a weakened America…plays right up the Chinese highway.

        • D13,

          As I asked of Papa, please provide your opinion of the benefit to China for such a “weakened” USA.

          • Currency only, BF. Currency only. A strong USA would devalue China’s rise to power in the economic sense…or I believe so. I am not talking weakened militarily. China loses in a military conflict…both sides lose waaaaay too much.

            • D13,

              A strong USA would devalue China’s rise to power in the economic sense…or I believe so.

              You display the same fallacy as others who are confused about economics.

              Your economic prosperity does not impede my economic prosperity – economic growth is NOT a zero-sum game.

              A strong US economy creates a strong Chinese economy.

              So, again, what benefit does China have with a weak USA?

              • Sorry…do not buy your theory. China loses, from my perspective.

              • D13,

                Please provide an economic reason to why you believe this.

              • Sure….I believe that China is way to heavily invested in gold. A strong dollar drives gold prices down. As a matter of fact, a strong dollar drives all precious metals down….how far? who knows until it happens. We are in some uncharted territory right now. It should prove interesting. I think that China has it correct right now….a weakened dollar and dependency upon slave labor to unfair competition…..by unfair, I am saying that it is state sponsored slavery. What needs to happen is on our trade and maybe some good old fashioned trade wars would be cleansing…I dont think we have yet lost enough of our industrial might to compete in a slave labor world.

              • So much talk of being logical-when I look at history I don’t see where logic was the only or even the major reason for doing anything.

              • V.H.

                That’s because we view the world through our own eyes.

                In short, irrational behavior to us may make perfect sense to them.

            • How does it benefit China when the country it exports the most to has a weak economy?

              If you owned a store, would it be better for you if all the people who wanted to buy stuff from it were rich or poor?

      • BF asked; “You must explain what benefit China gains by a crippled US?”

        World dominating POWER!

        That was and still is Chairman Mao’s original and continuing master plan for Communist China. That has been and still is the dream of all dictators throughout human history.

        That is and has been all along the Communist plan. World domination.

        As I have pointed out before – If we, the U.S., fall into the same trap we set for the Soviet Union, we will be speaking Communist Chinese within ten years. As will the entire planet Earth.

        • Papa

          World dominating POWER!

          It appears you have a significant paranoia issues.

          No nation can or ever could command “world dominating power”, and thus, is not a goal of any nation, including the USA.

          China has been empires many times in their history, and they know every single time has ended badly.

          They are under no illusion that the “next time” would be different.

          Their goal is regional hegemony, and not a thing greater than that.

          That was and still is Chairman Mao’s original and continuing master plan for Communist China.

          Mao is dead.

          His ideology is dead.

          Deng begin the de-Mao’ing of China and has continued unabated since then.

          (Dengism, is the series of political and economic ideologies first developed by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping. In theory, it does not reject Marxism or Mao Zedong Thought but instead seeks to adapt them to the existing socio-economic conditions of China.)

          Hu’s idealogy is:
          Scientific Development Perspective, is the current official guiding socio-economic ideology of the Communist Party of China incorporating sustainable development, social welfare, a person-centered society, increased democracy, and, ultimately, the creation of a Harmonious Society.

          The inability to “keep up” with geopolitical developments does tend to keep a person fighting past wars over and over again – and if pervasive in a society – will tend to cause a new war all over again too.

          • Pardon me, but I must give you a quick mini-lesson on recent human history;

            1948 – The cold war begins. Chairman Mao decrees China to be isolated and begins the purge that he states is the re-education and continuation of the great revolution of the people of china. 1950 – North Korea asks Mao for military assistance and he refuses, but in the wake of his refusal the USSR steps in and gives the north all the planes and tanks and ammunition they want and the Korean war begins (it is still going on to this day as only a cease fire was agreed upon with the insistence of the USSR after it threatened to attack China if they did not commit troops to that war. They did and was pushed to the area now known as the DMZ – 38th Parallel – by a much better trained and equipped United States military).

            1955 – The Little Red Book is printed and widely distributed throughout China. It lays out Mao’s plan for the future of China. In Chairman Mao’s further writings he sets the pace and tone for the government that he will leave in place once he is gone and just how to defeat the winner of the ever growing “cold war” between the U.S.A. and the USSR. Wether you believe it or not, those plans are now coming to fruition. Wether you like it or not, Chairman Mao still controls Communist China from his grave.

            Economics on the world stage has absolutely nothing to do with the direction in which Communist China is heading, the Communist obsession with world domination does.

            • Papadawg,

              So the entire extent of your historical knowledge and understanding of China stops in 1956.

              Mao is dead and buried.

              The Communist Party is only that in name. They are a bunch of petty dictators interested in sustaining their elite status and wealth and minimizing the risk of overthrow. They are well educated in history -reading beyond 1955- and know that either the People of the nation begin to realize gains, or the elite heads will roll in the streets – as it has before in China.

  7. I fail to understand how anyone can definitively state that North Korea won’t change? Is it that those people – unlike say China – can’t take a long view? BF has rightly pointed out that Russia had to change, China had to change, etc. Granted we’re not looking at these nations becoming capitalist countries, with “open” democracies. Yet change was inevitable. It will – at some point – be the same with North Korea to some degree.

    Now D13 is very correct in that it is time for the US to pull out of the Korean peninsula. It is past time where this nation should be providing the “security” for another (as we should also pull out of NATO and come home – I mean come on, after 65ish years are we saying we still need to provide a military deterrent in, or protection to, Europe?).

    Lets say the US leaves and the North Koreans get greedy and go after South Korea. So what? The days of the domino effects of communism are history. The North Vietnamese took over the south and look, it didn’t hurt us – nor did those bad, bad communists destabilize the region. Should we expect that the same, or a similar, outcome on the Korean peninsula should the North take over the South? Will that in any way alter the dynamics of the diplomacy we have pursued in the region foe the past 50+ years? Truthfully, how is the potential fall of South Korea a national threat to the United States?

    The United States should not be the world’s cop. We’ve spent a lot of cash to do so since the end of WW2. It’s time to call that aspect quits and come home. We can accomplish humanitarian missions when needed without the need to maintain military forces in foreign lands.

    Isn’t it time that the US take a realistic look at our commitments and realize that our first commitment is to our own nation and our national borders?

    • YOu state :”Truthfully, how is the potential fall of South Korea a national threat to the United States?”

      It is not a threat to the National Security of the United States…..if it stopped there. I did not believe in the Domino theory in the 60’s and do not believe in it now….except in economics. However, I do believe that the National Interests of the United States would severely be threatened if the Yellow Sea and the South China Sea became…ummmmmmm….occupied?

      I firmly believe that the new warfare is economics. The military is just a weapon in the arsenal. The value of currency is the Big Kahuna.

      • D13 said: “…if the Yellow Sea and the South China Sea became…ummmmmmm….occupied?”

        Maybe. But the way I think of it is that China likely sees the Yellow and South China Seas as the United States sees the Gulf of Mexico. I don’t recall the US ever inviting or desiring the Russian or Chinese (or any other country) navies to sail naval combat groups around the Gulf.

        Why is it, or should it be, any different in the thinking of the Chinese to waters they see as their Gulf?

        I also agree with you D13 that economics is the warfare of choice.

        • You say “I don’t recall the US ever inviting or desiring the Russian or Chinese (or any other country) navies to sail naval combat groups around the Gulf.”

          D13 chuckles: (trying to imagine engraved invitations)…no sir…I doubt that we invite them in…but they are there. Cuba is a refueling stop for the Russian Navy and they have conducted drills in the gulf several times and we protest and nothing happens. They fly their planes and run their subs and bask in the Cuban Riviera when it is over. The Venzuelan and Russian Air Force just finished Air war games to within 15 miles of the Florida Keys….we just watched and radared and “painted them”….no problem areas.

          I am mainly speaking of economics and it is something that is new in terms of warfare and it is a delicate game. In military war, one can overcome a stupid error….it just costs lives and territory….in economics….so much more is vulnerable with long recovery times.

          • And the US would behave no differently towards China. We would insist on running naval vessels through internationals waters and we would continue our pro0bing of Chinese defense postures. The point being that China will protest when we come to close in their minds (200 miles), so what? That hurts how?

            You state that you were speaking of economics. Okay, so what again? I would be willing to bet that in the economic warfare aspect the last thing the Chinese want is for the US to pull out, cutting the economic costs we tie up maintaining a strong presence in the region.

            Do you believe that the Chinese would start a hot war over other nations sailing their navies through international waters in either the Yellow or South China Seas?

            Oh, and those engraved invitations to float around the Gulf within or close to territorial waters aren’t engraved anymore – we can’t afford it. We sent out to Kinkos for inexpensive black and white copies. 😉

            • No hurt at all to us. I was purely speculating on the naval blockading of S Korea. I am thinking of commercial zones and air space over the Sea of Japan.

            • We sent out to Kinkos for inexpensive black and white copies.

              In English, I hope.

  8. The North has already sunk one of the souths ships.So the south lobs some shells into the ocean and the north responds by shelling the souths territory killing four people. In my understanding of attacks that is a justified reason for the south to go balls to the walls against the north. The south has a treaty with the US whether you guys like it or not so what good is a man/nation without his word of honor? The US will back S Korea.I know Seoul would more than likely be shelled into oblivion unless the norths infrastructure could be taken out in a stealth attack.I also know the north could use nukes.My personal opinion is that China backed down with their offer of the 6 party arms treaty talks resuming early (which S Korea declined) instead of firmly backing North Korea.If China did indeed drop the North, the North might feel like they have nothing to lose and attempt to annihilate the South.The big question is what will the U.S./S.K. response be. And… to go one step further, what happens if N.K. attacks before a response from both S.K. and U.S.?
    Should we expect S.K. to want to return to the table for talks with a nation that as we speak are prepping S2A missiles along the border?
    Personally I believe that an attack upon the north is very likely.

    • The south has a treaty with the US whether you guys like it or not so what good is a man/nation without his word of honor?

      Yep, just like all those treaties we concluded with the different Indian Nations.

      Having a treaty does not automatically conclude that our troops must shed their lives to NO benefit to the national security of the United States. Treaties can change and likely it is time to consider renegotiation of a treaty with South Korea.

      • Have you considered weighing the checks and balances that exist in todays world in regards to economic control of trade? In essence the flesh of the matter all boils down to greed and money.Power and influence.

        • And please educate me on how being in South Korea or going to war with South Korea against North Korea (and potentially China – just like last time) is a check and balance on the economic control of trade?

          I agree that a LOT of our actions around the world boil down to greed, money, influence and power. But, is that any excuse to waste the lives of our citizens in a useless conflict that gains the United States absolutely nothing?

          I’m more concerned about the violence along the Mexico border. It would be a better use of our troops would be guarding a DMZ here than on the 38th parallel.

          • I rest my case.

            North Korea
            Leaks: China knows less about NKorea than thought

            Published November 30, 2010
            | Associated Press
            Print Email Share Comments (35) Text Size BEIJING – China knows less about and has less influence over its close ally North Korea than is usually presumed and is likely to eventually accept a reunified peninsula under South Korean rule, according to U.S. diplomatic files leaked to the WikiLeaks website.

            The memos — called cables, though they were mostly encrypted e-mails — paint a picture of three countries struggling to understand an isolated, hard-line regime
            in the face of a dearth of information and indicate American and South Korean diplomats’ reliance on China’s analysis and interpretation.

            The release of the documents, which included discussions of contingency plans for the regime’s collapse and speculation about when that might come, follows new tensions in the region. North Korea unleashed a fiery artillery barrage on a South Korean island that killed four people a week ago and has since warned that joint U.S.-South Korean naval drills this week are pushing the peninsula to the “brink of war.”

            The shelling comes on the heels of a slew of other provocative acts: An illegal nuclear test and several missile tests, the torpedoing of a South Korean warship and, most recently, an announcement that in addition to its plutonium program, it may also be pursuing the uranium path to a nuclear bomb.

            The memos give a window into a period prior to the latest tensions, but they paint a picture of three countries struggling to understand isolated and unpredictable North Korea.

            In the cables, China sometimes seems unaware of or uncertain about issues ranging from who will succeed North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to the regime’s uranium enrichment plans and its nuclear test, suggesting that the North plays its cards close to its chest even with its most important ally.

            Questioned about the enriched uranium program in June last year, Chinese officials said they believed that was program was “only in an initial phase” — a characterization that now appears to have been a gross underestimate.

            China is Pyongyang’s closest ally — Beijing fought on the northern side of the Korean War and its aid props up the current regime — and its actions have often served to insulate North Korea from foreign pressure. It has repeatedly opposed harsh economic sanctions and responded to the latest crises by repeating calls for a return to long-stalled, six-nation denuclearization talks that the North has rejected.

            But China would appear to have little ability to stop a collapse and less influence over the authorities in Pyongyang than is widely believed, South Korea’s then-vice foreign minister, Chun Yung-woo, is quoted telling American Ambassador Kathleen Stephens in February.

            China lacks the will to push Pyongyang to change its behavior, according to Chun, but Beijing will not necessarily oppose the U.S. and South Korea in the case of a North Korean collapse.

            China “would be comfortable with a reunified Korea controlled by Seoul and anchored to the US in a ‘benign alliance’ as long as Korea was not hostile towards China,” Chun said.

            Economic opportunities in a reunified Korea could further induce Chinese acquiescence, he said.

            The diplomatic cables warn, however, that China would not accept the presence of U.S. troops north of the demilitarized zone that currently forms the North-South border.

            Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said China would not comment specifically on the cables.

            “China consistently supports dialogue between the North and South sides of the Korean peninsula to improve their relations,” Hong said at a regularly scheduled news conference.

            In the leaked cable, Chun predicts the government in Pyongyang would last no more than three years following the death of ailing leader Kim Jong Il, who is seeking to transfer power to his youngest son Kim Jong Un, a political ingenue in his 20s.

            Chun also dismisses the possibility of Chinese military intervention if North Korea descended into chaos.

            Despite that, China is preparing to handle any outbreaks of unrest along the border that could follow a collapse of the regime. Chinese officials say they could deal with up to 300,000 refugees, but might have to seal the border to maintain order, the memos say, citing an unidentified representative of an international aid group.

            Chinese officials are also quoted using mocking language in reference to North Korea, pointing to tensions between the two neighbors in contrast to official statements underscoring strong historical ties.

            Then-Deputy Foreign Minister He Yafei is quoted as telling a U.S. official in April 2009 that Pyongyang was acting like a “spoiled child” by staging a missile test in an attempt to achieve its demand of bilateral talks with Washington.

            U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that WikiLeaks acted illegally in posting the leaked documents. Officials around the world have said the disclosure jeopardizes national security, diplomats, intelligence assets and relationships between foreign governments.

            Five international media organizations, including The New York Times and Britain’s Guardian newspaper, were among those to receive the documents in advance. WikiLeaks is also slowly posting all the material on its own site.

            • Ah yes, diplomatic cables with opinions – that’s definitive (/sarcasm off)

              You’ll have to do better than that before you’ll ever convince me that the US needs, desires, or should in any way participate in another USELESS foreign war. At this point in time I could care less which of the two ends up in control of the peninsula.

  9. Mathius and Buck the Wala

    Eat your hearts out guys. Just caught up on my email after trip last week. I got a very nice Thank You note from the President. Thought I would share with you:

    Friend —

    When Michelle and I sit down with our family to give thanks today, I want you to know that we’ll be especially grateful for folks like you.

    Everything we have been able to accomplish in the last two years was possible because you have been willing to work for it and organize for it.

    And every time we face a setback, or when progress doesn’t happen as quickly as we would like, we know that you’ll be right there with us, ready to fight another day.

    So I want to thank you — for everything.

    I also hope you’ll join me in taking a moment to remember that the freedoms and security we enjoy as Americans are protected by the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces. These patriots are willing to lay down their lives in our defense, and each of us owes them and their families a debt of gratitude.

    Have a wonderful day, and God bless.

    Barack

    🙂 🙂

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @JAC – you in cahoots with POTUS and didn’t tell us? Which Czar are you?

      • Ray

        I am the Czar of Happiness, couldn’t you tell?

        I have an annual allotment of 10 billion 🙂 to hand out as I see necessary for maintaining the mental health of our country.

        I choose to use the here for the most part.

        🙂 🙂

        • I’ll take some.. I’d very much like to quit my job and burn my office to the ground. I’ll need enough to live off the interest for the rest of my life, and to pay for the damage (if they can prove it’s me). I’d say 1 billion aught to do it (post tax).

          Thanks! I’ll send you wiring instructions through Canine Weapon.

  10. Throwing this out there to see what everyone thinks about it. I’ve been checking it out for a couple days now and I’m not sure weather to believe it or not.

    This group says that the USA has been taken over by the corporates (true) who have usurped the Constitution and now operate under a corporate constitition , making everything we know as law to be unconstitutional.

    Sooo, they have penned a new, updated constitution and have even broken it down to state level.

    The site is a little hard to navigate. Start with the home page and then continue with the tabs at the top. To check out your individual state’s new improved constitution hit the “contact us” tab.

    Here is a sample to get you interested:

    The original United States has been usurped by a separate and different UNITED STATES formed in 1871, which only controls the District of Columbia and it’s territories, and which is actually a corporation (the UNITED STATES CORPORATION) that acts as our current government. The United States Corporation operates under Corporate/Commercial/Public Law rather than Common/Private Law.

    The original Constitution was never removed; it has simply been dormant since 1871. It is still intact to this day. This fact was made clear by Supreme Court Justice Marshall Harlan (Downes v. Bidwell, 182, U.S. 244 1901) by giving the following dissenting opinion: “Two national governments exist; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and Independently of that Instrument.”

    The Restore America Plan reclaimed the De Jure institutions of government of the 50 State Republics in order to restore Common Law that represents the voice of the people and ends Corporate Law that ignores the voice of the people while operating under Maritime/Admiralty/International Law. This occurred when warrants were delivered to all 50 Governors on March 30, 2010.

    The rewritten Constitution of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION bypasses the original Constitution for the United States of America, which explains why our Congressmen and Senators don’t abide by it, and the President can write Executive Orders to do whatever he/she wants. They are following corporate laws that completely strip sovereigns of their God given unalienable rights. Corporate/Commercial/Public Law is not sovereign (private), as it is an agreement between two or more parties under contract. Common Law (which sovereigns operate under) is not Commercial Law; it is personal and private.

    • Anita

      Shortest answer I can give.

      I think it is just more conspiracy B.S…

      Saw one the other day claiming we are operating under Maritime Law and not Constitutional Law and that is why they do what they do.

      I hope your Thanksgiving went wonderfully. I see your Spartans fared much better than my BSU Broncos.

      Congratulations to Sparty Nation.

      • Is that the yellow tinged flag thing? I read that too.

        • Kathy

          Yes, it was.

          I was going to copy it and bring here so Buck could weigh in. But then I just thought it so ridiculous it wasn’t worth the effort.

          I do wonder at times how people come up with this stuff.

          Ordered your Rose Bowl tickets yet?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Sorry I haven’t had any time to comment today — but yea, complete and utter BS sounds about right to me.

            Hope to have some more time tomorrow…and hope everyone had a fantastic turkey day!

          • Not yet, but are talking about it. We went in ’94 and were scammed by CA ticket brokers who realized they could make more money scalping than honor their agreements with the travel agents. We ended up still going by pooling $$ from everyone in our group of friends that travelled with us, but several on tour just could not come up with extra cash to cover the cost of scalped tickets. WI won – beat UCLA, and there was a big lawsuit afterwards. I was 8 months PG at the time – lots and lots of good stories/memories from that trip.

  11. Totally off topic (with my apologies):

    Mmmmmm, smell that wonderful aroma? That my friends and fellow bloggers is the elk meat stew in the slow cooker! Top elk roast chunks, onions, carrots, and potatoes in a thickening spiced up sauce just working itself to perfection. Yummmmmm.

    Get out the bowls and spoons for tonight we dine!

  12. Matthius Hope your puppy is feeling better!

    • She is. She’s up and moving around. The vet saw her again today (trip #5) and wants to see her again Wednesday (#6), then the following Monday (#7). She seems to be in less pain, but she’s not completely out of the woods. Still, the vet doesn’t seem overly worried anymore and that’s a good thing.

      She’s a good dog, and I plan to keep her around for the next 15 years or so (hopefully medical science will make it the next 50 years). It means a lot to me that people here care so much about the pet of a person they’ve never met and with whom they disagree about almost everything. Thank you.

      • I’m very glad to hear that-am glad it’s your bill and not mine 🙂

        We may have never seen each other -but I suspect in some ways you know me better than some of my friends do. Anyway, I don’t have to agree with you about everything to like and care about you and your pets. I suspect if things ever come to a head in this country that we will be on the same side. Lets hope that day doesn’t ever come-because I don’t believe that about everyone in this country anymore.

        • The vet is doing everything for free – I only have to pay for medicine (about $150 so far) and the original surgery. They even offered to board her for free today since I couldn’t get a sitter.

          A little bit of yelling can do wonders for customer service..

        • Bottom Line says:

          If/when I ever win the lottery, we’re gonna all get a chance to meet, …cuz I’m renting a hotel somewhere in Vegas and throwing a SUFA party.

          I’ll provide transportation, lodging, food, spirits, entertainment, etc…

          I would just have one simple request though, …no politics talk, …it’s a party.

          🙂

          • You have a worse chance of us not talking politics than of Black Flag voting for Obama’s re-election.

            But it sounds good. Count me in.

            • Bottom Line says:

              It’s not like I’m gonna win the lottery anyway…but it’s a nice thought.

              I was kinda joking. OF COURSE we’re gonna talk politics. That’s what we do.

              Not that I don’t have faith in the civility of SUFA, but on the same token, I could just see it now…

              A few of us get good and hammered drunk, an argument ensues, and someone goes through the lobster tray.

              Oh, and BTW, I think I’ll send the caterers on an In-N-Out run.

              • Now I’m definitely in.

                And I propose some rules:

                Any time someone tries to use a logical fallacy or a straw man argument, you both take a drink.

                Any time Soros gets mentioned, you finish your drink.

                There is a two-shots-of-tequilla penalty for any of the following phrases: “birther,” “tea bagger,” “Democrat Party,” “caribou lasagna.” (yes, you may deliberately trigger this penalty).

                Anyone wishing to play poker must do so using gold coins as chips. Small/big blinds at 1oz / 2oz respectively. No limit.

                If a certain pirate (who shall not be named) talks for too long, the room may impose a penalty of their choosing. Creativity is encouraged. (I suggest keg stands of equal length).

              • If a certain progressive, who shall remain nameless, constructs an argument in support of big government, the penalty shall be duct tape to the mouth while having to listen to a monologue from an un named Pacific island dweller followed by a monologue from said pirate. Duct tape should be a serious deterrant since the statist cannot continue drinking in the meantime. Being the sargeant at arms, I have control of the duct tape.

              • That sounds like imposing violence on the non-violent.

                Don’t like my arguments? Refute them or get me so drunk I can’t make them in the first place.

                Your choice.

              • Mathius

                You can’t make a sound argument now, why would we need to get you plastered?

                🙂

              • Because you want to see me drink you under the table.

              • Bottom Line says:

                We’ll have to cut a hole in the tape to fit a drink straw.

              • I can compromise with that.

              • Works for me. Isn’t compromise great?

              • I’m coming but I am not gambling. 🙂

              • That’s a good idea. At around $2800 minimum per hand, it could get pricey..

              • Bottom Line says:

                Awesome!

                You can be the official “Drink Czar”.

                Instead of someone getting PUSHED into the lobster tray, it’ll be someone FALLING into it.

                I guess I’m just gonna have to accept that the lobster tray is history.

              • Sounds like I better get my tolerance back up for this party…:)

                I would definitely be in tho, except for the poker. I love poker, but I can’t even cover the small blind 😦

                It’d be fun to watch Matt and BF go at it tho. At poker I mean, they already do that in debate. lol

                BL, I will be the sponsor if I win first. That doubles our odds from 1 chance in a billion to 2! 🙂

              • BL, I will be the sponsor if I win first. That doubles our odds from 1 chance in a billion to 2!

                Make it 3 chances in a billion. I’m will to spring for the whole show if I win as well. 😀

  13. Questions were raised today regarding what the USA interest is in Korea, as well as why the Chinese might be interested in supporting N. Korea in its attempts, or threats, to take back the South.

    Well now lets see if this might have something to do with it (credit to Wiki).

    “South Korea is a presidential republic consisting of sixteen administrative divisions and is a developed country with a very high standard of living. It is Asia’s fourth largest economy and the world’s 15th (nominal) or 12th (purchasing power parity) largest economy. The economy is export-driven, with production focusing on electronics, automobiles, ships, machinery, petrochemicals and robotics. South Korea is a member of the United Nations, WTO, OECD and G-20 major economies. It is also a founding member of APEC and the East Asia Summit.”

    Now take that and combine with thousands of years of interaction and sharing between Manchuria, China and Korea, oh and also Japan, and what do you get? Remembering is a strong suit of the orient by the way.

    Does anyone really think that a Korea left to its own would not eventually challenge Japan?

    Would we also let the Japanese fend for themselves?

    What would the politics in the USA be like with a large Asian population?

    I offer all this not to argue for continued intervention, but to show how it is easy to “oversimplify” these problems. In the end, the philosophical truths are in fact simple. But getting from here to there can be very, very, very, painful.

    Best wishes to all.
    JAC

  14. Plainlyspoken stated:”And please educate me on how being in South Korea or going to war with South Korea against North Korea (and potentially China – just like last time) is a check and balance on the economic control of trade?”

    TC: Without a doubt American Hegemony is at risk from nations such as Iran,Venezuala,North Korea,Russia and China.The entire world economy is dependent upon the American economy in some form or fashion.America wants all nations to be on the same page with them.I also believe without a doubt that America wants to always be on top with these economics.Is it right? Ehhhhrmmmm…Soccer mom wants her SUV, Dad wants his intricate maintained golf course,EvERYone wants huge brick homes with vaulted ceilings,kids want their PS3’s and X-Boxes.Americans want what they want when they want it.

    We all take for granted what we have but don’t realize exactly what it entails to be the top carnivore on the food chain!If you enjoy your lifestyle don’t bitch about it.If you want to live in a dirt floor hut and work in a factory for 150 dollars a year and walk 5 miles to work every day; then go ahead and bitch.

    Plainlyspoken stated:”I agree that a LOT of our actions around the world boil down to greed, money, influence and power. But, is that any excuse to waste the lives of our citizens in a useless conflict that gains the United States absolutely nothing?”

    TC:”Do you still believe the United States has nothing to gain from these “useless” conflicts?

    • TC:”Do you still believe the United States has nothing to gain from these “useless” conflicts?

      In a word, yes!

      It seems to me you advocate wasting American military lives to topple North Korea should war break out?

      You may take for granted all you have, I do not. I am well aware.

      • Plainlyspoken stated:”You may take for granted all you have, I do not. I am well aware.”

        TC:Evidently you are not aware of the impact of the loss of South Koreas GDP and economic revenue upon the Economic Hegemony the USA controls worldwide.If we did allow that loss other countries would follow suit to push their particular agenda.That is why I asked you if you had ever weighed the checks and balances that exist in todays world in regards to economic control of trade.Do you believe the good ole US of A maintains the role of “world police” if not for the benefit of itself?Do you think we do it out of the kindness of the American spirit?Use your noggin.Bush didn’t make the statement “You’re either with us or against us!” lightly my friend!
        Make no mistake people.America is an Empire.

        • Truthseeker says:

          As TC has pointed out, SKorea is a productive society and has contributed to Global ecomonics. They even have a popular international Car company and make lots of electronics. The true question is, what would happen if NKorea falls and SKorea takes it over? That would benefit the world in general, not just the USA. That would give us plenty of reason to no longer have our troops there.

          Cause and Effect!

          • The true question is how much foreign aid is America going to be forced or compelled to pour into the new unified (under the South) Korea to the detriment of domestic US society?

            • Truthseeker says:

              No, the true question is how much would America lose in both Economics (30billion as BF stated, which is jobs) and in aid as you know we love to send aid everywhere if North Korea ran the peninsula?

              • So if it starts, join South Korea in war against the North again?

                How many American military dead and wounded does that 30 billion buy South Korea?

              • Truthseeker says:

                I am all for supporting South Korea with Arms to fight the north and logistical support. To be honest I am not for supporting them with our soldiers in direct combat unless it really looked like the South was going to lose. I truly believe that if we give South some of our technology, they will win when the smoke settles. I caveat that winning is also losing. Obviously there will be mass casualties and you have to look at this over the long haul. What has North Korea done to benefit society?

              • North Korea has done nothing to benefit society obviously. Yet, that fact does not justify our involvement in fighting with South Korea to overcome North Korea and unify the country.

                When will South Korea ever be made to stand on their own? How long is the United States obligated to defend their independence with our military forces? How do you guarantee China wouldn’t enter the fight as they did before and use the war as an excuse to set up a new puppet regime in North Korea?

                I believe it is time we put paid to this account and compel South Korea to stand on their own two feet. That peninsula isn’t worth the life of one more US soldier, sailor, airman, or marine. That is this independent, moderate, libertarian leaning individual’s opinion.

                We have more important work to do right here at home, and that’s where our military belongs too – at home!

              • Truthseeker says:

                I truly believe that if we and South Korea put gaurantees to China that if Korea unifies under the South, that USA will pull most of its troops out of Korea since there is no longer a need to have them there. I would only argue to have a naval base there with a small contigent to help stabalize the area. The Chineese just don’t want US troops so close and I don’t blame them.

        • An empire in decline when we can’t even handle our own internal economic turmoil. Instead, according to you, our economic strength comes from our involvement in foreign nations.

          America’s involvement in some regions of the world is due to greed. Greed for cheap oil, greed for cheap consumer products, nothing but greed. Too many Americans are blinded by their own ideology or desires.

          If war comes, to protect our economic benefits, I hope you plan to be at the head of the line at the Army recruiting office? There’s a need for 11 Bravos. That way you can “protect and defend” that which you so covet.

          • Do you live in a teepee and ride a donkey?
            If not, then enjoy the fruits of your capitalist nature!
            96 Bravo it seems would be a bit more to my liking by the way.

            D-13; Colonel, how would you like that coffee sir?

            • Do you live in a teepee and ride a donkey?
              If not, then enjoy the fruits of your capitalist nature!

              I’m speechless and disgusted at such an immoral and unethical standard you evoke. I certainly hope you’re joking sir?

              If not, you are beneath contempt.

              • Why beat around the bush?

                Do you not believe people live in dirt huts and ride donkeys elsewhere in the world instead of SUV’s and large brick homes?

                Why do you believe the American standard of living is so high?

                Why do we not have to worry about getting on a bus and having some nutcase blow us up in the name of God?

                Just because we would love to live in a Utopia in which all men are equal does not mean it will EVER be so.

              • Our standard of living will not collapse if we remove 25-30 thousand troops from South Korea.

                I do not believe the US standard of living is too high. It is what we can make it – peacefully.

                Utopia is BF’s beliefs that humans can change and get along without any government. They are not mine. But, unlike yours it seems, I have different limits to what is morally right in our actions in the world.

                But you’ll be a “good” citizen and raise your kids to be prepared to offer their lives for your “all we can get in any way we can get it” lifestyle?

              • Plainly,

                Utopia is BF’s beliefs that humans can change and get along without any government.

                That is not my belief.

                Humans do not have to “change”. We are fine as we are.

                “Get along” – wrong words.

                “Do without” – better words.

                You are using the Fallacy of Nirvana – that is, claiming something cannot exist because it cannot be perfect.

                It is a fallacy because nothing done by the human mind can be absolutely perfect. To make such a claim also invalidates your own argument – Humans still “do not get along” WITH government – thus your derision of my position destroys your own.


                I do not assert that freedom of men guarantees the absolutely best solution of
                the allocation of wealth or peace.

                Such absolutely perfect solutions of any problem are out of reach of
                mortal men.

                When the freedom of men is not sabotaged by the interference of compulsion and coercion, what it can
                bring about is merely the best solution accessible to the human mind

              • BF, I stand corrected. Thank you for your clarification.

                I did not deride your position.

                Deride (per Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

                1: to laugh at contemptuously
                2: to subject to usually bitter or contemptuous ridicule

                I do not agree with it. There is a difference. To me it is a Utopian ideal. I respect that you have it, discuss it, defend it.

              • Plainly,

                Hold, have it, done it.

          • Truthseeker says:

            PS Said “America’s involvement in some regions of the world is due to greed”

            TS Says: Capitalism is what drives innovation. If you have no motivation to innovate, then why bother? As TC pointed out once again, are you ridding a horse and buggy? Greed is a byproduct.

        • Texaschem, TS:

          Again, before you make such claims, get the facts.

          SKorean economic impact on USA:
          Exports–$363.5 billion:
          Major export markets (2008)–China (21.5%), U.S. (10.9%), Japan (6.6%), Hong Kong (4.6%).

          So, $36 billion and change TOTAL to the USA

          Imports– $323.1 billion:
          Major importers to South Korea (2008)–China (17.7%), Japan (14.0%), U.S. (8.9%)

          So $30 billion TOTAL from the USA.

          Korea is $30billion out of $1.5 trillion – a deep and distant 6th. A drop in the bucket.

          The economic impact would be felt by Korea, but the rest of the world would hum right along without much of a bump.

          • Ummmm… whatever BF.
            We should just drop Japan,Thailand,Taiwan,Phillipines,Singapore,Indonesia and India as well off our list of trade partners and Allies ehh?
            30 billion is just chump change hunh?.How much would it be if we lost the others?This is one of the goofiest things I have ever seen you post.

            • Texaschem,

              I did not suggest we “drop them from trade”, nor any other nation.

              But your contention that committing lives of Americans to defend Koreans based on some measure of economic gain is completely faulty.

              • B-O-L-O-G-N-A ! ! !

                You just can’t stomach the fact that I’m right.
                If the US moves their influence out of Southeast Asia then who pray tell will direct their influence there and stands to gain?

              • Texaschem,

                I couldn’t care less who “influences” South Asia

              • Well I do because I don’t want to live in a dirt hut and walk 5 miles to work for 150.00 dollars a year!I don’t want my children to nor my childrens children.Get it?

            • Trade countries in which, with the exception of Japan, we maintain no military combat forces in to support the independence of those nations.

              I have nothing against trade, nothing against diplomacy. I am against maintaining military forces in a country. If they can’t stand on their own does it make it the responsibility of the United States to insure their current national structure?

              • Truthseeker says:

                The age old argument: We defend our National Interest. That includes economics.

              • Amen! Preach on preacher!

                🙂

              • TS;

                Indeed.

                You want to trace human life for easy access to TV and trinkets.

                That is mercantilism and it is ugly and deadly.

              • trace = Trade

              • A bit over-dramatic there BF! Dontcha’ think!

              • Texaschem,

                No – it is the blunt truth.

                Using military might to enforce economics is the leading cause of war.

                Google “General Butler”

                I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents

          • Truthseeker says:

            BF, where is your economic statistics for North Korea as far as trade? You just made the arguement for why we would support South Korea vs North Korea.

            • TS:

              No, I made an argument that the economics of Korea is irrelevant in determining “support” and more important “action”

              • Truthseeker says:

                I thought you stated that there is complex geopolitics involved. Does that not include economics? Are you trying to pick what is and is not relevant in determining support?

                If you are on nobodies side, why are you wasting your time in debating this topic?

              • TS:

                Re: Economics

                If you are a mercantilist, then economics of other countries is important to you.

                Re: Sides

                I am not on either Koreans side. Therefore, my involvement is to advise others to abandon their misguided ideology in supporting one Korean against another Korean.

              • I agree.They should unite under a democratic government and capitalist economic system!

  15. Truthseeker,

    So Hamas, by randomly firing into Israel territory, deserves to be shelled at RANDOM by Israel even though they do their best to only target Hamas?

    Do you believe Israeli actions is not the cause?

    You typically fail to see the cause/effect in this matter, as well.

    Yes you did not say that NK was justified in what they did but it does read like you are defending them.

    No, it is your reading that is the problem, not my writing.

    You want to justify the US/SKorean actions

    You want to point to NKorea as ‘crazy’

    You will read whatever you need to into whatever is said to ensure that what you want is found.

    Perhaps you should clarify?

    No, I do not need to clarify anything. You should clear the blinders and the cobwebs away from your eyes and mind.

    Just pointing out the obivious like “they provoked me and I decided to kill people” instead of saying that NK’s response was a grave overreaction would shed some light on your thoughts

    I do not claim that it was a “grave” overreaction.

    I claim that had not the SKorean shelling occurred, the NKoreans would not have shelled the island.

    You want to make the US/SKoreans “good” no matter how perverse they act.

    The fact is, US/SKorea purposely shelled the NKorean waters in an attempt to provoke a reaction and to test the NKoreans. No doubt US/SKorea bet that the NKoreans would stomp their feet, threaten total war, … the usual bluster.

    The US/SKoreans got more than what they were looking for and will think twice before they test the NKoreans again – and they most certainly will test the NKoreans up to and possibly past the brink of all-out war.

    It is the nature of the State.

    • Truthseeker says:

      BF,

      I claim that if NKorea was not a communist state bent on domination of Korea, then SKorea would never have to pratice Shelling or protective measures. If NKorea has no intention of invading SKorea, they why the armistice?

      My point is that SKorea is only doing what they are doing BECAUSE of NKorea. You on the other hand are reversing it. I clearly see that SKorea should have shelled another part of the water, but it was not in NKorea undisputed territory. SKorea did reap the effect from their cause but that does not justify what NKorea did.

      You are missing the bigger picture that SKorea is only doing what they are doing defensively becuase of NKoreas hate for SKorea.

      • TS:

        I claim that if NKorea was not a communist state bent on domination of Korea, then SKorea would never have to pratice Shelling or protective measures

        I claim if SKorea was not a defacto dictatorship supported by the largest military in the world – both bent on domination of all of Korea, then NKorea would not have 2 million man army on a hair-trigger.

        If NKorea has no intention of invading SKorea, they why the armistice?

        If SKorea has no intention of invading NKorea, then why the armistice?

        My point is that SKorea is only doing what they are doing BECAUSE of NKorea

        My point is the NKorea is doing what they are doing because of SKorea/USA

        SKorea did reap the effect from their cause but that does not justify what NKorea did.

        NKorea did reap the effect from their response, too. (SKorea counter-shelled the NKorean positions – which no doubt resulted in large casualties) but that does not justify what SKorea did, either.

        You are missing the bigger picture that SKorea is only doing what they are doing defensively becuase of NKoreas hate for SKorea.

        You are missing the whole picture.

        NKorea is doing what they are doing defensively because of SKorea/USA hate for NKorea.

        • Truthseeker says:

          See, I knew we would agree! We are on the opposite sides of the same coin. We are splitting hairs and simply choosing which side is more confortable to debate on. This same logic can be applied to all conflicts, however we align ourselves to the side that we believe in most. Which side do you believe in most? I am only seeking your opinion.

          • TS:

            I do not believe in either side.

            As I’ve offered in the past, it is the Hegemonic Power that must move first.

            NKorea is not that hegemonic power and neither is China – it is the USA.

            Caution is required, as NKorea – unlike Palestine – is incredibly deadly.

            NKorea is purely reactionary, it is not, nor cannot be initiator.

            • BF

              So in your view has N. Korea EVER been the initiator?

              Reversing your prior logic if one can not nor is then they must never have been in the past.

              • JAC,

                Your logic is faulty.

                They are not NOW, nor can be NOW, the initiator.

                The cause of the Korean War, like all wars, is complex.

                At the Potsdam Conference (July–August 1945), the Allies unilaterally decided to divide Korea—without consulting the Koreans—in contradiction of the Cairo Conference.

                On 8 September 1945, Lt. Gen. John R. Hodge of the United States arrived in Incheon to accept the Japanese surrender south of the 38th parallel.

                Appointed as military governor, General Hodge directly controlled South Korea via the United States Army Military Government in Korea.

                He established control by restoring to power the key Japanese colonial administrators and their Korean police collaborators.

                The USAMGIK refused to recognize the provisional government of the short-lived People’s Republic of Korea (PRK) because he suspected it was communist.

                These policies, voiding popular Korean sovereignty, provoked civil insurrections and guerrilla warfare.

                In December 1945, Korea was administered by a US–USSR Joint Commission, as agreed at the Moscow Conference (1945). The Koreans were excluded from the talks.

                The commission decided the country would become independent after a five-year trusteeship action facilitated by each régime sharing its sponsor’s ideology.

                The Korean populace revolted; in the south, some protested, and some rose in arms;[39] to contain them, the USAMGIK banned strikes on 8 December 1945 and outlawed the PRK Revolutionary Government and the PRK People’s Committees on 12 December 1945.

              • BF

                Sorry my friend. It is your logic I am using, not mine.

                If it works going forward it must work in reverse.

                It is you who claims that past actions are indicative of future actions, at least when rationalizing Iran’s peaceful intentions towards its neighbors.

                Could it be that your assumption is not universal, or at least it has an expiration date regarding the passage of time?

              • Truthseeker says:

                JAC, I was thinking this same exact thing on my drive home. BF likes to point to the past as proof of what a country will or will not do in the future (Iran for example). Yet he forgets that different people runs those countries and they look to the future. Different people have different objectives in life.

              • Iran is ran by Arabs now anyways not Persians so his arguement of past actions holds no water anyways with Iran!

              • JAC,

                No it does not work in reverse.

                Cause and effect only goes one way. It does not go backwards.

                claims that past actions are indicative of future actions,

                I have made no such claim.

                The Iranian lack of invasion over 300 years does not prove that they will not invade in the future.

                It demonstrates that the Iranians have learned that invasions are a lousy tactic fraught with unintended risk. It is THIS knowledge that stays their hand, no some historical consistency.

                Those that still hold invasion is a useful tactic have not learned this lesson.

              • Truthseeker says:

                BF, some of us don’t have short memories. You have posted (paraphrasing) that if a county hasn’t done something in X years, it will not do that in the future. Your logic is faulty. You assume that the same person that was in control X years ago is the same person in control today. Invasion seemed to of worked out for several countries as they would not be the size they are today without it. It is all about how you execute your plan.

              • TS:

                You were so caught up in your anti-Iranian ideology that you did not understand the lesson.

                If you actually undertook a detailed geopolitical study of Iran, you would have learned that the Iranians put aside invading their neighbors a long time ago – and it is in the psyche of the people as a nation that maintains it. They learned by blood the futility of the tactic.

              • Truthseeker says:

                BF: “you would have learned that the Iranians put aside invading their neighbors a long time ago.”

                I do believe that the Iranians do not wish to invade another country. However, that doesn’t mean the Government does not wish to send nukes/weapons to destroy another. Invading is not longer about standing armies. Invading and attacking can be via Proxy (Hamas), Economically, Cyber Attacks and ranged weapons. The Iranian people cannot stop this until it happens and they will be forced to choose sides when it does (government vs attacking force).

              • TS;

                To suggest this: “wish to send nukes/weapons to destroy another.”

                ..you must provide a sane reason and gain for such a nation to do this to another.

          • I just can’t get this picture out of my head of Blackflag sitting crosslegged dressed in a turban and thobe with a huge red star emblazoned on it…

    • Truthseeker says:

      From a Fox news article (yea sue me on the refference):

      “The shelling comes on the heels of a slew of other provocative acts: An illegal nuclear test and several missile tests, the torpedoing of a South Korean warship and, most recently, an announcement that in addition to its plutonium program, it may also be pursuing the uranium path to a nuclear bomb.”

      TS: Gee, I wonder why SKorea is practicing defensive posture? Is it not the right of a nation to practice defense as long as they are not invading anothers territory borders?

      “North Korea unleashed a fiery artillery barrage on a South Korean island that killed four people a week ago and has since warned that joint U.S.-South Korean naval drills this week are pushing the peninsula to the “brink of war.””

      TS: So again, lots of countries around the world have naval drills and military drills all year. Do you see other countries threatening war over it? Now if the drills do violate NKoreas borders, then it is up to NKorea on how they should respond (War or not). Cause and Effect works both ways. There is nothing wrong with my comprehension. I can easily justify deffense. This whole thing was defensive in nature and you are trying to deffend something that was Offensive in nature. Do you not see the difference?

      • TS:

        The shelling comes on the heels of a slew of other provocative acts

        So your argument here is: because of past actions and provocations (ie: SKorea regularly sails into NKorean waters, etc.), the provocation of NKorea is ok to poke them even harder…. (roll eyes)

        Gee, I wonder why SKorea is practicing defensive posture? Is it not the right of a nation to practice defense as long as they are not invading anothers territory borders

        Sure.

        Also expect a reaction – and often one you didn’t expect.

        So again, lots of countries around the world have naval drills and military drills all year. Do you see other countries threatening war over it?

        Imagine how the US would react if the Chinese navy held live-fire drills off the coast near Seattle or LA.

        Until you understand these very simple equivalences, you will not understand even more complex geopolitics.

        • Truthseeker says:

          BF, you are making this far more complicated then it is to justify your own arguement. The Chineese wouldn’t waste their time doing drills off of our coast because they know we have no intention of invading them. They also know that if they did do that, the fear it would strike into the people off of that coast would hurt Chineese economics because people would stop buying their stuff because they see what it is paying for. CAUSE and EFFECT.

          Says who? What water borders are you using? Every time I have read that initial report and NKoreas claim, it has been proven false. Disputed waters is that, Disputed. Should SKorea sink every NKorea vessel that enters this disputed water?

          • Truthseeker says:

            I see my quote messed up. I was quoting the following:

            BF: “SKorea regularly sails into NKorean waters”.

          • TS:

            BF, you are making this far more complicated then it is to justify your own arguement. The Chineese wouldn’t waste their time doing drills off of our coast because they know we have no intention of invading them. They also know that if they did do that, the fear it would strike into the people off of that coast would hurt Chineese economics because people would stop buying their stuff because they see what it is paying for. CAUSE and EFFECT.

            ” Says who? What water borders are you using? Every time I have read that initial report and NKoreas claim, it has been proven false. Disputed waters is that, Disputed. Should SKorea sink every NKorea vessel that enters this disputed water?”

            Nice try at avoiding the point.

            The analogy was not to evaluate the Chinese attitude. It is to evaluate the US attitude.

            RE: SKorea sinking ships.

            They regularly do attack NKorean ships.

            According to a BBC report, South Korea’s ship fired on the North Korean ship after the Northern ship allegedly trespassed across a sea border that the two countries dispute.

            The North Korean ship returned fire, but not before it had been set ablaze after being hit by South Korean ordnance. North Korea maintained that its ship did not cross the border, and demanded that South Korea apologize, the BBC said.

            The New York Times reported that a North Korean naval officer had died and that three sailors were injured in the incident.

        • Truthseeker says:

          A snipet from an article in the Stars & Stripes:

          “Speaking at the Blue House, the presidential palace in Seoul, Lee outlines a series of past provocations from the North stretching two decades, including the attempted assassination of the South Korean president in Rangoon in 1983, the bombing of a South Korean airliner in 1987, an dthe sinking of a South Korean warhip, the Cheonan, in March.

          “Despite all of these provocations,” Lee said, “we tolerated them in the belif that one day North Korea will change, and because of our hope for peace on the Korean peninsula.”

          He said South Korea has continued to engage in tlaks with Pyongyang and has given humanitarian assistance to the economicallys trouble country, but North Korea continued its pursuit of nuclear weapons and continued its attacks. Now, Lee said, “South Koreans realize that Tolerance and generosity bring more provocation.”

          BF, what has North Korea done to show that they want peace? The South Koreans only want peace and have clearly, in the past donated humanitarian aide to the North. The South Koreans do not benefit from a war with the North but the North benefits from a war with the South.

  16. Let’s simplify things a bit shall we?
    If you are familliar with the board game Risk then this will be a simple analogy that will make perfect sense!

    The game is basically about global domination.
    The players are allocated armies and use those armies to invade and conquer territories on the board that are split up amongst continents by rolling dice against whomever you are invading.
    You get extra armies each turn based upon the amount of territories you control and upon which continent.The continents with the most developed nations and resources are generally worth more armies each turn.
    The more armies you gather the easier it is to dominate battles and hence the world.
    In our current world the battle for world domination is approached with control of economics.The more money you have the more sophisticated your weaponry and the larger your military.Yet you can use economic controls such as tariffs, taxes and trade embargos which makes the domination more “civil” yet it will still obtain the same purpose as invading a country.Military use is used mainly as a last resort against an unwilling “player”.Make sense?

    • In shorter words your beliefs are,

      Amerika uber alle?

      Like Risk, your “game” costs lives of American citizens in order to dominate. Arrogance won’t allow you to be anything but #1. Good luck with that.

      • I guess it’s just me but it sure as hell beats living in a dirt hut, riding a donkey to work for the government making 150.00 dollars a year!

      • My perception is not defined as arrogance.It is defined as having an understanding of the true reality of the world.
        Understanding the nature of the beast allows you to have control over it!

  17. South Korea…………..The economic “drop in the bucket”.

    • World’s 8th largest exporter: Ahead of the UK, Russia and Canada.
    • World’s Trading Partner: 3rd largest trader with China and Japan, 7th with the US and 8th with the EU.
    • World’s largest shipbuilder: including world’s largest shipyard run by Hyundai Heavy Industries
    • World’s 5th largest automobile manufacturer: including world’s largest automobile assembly plant (Hyundai Motors).
    • Asia’s largest oil exporter.
    • World’s highest internet connectivity or access with one of the fastest networks as well.
    • World’s largest manufacturer of screen displays (LCD, CRT, Plasma, etc).
    • World’s fastest increase in patents registered.
    • World’s largest electronics manufacturing firm: Samsung Electronics.
    • World’s second largest steel maker: POSCO
    • World’s largest producer of computer memory chips.

    • JAC,

      South Korea…………..The economic “drop in the bucket”.

      • World’s 8th largest exporter: Ahead of the UK, Russia and Canada.

      Canada exports more stuff to the USA in a month the Korea to the USA in a year.

      Korean total exports:
      $360 billion
      $36 billion to the USA

      Canadian exports to the USA:
      $347.9 billion

      … a drop in the bucket….

      • World’s Trading Partner: 3rd largest trader with China and Japan, 7th with the US and 8th with the EU.
      • World’s largest shipbuilder: including world’s largest shipyard run by Hyundai Heavy Industries
      • World’s 5th largest automobile manufacturer: including world’s largest automobile assembly plant (Hyundai Motors).
      • Asia’s largest oil exporter.
      • World’s highest internet connectivity or access with one of the fastest networks as well.
      • World’s largest manufacturer of screen displays (LCD, CRT, Plasma, etc).
      • World’s fastest increase in patents registered.
      • World’s largest electronics manufacturing firm: Samsung Electronics.
      • World’s second largest steel maker: POSCO
      • World’s largest producer of computer memory chips.

      • Argg..>!

        …as far as the rest, it is irrelevant. China would be worried…so what?

      • BF

        What Canada does is irrelevant. You are committing relativism to justify your claim that nobody would miss S. Korea.

        8% of the US market is not a drop in the bucket. Hell, we just endured a massive reformation of health care because only 10% of the population was under insured.

        Try cutting off 8% of the energy production to California and see what the reaction is.

        Furthermore, only half the S. Korea exports are accounted for with your own data. Do you think the rest of the world that gets the other half might care just a little?

  18. Lets put the shoe on the other foot…….. 🙂

    North Korea: Shelling near South was drill
    YELLOW SEA
    January 26, 2010

    North Korea says artillery shells it fired Wednesday in waters near South Korea were part of an annual training drill.
    The North Korea shelling led to the two countries exchanging fire Wednesday, South Korean state-run media reported. Both countries fired in the air, without reports of casualties, the Yonhap News Agency quoted a South Korean official as saying.
    “We have confirmed North Korea’s firing of several artillery shells, but they did not cross” the two countries’ maritime border, said Park Sung-woo, of Seoul’s joint chiefs of staff, according to Yonhap. “We are on high military alert.”
    “Following the firing by North Korea, South Korea responded by shooting vulcan canons into the air, a statement that it would not be intimidated by saber-rattling by the communist neighbor,” Yonhap said.
    North Korea’s state-run media said the shelling was part of its annual military training.
    “Artillery units of the Korean People’s Army staged an annual artillery live shell firing drill in waters of the West Sea of Korea Wednesday morning,” the KCNA news agency said. “No one can argue about the premeditated exercises staged by KPA units in waters of the north side. Such firing drill by the units of the KPA will go on in the same waters in the future, too.”
    That exchange came a day after North Korea declared a “no sail zone” in a disputed area of the Yellow Sea, Yonhap said.
    The two sides last exchanged gunfire in the disputed area in November, the first such violent incident in seven years.

    So…….North fires shells into water and South shoots into the air.

    South fires shells into water and North shoots into village, killing innocent civilians.

    🙂

  19. Anita,

    Go back to open mic, last post.

  20. Down here Truthseeker.

    Truthseeker said
    November 30, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    I truly believe that if we and South Korea put gaurantees to China that if Korea unifies under the South, that USA will pull most of its troops out of Korea since there is no longer a need to have them there. I would only argue to have a naval base there with a small contigent to help stabalize the area. The Chineese just don’t want US troops so close and I don’t blame them.

    PS: A step in a good direction. Whatever works that brings our troop out of South Korea without losses due to warfare of any kind. I agree the Chinese don’t like our troops in South Korea, and I believe they would live with a south unified Korea (they handled Hong Kong at their back door you decades). I’m betting they even see benefits in the south controlling Korea.

    What I don’t agree with is that the United States has a responsibility to militarily protect and defend another country’s independence. Economics should not be a factor or else we need to invade Venezuela and take down that nut Chavez so we don’t lose any oil from there and suffer economically by so much as one penny.

  21. I say we take a vote-May be other options, feel free to add.

    Question 1. Just pick up our toys and leave S. Korea
    2. Who wants to equip them with nukes and other stuff and leave for good
    3. Who thinks we should stay

    Any answer other than 3 -Answer this one too. 🙂
    1.Who thinks we shouldn’t have a force there but step in temporarily if China gets involved
    2.Who thinks we should leave but step back in if china gets involved or N. Korea looks like it will win

    • oops 3. Neither-leave for good-let china take over region -if China wants too.

    • V.H.

      My vote is to stay………..for a while longer.

      I would do the same for bases in Japan, Germany and other friendly spots.

      Quite frankly, we couldn’t afford to bring them all home in quick order.

      I also think they serve a purpose of keeping things in check without real fear of further war. That is if our leaders can keep their egos in check as well.

      The goal however, should be to bring all troops home to defend our nation. I think that includes a naval force for now to make sure our shipping is not attacked.

      We need to become a nation of TRADERS without the use of coercive force.

      Hope that answers your question.

      🙂 🙂

      Czar of Happiness

      • I think they should stay too-I am just starting to see that the cry for us to leave seems to mean different things to different people.I’m just trying to understand the different stances. Like giving S. Korea a nuke-something about that plan bothers me. 🙂

        • I wouldn’t agree that we give South Korea nuclear weapons. I don’t think that would help the situation at all. That would be beyond reasonable.

          But, this gets me to wondering, how would the US react to South Korea and to the world if South Korea announced a nuclear development program? Would be be bothered as we are with North Korea and Iran, or would we support the South Koreans – even if their unstated goal was to develop nuclear weapons?

          An interesting shoe on the other foot scenario.

          • We may see that scenario played out sooner than later. Except it may be Japan not S. Korea. I know I’ve seen some articles lately about the advisability of Japan getting nukes. Unfortunately, I didn’t read them. 🙂 Might need to go back and see if I can find them.

            • V.H.

              I think that would result in disaster.

              Japan is not considered a good guy by the Chinese or Koreans.

              So if it looked like they would get nukes I suspect one or both would take very nasty action to prevent it.

      • I can live with a phased withdrawal of our troops from our foreign bases, taking up to – for instance – five years. Just show me the plan and lets start implementing it.

        I figure that the US Navy could have some ports of call (tenet bases) manned by the nation the base is located in. We could be polite visitors.

  22. Wikileaks. Just read this comment by BJ (within Atlas’ posting). This is what I’ve been thinking as well. Obama isn’t reacting to this because he is in on it.

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/11/impeachable.html

    • herewegoagain says:

      Any evidence whatsoever? Or just more baseless accusations from the right?

      On another note, DailyKos highlighted three interesting stories today. Curious as to everyone’s thoughts on this site:

      1) Steve King — Obama is seeking to provide for slavery reparations through his support of a settlement in a discrimination case between the USDA and black farmers from the 1980s and 1990s.

      2) Judson Philips (Tea Party Nation) — only property owners should vote as they are the ones with a real interest/stake in the nation

      3) Celebrations in the South for the 150th anniversary of secession

      • Herewegoagain

        Actually, these types of allegations have been coming from the far LEFT for quite some time. Now that others are starting to repeat them there is an effort to tie them all to the crazy “tea party”.

        There is no shortage of conspiracy theories on either side of the scale.

  23. Herewegoagain

    1. Reparations: I think that his view on reparations has influenced his willingness to simply settle the dispute and not worry how many get paid versus how many might actually be deserving. So I give this one a 3/4 true. It is good politics from his view and that of the Dem party.

    2.Property owners only: Absolutely freaking NOT. Citizens only and that requires proof of citizenship to register and proof of residency to vote. Now, there is a legitimate case for restricting voter to land owners. But that should be a State/Local issue relative to “property tax” initiatives, aka bond levies.

    3. Celebrations: Not sure who is behind the effort. But who the hell cares but DailyKos and HuffPo? Personally I think there might be other ways to celebrate the “states rights” issues that are linked to such a possible event. Ways that wouldn’t muddy the waters with the issue of “slavery”.

    I have an idea for you regarding Civil Disobedience. How about a campaign to get all 18 year olds to NOT REGISTER for the draft. It would send a signal without causing the harm or legal problems of “tax holidays/avoidance” and other such schemes.

    • herewegoagain says:

      1) A 3/4 Truth!? Call this for what it is – one crazy senator’s belief, absent any facts, that the motive beyond supporting a settlement in this discrimination case is to provide for a backdoor means of reparations for slavery.

      2) I actually agree with you here. Kudos!

      3) I feel that a lot of people care. You cannot use the civil war to celebrate states rights as, just as you say, slavery will always muddle the waters. Just take a look at some of the states’ calls for secession – I believe it was Mississippi that, in seceding, called slavery the greatest thing since sliced bread!

      4) Interesting exercise in futility. But I actually support mandatory service.

  24. Herewegoagain,

    1. Reparations-Reparations for injustices committed against our ancestors is ridiculous. I’m from German descent. The Romans oppressed my ancestors. I don’t whine about it to Italians.If anything we see more reverse discrimination taking place against whites today in our “politically correct” world.Is it just me or does it seem as if it is fine to promote the advancement of your ethnicity and religion unless you are a white christian?Then you are considered a racist bigot.

    The main issue I have with this discrimination case is that the number of black farmers claiming issue far exceeds the actual number of black farmers!

    2. Property owners only-Citizen only.Nothing else to be said about this issue really.JaC said it all and I am in firm accord with him.

    3. Celebrations in the South-Send me your address and I will send you an invitation from the Sons of Confederate Veterans to ours!
    Why would anyone have an issue with celebrating an action to stop an oppressive out of control government? Abraham Lincoln was the worst president this country has ever had.At this point of time in American history slavery was what we’d consider today a social wedge issue: much like we have today with abortion, healthcare reform, gay marriage, taxation and global warming.Slavery was an issue pounced upon by Northern politicians to justify their lust for the control of the Southern economy.

    I will never understand why folks say the Civil War was about ending slavery in this country. It did indeed end slavery of black males, but 52% of the country was still treated like property. Women were not given the right to vote until 50 years after black males, and even then they were not given full autonomy.

    Even after the Civil War it was still legal to deny women the right to vote, to own property, to be paid for their labor, to make certain purchases for themselves, to press charges against certain males for raping and beating them, etc. How is this not slavery?

  25. we give South Korea nuclear weapons

    Pardon me, but…

    South Korea has nuclear weapons

    — yes, they have not done “nuclear testing” – but they don’t have to – the US did all the testing for them…

%d bloggers like this: