To stop the spread of communism, which was an international world system similar to the a liberal world system that George Soros and the ideologues in Washington are pushing. What we fought before, we have now become. The difference is that everything then was government owned, and in today's system, everything is corporate owned. So who owns the corporations?
They are a threat to SK and the region and we are committed to defense of the people living in that area. That fleet and our people in country SK have kept a lid on the region for that 50 years of floating around those waters.
We dropped bombs because NK invaded SK and we have remained there to prevent it happening again. Corporations are the foundation of our capitalist system. That makes them the political target of people who think like you, that it is the government that owns everything. Communism assumes that life is a huge fruit tree and everyone gets to pick what they want when they want and nobody needs to water the tree.
You realize that the S. Koreans want us out - which is only logical since they have relatives in the North and no one is willing to see themselves or their relatives killed so the US can maintain dominance in the region.
The only way they would be killed is if North Korea invaded the South again. All the rhetoric from Trump will succeed in doing nothing. North Korea daren't invade South Korea and face the US. It doesn't have the military capability to defeat the US. Only a madman in the White House would start bombing North Korea. That would inevitably bring it into conflict with China and possibly Russia. Neither want the US in the Far East - shown by Chinese claims to lands and islands there. Of course we have a warmonger in the US now who wants power - not peace. What did bombing Syria or Iraq achieve. Nothing. But aggression is Trumps forte. It probably strengthened both Syrian and Iraqi leaders to continue their courses. While you have military leaders in power in the North - the South will never be safe. If they want the US out, then withdraw and watch the consequences. It's their decision. They will end up under the North Korean military regime.
It's not just a matter of giving quotes and references. It's a matter of giving relevant quotes and references. You give factual quotes and references that prove what? What is your point? That we bombed N. Korea? Sure... what does that have to do with this thread? What do you want a reference for? You want me to prove hat KJU wasn't born in the 1940s? That he executed his political rivals? I can use the same source you did, since you consider it credible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_officials_purged_and_executed_by_Kim_Jong-un If it's anything else, the least you could do is tell us what.... You bring irrelevant quotes, irrelevant references and irrelevant arguments... What more could we ask? Did you grasp what it was you were responding to? Some of the sanctions we imposed on NK affected the people. Most of the ones Obama put in place had to do with the Kim family's personal assets. If you claim we shouldn't do even that in order to allow some sort of "trickle down economics" in North Korea, let's hear your arguments. Bottom line.. I don't know what to send quotes or references for because I don't know, and you haven't said, what your argument is. Could you at least be explicit? My response was to a poster who claimed that I shouldn't care for what KJU does inside NK unless he commits genocide.
I suspect it's analogous to a European monarch ascending to the throne at age 15, and the the ministers actually running the country. There is a mystique about the queen òf England that helps hold society together. She is politically powerless, but is the personification of a very long legacy. Most people in England support the queen, and the ministers need her to stay on the throne and healthy. I can see the north koreans similarly supporting Kim's sister as supreme leader while the generals rule. I don't say they'd be as enthusiastic as the English peo0ple for their queen. I don't know, but suspect that there'd be a stampeded south and east if South Korea or even China welcomed them to immigrate.
Mebbe they're saying, oh, so subtly, that Kim is now fertilizer. Is that better than a Soylent Green factory?
Kim Jong-un reappears in North Korea after weeks of speculation - reports https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...orth-korea-after-weeks-of-speculation-reports
Yup! Kim Jong-un's death was just another fake news campaign from a US funded Korean outlet. Maybe they're trying to test the gullibility of the American people. Could be for another war? Anatomy of a fake news campaign: Corporate media outlets spread fake news claiming North Korean leader Kim Jong-un had died. The lie originated with a Seoul-based website funded by the US government’s regime-change arm the NED. https://thegrayzone.com/
We can feel aversion to him and we do. The question is what we should do about it. Feelings are dandy but of no use in international relations.
No country should be able to interfere in the domestic affairs of any other nation, no matter the pretense used. That said, I would support an amendment to the UN charter which would reserve full voting rights to only those states whose system of government producing its leadership and representatives is endorsed by the majority of its people under a UN monitored referendum by the people on whose behalf such states seeks to vote. All member states could be given a period of time (say 5 years) to conduct such referendums and, if during that time, they aren't able or willing to establish the popular legitimacy of their system of government, then they would be recognized merely as 'de facto' representatives of their nations, with voting rights reserved only to those who are also 'de jure' representatives as well.
What we do is take the moral high ground, so we can demand that their neighbors and anybody cooperating with him does the same. This is a slow process. And you run the risk of causing more sorrow and pain to the people. But, in the end, it's liable to work if we are consistent. They were reduced to only one ally: China. And China was under heavy pressure and as close to caving in as they had ever come. Unfortunately Trump is unable to take the moral high ground on anything. So all the progress we had made came tumbling down. And since this President* had no "alternative plan"... the next President is not even back to square one. He'll be way worse off then when we started. I hope the next President is very very knowledgeable and can come up with something. As for myself, I have no clue what that might be.
The South Koreans voted for a party that want to have closer ties with North Korea including having border crossings