Koreans Will March Under One Flag In Olympics, As US Prepares For War

I don't mean Trump united the Korea's willingly, but through his provocations. It was something he didn't expect, and he's probably freaking about it.

Anyway his meeting with Canada and the nations that fought N. Korea came to naught. There is no other solution to avoid war, other than the one suggested by Russia and China... and that's for S. Korea to kick out the American forces and missiles, and at the same time Kim will stop the nukes. Russia which is the only nation Kim trusts, said they will guarantee N. Korea's security.

Washington of course refuses to disarm S. Korea, because what it really wants is a regime change in N. Korea so it can arm them and threaten China and Russia... and both of those countries know it. So it doesn't matter to Washington, how many millions of Koreans die, no more than it matters to them how many die in the Middle East, or in Eastern Europe should a war breaks out.

 

Right... political unification is just a couple of weeks away now!

 

Many Americans do have a very strong sense of right and wrong and they are aware of it... Even this kind of pathetic look down proves you're absolutely an anti-american and most probably haven't even lived in America... It's been years now and I really can't remember how many times I refuted your trollish fake identity... Fun tho... Lol...

 

You sound disappointed. What, are you an arms manufacturer or dealer then?

 

And what if you're wrong? It's a powder-keg and not something I want anyone gambling with.

Besides this, if the two Korea's continue to embrace a closer friendship - as per their agreement to arch under one banner at the Olympic Games, then why put a spoke in that? Why not embrace and help closer relations stabilise and grow?

 

Imperialism requires an empire. US doesn't have one.

 

So you would call his bluff

And if he surprises you and vaporized hawaii and san francisco he’s goona be sorry?

I think the next bedwetting liberal who occupies the Oval Office will give kim anything he wants instead of taking the chance of losing millions of democratic voters in the blink of an eye

 

The alternative is to gamble with our very existence, trusting that Kim Jong Un would never use his nukes, never try to use nuclear blackmail to reunite the Koreas under his rule, never threaten to annihilate the U.S. if we attempted to defend South Korea. It is also gambling that we are right when we project our own sensibilities onto him. In my opinion, that projection is assigned out of a desire to believe it, not because his track record justifies it. We are gambling that Kim Jong Un is just as sane and sensible as we are. We are gambling that a personality such as his would not risk destroying his own country by going down in history as the man who destroyed the mighty United States of America.

I also believe a great many Americans have a lack of courage and confidence because, similar to the post Viet Nam syndrome, we believe we have failed in our recent wars - Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. We see the Russians moving on Ukraine, and we are powerless to stop it. All of this lends to a lack of confidence and, frankly, fear to act.

But, in my opinion, there is no parity, no equivalence, between those wars and this North Korea situation. Perhaps the closest thing to it that I can think of was the Cuban missile crisis. The actions taken by our government were a gamble, and both the U.S. and the Soviet Union were perilously close to "pushing those buttons". But President Kennedy had the courage and determination to blockade Russian ships headed to Cuba, an act of war, if you will. I believe the time is soon coming where our generation of Americans must also show courage and steely resolve ... not for our sake, but for the sake of our children, grandchildren, and generations to come after them.

I view the Chinese and Russians as being generally unfriendly, but deliberative and rational, with an overriding will to act in their national interest. In my opinion, it is neither rational, nor in their national interest, to engage in an all out war with the United States over a strike on North Korea that simply addresses their nuclear capabilities with no concurrent attempt to invade the country and take it away from their sphere of influence. I believe the Russians and Chinese will act if the U.S. attempts an invasion of NK and a joining of the Koreas through conquest. There is little doubt of this. After all, China did exactly that in the 1950s. That is what they will not tolerate. But if the sanctions fail, if NK keeps on testing missiles and nuclear bombs, and the U.S. finally strikes those capabilities using non-nuclear missiles, cruise missiles and the like, in a strike that lasts a day or two, with no concurrent invasion, the Russians and Chinese will posture and talk tough, but do nothing, for it is not in their national interest to go to war with us over this action. China, Russia, and the United States are three countries that cannot go to war with each other without accepting the inevitable specter of total destruction. And China and Russia are just too deliberative and rational to damn themselves to that outcome over what really amounts to a pinprick strike on North Korea. Frankly, privately, I'm sure they view Kim as a useful idiot.

I do not believe the time is right to strike NK. I believe we need to give the sanctions time. We need to show the world that we are willing to give these peaceful measures every chance to work. But we must hold to the position that we will never accept a nuclear NK that can destroy us. It doesn't matter that we could also destroy them. We will simply not accept this particular demented dictator having the ability to destroy us and end the USA as we know it. That outcome is out of the question, and, one way or the other, we will not let it happen.

For decades, NK's nuclear capability has been steadily developing. Nothing that any previous administration - Republican or Democrat - has done has stopped them. For those who can't stand Trump, it is important to let that go for a moment and understand that it is only coincidental that Trump happens to be our president at this particular time - the time that we have known for decades was inevitably coming. It is not Trump that is driving this problem; he just happens to be the president at a time when we can no longer kick the can down the road. Decision time is upon us. This is not a Republican/Democrat problem; this is an American problem. It is important that we not see this through the lens of partisan politics.

The Olympic games will not change the character of Kim Jong Un, nor will it deter his goals. Neither his grandfather, his father, or he himself have ever sought peace with South Korea. Their common dream is one Korea, united under their rule.

NK's territorial security is guaranteed by two nuclear nations - China and Russia. They do not need nuclear weapons to preserve their territorial integrity or deter aggression. Everybody knows that neither the U.S. or the South Koreans are interested in waging a new war of aggression against North Korea that entails a ground invasion and conquest. We could be perfectly content with the status quo for the next thousand years. All of the narratives as to why NK "needs" nukes to deter the U.S. are false on their face, using our recent wars in other countries as some sort of false equivalence, "proving" that NK needs the "deterrent".

It's the nukes. We cannot tolerate the possibility of nuclear destruction at the hands of Kim Jong Un. Trump sort of summed up the problem when he said of North Korea,
"North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States." You see, this is not about reunification. It is not about conquest. It is only peripherally about Russia or China. What this is about is about entrusting a demented, isolated, cruel and murderous dictator, who demands that his people worship him like a god, who has repeatedly threatened the nuclear destruction of the U.S., with the means to destroy us. Kim Jong Un has never put the well being of his people first. Never. If millions of his people died in a retaliatory nuclear holocaust, while he was deep underground, do you seriously - I mean really seriously - think he would care? If we look at his track record, and if we are intellectually honest, we know he wouldn't care as long as he survived. And he would go down in history as the man who destroyed the mighty USA. This is the personality we are up against. And this is precisely why the time is soon coming when the U.S. must muster up the courage to protect itself and guarantee its future.

If we are unable to muster the courage to do this, then we deserve our fate. And one day, a future generation may live just long enough to curse us for our cowardice, and rightly so. Our cowardice would be our legacy to our final generation, the survivors who remember living in a modern, robust, developed nation - that no longer existed.

Seth

 

Oh lord, get some perspective. He couldn't begin to destroy the US. At most he might come up with a missile or two. We could hit him with thousands of nuclear warheads.

Trump is a far greater threat to the US than Jong Un could ever be.

 

If I could be sure that kim would only destroy san francisco or some other far left city I might be willing to risk it

But even liberal Americans deserve protection

 

If he could hit us with a missile or two, that would be unacceptable. But his nuclear program is not stagnant. It is getting better. In a decade or two decades the potential will not be a "missile or two". It will be 50 or 100 missiles. We cannot defend against that. Think!

 

You got that out of the OP?

hahahahahah oh man.

 

He

wouldn't

care.

 

I know! It's hilarious. Korea under one flag at the Olympics hahaha.

 

Thanks obama.
Uniting the world, 1 yr after he left office. Still.

 

The problem I have in responding to this is that we see the world from quite different perspectives. As I understand it, your perspective is that the US is the 'white hat' doing the right thing. I don't see it that way. And based on what you say you are inclined to believe what the media says, whereas I heavily lean towards disbelieving them unless backed by facts.

When you speak of the US "mustering the courage to protect itself", I say the US has started war after war since well before I was born. Meanwhile, no one has seriously "attacked" the USA since Pearl Harbour - and even then it wasn't the Continental United States, but an island in the Pacific. Meanwhile the USA has attacked tens of dozens of other nations since it was founded.

This might not paint a nice picture for you I admit, but it paints a pretty clear picture for me. The US is a war-monger nation and uses the emotive word 'defence" to camouflage it's inherent aggressive and warlike nature.

 

I take each issue on its own merits. For example, I see Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom (the two wars against Saddam Hussein) differently. I see Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) differently than the war perpetrated against Libya and the proxy war waged against the government of Syria. I distinguish between the war against ISIS and the civil war against Assad. What this means is that I approve of some things and disapprove of others. But just because I disapprove of some does not mean that I must disapprove of all. For if we disapprove of all, then we may as well just close the Defense Dept (well, except for the Coast Guard) because no war will ever be justified. But no, I shall not make a blanket disapproval of everything we have done or that we may do in the future, nor shall I give blanket approval. Instead, I shall judge each thing independently of the others.

I take it, based upon your disbelief of the media, that you agree with Trump that the media is full of fake news. I too hold a healthy skepticism of what I see and hear in the media. I filter everything through facts that I know, history, and my awareness of methods of deception used by the media to promote a political side to a story. I am by far too experienced and savvy to simply "believe what the media says" as you suggest.

What I believe about Kim Jong Un and North Korea has been run through the same filter. I believe the facts we know about the man and the weapons he is developing is adequate evidence to form a defensible, independent, opinion.

I thought the 9/11 attacks were a serious attack, albeit by a guerilla organization rather than a sovereign nation. But I do not wish to debate what a "serious attack" is. My response to this part of your reply is basically what I have already said. It sounds to me as though you believe that all war-like actions of the U.S. are always wrong - that blanket disapproval I spoke of. And, as I said, I do not judge things in that manner. So, I see North Korea as its own unique problem, and I shall not form an opinion on it based upon, for example, the war in Iraq or anywhere else.

In the world of the internet, where people are often rude and crude, your responses to me have been respectful and duly noted. I noticed you spelled Pearl Harbor with the "u" in "harbor", spelling it "harbour". Are you from the UK?

Seth

 

Everyone was a little worried when Kim cancelled it's delegation from going to S. Korea, but that changed now, and they will be coming to prepare for their entertainment - which should be quite a show. (I wonder what the problem was?)

And to think Trump wants to kill these pretty girls.

 

All Trump wants is a nuclear-free North Korea. That's it.

Kim imprisons, tortures, starves, and executes thousands upon thousands of his own people, including pretty girls.

And your country enables him, comrade.

 

How about quitting the war mongering propaganda. Nothing coming out of Washington or the MSM can be believed.

All Kim wants is for the US to stop threatening them with their bases and missiles in S. Korea. So how about a deal, but Washington said no.

Anyway the meeting in Canada with 20 countries which fought in the Korean war came to naught. The only 'sane' alternative is the one put forward by Russia and China and was agreed upon by Germany as well... which means the EU backs it also. I guess everyone is not blood hungry.

The US will be meeting in Moscow for talks about N. Korea next week. If they believe Russia will go along with their killing machines, they are sadly mistaken. Thank God there are people with a conscience.

 

Let me ask you something Seth, if Washington really wanted a nuclear free N. Korea and felt it was such a threat to us, then why aren't they willing to disarm S. Korea to achieve it? Obviously a non nuclear N. Korea isn't what Washington really wants, so there has to be something else. Now let me guess what it could possibly be?

Could it possibly be for a regime change so nuclear armed missiles could be installed in N. Korea that would threaten China and Russia's main port of Vladisvotok? Isn't that where they ship their grain from, which has now taken over both the US and Canada? Then of course there is Russia's LNG gas with its own competitive edge?

 

lol Yeah, China is claiming island after island and they won't place the sanctions on NoKo they promised, but without the threat of nukes, they would allow SoKo to be independent and free. Riiiight.

 

That's absurd. If the U.S. wanted to threaten a Russian or Chinese port, we wouldn't need to possess North Korea to do it.

The Cuban Missile Crisis happened 56 years ago. Since then, both nations have coexisted. Nobody in this country is interested in threatening Russia or China with nuclear war. That is utterly absurd. You guys really need some better propaganda to foist than something as ridiculous as that. Your Ministry of Propaganda needs to up its game because that is just silly.

 

And yet we know that the reasons given for all of these were fabricated by the US. We also know that General Wesley Clark revealed that a plan had been developed around 9/11 (although arguably before) that the US planned to go to war with 7 countries in 5 years (HERE). This belies the position that every one of these wars has different, justified or compelling reasons associated with it.

I had problems trusting with the media well before Trump came along, but since he appeared on the scene they have become so bad they're laughable...

For me North Korea is just another nation the US wants to bully. The Israeli's have a well developed nuclear arsenal of, it is said, some 400 warheads and are the only nation in the middle east to have that. Why are they less crazy and more reliable than North Korea? After all they regularly open hostilities and invasions in their region, whereas NK hasn't been involved in a war since the 1950's.

What we're seeing here is double standards; that old white hat or black hat psychology that is brought out when required and used as justification

I differ on 9/11. My own view is very similar to the Australian journalist, John Pilger, who wrote an article in the New Statesman in Decemeber 2002, describing how the neocons around Bush needed a "new Pearl Harbour" as a "catalysing event" for it to go out and control the world and its resources --- those 7 nations in 5 years... (HERE).

I agree that the internet seems to remove inhibitions and allow people to become unnecessarily rude. They non-the-less embarrass themselves and ultimately only reveal their childishness.

Yep, I'm a Brit.

 

Great post, SH. Especially from a Brit.