Trump tweets:
1. "North Korea has conducted a major Nuclear Test. Their words and actions continue to be very hostile and dangerous to the United States....."
2. "..North Korea is a rogue nation which has become a great threat and embarrassment to China, which is trying to help but with little success."
3. "South Korea is finding, as I have told them, that their talk of appeasement with North Korea will not work, they only understand one thing!"
September 3, 2017
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
129 comments:
The standard measure of strength is how many Hiroshima bombs it was, just as tumors are measured by comparison with fruit.
"rhhardin said...
The standard measure of strength is how many Hiroshima bombs it was, just as tumors are measured by comparison with fruit."
And large hail with types of balls.
The hangup is getting the S Koreans nervous enough to risk an attack, because they take the pubishment.
Ted Cruz and the Donald.
The Trump strategy is to throw South Korea under the bus by accusing them of appeasement and withdrawing from our trade agreement with them. That has to make North Korea doubly happy.
China better cutoff the Nork's oil or we will put tariffs on China's exports to us.
Imagine what China would be saying and DOING right now if South Korea or Japan were doing the same things North Korea is doing.
Threats from North Korea are threats from China. North Korea would not, could not exist without China. China funds the North Koreans. China trains North Korea's scientists and engineers who then take this training and apply instructions provided by China to construct atom bombs and rockets.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/09/toxic_femininity_hides_jealousy_and_corruption.html
North Korea has just reached the rabid dog stage. The military's only job now is to shoot him. But will Trump be shot first by his ienemies? Kim seems to think that is on the schedule.
This notion that they "only understand one thing" is not entirely accurate. Diplomatic engagement with North Korea could potentially yield useful, if not perfect, results. Trump's empty threats (e.g. "fire and fury") do not help the situation, and they only serve to inflame the attitudes of regional powers whose cooperation and coordination we need. China does have something to worry about with the nuclearization of the peninsula, namely the prospect that South Korea and Japan could develop their own nuclear arsenals in response.
It should be instructive that US hawks are reacting with more hysteria than a country that shares a border with North Korea and whose largest metropolitan area is only a few miles from said border. The average South Korean cares very little about the northern half of their country and are quite blithe over the prospects of unification. The Kim regime's number one priority for the last half-century has been self-preservation. The quickest routes to terminating their survival would be war with South Korea or the US. The North Koreans would get nothing from launching a nuclear strike except destruction. The notion that Kim Jung Un is a suicidal madman has no basis in fact so far as I can tell.
For what it's worth, from my perspective, the US needs to dissolve its mutual defense treaty with the South, move US personnel off the peninsula, and turn over responsibility for the DMZ to the South Koreans. This would undoubtedly be played as a propaganda victory in the North Korea, but so what? It would improve US national security, assist us in maintaining a more balance of power approach to the region with China, and force the South Koreans to deal with the North on their own terms without free riding on American military power, which unnecessarily puts US soldiers' lives at risk defending a country that is not their own.
J. Farmer - Somehow I don't believe that the South Korean population wants to become Kim's subjects - and that is the only type of "reunification" in the cards. If the SK population should decide in a democratic fashion to do that, of course the US would get out. But I doubt they'll ever make that decision.
Of course the SK population also doesn't want war. Nor does the US. For decades now the US has paid off NK when the sabers have been rattled enough. I think that strategy has come to a natural end, but SK is hoping that the US will pay NK off again. Trump is simply making it clear that won't happen this time.
And if we were to abandon SK, the danger would not be over, unless we also abandoned Japan. That is probably China's fundamental interest in this game. They have stoked this fire long enough.
I think China must now be unhappy with the situation and that the US is wise to let China's feet tread the coals for a change.
J. Farmer: PS - The US "fire and fury" is in no sense an empty claim. If Kim attacks, we will make reprisals. We can.
J. Farmer said...
This notion that they "only understand one thing" is not entirely accurate. Diplomatic engagement with North Korea could potentially yield useful, if not perfect, results.
The good news is that Clinton stopped the Norks from chasing the Bomb 20 years ago. Reminder from Wiki:
North Korean efforts to build nuclear weapons were halted under the Agreed Framework, negotiated with U.S. president Bill Clinton and signed in 1994. Building on Nordpolitik, South Korea began to engage with the North as part of its Sunshine Policy
The example of 1999, Doesnt move him at all. of course Wendy sherman was summoned to repeat the deal with Iran. Of course the regime has been coasting on myths like the battle of pochombo, 70 years ago.
Of course the SK population also doesn't want war. Nor does the US.
But Donald Trump apparently does want war. And his bellicose tweets are going to get millions of people killed. But most of them will be brown people, so it won't matter.
MaxedOutMama:
J. Farmer - Somehow I don't believe that the South Korean population wants to become Kim's subjects - and that is the only type of "reunification" in the cards.
That is not my point. South Korea are not interested in unification period. Unification issues have been part of the official South Korean government since Park Chung-hee created the National Unification Board in the late 1960s, and it has been the Ministry of Unification since the late 1990s. Many South Koreans, especially younger ones born long after the war, have little to no interest in these topics. One of the things that struck me during my time in South Korea was how uninterested and indifferent to the North many South Koreans are.
J. Farmer: PS - The US "fire and fury" is in no sense an empty claim. If Kim attacks, we will make reprisals. We can.
That was not the claim. Recall Trump's quote: "North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen..." [emphasis mine]
Since that statement, the North Koreans famously threatened an attack on Guam (a totally empty threat in my opinion, but a threat nonetheless) and has continued carrying out provocative development of its weapons capability. This is, of course, nothing new since the North routinely makes ostentatious threats against its neighbors. Withdrawing the mutual defense treaty and leaving the peninsula could actually help move China closer to constricting the North Koreans, as much as they can, which is debatable. One of the reasons that China is inclined to prop up the North is because they act as a bulwark against US military power right on China's doorstep. We cannot expect to encircle China with US military power meant to contain it and not expect the Chinese to push back against it.
The military's only job now is to shoot him.
If you think this is such a good idea, you should go stay in Seoul until this all blows over.
I am not convinced North Korea is industrial powerhouse for all its arms and munitions. Who is the supply chain? China and Russia? They are not worried about being within range.
Yesterday, I watched the video of BJ Clinton explaining how wonderful the treaty that he signed with NK would stop their efforts at building nuclear weapons. Failure.
AllenS
In every story about the Norks and nukes people should be reminded that this is all the fault of Bill Clinton.
"South Korea is finding, as I have told them, that their talk of appeasement with North Korea will not work, they only understand one thing!"
Ah, J. Farmer - I misunderstood you. Yes, the younger generation is not interested in reunification and feels closer even to China (an important trade partner) than to North Korea. The 2010 attacks seem to have defined the younger generation's attitude:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/south-korea-poll-shows-combative-attitude-north-korea/story?id=12308970
As for Trump, he is not threatening preemptive action. He is instead refusing to be blackmailed. The earlier "expert consensus" on NK was that the younger Kim would be aggressive for a time in order to cement his succession. It's 2017. I think it has gone past that. He will do whatever he will do, and I don't think anyone knows what he will do.
But given the history of the cyber attacks over the last few years, it is probable that Kim wants a lot of money, and sees various methods of aggression as a path to that goal. The rebuffs of humanitarian/medical aid in these intervening years (such as the malaria prevention initiative) hint that Kim wants cold hard spendable cash.
I have wondered for a long time if NK hackers, many of whom work abroad, haven't been behind some of the reported "Russian" stuff. And I also wonder if the NK hackers aren't partly Chinese hackers, and how much collusion there is there.
@AllenS:
Yesterday, I watched the video of BJ Clinton explaining how wonderful the treaty that he signed with NK would stop their efforts at building nuclear weapons. Failure.
The failure of the Agreed Framework is nowhere near that cut and dry. To paraphrase a recent quote from Trump, there is blame on both sides. The Bush administration pursued a more hardline approach against the North Koreans, and the result was the North Koreans pulling out of the NPT and to begin testing nuclear weapons. Here is a useful summary from the Arms Control Association.
David Begley:
In every story about the Norks and nukes people should be reminded that this is all the fault of Bill Clinton.
So what could he have done that neither Bush nor Obama did?
The entire quote makes it obvious North Korean action against U.S. territory would result in U.S. action, "fire and fury".
Unification? Who the hell is arguing for that?
North Korea is still at war with the United States.
According to Ted Cruz on ABC's This Week, the Norks still use the US banking system or benefit from it.
@Birkel:
The entire quote makes it obvious North Korean action against U.S. territory would result in U.S. action, "fire and fury".
Here is the entire quote:
Q Any comment on the reports about North Korea's nuclear capabilities?
THE PRESIDENT: North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen. He has been very threatening beyond a normal state. And as I said, they will be met with fire, fury, and, frankly, power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.
-Remarks by President Trump Before a Briefing on the Opioid Crisis
Unification? Who the hell is arguing for that?
The South Koreans, officially, for 50 years.
North Korea is still at war with the United States.
Not exactly. The US itself was never technically at war with North Korea. The war was carried out under the auspices of the United Nations, and the parties to the armistice were North Korea, China, and the United Nations command, which for all intents and purposes was American since Americans made up the bulk of the forces. But the US Congress never declared war on North Korea and never authorized the invasion; Truman himself described our activity on the peninsula as police action. And for what it's worth, talk between both sides regarding unification was a component of Article IV of the armistice.
Plus, this notion of armistice vs. peace treaty is pretty much semantic. Using that formulation, we could just as easily say that Russia and Japan were still technically at war, but nobody makes anything of that since they recognize it as a peculiarity of international law.
The American Castro on the same show said we need to fully implement UN sanctions just passed. Choke the Norks economically.
Question: Why didn't Obama, Rice, Power and State (HRC and JFK) do that when they were in power for eight long years?
i believe nuclear weapons will someday be used again. Poison gas was supposedly too horrible a weapon to be ever used again. It was used extensively in the Iran/Iraq war and again in Syria. The historic record shows that weapons are used until they become obsolete. Nuclear weapons are not obsolete.
Thanks for agreeing with everything I wrote.
If you think you disagreed, you are wrong.
J Farmer.
See my comment at 9:21.
Neera Tanden on TV today. One of Hillary's closest advisors. Still happy that Hillary lost every time this harpy opens her mouth.
And large hail with types of balls.
If a storm produces hailstones larger than golf balls, weather-mongers will say the hail was baseball-sized, or larger. I sware to god, Emily, the hail was as big as polo balls!
This is peculiar. A baseball is significantly larger than that pill retired insurance salesmen chase with such devotion, and hailstones grow gradually, layer by layer. So why don't we hear Al Roker intone ominously about the threat of tangelo-sized hail in Nebraska? If you cut into a hailstone you may see it's composed of numerous concentric layers, which prompts people to compare hail to onions. Fair enough — but why don't we hear of millions of dollars of damage done to crops and parked airplanes by vidalia-sized hail?
@David Begley:
Question: Why didn't Obama, Rice, Power and State (HRC and JFK) do that when they were in power for eight long years?
There are not much sanctions can realistically accomplish against a regime as isolated as North Korea. it is not as if sanctions against North Korea are a new thing. Sanctions have been passed at the UN in 2006 (Resolution 1718), in 2009 (Resolution 1874), in January 2013 (Resolution 2087), in March 2013 (Resolution 2094), in early 2016 (Resolution 2270), and in late 2016 (Resolution 2321). The US, South Korea, Japan, and the EU also each have their own sanctions regimes against the North.
@Birkel:
Thanks for agreeing with everything I wrote.
If you think you disagreed, you are wrong.
I am not sure if that statement was addressed to me, but since I just addressed one to you I will presume it is. So, just to be clear, you don't believe that Trump's "entire quote makes it obvious North Korean action against U.S. territory would result in U.S. action, 'fire and fury'," and you don't believe that "North Korea is still at war with the United States?" If so, then you are right, and I was wrong to think we disagreed on these issues.
Unforeseen consequences. There is going to be a reaction China, for all their aid to North Korea, has not foreseen. Nihon Kaigun, or even Teikoku Kaigun, the Imperial Navy. Japan will militarize to protect themselves. Australia will militarize. Might even see the Philippines plead for the US to come BACK. Unforeseen consequences.
We've kicked the can down the road about as far as we can. Now the bill will come due.
As Winston Churchill said, "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war."
J Farmer:
Totally wrong. North Korea has to import nearly all of its oil and nat gas. That's the oxygen of commerce despite what the Greens say.
"We cannot expect to encircle China with US military power meant to contain it and not expect the Chinese to push back against it." Right. Because US troops in the DMZ "encircle" China.
Freder Frederson, 8:26:
This is the silliest comment I've read from you here, and that's going some.
"But Donald Trump apparently does want war."
No. If he did, we'd be at war. Debate the merits all you want, but talking tough and trying to leverage China are what you do as an alternative to war.
"And his bellicose tweets are going to get millions of people killed."
How do tweets do that?
You remind me here of the British Labour guy who, in a debate, said that Tory + American policies were going to result in H-bombs dropping on London. "And who's going to be dropping them?" came the response.
"But most of them will be brown people, so it won't matter."
Absurd. Also, my Korean friends do not identify as brown.
@Dave Begley:
Totally wrong. North Korea has to import nearly all of its oil and nat gas.
Hence my qualifier "realistically accomplish." China is very, very unlikely to support a total oil embargo against North Korea, since such a move would have a high potentiality of destabilizing the regime, which is what China fears most. Most of North Korea's domestic energy supply come from domestic coal, though oil imports are still very important to its military, transport, and agricultural industries. China has toyed with restricting supply, which it has done on occasion in response to North Korean provocations, but the likelihood of a total embargo are extremely remote. China is much more likely to prefer a nuclear North Korea than a collapsed North Korea.
Not exactly.
Sophistry.
It may take two to tango, but not war. The National Socialists were at war with the Jews. Numerous high officials in Germany described that genocide as the most important war, notably Himmler and Heydrich, which partially explains why trains carrying victims to the gas chambers of Auschwitz had track priority over trains carrying troops and supplies to the Eastern Front. Yet there was no "declaration of war" by the Jews.
Technical distinctions are ludicrous. You can't walk ten feet in Pyongyang without being pummeled with propaganda about the ongoing war with America. If Kim Jong-un says his Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is at war with the United States, we are at war, like it or not. Imagine this: a cop discovers two men, one of whom is pointing a large-caliber handgun at the other's head while spewing outrageous threats of death and destruction at the top of his lungs. The other chap demands the police officer handle the situation, to which the cop replies, "I can't arrest him. He hasn't shot you yet."
@Sebastian:
Right. Because US troops in the DMZ "encircle" China.
Reread the sentence right before the one you quoted: "One of the reasons that China is inclined to prop up the North is because they act as a bulwark against US military power right on China's doorstep."
In fact, the US military does encircle China, and this has been a deliberate, declared strategy for years as part of an effort to contain China. Policymakers used to call for a "NATO of the east" but that has been replaced by what is now known as a hub-and-spoke strategy, which includes not only our traditional military support for Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, but also includes increased military coordination with Philippines, ASEAN (particularly Thailand), and India.
Quaestor:
If Kim Jong-un says his Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is at war with the United States, we are at war, like it or not.
So when did this war begin? And also, since such propaganda is readily available, can you perhaps quote some of it for us and give the source? Mostly what we hear are (empty) threats of reprisal from the North against perceived (real or not) foreign threats.
Technical distinctions are ludicrous.
Exactly my point.
J. Farmer said...
@Dave Begley:
Totally wrong. North Korea has to import nearly all of its oil and nat gas.
Hence my qualifier "realistically accomplish." China is very, very unlikely to support a total oil embargo against North Korea, since such a move would have a high potentiality of destabilizing the regime, which is what China fears most. Most of North Korea's domestic energy supply come from domestic coal, though oil imports are still very important to its military, transport, and agricultural industries. China has toyed with restricting supply, which it has done on occasion in response to North Korean provocations, but the likelihood of a total embargo are extremely remote. China is much more likely to prefer a nuclear North Korea than a collapsed North Korea."
Its amazing what delays Customs can impose when it wants to. Its amazing what the Customs of other countries that import from China can impose. China is running out of time and options with the North Koreans.
Now you are wrong again.
You should stop.
If I write North Korea is still at war with the U.S. and somebody responds that the U.S. is not at war with North Korea, they might not be as smart as they think.
Smug is a bad look.
@Birkel:
If I write North Korea is still at war with the U.S. and somebody responds that the U.S. is not at war with North Korea, they might not be as smart as they think.
Yes, I am smug, yes I am not as smart as I think, blah blah blah, okay. Now let's move on to talking about something more interesting than ourselves.
So, let me ask a simple question, when did the North Korea's war with the US begin?
@cubanbob:
Its amazing what delays Customs can impose when it wants to. Its amazing what the Customs of other countries that import from China can impose. China is running out of time and options with the North Koreans.
And how do you think China would react to such pressure? By total capitulation to the demands of foreign powers. The nationalism of China's government and its average citizen seem to make such a development an unlikely occurrence.
It's ok to admit you are wrong.
I think what I'd do is go after Jong-Un himself. Try to kill just him or almost just him. Maybe send in thousands of little killer dronelets equipped with fast-acting poison darts, etc., controllable by satellite, attached to detailed messages whose gist is something like "Assassination drone. Please press the satellite-link button after charging my solar panels and taking me near Kim Jong-Un. Thanks, World. Drone courtesy of United States of America. Preventing war is sacred, preventing nuclear war even more so." Well, that's not exactly right--I don't understand much about assassination technology and haven't thought enough about the whole situation--but something like that feels about right to me.
It would be a good thing if China, Russia, and South Korea (or at least a few of them) would agree with us, but postponing matters doesn't seem sacred. The current situation needs to be changed greatly and quickly, like within a few months, or he is just (eventually) going to increase his threat and start a nuclear war with a few orders of magnitude more destruction than what he is presently capable of inflicting. Stopping him by force probably won't get easier if it needs come to that.
I feel Jong-Un's regime is less stable than most people think, but I also think Jong-Un is more dangerous than most people think. He reminds me of serial killers who are into mass killing.
Glad Kim is intimidated because more winning against the NorKs. Are u sick yet?
These tweets too shall pass
@Birkel:
It's ok to admit you are wrong.
It's okay to answer a simple question in support of a claim you made.
When did the North Korea's war with the US begin?
25 June 1950
@Stephen A. Meigs:
I think what I'd do is go after Jong-Un himself.
Suppose for a second that the US succeeded in assassinating the head of a country. What do you think would happen next? What would prevent someone even more recalcitrant and more unstable than the Kim regime? As the US should have learned sometime in the past two decades, chopping off a head does not always ensure killing the monster.
@Quaestor:
25 June 1950
I dealt with that claim in my first response to Birkel, in which he claimed that I was agreeing with everyone he wrote. Notice, though, that nothing I wrote was about Birkel, and yet everything he wrote since has been mostly insults about me.
If we are going to get into technicalities over armistice versus peace agreements, then the North Korea was never at war with the US to begin with, and the president prosecuting that war admitted as such at the time. US forces were sent into Korea not because we were at war with the North Koreans but under a United Nations military action. Hence, no declaration or authorization for war by Congress. And again, the difference between an armistice and a peace treaty is largely semantic. Under this distinction, Russia and Japan are "still at war," but this has next to no impact in the real world over how relations between those two countries operate.
The Chinese complain publicly about the US military bases in the region, but the alternative is a rearmed and nuclear Japan and a nuclear South Korea. Given the historical enmity the Chinese have with both Korea and Japan, this a far greater threat to China's long run ambitions than a few million North Korean refugees. We can concentrate the Chinese minds on this scenario by making noises about withdrawing our forces from the region and telling the Chinese that we will encourage the South Koreans and Japanese to build up their military capabilities to compensate.
The Chinese can bring down the North Korean regime if they really want to. Trump's job is to make them want to.
J. Farmer has asked when North Korea's war with the US began. One supposes he had a point, but he hasn't made it yet.
Cubanbob is right. Let's say China stops exports for 30 or 60 days. Or cuts the flows through the pipelines by 20%. Slow strangulation. The Norks will run out of gas for their military trucks. And trucks to ship food.
@Quaestor:
J. Farmer has asked when North Korea's war with the US began. One supposes he had a point, but he hasn't made it yet.
I have actually made it twice already, and I will make it a third time here by way of quoting what I already wrote on the topic. This notion that we are "still at war" with North Korea comes from the fact that an armistice agreement ended the hostilities as opposed to a peace treaty. Here is my response to that line of reasoning:
"The US itself was never technically at war with North Korea. The war was carried out under the auspices of the United Nations, and the parties to the armistice were North Korea, China, and the United Nations command, which for all intents and purposes was American since Americans made up the bulk of the forces. But the US Congress never declared war on North Korea and never authorized the invasion; Truman himself described our activity on the peninsula as police action. And for what it's worth, talk between both sides regarding unification was a component of Article IV of the armistice.
Plus, this notion of armistice vs. peace treaty is pretty much semantic. Using that formulation, we could just as easily say that Russia and Japan were still technically at war, but nobody makes anything of that since they recognize it as a peculiarity of international law."
You declared this "sophistry" in an earlier comment. So tell me which of my arguments are fallacious and/or incorrect, and we can go from there. If this is a topic you wish to pursue.
@Jeff:
The Chinese complain publicly about the US military bases in the region, but the alternative is a rearmed and nuclear Japan and a nuclear South Korea.
I agree that is a fear of the Chinese, but I don't think they see it as a dichotomous choice.
The Chinese can bring down the North Korean regime if they really want to. Trump's job is to make them want to.
Of course they "can," but "really want to" is the very tricky part. And if that is Trump's job, then I think he has a very long row to hoe. The Chinese tend to prioritize stability above nearly all else, and given the US experience with regime change over the last two decades, I don't think the Chinese have much of an appetite to bring down a regime and then deal with the chaos that could likely erupt under such conditions. How could China manage who controlled the regime after a collapse absent a significant military presence in the country? Who would take control of North Korea if the regime did collapse?
So you continue to agree with me. The United States is not at war with North Korea. And North Korea is at war with the United States.
Noting that you are smug is not a personal insult. You pretend to be careful about what you write. You should pretend harder.
@Birkel:
The United States is not at war with North Korea. And North Korea is at war with the United States.
Then I will repeat my question. When did North Korea's war with the United States begin?
Noting that you are smug is not a personal insult.
Well, you're describing me, so it's certainly personal. Is it a compliment? And just to point it out for the umpteenth time, I could be the biggest prick in the world, and it would still make no difference if I war right or wrong. Similarly, I can be smug and still be right, so I'm not sure how calling me smug advances the argument one iota. Instead of telling me about me, just tell me why my argument is wrong. You've addressed me half a dozen times already and still haven't gotten around to that pretty basic standard of debate/argument/discussion.
If we are going to get into technicalities over armistice versus peace agreements, then the North Korea was never at war with the US to begin with...
Absurd sophistry.
I recommend reading something other than the Utne Reader, such as Rethinking the Korean War: A New Diplomatic and Strategic History by William Stueck (Princeton University Press, 2004) and a more recent paper presented by Stueck and Donggil Kim which presents documentary evidence that Kim Il-sung was specifically instructed to invade South Korea in order to involve the United States in a war in Asia to give the Soviet Bloc in Eastern Europe more time to consolidate Stalin's hegemony. If true it means that war with the United States was the intended from the beginning.
After the agreement in 1948 to divide the Korean Peninsula across the 38th Parallel, both the United States and the Soviet Union gradually withdrew forces until only token forces remained. In the case of the United States military presence on 25 June 1950, that was the 434th Provost Marshal Detachment, a military police unit assigned to observe the DMZ from a chain of outposts. They had .30 machine guns and a variety of small arms which they used to defend against North Korean infiltrators on numerous occasions since the partition. However, while nominally Russian troops were being withdrawn they were at the same time leaving behind tanks, artillery pieces, and other equipment for use by the new and secret North Korean army. That amounted to over 1,600 T-34/85 tanks and a like number of towed and self-propelled artillery against a South Korean force with about 100 M-4 tanks.
First, you assume about yourself quite a lot if you think you could be "biggest prick in the world". That you think highly enough of yourself to assume that is possible is itself quite an endorsement of your smugness. Thank you for agreeing with me again.
Your brand of smug encourages me to call you smug and not engage with you. If your strategy is to encourage engagement, you are failing. Have you failed to notice I don't take assignments from other commenters? Do you believe I will break from this history just for you? Only somebody who thinks overly highly of xerself would think that.
typo correction: If true it means that war with the United States was the intent from the beginning.
@Quaestor:
I agree with most everything you have written here, but it still does not address my point. I am agnostic on the role of the Soviet Union in the outbreak of the war, as it is not a subject I know enough about to have an opinion one way or the other, but even if they acted precisely as you said they did for the precise reasons you say they did, it still does not change my argument.
The war against the North Koreans was a United Nations operation, not a war begun by the US, and it included at least 16 different countries, with commanders from the US, the UK, Canada, Turkey, and the Philippines. When the armistice was written, it was signed by the North Koreans, the Chinese, and the United Nations command. Now, yes, for all practical purposes we could say that it was a war with the US, since the US commanded most of the military forces. It's semantics, which was my point from the very beginning.
@Birkel:
First, you assume about yourself quite a lot if you think you could be "biggest prick in the world".
It's called making an analogy.
Your brand of smug encourages me to call you smug and not engage with you.
That would be lovely. Please do. If you want to debate or discuss differences of opinion, I am more than happy to oblige. If you want to tell me how smug and highly I think of myself, then yawn...please wake me when it's over.
Now, yes, for all practical purposes we could say that it was a war with the US, since the US commanded most of the military forces. It's semantics, which was my point from the very beginning.
Inaccurate. It was a war against the United States waged for strategic reasons in Europe. Your "semantics" argument is trivial.
Suppose for a second that the US succeeded in assassinating the head of a country. What do you think would happen next? What would prevent someone even more recalcitrant and more unstable than the Kim regime? As the US should have learned sometime in the past two decades, chopping off a head does not always ensure killing the monster.
There are very few people in the world as evil as Kim Jong-Un. And so chances are whoever replaces him won't be nearly so bad. When I said that the Kim regime was unstable, I meant that as a good thing, i.e., as something that will crumble easily.
@Queastor:
Inaccurate. It was a war against the United States waged for strategic reasons in Europe. Your "semantics" argument is trivial.
No, you're missing my point. The argument about who waged the war and for what reasons is irrelevant to what I am saying. It's that the war was fought under the auspices of the United Nations, and the armistice was signed by the UN command. So the argument that the US is still at war with North Korea because of the armistice is semantically incorrect. And even if it was correct, the difference between an armistice and a peace treaty is largely a semantic distinction in and of itself. Therefore, saying that the US is "still at war with North Korea" does really get us anywhere in talking about North Korea today. Suppose a treaty had ended the war, would we be discussing North Korea and Kim Jung-un's nuclear program today any differently?
You demand that I react in the way you prefer. I decline.
When you smug, do you imagine you can smug better than everybody? Yes you do.
@Stephen A. Meigs:
There are very few people in the world as evil as Kim Jong-Un. And so chances are whoever replaces him won't be nearly so bad.
I have no idea how you quantify evil that way, and how would you even begin to know who is waiting in the shadows of the North Korean governments. Could there not be people who serve him willingly who are even more evil? How would you know if there were or weren't?
When I said that the Kim regime was unstable, I meant that as a good thing, i.e., as something that will crumble easily.
Suppose it does crumble. How can you be confident in what will come next?
Nobody is arguing the U.S. is still at war with North Korea. That strawXan burned long ago.
North Korea is at war with the United States.
@Birkel:
When you smug, do you imagine you can smug better than everybody? Yes you do.
Yes, great, I'm all of those things. You've made your point. Thanks.
North Korea is at war with the United States.
I disagree. Toodles.
The United States should think more in terms of chess than we have heretofore done. Popular history has it that JFK won a significant victory over Khrushchev in the Cuban Missle Crisis, however, revisionists point out that Russia gained two strategic victories from the confrontation: (1) Withdrawal of Thor IRBMs from Turkey. (2) A guarantee of no US military intervention in Cuba.
There is nothing to prevent us from playing the Cuban Gambit against North Korea by stationing theater nukes (Pershing II missiles would do the trick) in Japan and giving the Japanese authority to launch them.
Toodles.
J. Farmer admits defeat but is too embarrassed to be honest.
@Quaestor:
J. Farmer admits defeat but is too embarrassed to be honest.
First, you do realize that statement wasn't addressed to you, right? Second, I don't know if I am defeated or not. Birkel has not offered a scintilla of support for his statement, and my appeals for him to do so have gone nowhere. To quote the philosopher David Lewis, "I don't know how to refute an incredulous stare."
Imagine it is 1999 and somebody says to you "The Taliban and al Queda are at war with the United States."
People would have assumed you mad. Yet, that statement was true.
That a side does not yet have the means to accomplish strategic goals by use of force does not mean they are not at war with you.
North Korea is at war with the United States.
Semantics shemantics.
Ceasefire or not, the North Korean government was not simply hostile to the US as a matter of policy, but undertook a state of constant raids and bombardments and various other deadly provocations across the ceasefire line for four decades, many hitting US forces to the degree they were on the front line.
This was never a state of peace. It was far worse and much more abnormal than even the East-West borders in Europe during the Cold War.
Any US forces (or South Korean or allied ones) in range and vulnerable (such as the USS Pueblo, in international waters) would be attacked and captured opportunistically. Commando raids were conducted even on Japan.
And even if it was correct, the difference between an armistice and a peace treaty is largely a semantic distinction in and of itself.
Sophistry or ignorance. An armistice is a formal agreement of ceasefire with consequential codicils. A peace treaty is much more generalized with no definition apart from the specific terms of the treaty. On 11 November 11 1918, the Central Powers and the Entente implemented an armistice negotiated via the Netherlands. If you claim that that ceasefire was merely semantically different from the Versailles Treaty you are either nuts or a fool.
@Birkel:
Imagine it is 1999 and somebody says to you "The Taliban and al Queda are at war with the United States."
People would have assumed you mad. Yet, that statement was true.
That a side does not yet have the means to accomplish strategic goals by use of force does not mean they are not at war with you.
Well, if they said the Taliban, they would be incorrect. As for Al Qaeda, there are issues with using war language when describing a very small group of stateless, nationless actors. But, by 1999, Al Qaeda had already issues two fatwas, one in 1994 and one in 1996, declaring war against the United States. Also, by 1999, Al Qaeda had already targeted US soldiers in the 1992 Yemen Hotel bombings, in 1993 against the first World Trade Center, and in 1998 bombed two US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.
North Korea has not done anything remotely parallel to this. And if so, when did it begin?
@Queastor:
If you claim that that ceasefire was merely semantically different from the Versailles Treaty you are either nuts or a fool.
No, what I have said repeatedly is that the difference between an armistice ending a conflict and a peace treaty ending a conflict is largely semantic and legalistic. And the point I made is that if Korea were behaving exactly as it has been behaving, would we approach it any differently depending on whether a treaty or an armistice had been signed in 1953? I also gave the example of Russia and Japan, which were never able to complete a peace treaty at the end of WWII and are technically still at war with each other. Yet, nobody says "Russia and Japan are still at war" and expects that it has much relevance on how those two countries carry out their affairs with each other or any other country.
A clear line can be drawn between the Taliban and al Queda and now proof of such a line can be imagined.
Would anybody care to imagine such a line in a meaningful way?
No, what I have said repeatedly is that the difference between an armistice ending a conflict and a peace treaty ending a conflict is largely semantic and legalistic.
I understood you from the first. And you are repeatedly in error. Thus came Birkel's "incredulous stare", reflecting is disbelief someone could be so dense as to not realize and correct his fundamental mistake, but to continue to blithely repeat it with out "a scintilla of support for his statement".
If the North Korean missiles bear Chinese factory markings, I imagine so do their bombs.
@Birkel:
Would anybody care to imagine such a line in a meaningful way?
I am reluctant to pursue that digression since it already takes us further away from those primary question: what should US policy towards North Korea be? But to answer your question, I will quote Gilles Dorronsoro of the Carnegie Endowment, author of Revolution Unending: Afghanistan, 1979 to the Present and editor of the South Asian Multidisciplinary Academic Journal:
"The Taliban don’t need al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda doesn’t need the Taliban. If the Taliban takes the Afghan cities, al-Qaeda could again use them as a sanctuary. Beyond that, though, I don’t see a strong connection. For the most part, al-Qaeda works not with Afghan radical groups, but with Pakistani ones, like Lashkar-e-Taiba. Karachi, where some neighborhoods are clearly outside the control of the police and the army, is probably a better al-Qaeda sanctuary now than the Afghan mountains.
But if the Taliban win in Afghanistan, it will be extremely difficult to control whether al-Qaeda is there. Almost impossible. The Taliban are very secretive. Most of the time in Afghanistan, when you want to know something that is secret, you just ask. But when the Taliban were in control, nobody knew what they were thinking. It’s almost like a secret society. They have always worked like that. We cannot do much to infiltrate the Taliban movement."
J. Farmer said...
"@Stephen A. Meigs:
I think what I'd do is go after Jong-Un himself.
Suppose for a second that the US succeeded in assassinating the head of a country. What do you think would happen next? What would prevent someone even more recalcitrant and more unstable than the Kim regime?"
They would think twice about starting any shit.
When you remove the personality that the cult of personality is based on you remove the threat of that personality.
Should LilKim suddenly and violently shuffle off his mortal coil there is no incentive for the generals to continue his policies.
Am I now to care what you can see? I challenged your assertion that there is a difference between two groups.
Perhaps you can smug your way out of this position.
Kuzma Nikolayevich Derevyanko signed the Instrument of Surrender of Japan for the USSR along with the other Allied Powers on 2 September 1945. That document stipulated Japan's agreement to all terms of the Potsdam Declaration, therefore a separate treaty of peace was superfluous. Stalin repeatedly tried to bully his way into territorial concessions in the Kuriles and in the Japanese Home Islands proper. Truman pointed out that by signing the Instrument of Surrender Russia implicitly endorsed the Potsdam Declaration as well, which includes a cessation of hostilities upon completion of its terms. When the occupation ended the war with Japan ended for all signatory powers. Period.
Your example is specious.
@Quaestor:
I understood you from the first. And you are repeatedly in error.
Russia and Japan are still at war. Is that a semantic point or a practical point?
@Birkel:
Am I now to care what you can see? I challenged your assertion that there is a difference between two groups.
And I quoted someone explaining how and why there is a difference between the two groups. Just because they have similar worldview is irrelevant; there are many different groups with similar worldview but different means and objectives. That does not make them interchangeable.
It would simply dilute the discussion of North Korea to continue down that path, so let's suspend it for now...of course you're free to respond to what I just wrote above, but I won't give a response myself.
Those two people are separate people with independent free will. The fact that they fight alongside each other while declaring their solidarity each with the other does not mean they are but one person or interchangeable. As such, we must treat them differently when they help each other to attack us.
When you smug, you smug better than everybody in the world. I agree with you.
Russia and Japan are still at war. Is that a semantic point or a practical point?
Neither. It is semantically and legally false.
@Quaestor:
Your example is specious.
Here's Why Japan and Russia Might Sign a Peace Treaty — 70 Years After the War
Which, technically speaking, is not exactly correct. While the fighting between Soviet and Japanese troops was all wrapped by the end of 1945, wars sometimes leave behind lots of paperwork. In the Pacific theater, the formal peace between Japan and almost everyone else wasn't signed until the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco. But that peace treaty didn't include the Soviets, because the Soviets occupied a tiny little bit of Japanese real estate, the southern Kuril Islands. Negotiations on formally ending the state of war between the Soviet Union and Japan dragged on for another five years until October 19, 1956, and even then they only ended the state of war, rather than declaring the two countries to be in a state of peace.
Japan's Abe says wants to resolve peace treaty issue with Russia
“A peace treaty between Japan and Russia has not been concluded yet, even after 70 years have passed since the end of World War Two,” Abe told reporters in London. “It is an extremely unusual situation. Infinite possibilities are latent in the cooperation between Japan and Russia.”
Russia and Japan did not sign a formal peace treaty at the end of World War Two because of a dispute over islands in the Western Pacific, called the Northern Territories in Japan and the Southern Kuriles in Russia.
The islands were seized by Soviet forces at the end of World War Two and 17,000 Japanese residents were forced to flee."
As opposed to Trump, who has "become a great threat and embarrassment" to America.
Evgeny Afanasiev's welcome message on the website of Russia's Tokyo embassy. Strange that there isn't a "P.S. We're at war with you slant-eyed monkeys." at the end of the page.
I have a brain jar on my desk that contain's what purports to be Inga's gray matter which I have labeled "Abby Someone" in recognition of her abnormal mental processes. I think I'll get another jar for your brain, Framer. Shall I call you Abby, Junior from here on?
Ahhh... there's Quaestor - getting bitchy again. Not that Farmer's much better. But last time he insisted that Hitler could only be mentioned once per sentence if he was going to be mentioned at all.
The world watched in a state of shock and awe at his brilliance.
Russia and Japan are still at war. Is that a semantic point or a practical point?
Negotiations on formally ending the state of war between the Soviet Union and Japan dragged on for another five years until October 19, 1956, and even then they only ended the state of war...
And so HJ. Famer refutes himself. That's progress of a sort.
I don't have a jar for Toothless's brain. That's like owning a stable for unicorns.
@Quaestor:
"P.S. We're at war with you slant-eyed monkeys."
That is because for all intents and purposes they are not at war. The absence of a formal peace treaty makes no difference, which was my point from the very beginning. The two parties agreed to end hostilities and left the resolution of the islands to a later date, which has yet to be concluded. And as I have said repeatedly, North Korea's armistice is with the United Nations as a whole, not with the United States, and the US never declared war on North Korea, and the US Congress never authorized an invasion of North Korea. Truman himself described it as a police action in support of a UN resolution.
p.s. I will concede the Russia/Japan analogy, because it is not apt due to the Soviet–Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956. However, I still stand by my argument that the US and North Korea are not in a state of a war.
@J. Farmer @Birkel @Quaestor Fascinating discussion. As an outsider to this particular debate I have to say, J.Farmer has by far made the stronger case, well-argued and backed by evidence. And as usual, Birkel descends almost immediately to personal attacks. It's quite strange (but strangely reassuring) to see this happen to someone else.
@MaxedOutMama "As for Trump, he is not threatening preemptive action. He is instead refusing to be blackmailed."
I read a great twitter thread just now that an expert (Suzanne DiMaggio, US Foreign Policy + Asia + Middle East. New America Senior Fellow. US-DPRK Dialogue) wrote on August 28th! Before this latest nuke test:
1/ Trump grossly misread a short-lived lull in testing as a sign of respect for him and the US by Kim Jong Un. #NorthKorea
2/ We should not be surprised if the NKs decide to carry out more missile tests, and perhaps a nuclear test. The reasons are clear…
3/ In addition to safeguarding the regime, an advanced capability will strengthen their negotiating position when they return to talks.
4/ Also, they have come to view the Trump presidency as undisciplined, distracted & inconsistent. Meanwhile, they are focused & unflinching.
5/ These views have emboldened NK to make a sprint to the finish line – a reliable nuclear tipped missile capable of striking the US. /end/
She updated it today:
6/ Continuing this thread from last week, even sooner that I had expected…
7/ North Korea’s 6th nuclear test is the latest episode in a series of tit-for-tat escalations. We need a diplomatic off ramp.
8/ The North Koreans are considering a return to talks, weighing options & assessing timing. There are two important questions…
9/ Are the NKs satisfied recent tests are enough to safeguard the regime? That they have adequately strengthened their negotiating position?
10/ Seems time is right to test the NKs on engagement. Lower the rhetoric & de-escalate tensions as a way to gain traction toward dialogue.
11/ An avenue for dialogue: How to reduce the next US-ROK exercises in spring 2018. What would the NKs give in return? We should ask them.
12/ Negotiating is not appeasement. It’s diplomacy to advance interests of the US & allies. It requires compromise. The NKs understand this.
And remember: Trump administration has no senior people with Asia expertise.
I see KittyM is on duty today.
@Michael K. Hi! Not "on duty" (lol) but just checking in. The Korean post here is the only one that really interested me. I don't remember coming across the commenter J.Farmer before, but it made me smile to see how Birkel made all those personal comments instead of actually arguing.
At the risk of not being "responsive to the post", how are you?
Once again I agree that J. Farmer can agree with me and be correct. "...(T)he US and North Korea are not in a state of a war." is absolutely true.
North Korea is at war with the United States.
The United States is not at war with North Korea.
But the US and North Korea are not in a state of war is still true because it requires both sides be engaged in that war.
Any time I can make a British person smile, I'm happy.
You're welcome.
J. Said'
"Suppose it does crumble. How can you be confident in what will come next?"
The slaves will bolt for the nearest exit. Much like east Berlin tore down their wall.
@Birkel:
North Korea is at war with the United States.
The United States is not at war with North Korea.
I get the point you are making, and I got it before the Al Qaeda analogy, which I agree was the closest comparison you could make, but I still find it significantly wanting. How do you know the North Koreans are at war with the US? When did this war begin? What is their strategic objective?
@Rusty:
The slaves will bolt for the nearest exit. Much like east Berlin tore down their wall.
I think you overestimate what percentage of the population would be willing to abandon homes and villages that many of their family members have lived in for quite some time. Also, they will not likely find very welcoming arms either from the Chinese or their brothers to the South. Somalia is a failed, anarchic state, and it's 14,000,000 citizens have stayed put. Somebody is going to have to keep the state running. Who would that be?
"The slaves will bolt for the nearest exit. Much like east Berlin tore down their wall."
I disagree completely. The North Korean people have lived through several generations of isolation and minute-by-minute propaganda campaigns.
A better comparison would be the citizens of Imperial Japan. There are no huddled masses yearning to breathe free in NK.
You want me to discern what North Korea wants when they tell the world what they want all the time? Why should I recap what the North Koreans say when what they say is publicly available.
Perhaps you should avail yourself.
What did al Queda and the Taliban want in 1999? I seem to recall they too did not hide their intentions. Did you fail to believe them, also?
@Birkel:
You want me to discern what North Korea wants when they tell the world what they want all the time? Why should I recap what the North Koreans say when what they say is publicly available.
There is no point in having a discussion of these issues if you're going to incessantly fall back on that position. I am asking you these questions to probe what you think and to help me understand your position. You say that North Korea is at war with the US, so I don't think it's very illegitimate of me to ask you (a) what has led you to this conclusion; and (b) when did this war begin?
What did al Queda and the Taliban want in 1999? I seem to recall they too did not hide their intentions. Did you fail to believe them, also?
Those are two different questions. The Taliban were not substantially involved in 9/11, and their connections to Al Qaeda were mostly a result of Osama bin Laden's familial ties with Mullah Omar.
"The Taliban were not substantially involved in 9/11, and their connections to Al Qaeda were mostly a result of Osama bin Laden's familial ties with Mullah Omar."
The Taliban provided sanctuary and resources for Al Qaeda for years before 9-11.
@Rabel:
The Taliban provided sanctuary and resources for Al Qaeda for years before 9-11.
Not exactly. Al Qaeda essentially preceded the Taliban in Afghanistan, starting as mujahideen fighters against the Soviets. The so called "sanctuary" was completely unnecessary for Al Qaeda to pull off 9/11, which was planned and executed almost exclusively in the United States and in placed like Hamburg, Germany. Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower lays out this case quite persuasively in my opinion.
Search the 9-11 commission report for "Taliban" and you'll see that without Taliban support they could not have existed in the form that allowed them to organize and prepare for their 9-11 mission. Clinton tried to kill Bin laden and failed because we could not reach him in Afghanistan. That was because of the Taliban.
You can try to minimize the threats our various enemies present but it won't change the facts.
You say that North Korea is at war with the US, so I don't think it's very illegitimate of me to ask you (a) what has led you to this conclusion;
My knowledge of history.
and (b) when did this war begin?
June 1950.
Sorry I keep falling back on facts.
I really should learn that smug wins every argument.
@Rabel:
Search the 9-11 commission report for "Taliban" and you'll see that without Taliban support they could not have existed in the form that allowed them to organize and prepare for their 9-11 mission.
I did exactly as you asked, and of the 13 instances of the word Taliban, none make the claim you have just stated. If I missed something, feel free to quote it here. But here are some instances that I think are instructive:
"Bin Ladin provided KSM with four initial operatives for suicide plane attacks within the United States, and in the fall of 1999 training for the attacks began. New recruits included four from a cell of expatriate Muslim extremists who had clustered together in Hamburg, Germany. One became the tactical commander of the operation in the United States: Mohamed Atta."
"By the summer of 2000, three of the four Hamburg cell members had arrived on the East Coast of the United States and had begun pilot training. In early 2001, a fourth future hijacker pilot, Hani Hanjour, journeyed to Arizona with another operative, Nawaf al Hazmi, and conducted his refresher pilot training there. A number of al Qaeda operatives had spent time in Arizona during the 1980s and early 1990s."
"As final preparations were under way during the summer of 2001, dissent emerged among al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan over whether to proceed. The Taliban's chief, Mullah Omar, opposed attacking the United States. Although facing opposition from many of his senior lieutenants, Bin Ladin effectively overruled their objections, and the attacks went forward."
You can try to minimize the threats our various enemies present but it won't change the facts.
There are Al Qaeda figures operating in dozens of countries all over the world. Yet given these sanctuaries, none have been able to carry out any significant attacks on US soil. And that's because a "base of operations" was never necessary to carry out an attack like 9/11. Their primary asset was bin Laden's large wealth and ability to act as a financier for terrorist operations. And seeing how bin Laden was able to live for nearly 10 years while being the most wanted man on the planet in Abottabad, Pakistan, the headquarters for the Kakul Military Academy, the Baloch Regiment, and the Frontier Force Regiment. The notion that bin Laden could not have operated among sympathetic populations in the northwest of Pakistan where the army and police forces have little authority is not inconceivable. Finally, I will conclude with a quote from Gilles Dorronsoro, author of Revolution Unending: Afghanistan, 1979 to the Present and editor of the South Asian Multidisciplinary Academic Journal:
"The Taliban don’t need al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda doesn’t need the Taliban. If the Taliban takes the Afghan cities, al-Qaeda could again use them as a sanctuary. Beyond that, though, I don’t see a strong connection. For the most part, al-Qaeda works not with Afghan radical groups, but with Pakistani ones, like Lashkar-e-Taiba. Karachi, where some neighborhoods are clearly outside the control of the police and the army, is probably a better al-Qaeda sanctuary now than the Afghan mountains."
@Birkel:
Sorry I keep falling back on facts.
I am still waiting for facts. "North Korea is at war with the US" is pretty much the entirety of your claim, and you have steadfastly refused to back that claim up with anything that could reasonably be called a fact. I admire your pigheadedness.
@Gahrie:
My knowledge of history.
and (b) when did this war begin?
June 1950.
First, I wasn't asking you. Second, the one I am disagreeing with, Birkel, does not even believe that the US is at war with North Korea. But he does believe that North Korea is at war with the US. That doesn't seem to be your conclusion, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong. As for June 1950, I have addressed that point several times above.
You concede that al Queda was at war with the U.S. and that the analogy is a good one. Then you argue about the Taliban because your admission undermines your objection to my point about North Korea. I laughed when you took my bait. You were utterly predictable. (You're wrong on the Taliban point but my goal was to get you to do what you did. Your wrongness was beside my point.)
Here you are on the internet pretending you are unable to perform a simple search. And no matter how many assignments you give, I just won't be helpful. I don't work for you. I have no responsibility for you. You are not my charge. North Korea has announced its goals.
Maybe you can smug your way through life. But you won't need my help for that.
It's the interwebs and J. Farmer gets to tell Gahrie to butt out of a conversation. SMDH
@Birkel:
You concede that al Queda was at war with the U.S. and that the analogy is a good one.
I never conceded either of those two things. Regarding your analogy, I said, "As for Al Qaeda, there are issues with using war language when describing a very small group of stateless, nationless actors" and later said of your analogy that it was "the closest comparison you could make, but I still find it significantly wanting."
Then you argue about the Taliban because your admission undermines your objection to my point about North Korea.
Actually I argued about the Taliban because another commenter, Rabel, brought it up. If you recall, I said to your earlier, "It would simply dilute the discussion of North Korea to continue down that path, so let's suspend it for now...of course you're free to respond to what I just wrote above, but I won't give a response myself."
Here you are on the internet pretending you are unable to perform a simple search.
You're right. I am not going to "perform a simple search" to backup a claim you're making that I disagree with and am prepared to give multiple reasons to explain why.
And no matter how many assignments you give, I just won't be helpful.
I must say, I have never heard anyone being asked to substantiate a claim they make as being an "assignment." As far as I can tell, the sole defense of your declarative statement, "North Korea is at war with the US," is "you're smug."
North Korea has announced its goals.
Cite them. Unless you're just pulling that statement out of your ass, which I concede is completely possible. Nonetheless, I am more than happy to have a discussion with you about the facts. I am just waiting for you to cite an actual fact that does not have to do with my smugness.
It's the interwebs and J. Farmer gets to tell Gahrie to butt out of a conversation. SMDH
I never did any such thing, but it would not be unexpected for you to presume that everyone operated from the same level of ill-mannered petulance that you do. What I said was, "That doesn't seem to be your conclusion, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong." That's an invitation to a conversation, not telling someone to "butt out."
p.s. This conversation has gone about as far as it can go. Actually, that was true several posts up this thread. I am more than happy to leave it in the hands of any bystanders who happen to read this (if any such person exists) to draw their own conclusions about our respective points of view.
No, what I have said repeatedly is that the difference between an armistice ending a conflict and a peace treaty ending a conflict is largely semantic and legalistic. And the point I made is that if Korea were behaving exactly as it has been behaving, would we approach it any differently depending on whether a treaty or an armistice had been signed in 1953? I also gave the example of Russia and Japan, which were never able to complete a peace treaty at the end of WWII and are technically still at war with each other. Yet, nobody says "Russia and Japan are still at war" and expects that it has much relevance on how those two countries carry out their affairs with each other or any other country.
The difference is, neither Japan nor Russia has behaved nor talked like they were in a state of war with the other for most of that time. North Korea has not only insisted that it is at war with the U.S. and South Korea, but has repeatedly attacked units of both militaries and killed members of both militaries on a fairly regular basis for the last 64 years.
"Cite them." - Another assignment?
You weren't going to talk about the Taliban but then you did. Odd.
And you are correct that the United States was not at war with "a very small group of stateless, nationless actors" but they were at war with the United States. Will you next tell me to prove that al Queda was at war with the United States?
P.S. That you are smug is not an argument. It is an observation.
Serious, non-snarky question:
Why do you keep switching who the actor is?
You keep talking about the United States and Xer behavior. But that is not a part of the discussion. I readily agreed with your position, which was already my announced position. Under discussion is North Korea's position upon which North Korean officials opine regularly.
Thanks to religious groups and ordinary S Koreans smuggling information about the outside a greater and greater number of N Koreans now believe they live in a shithole. That they are indeed slaves. Given an opportunity they will leave.
Starvation has an impetus all its own.
My next question becomes; Which general will have the balls to put a bullet in LilKims head and end this fiasco.
Post a Comment