lo yeeOn
2017-04-30 23:19:37 UTC
If there is a "crisis" over North Korea, it was precipitated by us a
long time ago.
First, we sent troops to the Korean peninsula and fought the Koreans
and pushed the battleground all the way up to the Chinese border.
It was one of the first hegemonic acts of the U.S.
In response, China under Mao decided to send volunteers and fight
with the Koreans that the US army fought against. It ended with a
truce at the 38th parallel north and the division of Korea.
Yet, the US government refused to sign a peace treaty, thus giving
itself an excuse to station US troops in South Korea ad aeternum.
There was an opening, in the 1990s, for the much desired unification
of Korea, similar to that of Germany. And there arose the "Sunshine
Policy" in South Korea.
The Sunshine Policy was the foreign policy of South Korea towards
North Korea from 1998 to 2008.
In the year 1988 the South Korean President at the time chose the
name Sunshine Policy after Aesop's Fable which was about the north
wind and the sun. This was meant to soften North Korea's attitude
towards South Korea. Even though the name came from Aesop's Fable
the idea was based on the traditional Korean ways of dealing with
enemies by giving them gifts to prevent them from causing harm.
Even the Scandinavians were working to encourage the reproachment by
giving a Nobel Peace prize to South Korea's Kim Dae-jung.
But George W Bush wouldn't let the sun shine over the country. He
actively intervened to make South Korea scrub the policy and declared
North Korea a member of his "axis of evil" in connection of his "War
on Terror" (see his State of the Union speech in 2002).
What terrorism has North Korea committed? Washington is long on the
narrative about the Kims being "mad men", starving and torturing his
people, etc, etc. But it's short on evidence.
So, Bush nixed the Korean hope of reunification. Then the worthless
Obama, who was so eager to earn his $400,000 per speech retirement
benefit that he further intensified the temperature over the Korean
peninsula.
Obama inaugurated his Asian pivot! The act was and is aimed at China
and Russia in the Far East, just as stationing the trooops on the 38th
parallel was aimed at those then-communist countries.
Obama further signed a deal to deploy a THAAD system in S Korea, on a
golf course outside of Seoul, ostensibly to protect the Korean people
from attack of the mad man from the north.
But of course, not even the South Koreans believe it. It is a system
mainly aimed at China and Russia - and that's why those two countries
are so nervous about it.
Again and again, the politicians in Washington and their propaganda
arm are insisting that North Korea has threatened the world. Is it
backed up by facts?
A desire to be able to defend yourself and make your home secure is
natural to all living and conscious organisms. Why shouldn't any
living and breathing and thinking creature want to live? Who wants to
be the next Saddam or Qaddafi? Who want to be savagely murdered and
then your executioner be laughing it off before the whole world?
And certainly, a "smart cookie" knows that a deterrent is to keep
those who have any idea about doing you in from trying and not to use
it except when your enemy is about to take you out. A deterrent is a
counterpunch device. A smart cookie, especially a small one, does not
counterpunch unless you strike him first. A smart cookie is not the
crazie that his enemies are painting him.
Before we first had nukes, we conducted extensive trials. Before we
had ICBMs, we tested and tested their precursors and had many failures
too. Likewise, before Russia (or the Soviet Union before it) and
China had their first workable ones, they also conducted extensive
trial launches. The UK, France, Israel, Pakistan, ..., also did
exactly the same thing. What the UK did to the Solomon Islands is
sacrilegious to Mother Nature in fact.
And, except for the United States, no countries who have the nukes
today and the delivery capabilities, have used them. And since having
nukes and nuke-delivery capabilitires are self-defense tools, it makes
no sense to tell a country it must be destroyed for trying to secure
itself from external harm.
If France, e.g., is not held to the same standard we are judging North
Korea by, then the standard won't be respected. And that's why it is
causing so much commotion when Washington is moving nuclear submarines
and aircraft carriers to the Korean coast for a possible attack.
And that's why the THAAD system is such a provocation to North Korea,
and China and Russia. All these cannot be good news to all three
countries. They are in Washington's cross-hairs and they know it.
If North Korea falls, it is not because of a possible refugee crisis
China fears. It is that China will see itself as the next Syria at
the time when Libya was about to fall. It is not in China's own
interest to survive if it listens to John Bolton's mad invitation to
help hasten North Korea's fall. And that's why no sane government
would see kindly what we do if we attack North Korea for simply
testing a nuke or launching an ICBM in order to acquire a deterrent.
John Bolton:
"There is a deal here, not based on Pyongyang renouncing its
nuclear program, but on China and America ending the North's threat
by peacefully ending the North.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What Bolton is saying to China is essentially:
"Here is a knife, you `end' the North or you will be worse off if we
take actions".
You know, when Imperial Japan was lording over China in the first half
of the 20th century, it exploded the train that carried the Chinese
general Zhang Zuo-Lin to eliminate him. Why? For not working hard
enough for the Japanese interests in China.
Should Beijing not remember the "huanggutun incident" of 1928/06/04?
Besides, if there will be a refugee crisis arising from the Korean
peninsula being attacked from the outside, it will be refugees heading
to the south and then very likely from the south to the United States.
If we Americans worry about terrorism, this will be it! Attacking NK
will radicalize the Korean people, north and south. We will further
terrorism the same way we did by attacking Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya,
Yemen, and Syria. John Bolton is cynical and crazy. And Israel's
defense minister would do well to call Bolton a "madman" instead of
calling Kim such.
In an interview with Hebrew news site Walla this week, [Israeli
Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman stated that North Korea's leader
Kim Jong-un is a "madman" in charge of a "crazy and radical group"
which is "undermining global stability".
lo yeeOn
------------------------------------------
John Bolton: China's choice on North Korea
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/04/28/john-bolton-choice-up-to-china-editorials-debates/101044758/
John Bolton 7:18 p.m. ET April 28, 2017
Reuniting Korea, essentially by the South peacefully absorbing the
North, is in both of our best interests.
Only one non-military alternative now exists: convincing China that
reuniting Korea, essentially by the South peacefully absorbing the
North, is in both of our best interests.
China fears that truly applying its enormous economic leverage would
collapse the Pyongyang regime, resulting in millions of refugees
flowing into China, and American troops positioned on the Yalu
River. Washington can assure Beijing that we (and Seoul) also fear
massive refugee flows, and would work with China to stabilize the
North's population as its government disintegrated, and provide
humanitarian assistance. And China can rest assured we don't want
U.S. forces on the Yalu, but instead want them near Pusan, available
for rapid deployment across Asia.
In Korea, no pre-emptive strike: Our view
There is a deal here, not based on Pyongyang renouncing its nuclear
program, but on China and America ending the North's threat by
peacefully ending the North.
Ironically, a pre-emptive U.S. attack would likely have the
consequences Beijing fears: regime collapse, huge refugee flows and
U.S. flags flying along the Yalu River. China can do it the easier way
or the harder way: It's their choice. Time is growing short.
John Bolton is a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
-----
US talk about Koreas draws China silence, dispute from Seoul
By christopher bodeen and youkyung lee, associated BEIJING
press Apr 28, 2017, 6:53 AM ET
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/china-confirm-us-claim-pressure-north-korea-47076573
U.S. assertions about the Koreas drew silence Friday in Beijing, which
refused to confirm it was turning up pressure on North Korea, and
consternation in Seoul, which dismissed President Donald Trump's claim
that he would get South Korea to renegotiate a trade deal and make it
pay for a missile defense system.
. . .
In a separate statement, South Korea's defense ministry said there is
no change in its plan under which the U.S. covers the cost for
operating THAAD, now being deployed in the country's southeast. Under
an agreement reached during the administration of Trump's predecessor,
Barack Obama, South Korea offers the land and facilities for THAAD but
not the cost of operations, the Defense Ministry said.
long time ago.
First, we sent troops to the Korean peninsula and fought the Koreans
and pushed the battleground all the way up to the Chinese border.
It was one of the first hegemonic acts of the U.S.
In response, China under Mao decided to send volunteers and fight
with the Koreans that the US army fought against. It ended with a
truce at the 38th parallel north and the division of Korea.
Yet, the US government refused to sign a peace treaty, thus giving
itself an excuse to station US troops in South Korea ad aeternum.
There was an opening, in the 1990s, for the much desired unification
of Korea, similar to that of Germany. And there arose the "Sunshine
Policy" in South Korea.
The Sunshine Policy was the foreign policy of South Korea towards
North Korea from 1998 to 2008.
In the year 1988 the South Korean President at the time chose the
name Sunshine Policy after Aesop's Fable which was about the north
wind and the sun. This was meant to soften North Korea's attitude
towards South Korea. Even though the name came from Aesop's Fable
the idea was based on the traditional Korean ways of dealing with
enemies by giving them gifts to prevent them from causing harm.
Even the Scandinavians were working to encourage the reproachment by
giving a Nobel Peace prize to South Korea's Kim Dae-jung.
But George W Bush wouldn't let the sun shine over the country. He
actively intervened to make South Korea scrub the policy and declared
North Korea a member of his "axis of evil" in connection of his "War
on Terror" (see his State of the Union speech in 2002).
What terrorism has North Korea committed? Washington is long on the
narrative about the Kims being "mad men", starving and torturing his
people, etc, etc. But it's short on evidence.
So, Bush nixed the Korean hope of reunification. Then the worthless
Obama, who was so eager to earn his $400,000 per speech retirement
benefit that he further intensified the temperature over the Korean
peninsula.
Obama inaugurated his Asian pivot! The act was and is aimed at China
and Russia in the Far East, just as stationing the trooops on the 38th
parallel was aimed at those then-communist countries.
Obama further signed a deal to deploy a THAAD system in S Korea, on a
golf course outside of Seoul, ostensibly to protect the Korean people
from attack of the mad man from the north.
But of course, not even the South Koreans believe it. It is a system
mainly aimed at China and Russia - and that's why those two countries
are so nervous about it.
Again and again, the politicians in Washington and their propaganda
arm are insisting that North Korea has threatened the world. Is it
backed up by facts?
A desire to be able to defend yourself and make your home secure is
natural to all living and conscious organisms. Why shouldn't any
living and breathing and thinking creature want to live? Who wants to
be the next Saddam or Qaddafi? Who want to be savagely murdered and
then your executioner be laughing it off before the whole world?
And certainly, a "smart cookie" knows that a deterrent is to keep
those who have any idea about doing you in from trying and not to use
it except when your enemy is about to take you out. A deterrent is a
counterpunch device. A smart cookie, especially a small one, does not
counterpunch unless you strike him first. A smart cookie is not the
crazie that his enemies are painting him.
Before we first had nukes, we conducted extensive trials. Before we
had ICBMs, we tested and tested their precursors and had many failures
too. Likewise, before Russia (or the Soviet Union before it) and
China had their first workable ones, they also conducted extensive
trial launches. The UK, France, Israel, Pakistan, ..., also did
exactly the same thing. What the UK did to the Solomon Islands is
sacrilegious to Mother Nature in fact.
And, except for the United States, no countries who have the nukes
today and the delivery capabilities, have used them. And since having
nukes and nuke-delivery capabilitires are self-defense tools, it makes
no sense to tell a country it must be destroyed for trying to secure
itself from external harm.
If France, e.g., is not held to the same standard we are judging North
Korea by, then the standard won't be respected. And that's why it is
causing so much commotion when Washington is moving nuclear submarines
and aircraft carriers to the Korean coast for a possible attack.
And that's why the THAAD system is such a provocation to North Korea,
and China and Russia. All these cannot be good news to all three
countries. They are in Washington's cross-hairs and they know it.
If North Korea falls, it is not because of a possible refugee crisis
China fears. It is that China will see itself as the next Syria at
the time when Libya was about to fall. It is not in China's own
interest to survive if it listens to John Bolton's mad invitation to
help hasten North Korea's fall. And that's why no sane government
would see kindly what we do if we attack North Korea for simply
testing a nuke or launching an ICBM in order to acquire a deterrent.
John Bolton:
"There is a deal here, not based on Pyongyang renouncing its
nuclear program, but on China and America ending the North's threat
by peacefully ending the North.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What Bolton is saying to China is essentially:
"Here is a knife, you `end' the North or you will be worse off if we
take actions".
You know, when Imperial Japan was lording over China in the first half
of the 20th century, it exploded the train that carried the Chinese
general Zhang Zuo-Lin to eliminate him. Why? For not working hard
enough for the Japanese interests in China.
Should Beijing not remember the "huanggutun incident" of 1928/06/04?
Besides, if there will be a refugee crisis arising from the Korean
peninsula being attacked from the outside, it will be refugees heading
to the south and then very likely from the south to the United States.
If we Americans worry about terrorism, this will be it! Attacking NK
will radicalize the Korean people, north and south. We will further
terrorism the same way we did by attacking Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya,
Yemen, and Syria. John Bolton is cynical and crazy. And Israel's
defense minister would do well to call Bolton a "madman" instead of
calling Kim such.
In an interview with Hebrew news site Walla this week, [Israeli
Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman stated that North Korea's leader
Kim Jong-un is a "madman" in charge of a "crazy and radical group"
which is "undermining global stability".
lo yeeOn
------------------------------------------
John Bolton: China's choice on North Korea
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/04/28/john-bolton-choice-up-to-china-editorials-debates/101044758/
John Bolton 7:18 p.m. ET April 28, 2017
Reuniting Korea, essentially by the South peacefully absorbing the
North, is in both of our best interests.
Only one non-military alternative now exists: convincing China that
reuniting Korea, essentially by the South peacefully absorbing the
North, is in both of our best interests.
China fears that truly applying its enormous economic leverage would
collapse the Pyongyang regime, resulting in millions of refugees
flowing into China, and American troops positioned on the Yalu
River. Washington can assure Beijing that we (and Seoul) also fear
massive refugee flows, and would work with China to stabilize the
North's population as its government disintegrated, and provide
humanitarian assistance. And China can rest assured we don't want
U.S. forces on the Yalu, but instead want them near Pusan, available
for rapid deployment across Asia.
In Korea, no pre-emptive strike: Our view
There is a deal here, not based on Pyongyang renouncing its nuclear
program, but on China and America ending the North's threat by
peacefully ending the North.
Ironically, a pre-emptive U.S. attack would likely have the
consequences Beijing fears: regime collapse, huge refugee flows and
U.S. flags flying along the Yalu River. China can do it the easier way
or the harder way: It's their choice. Time is growing short.
John Bolton is a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
-----
US talk about Koreas draws China silence, dispute from Seoul
By christopher bodeen and youkyung lee, associated BEIJING
press Apr 28, 2017, 6:53 AM ET
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/china-confirm-us-claim-pressure-north-korea-47076573
U.S. assertions about the Koreas drew silence Friday in Beijing, which
refused to confirm it was turning up pressure on North Korea, and
consternation in Seoul, which dismissed President Donald Trump's claim
that he would get South Korea to renegotiate a trade deal and make it
pay for a missile defense system.
. . .
In a separate statement, South Korea's defense ministry said there is
no change in its plan under which the U.S. covers the cost for
operating THAAD, now being deployed in the country's southeast. Under
an agreement reached during the administration of Trump's predecessor,
Barack Obama, South Korea offers the land and facilities for THAAD but
not the cost of operations, the Defense Ministry said.