Discussion:
Obama decided to "pivot to" (euphemism for "aim the gun at") China, made a deal with S Korea to deploy a THAAD system on a golf course outside of Seoul, and now everyone is rightly nervous about what will happen next!
(too old to reply)
lo yeeOn
2017-04-30 23:19:37 UTC
Permalink
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.
PeteWasLucky
2017-04-30 23:21:16 UTC
Permalink
Obama again? Obama is not the president.
soccerfan777
2017-04-30 23:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Yes. I don't understand why Republinutters can keep bringing up Hillary and Obama who are no longer in the picture.

Republicans you are in power now. Act now instead of complaining
lo yeeOn
2017-05-02 04:29:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by soccerfan777
Yes. I don't understand why Republinutters can keep bringing up Hillary
and Obama who are no longer in the picture.
Republicans you are in power now. Act now instead of complaining
Ah, but only because you're looking through a distorted lens!

Any political landscape has a context. Without the context you're
bound to see false images.

Recall that when Obama came out of nowhere in 2008, he defeated
Hillary and won the presidency because he denounced the Iraq War and
everybody who was tired of George Bush's phony "War on Terror"
believed him and voted for him. Even the folks in Stockholm bought
the promise in his story and gave him a Nobel Prize in anticipation
of better things to come.

And not only Obama won that year, but the Democrats did too, and made
N. Pelosi the Speaker of the House of Representatives in 2008!

But the Democrats soon became your "Republinutters" and turned Congress
into what Patrick Buchanan called a single war party and gave the war
criminal George W Bush a total pass!

Under the shared presidency of Obama and HRC, they successfully
screwed Libya, let Iraq burn, and kept the occupation of Afghanistan
going in their first term. And they shared a photo opp watching Osama
bin Laden getting killed and inaugurated a weekly drone assassination
program that resulted in many innocent people in the Middle East going
up in smoke, including the murder of a non-radicalized, 16-yer old
American named Abdulraman al-awlaki in Yemen and his teen-aged peers.

Hillary was only out of the picture when her regime change in Libya
brought disasters to the US embassy in Benghazi, including killing the
ambassador, an intelligence analyst, and two other State Department
aides. But by the time she left, she already paved the way for
mercenaries fighting in Libya to be brought into Syria.

In fact, that's why Hillary lost.

How could someone like Trump manage to beat Hillary, if she hadn't
lost her credentials for a lot of Democrats in the first place?

Heh, that's why the Jimmy Dore Show is so popular these days!

I am glad that you Trump-haters finally stopped whining about the
Russians and admitted that Trump did win. It was an awful hang-over,
wasn't it?

But remember, any assumption about how I voted is naive unless you
come to understand that there is a long and entrenched history for US
hegemony - which is the point of my last post. So, please read a
little more of that article to understand how the "Korean crisis" was
manufactured for the purpose of furthering Washington's control over
the world's resources. For this reason, I've attached that article
below for your reading convenience.

lo yeeOn

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.
lo yeeOn
2017-05-02 03:33:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeteWasLucky
Obama again? Obama is not the president.
Yes, Obama has a war legacy, remember? So, he may not be president of
the United States any more, but his war legacy lives on. And Obama's
"Privot to Asia" is apparently paving the way for a possibly "major,
major" and devastating conflict in the Far East Asia. I hope not, but
we'll have to wait and see. And thus, the relevance of my post, which
I will reattach below.

lo yeeOn

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.
PaxPerPoten
2017-05-02 05:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeteWasLucky
Obama again? Obama is not the president.
I think it is time for you to move on. This American NG already has its
quota of anti-American propagandists!
--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster
b***@nyx.net
2017-05-01 02:02:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by lo yeeOn
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.
The Korean War was started by the NK invasion of SK in 1950. It's true. You are shameless.
lo yeeOn
2017-05-02 03:14:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nyx.net
Post by lo yeeOn
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.
The Korean War was started by the NK invasion of SK in 1950. It's true. You are shameless.
Shameless are those who are talking like John Bolton about making a
regime change to North Korea using violent means and risking wars and
countless lives to achieve US hegemony in Far East Asia. So, let's
take a look!

In reference to the first hegemonic act of the US government, I wrote:

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.

When you are talking about 1950, the US military had already been on
the Korean peninsula for at least five years, trying to back up its
stooge (Syngman Rhee, who eventually the Koreans in the south forced
to flee to Honolulu).

To have a glimpse of the US meddling in Korea, we need to read

"North Korea and the United States: Will the Real Aggressor Please
Stand Down?"

Thursday, February 28, 2013 By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers,
Truthout.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/14813-north-korea-and-the-united-states-will-the-real-aggressor-please-stand-down

That detailed researched article begins by saying this:

US political leaders and media pundits trumpet North Korea's recent
testing of missiles and nuclear weapons as a great threat. But the US
mass media do not tell the whole story. Without the context of history
and current events, the actions of North Korea look insane, but when
put in context we find that the United States is pushing North Korea
on this path. North Korea is really not a significant threat compared
to what the United States is doing with nuclear weapons, the Asia
Pivot and war games off the Korean coast. In this article, we seek
greater understanding by putting ourselves in the place of North
Korea.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: KOREA, A PAWN FOR BIG POWER, BRUTALIZED BY THE
UNITED STATES

The history between Korea and the United States goes back to the late
1800s when the US had completed its manifest destiny across North
America and was beginning to build a global empire. In 1871, more
than 700 US marines and sailors landed on Kanghwa beach in west Korea,
seeking to begin US colonization (a smaller US invasion occurred in
1866). They destroyed five forts, inflicting as many as 650 Korean
casualties. The US withdrew, realizing it would need a much larger
force to succeed, but this was the largest military force to land
outside the Americas until the 1898 war in the Philippines. S. Brian
Willson reports that this invasion is still discussed in North Korea,
but it has been erased from the history in South Korea as well as in
the United States.

Korea succumbed to Japanese rule beginning in 1905, often serving as a
pawn between Japanese conflicts with China and Russia. This was a
brutal occupation. A major revolt for Korean democracy occurred on
March 1, 1919, when a declaration of independence was read in
Seoul. Two million Koreans participated in 1,500 protests. The Koreans
also appealed to major powers meeting in Versailles after World War I,
but were ignored as Japan was given control over the East. The
Japanese viciously put down the democracy movement. Iggy Kim, in Green
Left, reports they "beheaded children, crucified Christians and
carried out scores of other atrocities. More than 7,500 people were
killed and 16,000 were injured."

Near the end of World War II, as Japan was weakened, Korean "People's
Committees" formed all over the country and Korean exiles returned
from China, the US and Russia to prepare for independence and
democratic rule. On September 6, 1945, these disparate forces and
representatives of the people's committees proclaimed a Korean
People's Republic (the KPR) with a progressive agenda of land reform,
rent control, an eight-hour work day and minimum wage among its
27-point program.

But the KPR was prevented from becoming a reality. Instead, after
World War II and without Korean representation, the US quite
arbitrarily decided with Russia, China and England, to divide Korea
into two nations "temporarily" as part of its decolonization. The
powers agreed that Japan should lose all of its colonies and that in
"due course" Korea would be free. Korea was divided on the 38th
parallel. The US made sure to keep the capital, Seoul, and key ports.
Essentially, the US took as much of Korea as it thought the Russians
would allow. This division planted the seeds of the Korean War,
causing a five-year revolution and counter-revolution that escalated
into the Korean War.

Initially, the South Koreans welcomed the United States, but US
Gen. John Hodge, the military governor of South Korea working under
Gen. Douglas MacArthur, quickly brought Koreans who had cooperated
with the Japanese during occupation into the government and shut out
Koreans seeking democracy. He refused to meet with representatives of
the KPR and banned the party, working instead with the right wing
Korean Democratic Party - made up of landlords, land owners, business
interests and pro-Japanese collaborators.

Shut out of politics, Koreans who sought an independent democratic
state took to other methods and a mass uprising occurred. A strike
against the railroads in September 1946 by 8,000 railway workers in
Pusan quickly grew into a general strike of workers and students in
all of the South's major cities. The US military arrested strike
leaders en masse. In Taegu, on Oct. 1, huge riots occurred after
police smashed picket lines and fired into a crowd of student
demonstrators, killing three and wounding scores. In Yongchon, on
Oct. 3, 10,000 people attacked the police station and killed more than
40 police, including the county chief. Some 20 landlords and
pro-Japanese officials were also killed. A few days later, the US
military declared martial law to crush the uprising. They fired into
large crowds of demonstrators in numerous cities and towns, killing
and wounding an unknown number of people.

Syngman Rhee, an exile who had lived in the US for 40 years, was
returned to Korea on MacArthur's personal plane. He initially allied
with left leaders to form a government approved of by the US. Then in
1947, he dispensed with his "left" allies by assassinating their
leaders, Kim Ku and Kim Kyu-Shik. Rhee consolidated power and the US
pushed for United Nations-sponsored elections in May 1948 to put a
legal imprimatur on the divided Koreas. Rhee was elected at 71 years
old in an election boycotted by most parties who saw it as sham. He
came to power in the midst of an insurgency.

On Jeju Island, the largest Korean island lying in a strategic
location in the Korea Strait, there continued to be protests against
the US military government. It was one of the last areas where
people's committees continued to exist. Gen. Hodge told Congress Jeju
was "a truly communal area that is peacefully controlled by the
People's Committee," but he organized its extermination in a
scorched-earth attack. In September, Rhee's new government launched a
massive counterinsurgency operation under US command. S. Brian
Willson reports it resulted in the killing of "60,000 Islanders, with
another 40,000 desperately fleeing in boats to Japan. Thus, one-third
of its residents were either murdered or fled during the
'extermination' campaign. Nearly 40,000 homes were destroyed and 270
of 400 villages were leveled." It was an ugly attack, Iggy Kim notes:
"Torture, mutilation, gang rape and arbitrary execution were
rife. . . a quarter of the Jeju population had been massacred. The US
embassy happily reported: 'The all-out guerilla extermination campaign
came to a virtual end in April with order restored and most rebels and
sympathizers killed, captured, or converted.'" This was the single
greatest massacre in modern Korean history and a warning of what was
to come in the Korean War. As we will see, Jeju is part of the story
in today's US Asian escalation.

More brutality occurred on mainland Korea. On October 19, dissident
soldiers in the port city of Yosu rose up in opposition to the war in
Jeju. About 2,000 insurgent soldiers took control of the city. By
Oct. 20, a number of nearby towns had also been liberated and the
People's Committee was reinstated as the governing body. People's
courts were established to try police officers, landlords, regime
officials and other supporters of the Rhee dictatorship. This
rebellion was suppressed by a bloodletting, planned and directed by
the US military.

The Korean War followed. S. Brian Willson summarizes the war:

"The Korean War that lasted from June 1950 to July 1953 was an
enlargement of the 1948-50 struggle of Jeju Islanders to preserve
their self-determination from the tyrannical rule of US-supported
Rhee and his tiny cadre of wealthy constituents. Little known is
that the US-imposed division of Korea in 1945 against the wishes of
the vast majority of Koreans was the primary cause of the Korean War
that broke out five years later. The War destroyed by bombing most
cities and villages in Korea north of the 38th Parallel, and many
south of it, while killing four million Koreans - three million
(one-third) of the north's residents and one million of those living
in the south, in addition to killing one million Chinese. This was a
staggering international crime still unrecognized that killed five
million people and permanently separated 10 million Korean families."

Bragging about the massacre, USAF Strategic Air Command head General
Curtis LeMay, who blanket-bombed Japan in World War II and later ran
for vice president with segregationist George Wallace, summed it up
well, "Over a period of three years or so we killed off - what -
twenty percent of the population." Willson corrects LeMay, writing
"it is now believed that the population north of the imposed 38th
Parallel lost nearly a third its population of 8-9 million people
during the 37-month long 'hot' war, 1950-1953, perhaps an
unprecedented percentage of mortality suffered by one nation due to
belligerence of another."

Context Today: Korea Targeted, Mock Attacks, Learning from Iraq and
Libya and the Asia Pivot

This historical context results in North Korea taking the threats of
Washington very seriously. It knows Washington has been willing to
kill large portions of the Korean population through decades of
history and has seen what Washington has done to other countries.

In 2002, President George W. Bush labeled North Korea part of the
"axis of evil" along with Iraq and Iran. . . .

[To be continued or if you want, go to the website below:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/14813-north-korea-and-the-united-states-will-the-real-aggressor-please-stand-down
].

So, we can see that the US military was steep in the so-called "Korean
crisis" and we Americans have a lot of Korean blood our our hands.

It's very easy to see why there were thousands and thousands of
Chinese volunteers to fight with the northerners in the 1950 war.

That was because the United States was about to bring the war into
China.

How did Mao's son who died in the war become one these volunteers, if
it were only involving the mad Kims as you and your cohorts have
falsely claimed in your previous ad hominems and not connected with
China's own territorial integrity?

The truth is that the US was about to invade China and that was the
rallying cry for the Chinese to volunteer to fight the US military,
which also included some other US allies.

If it were only the work of the mad Kims, why were there so many
Koreans involved in the war and how could such a clan have brought
General MacArthur's army to a standstill?

And this is precisely why John Bolton does not make sense!

Like Obama was saying:
"The country can't really even feed its own people" and that
"Over time, a regime like this will collapse".

If North Korea is really run by a mad Kim family, over time, it will
surely collapse. It makes perfect sense ... except, of course, for
the assumptions.

Obama was repeating a line that the North Koreans are starving.

(At least the former president didn't insist that they have been
deliberately starved, unlike some of you regime-change advocates!)

But in any case, why do we have to kill thousands, even millions, of
Koreans just to "end North Korea"?

Why do we have so little regard for Korean lives, whether they are
from the north or the south?

Here the journalist Johna Nylander points out how absurd this piece of
propaganda against North Korea is!

North Korea famine focus misses the starving children of India

World leaders' outdated, cliched view of North Korea muddies more
than just their policies toward Pyongyang, it skews attitudes toward
hunger globally.

By Johan Nylander, @johannylander January 4, 2017 11:42 AM (UTC+8)

http://www.atimes.com/article/north-korea-famine-focus-misses-starving-children-india/

There's a conception that people in North Korea are starving, and
that their children have less access to nourishment than kids in
other developing Asia countries.

Indeed, when president Barack Obama was asked about the effects of
greater sanctions on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea last
year, he repeated a mantra widely associated with the authoritarian
regime: "The country can't really even feed its own people" and that
"Over time, a regime like this will collapse".

So, it is very clear that it is not North Korea who is threatening the
world. Rather, it is the United States who is threatening North Korea
and life miserable for everybody.

And my subject line simply indicates that it is a manufactured crisis
that has been going from administration to administration in this
country - always trying exploit the gullibility of the American
people.

So you, like John McCain and other warmongers, would like the people
to believe that it is the bad Koreans from the north who invaded the
south. But Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers' detailed researched
article begs to differ.

We have no business in bearing false witness against our Korean
neighbors! Washington has already killed too many people in the
Middle East to justify chasing another nonexistent "monster" to slay.
Our government has lost all credibility because of the wars in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria to keep justifying our military and
violent postures! Fewer and fewer people in the world believe this
kind of preposterous propaganda any more!

lo yeeOn
--------

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.
Loading...