North Korea

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Vietnam is commonly held up as an example of a war that the U.S. didn't win.  So again, I wonder what we mean by "overkill".  Usually that term refers to far more of something than is necessary, whereas if they still lost then by definition it was LESS than necessary.

 

1. the capability to deploy more weapons, esp nuclear weapons, than is necessary to ensuremilitary advantage

2. any capacity or treatment that is greater than that required or appropriate

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/overkill

Given the targetting of cites and the death rate of civilians it is clear the US bombing was so excessive that it was a war crime and thus fundamentally inappropriate, ergo it was overkill.

English is a strange language with words almost always having more than one meaning. So is it a reading problem you have, maybe a limited vocabulary and no way to look up words or just a desire to poke fun and derail other peoples' postings?

 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

No, epaulo13, I'm not doing anything with snippets.

I'm asking how not doing enough = doing more than necessary.

If I use 1000 ant traps to get rid of the ants in my house, but when I'm done I still have ants, how does it make any logical sense to say that I used more than necessary?

..your assuming that the us goal is only to "win the war". that is not always possible so it is not. it is to teach lessons or convey warnings that should anyone challenge the us this is what will happen.

..so do you believe the ordinance used was reasonable? is that your point?

eta:

..while vietnam was consider a loss for the us it was really a much heavier loss for vietnam imo.

Why exactly are you people debating with Magoo? He'll keep needling you till you have no skin left to puncture. This is really depressing. I supported bringing Magoo back here because he's a human being and I don't like treating people like crap. But to take his comments seriously, on a topic of such immediate importance to the cause of sovereignty and world peace? That's over the top. We didn't debate with those kinds of provocateur views when we were fighting against the U.S. aggression in Southeast Asia. This is half a century later. He wants to know how Korea is the fault of the U.S.?? Just smile at him.

And right on cue.

Magoo - stop saying nice things about the U.S. Just stop. It's unbecoming of you. Recant.

From mr. Magoo:

What army's goal is anything but?

Feel free to go back to the Etruscans for this, if it helps, but I'm not aware of any army in a war whose goal was anything other than to win it.  I'm not cheerleading for violence when I note this, but I'm just not aware of any army, ever, whose goal was just to do the best they could and show good sportsmanship.

​But of course armies by themselves don't necessarily make policy, nor provide objectives. In many cases, certainly in the case of the USA, it is politicians who determine what the military objective is.

​Need I say that the aims of politicians can be quite different than the aims of generals? As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, the US sometimes engages in military action to 'inoculate' an area against governments or citizens who don't want to do what the USA would have them do. In such a case, 'winning' merely means keeping some people from governing, or setting the agenda.

Did the US win or lose in Iraq? Did they win or lose in Libya? All depends on what the objective was. If the objective - which was certainly stated by many, if not specifically by the political leaders - was to bomb those countries back to the stone age, they succeeded marvelously. 

For the US, it isn't about winning specific battles, or even wars. It is about maintaining control. That is why even tiny third world countries need to be 'disciplined' from time to time. Is that 'winning'? Not necessarily from the military's point of view.

The Long History Of US Abuses To Korea

DOMESTIC AGENDA SACRIFICED TO THE KOREAN WAR THAT TESTS CHINA

The Korean War further bound organized labor to the ruling order on racist grounds. Military tensions between communist and capitalist blocs escalated with the prospects of an inevitable German and Japanese surrender, the expansion of Soviet influence, the probability of a communist victory in China, and the perceived need of the Anglo-American plutocracy to restore German and Japanese economies as anti-communist bulwarks regardless of moral cost.

In 1944, Washington unilaterally decided that Japan would run the Korean economy after the war.  Five days before Japan formally surrendered military control of Korea to the United States, and just after Soviet forces entered the war against Japan on August 8 as Stalin had pledged to do at Yalta, U.S. military officers engineered a formal division of the country.[1]

Forty years earlier, President Theodore Roosevelt had given Korea to Japan in return for Tokyo’s acceptance of the U.S. conquest of the Philippines.  Both Washington and London hoped to steer Japan toward Korea and Manchuria and away from the Philippines and Britain’s Asian colonies in Burma, Malaya and Singapore.  This foreign policy strategy was designed to thwart the interests of Germany and Russia in Asia.  It allowed Japan to strip Korea of its resources and its women of their dignity, as they compelled hundreds of thousands of Koreans to submit to the Japanese army as “comfort women, while over six million Korean men served in slave battalions.”[2....

..i brought this forward for the purpose of discussion. i am not a korean expert. asking questions like that is not an argument. where do you disagree with the piece and why?

You quote from an extremely anti-US website and you make comments like this. Humm...... 

epaulo13 wrote:

..i brought this forward for the purpose of discussion. i am not a korean expert. asking questions like that is not an argument. where do you disagree with the piece and why?

Because regardless of what U.S. policy may have been 40 years earlier, after the war there was a partition line. It wasn't the U.S. which violated that situation.

And by saying that, I am not excusing the U.S. of any provocation or atrocity which may have come afterwards. I am saying that they did not start that war. And bottom line, the current situation in Korea was a team effort.

No Korean would accept the division as permanent?  That's nice, but how did that U.S. civil war turn out?

That while I don't think anyone saw partition as a good option, there really was no better one.

epaulo, let's cut to the chase.

The south was occupied by the Americans. The north was occupied by the Soviets, and neither was going to budge. Regrettable yes, but it was definitely a case of it taking two to tango. Had that not been the case we probably would have a unified Korea (likely also not to everyone's liking), something which very nearly happened in both directions at different times since WW2.

..and now i have to go do some other stuff. be back later.

quote:

In May 1948, Rhee held elections. On election eve, he arrested thirty of his leading opponents. Even so, Rhee’s party garnered only 48 seats in the Assembly, with 120 going to the left-wing opposition. The new Assembly called for unification of the country, even if on the North’s terms.

Rhee’s Japanese-trained army commanders of his South Korean Army (ROKA) were furious, and ordered their men to go on a savage rampage.  Under the watchful eye of the U.S. Army, the ROKA massacred more than 30,000 civilians on the southern Korean island of Cheju between October 1948 and February 1949. Many were forced to kneel with their hands tied behind their backs before being doused with gasoline and set afire while alive. General Hodge had characterized Cheju Island before the massacre as “a truly communal area…peacefully controlled by the People’s Committee without much Comintern [i.e. Soviet] influence.” [23]

The number killed in this one of many atrocities inflicted upon the Korean people was more than ten times the number of lives lost in the 2001 World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. Washington used 9/11 as the pretext to initiate an invasion of Afghanistan, and afterwards Iraq.  Is it any wonder then that war broke out between northern and southern Korea?  But at the time, Washington censors succeeded in preventing the truth from emerging. [24]

During 1949, the New York Herald Tribune reported, “An unadmitted shooting war between the Governments of the U.S. and Russia [sic] is in effect today along the 38th parallel …Only American money, weapons, and technical assistance enable [South Korea] to exist for more than a few hours … [South Korea is] a tight little dictatorship run as a police state.”[25]

The first battle, May 4, 1949—the biggest–initiated a series of clashes that culminated in the publicly declared start of the Korean War on June 25, 1950.  This May 4th combat occurred when Rhee’s forces crossed the 38th parallel, only to have two of his infantry companies defect to the communist side.  Numerous August skirmishes led the U.S. Korean Military Advisory Group Commander, General W.L. Roberts, to conclude, “Each was in our opinion brought on by the presence of a small south Korean salient north of the parallel …the South Koreans wish to invade the North. … almost every incident has been provoked by the South Korean security forces.”  By June 25, 1950, hundreds of troops had been killed as thousands of soldiers fought countless small engagements. Convincing evidence has yet to be shown that the North was preparing to invade the South. The only U.S. newspaper Cumings found that published the truth about how the war began was the U.S. Communist Party’s Daily Worker.[26]

Tense Standoff Continues On Korean Peninsula

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/22/nkor-a22.html

"...China is reportedly preparing for possible conflict. A US official told CNN the Chinese air force appeared to have put land-attack-cruise-missile-capable bombers 'on high alert' on Wednesday. In Russia, a Kremlin spokesman refused to comment on media reports based on observations by local residents that its military was moving hardware and troops toward Russia's own border with North Korea. The Asahi Shimbun reported Japanese preparations for the mass evacuation of Japanese nationals from South Korea in the event of conflict.

This weekend a highly secretive meeting of the heads of intelligence agencies from the 'Five Eyes' network, comprising the US, Britain, CANADA, Australia and New Zealand, is due to take place in New Zealand.

In parallel with the Trump administration's threats against North Korea, the US and international media continue an endless stream of propaganda denouncing Pyongyang as a 'rogue regime' and openly debating the pros and cons of various forms of military action in a bid to condition public opinion..."

Trump: In North Korea You Will Be Murdering Human Beings!

http://www.4thmedia.org/2017/04/trump-in-north-korea-you-will-be-murderi...

"...The West has already killed millions of North Koreans. How many more have to vanish, just for not surrendering? What is the price of not agreeing to serve the empire?

It is you who is blind. It is not  they..."

Canada Could Be Called On For Troops in Event of War With North Korea

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/korea-canada-war-1.4080214

"Canada may be obligated..."

..your welcome u

quote:

We do know for sure that the South Korean army retreated south accompanied by their U.S. military “advisors” killing tens of thousands of unarmed civilians along the way, including many women, children and unconvicted prisoners.  After the war ended in 1953, “Many of these human butchers and their children…[became] rich and powerful,” [52] following the example set by Japanese war criminals.

One of these joint U.S. Army/ROKA bloody episodes involved a US Army Lieutenant Colonel advising his South Korean counterpart that “it would be permitted” to machine-gun 3,500 political prisoners.  In the course of a few weeks at the war’s onset, over 100 thousand leftists and their sympathizers were killed without charge or trial and dumped in mass graves in at least 168 sites uncovered to date—or just dropped into the ocean.[53]

quote:

One particularly gruesome three-day slaughter of hundreds of women, children and old men became the subject of a Pulitzer Prize winning book based on interviews with over 500 U.S. veterans and a trove of data, including “yards of files of declassified military documents.”  Still, no formal apology was forthcoming from Washington, although President Clinton issued a statement of “deep regret.” [55]

Contrast the Korean and U.S. soldiers’ genocidal rampage to North Korean treatment of Southerners when they briefly took control of South Korea from Rhee and the Americans:

Every soldier and official behaved like a political officer, using extensive face-to-face communications.  Workers were quickly brought into mass organizations, and students held endless rallies to support the war and volunteer.  Korea’s long-abused women were a major target of the regime.  The Women’s League established organizations at every level, its workers distributing pamphlets door-to-door.  Every PC had to have at least one woman; “women held jobs of honor, worked at employment usually denied them, [and] sometimes went around calling each other tongmu [comrade].” If a soldier met a woman in the street, he would lecture her on woman’s equality.[56]

In that liberating summer of 1950, many women were elected to the people’s committees that governed the countryside. More land distribution took place, especially for poor peasants, than at any time in the history of southern Korea where Rhee’s regime routinely compelled the peasantry to supply rice to Japan. [57]

The three major themes stressed by communist educators were “reunification, land reform, and the restoration of the people’s committees.”[58] U.S. military researchers judged the communist economic and social programs to be a stunning example of grassroots democracy i.e. “a nearly autonomous administration, answerable to the community through elections” that provided services “on a scale never attempted before.”[59]Washington ignored this progressive pedagogy because it ran counter to NSC 68’s new world order blueprint that commanded the U.S. to meet “each fresh challenge promptly and unequivocally.”

Breaking: China Calls Trump's Bluff; Warns Against Unilateral Action Against North Korea

http://theduran.com/xi-jinping-warns-trump-military-action-north-korea/

"China hopes all parties can exercise 'restraint' on the DPRK issue, and not take 'provocative actions', said Chinese President Xi Jinping during a phone conversation with his US counterpart Donald Trump on Monday..."

US Tests Missile in Pacific As It Escalates Threats to North Korea

http;//www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/26/nkor-a26.html

"The Trump administration will today test launch a nuclear-capable ICBM from California across the Pacific in a menacing show of force..."

US THAAD Anti-Missile Deployment in South Korea Sparks Clashes Between Locals and Police (Photos, and vid)

https://www.rt.com/news/386140-korea-thaad-deployment-clashes/

"Local activists have been very vocal about the deployment of the US system, saying the presence of THAAD would make them a prime target for Pyongyang. The protesters also said the system poses health and environmental problems. The protest continues..."

..i was reading somewhere that because of the government scandals going on in in south korea the current regime is on it's way out. the (expected) incoming party does not agree with what is going on and is in favour of talks with north korea. this is one of the reasons for the move by the us now. so the opposite of people wanting nukes. 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Meanwhile the movement for South Korea to have its own nuclear deterrent to North Korea’s increased nuclear weapons threat is growing amongst the population. Whose fault is that?

 

Don't they trust the US to use their nukes that are in South Korea and on subs in and around that part of Asia?

Some of them might not. There are people in the ROK with views to the right of Washington.

And for a lot of the people who want nukes, it might not be so much a question of wanting the weapons to be used, but rather a question of Koreans themselves having more autonomy over deciding if and when the weapons do get used. I believe similar concerns propelled De Gaulle to pursue an independent nuclear arsenal for the French, as he simultaneously weakened France's connection with NATO.

As for whether or not the idea contradicts the conciliatory policies offered by front-runner Moon Jae-in, well, as epaulo said, a lot of the movement toward his party is probably a reaction against the Choi Soon-sil scandal. So not everyone who is voting for him is likely in agreement with all aspects of the party platform.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/09/205_214598.html

I'm surprised it was as high as 60%. Though I suspect that this is one of those positions like Canadians saying "Electoral reform? Great idea!!" on an opinion poll, but then voting for parties that do absolutely nothing to advance that cause.

White House Briefing Signals Escalating War Preparations Against North Korea

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/27/nkor-a27.html

"Bipartisan backing for the escalating war planning..."

link

Last Thursday(4.06): 2,550 S. Koreans, including residents in Seongju County and Gimcheon City of Gyeongbuk-do(province), filed a suit with the Constitutional Court against the THAAD deployment moves of the U.S. and S. Korean authorities... At the same day the 'Seongju Committee for Struggle against THAAD Deployment', 'Gimcheon Citizens Measure Committee against THAAD Deployment' and other organizations held a press conference outside the Constitutional Court to file the suit...(source: Yonhap) 

Two days later(4.08): Activists from all across S. Korea arrived by "Peace Buses"...to protest the planned THAAD deployment in Seongju's vicinity.

Thousands of people gather in Seongju, located some 300 kilometers south of Seoul, to protest the government's decision to allow the U.S. to deploy a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense battery in their town on April 8...(source: Yonhap, 4.09/Here you'll get the detailed report, incl. lots of pics, by KCTU)

Pyongyang Seeks ASEAN's Help to Avert 'Nuclear Holocaust' As Trump Warns of 'Major Conflict'

https://on.rt.com/8a5i

Trump Threatens 'Major Conflict' With North Korea

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/28/nkor-a28.html