North Korea and nuclear weapons

Why does North Korea want nuclear weapons? Apparently, Americans find this completely mysterious. Indeed, rather than even attempt to consider the question, they simply define it out of existence by asserting that the leadership of North Korea is irrational and evil. End of story.

 

However, the world is not peopled by characters from morality tales. People are far more complex than such stereotypes. That includes the people and leaders of North Korea. Kim Jong-un isn't a pantomime character.

 

North Korea wants nuclear weapons because it feels threatened. And it feels threatened for good reason: it feels threatened because it is threatened. The leaders of North Korea know that the US wants regime change. The leaders of the US have hardly made a secret of this fact. It has been the US goal for decades. The leaders of North Korea also know that the US has a track record of going around the world overthrowing sovereign goverments. Since the Second World War, the US has kiled over twenty million people. It has overthrown at least thirty-six governments. It has interfered in the at least eighty-two foreign elections. It has attempted to assassinate more than fifty foreign leaders. And North Korea's leaders are well aware of this history (apparently it is only some Americans who are not).

 

The leaders of North Korea are also well aware that the US has its military amassed on its borders. It has tens of thousands of troops on North Korea's southern border. It has warships and planes off its coasts. Every year the US engages in military exercises to practise the invasion of North Korea. If the situation were reversed no American would dream of claiming that North Korea was not the aggressor; yet with all the appearance of sincerity they claim the US is not the aggressor.

 

The US has imposed sanctions on the people of North Korea, imposing severe economic hardship on the people. (Collective punishment is incidentally a war crime and a crime against humanity, although everyone pretends not to know.) The US political-media elite, for the purposes of domestic propaganda to a sentimental audience, then hypocritically exploits the economic hardship as proof of the evil nature of the North Korean leadership, as a justification for sanctions and the threat of war. A vicious circle that is designed to destory North Korea's economy and thus cause the collapse of the society.

 

Seeing all this, the desire of North Korea for substantial military defence, including nuclear weapons, is entirely rational. Without such military forces, North Korea would have been invaded long ago, as happened to so many other countries that refused to be vassal states of the American empire.

 

The latest move in this strategy to destroy North Korea was the United Nations sanctions. This was, however, only a partial success for the US. It steps up the sanctions and having the votes of Russia and China provides the fig leaf of "the will of the international community". But the sanctions will have little actual impact. The supposed cutting of North Korea's exports by a third is merely creative statistics. The cut is supposed to be primarily achieved by China's cutting of coal imports, which was put in place at the beginning of the year. In other words, the new sanctions merely codify and legitimate the previously existing sanctions. Moreover, the unstated quid pro quo that the US gave Russia and China was an agreement to seek negotiations, something US ambassador Nikki Haley had ruled out only a week earlier. More tellingly, North Korea is not going to give up its defence programmes, as the US is well aware.

 

Since Donald Trump became president, he has ramped up the tension between North Korea and the US, bringing the world dangerously close to a war that would inevitably cost millions of lives. At the moment, Russian and principally Chinese diplomacy seems to have halted that rush to aggression. How long that impasse can hold is unknowable, but it is anything but stable. And that is why North Korea will not give up on its defence programmes, especially its nuclear weapons and its missiles, as they are its only guarantee against naked US aggression.

To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments (78)

  1. louiskasatkin

    a while ago now it was asserted that the US military no longer has the capability to conduct two overseas campaigns simultaneously.They’re going to have to choose who to nuke.And when they’ve chosen, the others will open up the second decisive front that takes the US down for good.A once in an epoch’s opportunity to rescue the Planet.

    August 08, 2017
    1. stevehayes13

      Who asserted that the US no longer has the capacity to conduct two overseas campaigns simultaneously?

      August 08, 2017
      1. fuall

        2015 Index of U.S. Military Strength http://index.heritage.org/military/2015/about/executive-summary/
        .
        “To defend these interests effectively on a global scale, the United States needs a military force of sufficient size, or what is known in the Pentagon as “capacity.” Due to the many factors involved, deter­mining how big the military should be is a complex exercise. However, successive Administrations, Congresses, and Department of Defense staffs have done so, arriving at a surprisingly consistent force-sizing rationale: an ability to handle two major wars or “major regional contingencies” (MRC) simultane­ously or in closely overlapping timeframes—a “two- MRC” requirement that is embraced in this Index.”

        “At the core of this requirement is the convic­tion that the United States should have the ability to engage and decisively defeat one major opponent and simultaneously have the wherewithal to do the same with another to preclude opportunistic exploi­tation by any competitor. During the Cold War, the U.S. found itself involved in a major “hot” war every 15–20 years while simultaneously maintaining sub­stantial combat forces in Europe and several other regions. The size of the total force roughly approxi­mated the two-MRC model. Accordingly, our assess­ment of the adequacy of today’s U.S. military is based on its ability to engage and defeat two major competitors at roughly the same time.”

        “This Index’s benchmark for a two-MRC force is derived from a review of the forces used for each major war that the U.S. has undertaken since World War II and the major defense studies completed by the federal government over the past 30 years. We concluded that a standing (i.e., Active Duty compo­nent) two-MRC–capable Joint Force would consist of” :

        Army: 50 brigade combat teams (BCTs) ( 14 as of 12/1/16 )
        Navy: 346 surface combatants and 624 strike aircraft ( -36 as of Aug. 2015 ; The aircraft carrier fleet currently suffers a capacity shortfall of three hulls: 10 are currently in the fleet, while the two-MRC construct requires 13. Today, the Navy has 94 ships deployed globally—35 percent of the total available fleet and roughly on par with the 2016 level of 95 ships. While the Navy remains committed to deploying roughly a third of its fleet at all times, it should be noted that this is nevertheless an insufficient global presence because the total fleet falls well below necessary levels both for the Navy’s stated presence needs and for a fleet capable of projecting power at the two-MRC level. At least six years behind schedule as of 2016, the Navy is looking at a possible shortfall of as many as 138 aircraft by the 2020s. )
        Air Force: 1,200 fighter/ground-attack aircraft ( As of FY 2014, the Air Force has 329,500 active airmen and 7,750 reservists and fields a total of 5,032 aircraft, including 40 combat coded squadrons. )
        Marine Corps: 36 battalions. ( The overall reductions in end strength left the USMC with 25 infantry battalions in FY 2014. )

        In aggregate, the United States’ military posture is rated as “Marginal.”

        Overall, the Index concludes that the current U.S. military force is adequate to meeting the demands of a single major regional conflict while also attending to various presence and engagement activities. Clearly, this is what the military is doing now and has done for the past two decades, but it would be very hard-pressed to do more and certainly would be ill-equipped to handle two, near-simultaneous major regional contingencies. The consistent decline in funding and the consequent shrinking of the force are putting it under significant pressure. Essential maintenance is being deferred; fewer units (mostly the Navy’s platforms and the Special Operations Forces community) are being cycled through operation-al deployments more often and for longer periods; and old equipment is being extended while programmed replacements are problematic. The cumulative effect of such factors has resulted in a U.S. military that is marginally able to meet the demands of defending America’s vital national interests.
        .

        Thanks to Barry O and Co. back in 2011/2012:

        http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/02/07/most-army-brigades-navy-planes-combat-ready-leaders.html

        http://www.npr.org/2012/01/05/144702769/critics-question-pentagons-new-strategy

        http://thehill.com/policy/defense/202505-new-pentagon-strategy-ends-plan-to-fight-two-wars-at-once

        August 08, 2017
        1. stevehayes13

          I suspect you think you are answering the question I asked of Mr Kasatkin, but you are not. You are answering a different question. I would point out the the US is carrying out overseas campaigns in more than two countries currently.

          August 08, 2017
          1. fuall

            You’re missing the point entirely. You asked who made the assertion and I just gave you page upon page of on that very subject. You just don’t like how easy it is to shoot your rants out of the water.

            August 08, 2017
            1. stevehayes13

              You are missing the wording. Kasatkin said: overseas campaigns, nothing about the size.

              August 08, 2017
            2. fuall

              Again, try actually reading the material in the links. I know you couldn’t possibly have done so in the amount of time it’s been posted, and I’m beyond certain you don’t have a clue. (Hint: Maybe learn what “two-MRC” is)

              August 08, 2017
            3. stevehayes13

              By the way, if posing the question

              “Who asserted that the US no longer has the capacity to conduct two overseas campaigns simultaneously?”

              constitutes a rant, you and I obviously are using very different dictionaries, maybe even different languages.

              August 08, 2017
            4. fuall

              I was referring to the whole batshit-crazy piece, not just that one statement. You’ve made outrageous claims for which you provide ZERO support and rarely ever do. And the links you may occasionally provide are usually not useful or you simply don’t understand.

              August 08, 2017
            5. stevehayes13

              I am not a mind reader. I can only work on the basis of the actual words.

              August 08, 2017
            6. fuall

              You were supposedly smart enough to work out a “rant” is technically longer than 1 sentence but weren’t smart enough to get it was aimed at the whole piece of which I was being critical? Really? Oh, yeah, you’re real “smert”!

              August 08, 2017
            7. stevehayes13

              Oh I knew it was not a rant because there was nothing wild, uncontrolled and impassioned about it.

              August 08, 2017
      2. louiskasatkin

        Some time between the Afghan and Iraq troop withdrawals. I’m sure it s there on google somewhere.

        August 09, 2017
      3. louiskasatkin

        http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-measure-superpower-two-major-regional-contingency-military-the-21st-century

        August 09, 2017
    2. wirelessguru1

      Moron (louiskasatkin), what do you mean rescue the planet!?

      August 08, 2017
  2. Munkyman

    There is no naked US Aggression. We agreed to the 38th along with the South.
    I’m real familiar with the Korean War & the tactics used by the North. The fact is that IF the US were not on the 38th tomorrow, the North would invade the South by Friday. The North is very aggressive against the South.
    The problem as I see it is that our economic models don’t work with our modern reality. Communism requires others to be communists to work & Capitalism as practiced requires constant market expansion to work.
    .
    The US couldn’t care less that the North exists, it makes China happy so it makes us happy that they feel safe.
    .
    Trying to keep others from getting the weapons you have… it’s good sense built on bad principles. Yet in the end, it’s the best plan to prevent another city from being nuked.

    August 08, 2017
    1. stevehayes13

      “The US couldn’t care less that the North exists…” You appear to have missed McCain’s assertion that there is a military option: the destruction of North Korea, which he claimed he got from President Trump. You also appear to have overlooked the constant assertions by former Ambassador John Bolton that the US goal is the overthrow of the North Korean regime and its integration into South Korea,

      August 08, 2017
      1. stevehayes13

        Correction: delete McCain and insert Lindsay Graham (wonder how I managed to confuse the two?).

        August 08, 2017
      2. Munkyman

        That’s a military option because we’re still AT war with them & Have been for over 60 years, THEY refuse to accept a reasonable peace with the 38th as a legitimate border.

        August 08, 2017
        1. stevehayes13

          The armistice has been in place since 1953.

          August 08, 2017
          1. Munkyman

            Not an Armistice, a Detante.

            August 08, 2017
            1. stevehayes13

              The Armistice was signed in July 1953.

              August 08, 2017
            2. stevehayes13

              Who voted the US the world’s policeman?

              By the way, North Korea does not have intercontinental ballistic missiles.

              August 08, 2017
            3. Munkyman

              South Korea asked for the help & their military still immediately goes under US control as soon as the North makes a move. That’s them asking US for help not US playing world cop. Yet the UN has forced the US to be the world police & has demanded it since the end of WWII I would argue & explicitly since the signing of NATO.

              August 08, 2017
            4. Munkyman

              Still at war under what may now be the longest ceasefire in history.
              “The armistice is however only a cease-fire between military forces, rather than an agreement between governments. No peace treaty was signed which means that the Korean War has not officially ended.” ~Wiki
              This is a Detante not a Truce, the war is still ongoing… never stopped.

              August 08, 2017
            5. stevehayes13

              South Korea’s president was just elected on a platform of fostering good relations with North Korea and of opposing US missiles in South Korea.

              August 08, 2017
            6. Munkyman

              “Just” & it was more of a referendum against the corruption of the last than an all out desire to embrace the North. So that’s less than a year out of more than 60. If they’re sincere they just have to pass whatever they require of themselves to ask us to leave. We will, we may park 3 carrier groups & a sub group in international waters between Korea & Japan but we’d leave. We were actively dismantling bases in Okinawa when they decided it was better if we stayed.

              August 08, 2017
            7. Munkyman

              I’d rather be talking about how the US gets out of Europe almost entirely. Poland wants us there & if we can rent a naval base on the Med that might be desirable.

              August 08, 2017
          2. Munkyman

            Now that the North has a nuke & an ICBM: IF their real concern is the US & not the South ; THEN they should dismantle the artillery pointed at Seoul. I suspect that would see a huge draw down in US forces stationed there. Right now we’re in a position we have to be able to react to that artillery barrage at a moment’s notice & that keeps us on that border. Or we just abandon the South to invasion by the North, which IS how the war began.

            August 08, 2017
            1. Munkyman

              They have a missile that if fired at a low trajectory can reach the West Coast of the US. 3 missiles ago they demonstrated they could hit Alaska. Understanding the way they would get the most bang for their fuel dollar I see them hitting Boston before Seattle.

              August 08, 2017
            2. stevehayes13

              It is pure exaggeration. The North Koreans are exaggerating to make themselves appear like a more formidable opponent and the US is exaggerating to make North Korea look like a threat. The US did exactly the same thing with Iraq.

              August 08, 2017
            3. Munkyman

              If it were exaggeration, an astronomer would have called the lie on altitude attained. It’s just vector geometry after that.

              August 08, 2017
            4. fuall

              http://www.38north.org/2017/07/jschilling071017/

              August 08, 2017
            5. stevehayes13

              Munkyman: you believed the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq lies. One is supposed to learn from experience. Don’t you have a saying about Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me. How many times do the US political-media elite have to lie to you before you realise they are a bunch of liars?

              August 10, 2017
            6. Munkyman

              Iraq had WMDs, Wikileaks provided the evidence. Can wikileaks not be trusted to publish the truth? Uranium is stored as Yellow Cake, that’s how it’s kept stable until it’s ready to be refined for use. Iraq had enough Yellow Cake to build more than a few bombs.

              August 10, 2017
  3. fuall

    I’m not going to go into ALL of the rhetoric here that is just outright wrong, but I will say that sanctions are not considered either war crimes or crimes against humanity. If anyone in this is going to have to answer for “war crimes and crimes against humanity” it will be the DPRK. Maybe read up on it a bit:
    .
    “On 21 March 2013, at its 22nd session, the United Nations Human Rights Council established the Commission of Inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). The Commission is mandated to investigate the systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, with a view to ensuring full accountability, in particular for violations which may amount to crimes against humanity. The Commission dealt with matters relating to crimes against humanity on the basis of definitions set out by customary international criminal law and in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The 2014 Report by the commission found “the body of testimony and other information it received establishes that crimes against humanity have been committed in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, pursuant to policies established at the highest level of the State… These crimes against humanity entail extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, the enforced disappearance of persons and the inhumane act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation. The commission further finds that crimes against humanity are ongoing in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea because the policies, institutions and patterns of impunity that lie at their heart remain in place.” Additionally, the commission found that crimes against humanity have been committed against starving populations, particularly during the 1990s, and are being committed against persons from other countries who were systematically abducted or denied repatriation, in order to gain labour and other skills for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea."
    .
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judlawre.asp

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp

    .
    And where are your links for the crazy assertions you’re making with respect to US actions globally since WWII? And it’s not just since Trump came into office, the DPRK has been steadily progressing with their agenda through the last several decades, where have you been? But that doesn’t really matter, I know how you got to that absurd number. It was reached by finding any barely plausible rationale for making the US responsible for nearly every conflict since WWII, even in conflicts where we had no military action. That’s a snowflake argument, making others responsible for the actions in places like Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sudan, and many more where the US had no military presence or roll. When in doubt simply blame someone else. I’m sure there’s an explanation for how US soldiers made them fire their weapons at each other, can’t wait to hear it.
    .
    So much crazy in one post, so little give a shit to debate that much crazy. Pare it down to one batshit claim at a time for Magical Sky Man’s sake.

    August 08, 2017
    1. stevehayes13

      Sanctions are self evidently a collective punishment and collective punishment is a war crime under the Fourth Geneva Convention. You might well recall that the sanctions imposed on Iraq resulted in the deaths of half a million children, which Albright infamously said was a price worth paying.

      August 08, 2017
      1. fuall

        Still doesn’t make it a war crime despite how you feel about the outcome or what you believe was the outcome. Law is what it is. Try reading instead of feeling.

        August 08, 2017
        1. stevehayes13

          Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

          August 08, 2017
          1. fuall

            …doesn’t apply to sanctions.

            August 08, 2017
            1. stevehayes13

              That is not what the Article says. You keep telling me to read – which is rich.

              August 08, 2017
            2. fuall

              For shit’s sake, BE SMARTER!
              .
              “…sanctions (that) are designed to force cooperation with international law.”

              .
              Sanctions in international law
              Entities favorable to the target of another government’s sanctions may claim that sanctions imposed by single countries or by an intergovernmental body like the United Nations are “illegal” or “criminal” due to, in the case of economic sanctions, the right to development or, in the case of military sanctions, the Right of self-defense.

              A 1996 report by International Progress Organization criticized sanctions as “an illegitimate form of collective punishment of the weakest and poorest members of society, the infants, the children, the chronically ill, and the elderly.”

              Support for use
              Sanctions long been the subject of controversy as scholars question their effects on citizens, the level of ethnocentrism involved when designing and implementing sanctions, and the possibility of ineffectiveness.

              Supporters of sanctions argue that regardless of sanctions’ effects on a group of people, those citizens were most likely already being oppressed by their government. Supporters also argue that sanctions are the best alternative international tool, as opposed to taking no action, and that in the absence of sanctions, oppressive regimes have no incentive to reform.

              On the side of opposition, it is asserted that sanctions are a way to promote American values and diminish the culture of a state. In a counterargument, support is argued on the basis that something must be done and the Democratic Peace Theory is cited, as sound reasoning for any possible traces of cultural insensitivity. It is also noted that the US has little to lose, in regards to public perception, as many around the world already have a distaste for American polices and actions.

              In regards to the effectiveness of the outcomes of sanction implementation, supporters concede that multilateral sanctions have been found to work 33% of the time. However, it is argued that while sanctions are not a hundred percent effective, it is not the case that they are never effective.

              Dissolution of sanctions
              There are several ways to remove and dissolve sanctions that have been implemented on a nation(s). In some cases such as those implemented on Iraq in 1990, only a reverse resolution can be used to remove the sanctions. This is done when no provision is put in the resolution for the removal of sanctions. This is generally only done if the sanctioned party has shown willingness to adopt certain conditions of the Security Council. Another way sanctions can be removed is when time limits are implemented with the initial sanction. After an extended duration the sanction will eventually be lifted off the nation despite cooperation. Additional sanctions may be placed however if the Security Council deems it necessary. The practice of time limitations has grown over the years and allows for gradual removal of restrictions on nations conforming to at least partial conditions imposed by the Security Council.
              .
              The same argument of illegality you’re attempting to assert here isn’t new. And how’d it work out for the countries that were objecting to being sanctioned? That’s right, it didn’t!

              August 08, 2017
            3. stevehayes13

              You are correct in that the argument is not new and that is because sanctions are a collective punishment and collective punishment is a war crime. Your final two sentences reveal that you prefer the doctrine of might makes right to the dispassionate, impartial application of the law.

              August 08, 2017
            4. fuall

              No, collective punishment against a populace is prohibited, not against the government.

              August 08, 2017
            5. fuall

              Straight from your linked article…

              “No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they can not be regarded as jointly and severally responsible”.
              .
              Aaaannnnd…. the sanctions are “targeted measures,” not the “general” type specified in the article.

              August 08, 2017
            6. stevehayes13

              This is confusing. I have not linked an article. What I referred to was Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which says:

              “No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
              Pillage is prohibited.
              Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.”

              August 08, 2017
            7. fuall

              Poor wording. I followed a link from a search for exactly what you wrote (copy and pasted) and got this:

              Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
              COMMENTARY OF 1958
              ARTICLE 33 - INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY -
              COLLECTIVE PENALTIESPILLAGEREPRISALS

              [p.225] Article 33 is derived from Article 50 of the Hague Regulations: “No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they can not be regarded as jointly and severally responsible”.
              The text adopted unanimously in Geneva in 1949 reproduces, with only slight changes, the original draft of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
              .
              You’re citing paraphrased excerpts from Wikipedia instead of reading the text of the actual Article.
              .
              I haven’t a clue what sanctions you believe are affecting individuals, but there aren’t any.
              .
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_North_Korea

              http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world-0/us-politics/trump-north-korea-un-sanctions-vote-nuclear-threat-security-council-a7878911.html

              August 08, 2017
            8. stevehayes13

              No, I have quoted article 33 in full. You are quoting from a commentary upon article 33.

              The notion that one can impose economic sanctions on a country which has no effect upon the individuals of that country leaves me speechless.

              August 08, 2017
            9. fuall

              …and let’s not forget that Article 33 pertains to an “occupying force” which none of the countries currently sanctioning the DPRK are, and neither is the UN.

              August 08, 2017
            10. fuall

              …and, as the title says “Geneva Convention IV: relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,” it applies in times of war, which technically does not exist between the DPRK and any sanctioning entity. Armistice is not a state of war.

              August 08, 2017
            11. fuall

              …and, finally… even if we were at war, we don’t have any direct control over any of the population, and the DPRK is not “bound by the Convention.”

              Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
              DEFINITION OF PROTECTED PERSONS
              ARTICLE 4

              Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
              Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
              The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13 .
              Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

              August 08, 2017
  4. wirelessguru1

    Yes. North Korea is irrational and evil.

    August 08, 2017
    1. stevehayes13

      If the US wages war upon North Korea, millions will die, including tens of thousands of Americans.

      August 09, 2017
      1. wirelessguru1

        Sure, why not…

        August 09, 2017
        1. stevehayes13

          You are content to support the killing of millions?

          August 10, 2017
          1. wirelessguru1

            Content!?

            August 10, 2017
            1. stevehayes13

              Yes are you content to support the killing of millions?

              August 10, 2017
            2. wirelessguru1

              Support!?

              August 10, 2017
            3. stevehayes13

              Have you forgotten the meanings of everyday, simple words? Or is this just another trolling tactic?

              August 10, 2017
            4. wirelessguru1

              I see, so you are trolling your own thread now! Very interesting!!!

              August 10, 2017
  5. croker

    Whatever happened to Trump saying no more foreign wars, no more being the policeman of the world, America first. Clearly, empty promises. I think all countries should disarm and the money spent on weapons could be spent on education, health care, housing etc.

    August 08, 2017
    1. wirelessguru1

      No wonder I call you a fool!

      August 08, 2017
      1. croker

        Once again, thank you for sharing that with me.

        August 09, 2017
        1. wirelessguru1

          August 09, 2017
    2. Munkyman

      That’s a beautiful dream, but until we’re willing to cut parts out of our brains as a rite of modern circumcision… it’s just not in the nature of the human animal, or any other.

      August 08, 2017
      1. croker

        I hear you but looking at recent history, the “wars” relate to regime change rather than protecting civilians from threats and this applies not only to the USA. It is soldiers and civilians who pay with their life not the politicians or the neo-liberal elites.

        August 09, 2017
      2. Munkyman

        Regime change is a bad joke. The reality is we can kill those who attack us & let the people left try to roll themselves a new hierarchy, maybe they get lucky… maybe they don’t & we do it again. We can’t build THEM a better government, it’s arguable if we could do it for ourselves.

        August 09, 2017
      3. stevehayes13

        If war is biologically determined how come it (and violence in all its forms) has consistently decreased over history?

        August 09, 2017
        1. Munkyman

          We have supplanted biology with reason & the forces it marshals.

          August 09, 2017
          1. stevehayes13

            Exactly. No need to for lobotomies, just the use of evidence and reason.

            August 09, 2017
            1. Munkyman

              & how many use it with proper discretion? The problem lay in the fact that we have a medulla oblongata, that organ of the brain wants to fight to survive when challenged.

              August 09, 2017
            2. Munkyman

              & far too many of us cannot exert reason against it successfully.
              Those who can are often cold enough to use their reason to manipulate the emotions of others & inflict violence through them.

              August 09, 2017
        2. fuall

          It hasn’t. Killing has just gotten more efficient.
          .
          “What is a war?”
          “War is defined as an active conflict that has claimed more than 1,000 lives.”

          “Has the world ever been at peace?”
          “Of the past 3,400 years, humans have been entirely at peace for 268 of them, or just 8 percent of recorded history.”

          “How many people have died in war?”

          “At least 108 million people were killed in wars in the twentieth century. Estimates for the total number killed in wars throughout all of human history range from 150 million to 1 billion.”

          August 10, 2017
          1. stevehayes13

            I take it this is supposed to disprove my assertion that war (and violence in all its forms) has decreased over history? If so, I direct you to Steven Pinker’s (2011) The Better Angels of Our Nature, which demonstrates the decline in detail.

            August 10, 2017
            1. fuall

              Sorry, I trust statistics over some guy pimping a book for his own personal enrichment.

              August 10, 2017
            2. stevehayes13

              The book you are dismissing is full of statistical evidence.

              August 10, 2017
  6. stellerman

    People are people, complex and very simple, the wacko in N. Korea is simple, period. He’s a tyrant who believes he can get anything he wants by threats, intimidation and violence. Simple as that, like all mentally ill tyrants and dictators. Unfortunately other world leaders have given validity to this in his mind and to his psycho thinking by catering to his and others like him thinking that if they make threats that cowards, liberals etc., will want to talk, talk and talk thinking they could sway them into thinking like them, promise some bribes, aid, money etc., and they will come around. This gives him more resources to advance his military goals and he uses that money, aid for those purposes. Even losers in this country helped him in that thinking, namely Bill Clinton and loser liberal democrats-gave him billions in aid which he used to advance his nuclear war making abilities. See, he seen it works. Now he’s in a position to really make threats and posture and just like prior to WW11, thanks to people like the England Chamberlin who wanted to appease Hitler by allowing him to take over country after country until he was strong enough to engage in a world war, we’re leading into the same environment for the wacko in N. Korea to do the same thing. He’ll make threats, escalate tensions and engage in military offensive actions until we can no longer try to appease him with dialog, bribes, dollars and keep us from doing what we need to do now with minimal adverse affects to the free world will eventually take serious military action and great destruction to us all.
    Liberals, democrats and the British Chamberlins always lead us into war pretending they can talk us out it.
    The guys a psycho, nothing more or less. Real leadership would have taken his sorry ass out long time ago.

    August 09, 2017
  7. factual

    Bottom line is N. Korea’s leader and leadership, military, is out of control and made up of pure psychos. Like they say, you can’t really argue a fact with someone who is ignorant, and you can’t reason with insanity. If they weren’t they could have had the society and economy of S. Korea, but taking by violence and war is how they prefer to play the game. Kim whatever that psychos name is is insane and reason is out of the question. Now that he has nuclear weapons he will eventually put the world in a position to take action against him and he will use them if given the chance. Maybe by making it clear that they will be destroyed if they continue in the direction they are going a few who value their lives may take that idiot out to save their sorry asses. Trump has a point, the liberal news media and idiots in congress is ensuring that dictator will gamble with more threats and eventually military action. A year or two from now, any action will be far worse. He is also counting on the cowards and losers of the world to push his agenda to that point. We have them here, democrats, liberals, Pelosi’s, Clintons, Obama etc., They got us in this situation and true to form they will profess innocence and wisdom and blame others.

    August 09, 2017