13
   

North Korea Pledges Nuclear Assault on USA

 
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2013 04:48 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
These miscreants have nukes and are working diligently on inter-continental missiles that might deliver them to our shores.

I don't suggest that we need to bomb them into the stone-age, but we are foolish if we don't take their threat as seriously as we would a rabid dog roaming the streets of our neighborhood.


What miscreants, Finn? Has North Korea killed millions from other countries? Do you forget that the US planned to use nuclear bombs during the US's illegal occupation of the Korean penisula?

Quote:
and indeed, North Korea is a victim of war crimes. Washington and its allies rained napalm over North Korea, destroying nearly all its cities and thousands of villages. A staggering four million Koreans and one million Chinese soldiers were killed - US military sources confirm that 20 percent of North Korea’s population was killed off, even that being a highly conservative figure. In the fallout of North Korea’s third nuclear test, state media has invoked several English-language editorials that reflect on the overlooked historical back-story of the US stockpiling nuclear weapons in South Korea. The statement released by the Rodong Sinmun reads:

“In the 1980s the U.S. spurred the modernization of the nuclear hardware of its forces in south Korea. Member of the U.S. House of Representatives Ronald, speaking at a parliament, confessed that the U.S. shipped more than 1,000 nuclear weapons to south Korea and deployed 54 airplanes for carrying nuclear bombs. South Korea turned into the world’s biggest nuclear outpost with the stockpile of nuclear weapons such as bombs, shells, warheads, land mines and carrier means as well as nuclear bases and arsenals. The U.S. nuclear threats were vividly manifested in its open declaration to use nuclear weapons in Korea.”


http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/13/293396/hostile-us-fuels-nwar-on-korean-peninsula/



0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2013 04:52 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
ot to worry though, I assure you that I will never get in a car that you are driving.


Good as if you did and then unwisely pull the nonsense concerning my driving that you are trying to pull on this thread concerning the Obama administration handling of the North Korea problem you would be put out on the side of the road in short order.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2013 04:55 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
How many times does someone have to cut a deal with a lying bunch of reprobates to know that a new deal is just stupid?


Really, Finn, just who are the liars? After the number of times you idiots have been lied to about why the US illegally invaded 200 countries in its short 200 + year history, one would think that the brighter ones of you would start to catch on.


Quote:
The Korean War: The “Unknown War”. The Coverup of US War Crimes

The Korean War, a.k.a. the “Unknown War,” was, in fact, headline news at the time it was being fought(1950-53). Given the Cold War hatreds of the combatants, though, a great deal of the reportage was propaganda, and much of what should have been told was never told. News of the worst atrocities perpetrated against civilians was routinely suppressed and the full story of the horrific suffering of the Korean people—who lost 3-million souls of a total population of 23-million— has yet to be told in full. Filling in many of the blank spaces is Bruce Cumings, chair of the Department of History at the University of Chicago, whose book “The Korean War”(Modern Library Chronicles) takes an objective look at the conflict. In one review, Publishers Weekly says, “In this devastating work he shows how little the U.S. knew about who it was fighting, why it was fighting, and even how it was fighting.

Though the North Koreans had a reputation for viciousness, according to Cumings, U.S. soldiers actually engaged in more civilian massacres. This included dropping over half a million tons of bombs and thousands of tons of napalm, more than was loosed on the entire Pacific theater in World War II, almost indiscriminately. The review goes on to say, “Cumings deftly reveals how Korea was a clear precursor to Vietnam: a divided country, fighting a long anti-colonial war with a committed and underestimated enemy; enter the U.S., efforts go poorly, disillusionment spreads among soldiers, and lies are told at top levels in an attempt to ignore or obfuscate a relentless stream of bad news. For those who like their truth unvarnished, Cumings’s history will be a fresh, welcome take on events that seemed to have long been settled.”

Interviewed in two one-hour installments by Lawrence Velvel, Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, producers of Comcast’s “Books of Our Time” with the first installment being shown on Sunday, March 20th, Cumings said U.S. coverage of the war was badly slanted. Hanson Baldwin, the military correspondent for The New York Times, described “North Koreans as locusts, like Nazis, like vermin, who come shrieking on. I mean, this is really hard stuff to read in an era when you don’t get away with that kind of thinking anymore.” Cumings adds, “Rapes were extremely common. Koreans in the South will still say that that was one of the worst things of the war (was how)many American soldiers were raping Korean women.”

Cumings said he was able to draw upon a lot of South Korean research that has come out since the nation democratized in the 1990s about the massacres of Korean civilians. This has been the subject of painstaking research by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Seoul and Cumings describes the results as “horrific.” Atrocities by “our side, the South Koreans (ran) six to one ahead of the North Koreans in terms of killing civilians, whereas most Americans would think North Koreans would just as soon kill a civilian to look at him.” The numbers of civilians killed in South Korea by the government, Cumings said, even dwarfed Spaniards murdered by dictator Francisco Franco, the general who overthrew the Madrid government in the 1936-1939 civil war. Cumings said about 100,000 South Koreans were killed in political violence between 1945 and 1950 and perhaps as many as 200,000 more were killed during the early months of the war. This compares to about 200,000 civilians put to death in Spain in Franco’s political massacres. In all, Korea suffered 3 million civilian dead during the 1950-53 war, more killed than the 2.7 million Japan suffered during all of World War II.

One of the worst atrocities was perpetrated by the South Korean police at the small city of Tae Jun. They executed 7,000 political prisoners while Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. military officials looked on, Cumings said. To compound the crime, the Pentagon blamed the atrocity on the Communists, Cumings said. “The Joint Chiefs of Staff classified the photographs of it because they make it clear who’s doing it, and they don’t let the photographs out until 1999 when a Korean finally got them declassified.” To top that off, the historian says, “the Pentagon did a video movie called ‘Crime of Korea’ where you see shots of pits that go on for like a football field, pit after pit of dead people, and (actor) Humphrey Bogart in a voice-over says, ‘someday the Communists will pay for this, someday we’ll get the full totals and believe me we’ll get the exact, accurate totals of the people murdered here and we will make these war criminals pay.’ Now this is a complete reversal of black and white, done as a matter of policy.” Cumings adds that these events represent “a very deep American responsibility for the regime that we promoted, really more than any other in East Asia (and that) was our creation in the late Forties.” Other atrocities, such as the one at No Gun village, Cumings terms “an American massacre of women and children,” which he lays at the feet of the U.S. military.

...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-korean-war-the-unknown-war-the-coverup-of-us-war-crimes/23742
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2013 04:58 pm
@BillRM,
Ooh, so tough Big Guy.

I'm sure Roger is trembling with me.

So you liken your driving to running America?

No wonder you post these silly comments.

JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2013 05:15 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Finn: No wonder you post these silly comments.


Quote:
Finn: How many times does someone have to cut a deal with a lying bunch of reprobates to know that a new deal is just stupid?



Quote:
While the U.S. today is concerned that North Korea is developing the means to deliver a nuclear weapon, Cummings said the country “has been under nuclear threat since the Korean War. “Our war plans, for decades, called for using nuclear weapons very early in a new war. That’s one reason there hasn’t been a new war,” Cumings said. The armistice that terminated the peninsular war banned the introduction of new and different quality weapons into the region but the U.S. in violation of the pact inserted nuclear-tipped “Honest John” missiles into Korea in 1958. “They said, ‘Well, they’re (always) bringing in new MiGs and everything, so we can do this.’ But to go from conventional weapons to nuclear weapons essentially obliterated the article of the (armistice,) Cumings said. The U.S. has relied so heavily on nuclear deterrent in Korea that one retired general said it has reached a point where “the South Korean army doesn’t think it has to fight in a new war because we’re going to wipe out the North Koreans,” Cumings continued.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-korean-war-the-unknown-war-the-coverup-of-us-war-crimes/23742


I wonder why there are no honest Americans willing to call Finn on his oh so frequent lies.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2013 05:18 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Ooh, so tough Big Guy.


Why would you need to be a big tough guy to order a passenger that is driving your crazy out of your car?

Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2013 06:47 pm
@BillRM,
I have to say there are only a few members of this forum who are unpredictable , can piss off folks from the Right and the Left, and who defy a rational response: You are one, and Hawkeye is another.

It makes you interesting, albeit not admirable, unless one admires iconoclasm for its own sake.

An exchange with you reminds me of conversations I have had with individuals who can be classified as having Aspergers Syndrome.
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2013 07:17 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Are you under the impression I disagree with that? I think it is serious and it pisses me off that the population thinks its no big deal. My neighbor is a Korean War veteran, some of my friends parents fought in Korea, and like all war, some don't come home. Most Americans thought the Middle East was a mess they could ignore, and suddenly 9/11 happened. Don't kid yourself by thinking they hate us because of our freedoms, they can't imagine the freedoms we take for granted. They hate us because they are taught we hate them, they don't know Americans are barely aware of any foreign issues. The leader of North Korea is a 28 year old fat, soft boy who has been handed nuclear weapons. This is not a good thing for us, or any of our allies or those who are protected by treaties.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2013 07:57 pm
@glitterbag,
Frankly, given your prior posting, if I had to blindly choose I would think you disagree with me.

Having said this, I think we agree on this subject at a fairly superficial level. It's a serious issue...on this we agree.

I don't think North Koreans hate us because of our freedoms, but then I don't think North Koreans hate us at all.

You've introduced the notion of "hate" into this dicussion, not me.

I doubt that the average North Korean who daily faces the ravages of hunger, let alone tyrannical oppression, spends a single moment thinking about Americans, and if they do it is a fanciful hope that we will come to their rescue.

glitterbag
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2013 08:38 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
My prior posting on North Korea? Maybe you should re read what I said and take it as face value. I will assume you and I have a similar work history, you studied Korean, were stationed in S. Korea and spent your entire career working intelligence on various targets. Perhaps we worked on the same NIE or perhaps not. Believing in a strong defense and a willingness to recognize the need for social programs does not nullify either stance. Lets assume by using George Bush's favorite manta, they hate us because of our freedoms, I was trying to explain why Un would show a computer generated video of New York being destroyed by his nuclear weapon (in planing). Maybe you are right and his starving nation doesn't know we exist, do you think he doesn't like the idea of our utter destruction? I don't think he can pull it off anytime soon, but it's foolhardy to ignore such a threat. Frankly, it's annoying to express a viewpoint and then have you say "oh really, well I think" and then rephrase every point I touched on, saying virtually the same thing, as if I didn't already agree.

JTT
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2013 09:19 pm
@glitterbag,
Quote:
and spent your entire career working intelligence


Finn?? That's simply not possible.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2013 10:23 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Well Fin my friend I do not think highly of someone who will not express an opinion of what the US course of action should be but just fall back on claiming the administration should be doing anything but what they are currently doing.

Now we have a nation state scale Jones Town situation that could blow up and cause the deaths of millions both in the south and the north at anytime.

With the blood of tens of thousands American troops thrown into the pot for good measure.

That is more then bad enough without the need to pretend that North Korea is a nuclear threat to the US mainland or that we should loss any sleep over their very empty nuclear threats.

We need to pressure them but just short of the point we get a Jones Town type reaction out of them and that is a fine balance indeed.

From what is publicly known about the Obama administration handling of the situation I myself see little to complain about to date.


Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 11:23 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Well Fin my friend I do not think highly of someone who will not express an opinion of what the US course of action should be but just fall back on claiming the administration should be doing anything but what they are currently doing.


I think you've already made that abundently clear.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 12:05 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Seems like weve installed a battery of Anti- missile missiles in Alsaka somewhere. No sense waiting around lets tweak the little **** some more.

We just shoulda toked Rodman up with catnip and sent him over

Lola
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 12:20 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
We just shoulda toked Rodman up with catnip and sent him over

Excellent suggestion, fm.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 12:24 am
@farmerman,
California, too. Evidently, we're not putting a lot of faith in stopping those ICBMs in the first two seconds after launch.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 12:43 am
For the record, I am not in favor of a military strike against North Korea and as long as Obama doesn't fall into the trap of rewarding them for provocation, I don't have a major issue with his strategy for dealing with them.

(For those who do have a problem with Obama's policy, however, I don't demand they come up with an alternative)

Perhaps I might tighten the economic noose more and order (more?) so-called black ops within their borders, but a military action that is not based on very solid intelligence of an imminent attack on South Korea (or Japan or Seattle for that matter), or in retaliation for such an attack seems to me to be very foolhardy.

I'm not particularly worried about provoking them, if the provocation consists of displays of our military capabilites, as the most dangerous thing we can do (next to attacking them) is giving them any idea that we don't have the stomach for a military conflict. If they begin thinking that they can survive and even, in some way, improve their position by an attack on the South, the danger level rises even more perilously high.

I don't think they have plans to attack anyone other than their own citizens, but I don't think our government should count on their rationality.

None of this is particularly new thinking and it's hardly satisfying, but I really don't see an alternative.

Cutting some sort of bargain with the current Chinese government seems not only improbable but foolish to try.

There is a lot of talk about the Chinese not wanting to seek the North Korean regime collapse for fear of a refugee problem. I doubt this their largest concern. It seems to me far more likely that refugees would head South rather than East. It's not as if North Koreans can expect to be welcomed by the Chinese with open arms into a land of milk and kimchee.

More likely that the Chinese do not want to see a unified Korea that is a clear and reliable ally of the United States. One of the last things they probably want is to see the US strategic position in Asia improved.

There is a lesson to be learned here though. A nation like North Korea can cause so much trouble because it has a nuclear capability, just imagine the additional trouble Iran can cause if obtains the same capability.





gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 04:14 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
There is a lesson to be learned here though. A nation like North Korea can cause so much trouble because it has a nuclear capability, just imagine the additional trouble Iran can cause if obtains the same capability.


Good point.

The other thing to keep in mind is the question of what has mainly provoked this mad dash for nuclear arms amongst the rogue regimes, and I believe the answer to that one exists in the form of a single word:

KOSOVO

farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 05:12 am
@gungasnake,
Niagara Falls.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 07:48 am
Think economics. Who is China most likely to back, the profitable US market or the leech NK?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 12:18:06