13
   

North Korea Pledges Nuclear Assault on USA

 
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 07:40 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

@FBM thank you for agreeing with my comment:

Quote:
Let's hope avarice can do what direct diplomacy seems unable to accomplish.


By the way, FBM...is it my computer...or is there a buzzing going on when this thread comes up?


It may be a pest that's infested the thread. I have that pest on 'ignore' so I only get exposed to it when someone quotes it. Wink
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 07:49 pm
@JTT,

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5280252)
The real question is, why wouldn't everyone want nuclear weapons when you have a maurauding, murderous nation like the US around.

Get professional help...and be sure to start your first session asking that particular question.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 08:04 pm
@FBM,
I told you FBM was a coward, didn't I, Frank?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 08:07 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You were doing so well here, Frank.

http://able2know.org/topic/208905-41#post-5280338

Your addiction to dishonesty seems like an opiate to you.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 08:18 pm
@FBM,
Hi FBM.

Some food for thought. Join in the feast, Frank. All Americans are welcome, as is Mame.

Quote:
Who is our friend, who is our enemy?
It is hard to reach Americans regarding America. It’s not a place so much as a mindset. For myself, I got out of that mindset quite by accident, but it also took some effort. When confronted by contradictions that made me uncomfortable, I did not stuff them away and ignore them. That act of confrontation of contradiction, as Rand famously said, is key to freedom of thought.

Here’s something to ponder: Two men, Nelson Mandela and Saddam Hussein, were on the US State Department terrorist watch list*.

One was removed from the list in 1982 and thereafter worked closely with the US in matters uf mutual interest, such as making war on neighboring countries and acts of terrorism involving using of poison gas to suppress uprisings.

The other was only removed from the list in 2008. Before that time he had to make special arrangements to travel to the US.

Guess which.
______________
*Here’s a contradiction: State could just set up blind in the woods down the road and watch Langley if they are so concerned about terrorism, but let that go.

http://pieceofmind.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/who-is-our-friend-who-is-our-enemy/
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  4  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 08:24 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I know a bunch of us have hit the ignore button to avoid all the repetitious hate-spew from a very unhappy person. Maybe it's better to let the buzz continue in the background,,,,,that will give him less time to kick puppies. Just saying. Can't hurt any of the members, but if he thinks he can, it delays him causing any distress for people in his immediate presence.

So, JTT, we are here to protect you from yourself, you are welcome.

(( In about ten minutes, you will hear a soft poof, as JTT's head explodes))
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 08:36 pm
@glitterbag,
You shouldn't have picked a snake hole for your Ignore residence, GB, as you've now got dirt all over your glitter, Bag.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 08:41 pm
North Korea Pledges Nuclear Assault on USA

and two tags read,

Conservative Hysteria, Liberal Hysteria

It's not either - it's American hysteria. It's so much a part of your being, your psyche.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -H.L. Mencken

Quote:
People o our sort …
An interesting phenomenon seen when we have a perceived transfer of power in our country is “changing partners,” where Republicans and Democrats reverse positions on issues. When Republicans were the titular heads of the executive branch, for example, Democrats were concerned about deficits, and Republicans silent on the matter. In 2008 they switched partners, and deficits became a matter of serious concern. Democrats used to oppose acts to terrorism like torture and rendition, and are now a fervent and aggressive war party.

Most people just do this blindly, but intellectuals are not so lucky. They have to offer justification. That leads to another phenomenon I call “pretzelling,” where no matter the policy, no matter that it is identical (or more extreme) than that of the other party, they will wrap their brains around it. They find ways to obfuscate, justify, and as seen below, will ridicule those who easily see the contradiction.

Below is a quote from Polish Wolf (see comments below the post in this link), who for five years now has been dissecting US military aggression, finding that under Obama it is being intelligently managed.

Terror is apparently part of the inescapable duty of the modern executive, as long as that executive is an intelligent Democrat. Bush was clumsy, Obama a master. Military aggression, terrorism, torture, random murder were repellant under Bush but are now done with care, concern, reluctance and even some perceived accountability. Perhaps this is the modern version of the white man’s burden, an antiquated concept since our military is comprised now of mostly minorities, and our perceived executive a black man.

PW is responding to a comment by Lizard, and his point #1, which I omit, asks for a link to the well known fact among people o Lizard’s sort that the US is waging drone strikes in Yemen while publicly denying it. That’s another feature of partisanship in our country – the ability not to know critical information about one’s own party.*

http://pieceofmind.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/people-o-our-sort/


It's reassuring to know that not all Americans are so blinkered, so willing to run to the safety of Ignore.



0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 09:20 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
The thought that you are involved in teaching children, as you have asserted, is beyond disturbing.


I view it as a good thing for kids to observe that some people never grow out of being idiots or assholes, that really is teaching the kids something they need to know...
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 09:27 pm
@gungasnake,
Exactly what part of this did you miss, gunga?

What's the old saying,

"Covering for war criminals and terrorists sure makes for strange bedfellows".

++++++++++++++++++

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
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 10:34 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I see that one of your dogs has died, Frank. I also see that you got another one but it's still the same ole Frank Apisa Dog & Pony show.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 10:36 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
The thought that you are involved in teaching children, as you have asserted, is beyond disturbing.


I view it as a good thing for kids to observe that some people never grow out of being idiots or assholes, that really is teaching the kids something they need to know...


Indeed, bad examples can be educational, too.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 10:54 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
Indeed, bad examples can be educational, too.


That's exactly what I've noted a number of times, FBM, when you commented on questions in the English threads.

Thankfully, you seem to have stopped giving your advice.
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 04:50 am
@JTT,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/images/dprk-dmsp-dark-old.jpg

At some point, it'll sink in.....
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 06:42 am
@gungasnake,
I wonder what responsibility of the dirty west it is to cure the massive hunger problem in NK?
As Irecalled we offered thousands of tons of food but were rebuffed during the Clinton AND Bush years.

All this sabre rattling by the midget leaders of NK has been to avert their publics minds from the fact that theyre STARVING IN THE DARK
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 06:42 am
@gungasnake,
I wonder what responsibility of the dirty west it is to cure the massive hunger problem in NK?
As Irecalled we offered thousands of tons of food but were rebuffed during the Clinton AND Bush years.

All this sabre rattling by the midget leaders of NK has been to avert their publics minds from the fact that theyre STARVING IN THE DARK
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 07:41 am
One thing that seems to be going unremarked on about the North Korean threat is this,

While I do believe the alphabet soup of intelligence agencies that say NK doesnt have the capability to hit the US, I do wonder about other places.
Guam, Hawaii, The Northern Marianas Islands, Saipan, and several other places in the pacific ocean are all US territory, with the residents being US citizens.

Does NK have the ability to hit them at all, and would the govt consider an attack on any of those islands an attack on the US itself?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 07:58 am
If the point of some of the talk here is: Can we find an excuse or a "reason" to start another war somewhere...the answer is an unqualified "YES."

Can't we change the question to, "Can we avoid going into more wars"...and come up with the same answer?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 08:02 am
@Frank Apisa,
that all youve gotten from these exchanges?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 08:07 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
If the point of some of the talk here is: Can we find an excuse or a "reason" to start another war somewhere...the answer is an unqualified "YES."

I'm sorry, farmerman, what was your question again?
0 Replies
 
 

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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/29/2022 at 02:05:30