0
   

Between Trump and Kim Jong-un, who is correct?

 
 
barmpot
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2017 01:12 am
@Susmariosep,
Quote:
26. The fact that both leaders are principally engaged in posturing in order to pander to their home audience seems to be beyond your comprehension.
27. The last point renders your ridiculous question about 'correctness' another facile attempt at attention seeking.
Susmariosep
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2017 11:06 am
@barmpot,
Dear Barmpot, in fact from my part I see that both Trump and Kim are into psychology rather than rationality.

And they both Trump and Kim should see that aside from their psychology, rationality dictates that they need not cater to their psychology of fear and ambition, in order to secure safety for their both respective peoples.

Think about that.

Correctness then in my thinking consists in looking at the situation not from respective party's psychology which is similar, namely: fear and ambition; but from rationality, namely, that in reality there is no need to continue on and on with their fear and ambition reciprocally; but they should work as to both no longer indulge in their psychology of fear and ambition, but endeavor to find how they can collaborate as to best serve their respective own peoples, on the objective of achieving safety for their both respective peoples.

Think about that, dear Barmpot, and I see you have a personal antagonism against me, for whatever considerations from your psychology, instead of rationality.

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath for the reaction of Barmpot to my present post here, to see whether he can rise above his psychology of personal animosity toward me, and seek to examine the situation between Trump and Kim on the ground of rationality that should rule both of them, Trump and Kim.

But as I have seen such kinds of people like Barmpot, they are to their core into psychology rather than rationality.

And that is what we should not be, not here in this ak2 forum.
barmpot
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2017 02:13 pm
@Susmariosep,
Quote:
28.Your usage of the words 'psychology' and 'rationality' is marginally superior to a monkey using a typewriter.
29. Nobody gives a toss what you think because you don't give a toss about anybody's ideas as long as they respond to you.
30. Your persistent sycophantic and patronising use of the adjective 'dear' in front of a name merely underscores your inability to communicate effectively.
31. With any luck the amount of 'breath bating' you are doing will put you in a coma.(The death certificate will read 'cliche' overdose').
Susmariosep
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2017 02:29 pm
@barmpot,
Dear Barmpot, I will just react to your thinking, with a post I just sent to Fresco and Izzy.

In the meantime, I appreciate your contribution to my thread here, thanks indeed.

Quote:
Post: # 6,484,183 | Susmariosep | Mon 14 Aug, 2017 02:10 pm

@izzythepush and @Fresco,
Dear Izzy [and Fresco], and dear readers here, you see, I think on the basis of three ultimate premisses of thinking that is worth any salt at all, namely:

1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.
2. Existence is from oneself or from another.
3. Existence is in the mind and/or outside and independent of the mind.

So, dear Izzy, do you have anything that you want very much to teach me, that is ultimately grounded on the above three premisses at all?

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness how Izzy will react to my invitation here.

Will he take up something to teach me that is to my observation first and foremost grounded on the three premisses I state above?

Because, I want to tell you, when you exchange thoughts with fellow humans, monitor their thinking to see whether they talk on the basis of these three premisses, or outside or even in contradiction to them.

When you see them to be outside and even in contradiction to the three premisses, avoid them like the plague: for there is no sense in getting into an exchange with such humans who are not grounded at all on solid foundation with their thinking.
barmpot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2017 02:55 pm
@Susmariosep,
Quote:
33. Thankyou darling - your last post confirmed my last rwo points.
34. The monkey seems to know how to copy and paste.
0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 Aug, 2017 12:30 pm
Thanks everyone for your contribution to this thread.

This morning I thought that I could use some thinking from the thinkers in the internet, so I googled the following words: how to defuse the north korean missile crisis, see below for page 1 of google's hits.

Happy reading and thinking, and see if you can think up your own way on how to defuse the North Korean missile crisis.

My own idea is for Trump and the US to love the North Korean people to 'death', by dropping home goodies of all kinds onto the rural districts of the country, in this way Kim will become irrelevant pronto to his own people.

Quote:
Google: how to defuse the north korean missile crisis

About 477,000 results (0.38 seconds)

Search Results


How to Defuse the Crisis With North Korea - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/.../how-to-defuse-the-crisis-with-north-korea.html
Apr 19, 2017 - These threats will make the North Korean government only more likely to dig in its heels and move forward with its nuclear and missile ...


Playground taunts will not defuse the North Korea crisis
www.denverpost.com/2017/.../playground-taunts-will-not-defuse-the-north-korea-cris...
5 days ago - I don't want to live in a world in which a nuclear-tipped North Korean missile can hit Guam or Hawaii or Los Angeles or Chicago, but we may ...
Top stories


Both Korean
leaders, US signal
turn to diplomacy
amid crisis


ABC News • 6 hours ago


North Korea attack
on Guam could
'quickly escalate
into war' – James Mattis


The Guardian • 11 hours ago


Kim Jong-un holds
fire on Guam
missile launch


Aljazeera.com • 4 hours ago
More for How to defuse the north korean missile crisis


The North Korean missile crisis - Livemint
www.livemint.com › Opinion › Online Views
Jul 19, 2017 - We are seeing a slow-motion repeat of the Cuban missile crisis. Will today's leaders show the foresight that enabled John F. Kennedy to defuse the threat in ... North Korea knows that giving up its nuclear weapons without ...


The North Korean Missile Crisis by Kaushik Basu - Project Syndicate
https://www.project-syndicate.org/.../north-korea-nuclear-threat-game-theory-by-kaus...
Jul 11, 2017 - North Korea's recent ICBM test implies a level of nuclear risk witnessed only once before: the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. ... the same degree of strategic thinking that enabled the Kennedy administration to defuse that threat.


There Is a Peaceful Way Out of the North Korea Crisis - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/north-korea.../524349/
Apr 26, 2017 - Kim Jong Un's nuclear and missile programs represent one of the most ... It is a crisis that has been building for a long time, as North Korea has .... new ways to defuse tensions on the Korean peninsula—including a peace ...


North Korea missile crisis seen pushing South Korea to gun up - Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-militarisation-idUSKBN1AR0L8
4 days ago - The escalating threat arising from nuclear-armed North Korea's recent series of missile tests is prompting South Korea to beef up its military ...


Comparing North Korea Threat and the Cuban Missile Crisis (VIDEO)
https://www.newsy.com/.../comparing-north-korea-threat-and-the-cuban-missile-crisis...
5 days ago - The North Korean Standoff Is (And Isn't) Like The Cuban Missile Crisis ... staff says he's trying to defuse the North Korean conflict, even as he ...


The Cuban Missile Crisis Is a Model for Dealing With North Korea ...
https://www.usnews.com/.../the-cuban-missile-crisis-is-a-model-for-dealing-with-north...
Jul 18, 2017 - The 1962 Cuban Missile crisis offers a template to move the North ... deal would work to diffuse the North Korean crisis: In exchange for North ...


A Strategy for Defusing the North Korean Nuclear Crisis | Arms Control ...
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_01-02/wit_janfeb03
Jan 1, 2003 - A Strategy for Defusing the North Korean Nuclear Crisis ... coupled with a more advanced missile effort, possibly for use in delivery of weapons ...


Searches related to How to defuse the north korean missile crisis

north korea crisis wiki
north korea crisis timeline
north korea crisis 2017 wiki
korean crisis summary
peace treaty between north korea and us
solutions to north korea problem
what is the north korean crisis
how do you solve a problem like north korea


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 Aug, 2017 02:37 pm
Here is a view that is reminiscent in a way of my own thought.
Quote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/opinion/how-to-defuse-the-crisis-with-north-korea.html

The Opinion Pages NYT | Op-Ed Contributor
How to Defuse the Crisis With North Korea

By JOEL S. WITAPRIL 19, 2017
Pyongyang, North Korea, April 17, 2017.

WASHINGTON — I have been meeting with North Korean government officials for over two decades, first for almost 10 years as part of my job at the State Department, and then as a researcher working at universities and think tanks. This experience has made me familiar with the North Koreans’ views on safeguarding their country’s security. I believe that President Trump is making a big mistake if he thinks that the threat of a military strike and escalating sanctions will persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons.

Following a two-month review, the Trump administration has moved to implement a policy that emphasizes pressure — including the threat of military force and new sanctions against North Korea, as well as new restrictions intended to punish Chinese businesses with ties to Pyongyang. While the theory is that doing so will persuade North Korea to stop its provocative behavior, return to negotiations and give up its nuclear weapons, it won’t work that way. These threats will make the North Korean government only more likely to dig in its heels and move forward with its nuclear and missile programs, embroiling the United States in a festering crisis on the Korean Peninsula that could escalate out of control.

For more than 60 years, North Korea has successfully resisted not only pressure from great powers, mainly the United States, but also attempts at manipulation by its patrons, the Soviet Union and China. This reflects a strong nationalism but also a principle dear to the North Koreans: that as a small country in a life-or-death confrontation with the world’s most powerful nation, any display of weakness would amount to national suicide.

A longstanding, deeply ingrained view in Pyongyang is that Washington’s real agenda is to get rid of the North Korean regime because of the military threat it poses to American allies like South Korea and Japan, its widespread human rights violations and now its nuclear arsenal.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson tried to reassure the North during his visit to Tokyo last month, saying, “North Korea and its people need not fear the United States or their neighbors in the region who seek only to live in peace with North Korea.” But Vice President Mike Pence’s assertion in Seoul this week that the United States seeks to end repression in North Korea, when viewed from Pyongyang, clearly translates into a policy of regime change.
Continue reading the main story

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Threats like these reinforce a view in Pyongyang that North Korea needs nuclear weapons to shield it against a much larger, much more powerful country. That’s a message I have heard repeatedly from the North Koreans, most recently in a private meeting I attended with government officials who stated that their country would not have developed nuclear weapons if it did not see the United States as a threat or had not been subjected to American and South Korean provocations. American actions in other countries — whether backing regime change in Libya or launching airstrikes against Syria for its use of chemical weapons — strengthen that view.

The Trump administration may also be mistaken if it believes that China will rein in North Korea. President Trump’s effort to establish cooperation with China, combined with the threat of American military action against the North, seems to be yielding some results, as China recently threatened to impose new sanctions on North Korea. But how far will China go?

There are legitimate concerns in Beijing that too much economic pressure on North Korea will trigger dangerous instability there. Moreover, the North Koreans are just as likely to resist Chinese strong-arm tactics as they are American pressure. Attempts by China to send top-ranking diplomats to Pyongyang over the past week were reportedly rejected out of hand by North Korea. Most observers forget that North Korea’s nuclear arsenal is aimed at China as well as the United States and its allies.

In the weeks ahead, the combination of underestimating North Korean intransigence and overestimating China’s influence will expose the Trump administration’s inability to stop North Korea’s nuclear program and could escalate tensions. Pyongyang’s bellicose statements threatening thermonuclear war, the display of new missiles at a parade this past weekend and the failed test on Sunday of a missile able to reach targets in Northeast Asia could be North Korea’s opening moves.

If the Trump administration’s current course continues, it will lead to a dead end. Pyongyang will push forward with its nuclear and missile programs, American threats will ring increasingly hollow if force is not exercised because of the very real risks of triggering a North Korean military response against South Korea and Japan, and Beijing’s support will soften as it looks for a way out of the tensions. As a result, the administration will end up trapped in a policy no-man’s land, its only options to retreat back to the Obama administration’s failed policy of “strategic patience” (without, of course, saying so) or doubling down on sanctions aimed at China and deploying more missile defense and forces to the region.

Time is not on President Trump’s side. The administration should seriously consider pivoting away from pressure to soon resuming dialogue with North Korea. In fact, the United States government should already be quietly talking to the North Koreans, either through contacts with Pyongyang’s United Nations mission or elsewhere, emphasizing Washington’s resolve to defend American interests and making clear that the United States does not have hostile intentions toward North Korea. The Americans should also make clear that they want to explore peaceful paths forward.

The next step for the administration should be to initiate “talks about talks,” allowing both sides to raise their concerns — in the case of the United States, North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. If common ground is found — and if the North is willing to address the objective of eventually achieving a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula — the two would then move on to the resumption of formal negotiations.

There are no guarantees that this approach will work. But the Trump administration’s constant refrain that “all options are on the table” should mean just that — not only a military strike but also a diplomatic offensive. In doing so, President Trump would avoid the policy quagmire just over the horizon, strengthen cooperation with China and give Pyongyang a face-saving way out of the current confrontation before it’s too late.

Joel S. Wit is a senior fellow at the U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins University and the founder of its North Korea website, 38North.
0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 Aug, 2017 04:32 pm
How about this idea, based on the Hippie movement in the sixties during the US-Vietnam war, Make Love Not War.

It should work like this:

The US takes the initiative to inspire 5000 best looking young men and women from elite American families to go to North Korea, to live and socialize with 5000 best looking young men and women from elite families in North Korea; similarly North Korea inspires 5000 of their best looking and brightest young men and women from elite families to go to the US, to live and socialize with 5000 best looking and brightest young men and women in the US.

At the same time US Trump and North Korea Kim, with Trump taking the initiative again, talk about how wonderful it will be for these young folks from both sides to get interested and eventually marry and raise families, respectively in North Korea and in the US.

There, no more mutual hatred incited by fear and ambition from the part of Trump and Kim, but it is all what?

What else but Make Love Not War with the best looking and brightest young men and women from both the US and North Korea!
0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Aug, 2017 11:45 am
All humans for being members of the category homo sapiens, i.e. human animal of wisdom, we must whether of any nation affiliation, work together to convince both Trump and Kim to not have to resort to death and destruction, in order to prove which side is more deadly and destructive.

I for myself on my own personal thinking maintain that these two persons fellow human animals of wisdom, they do not really aside from oral bluffing want to kill anyone of the other side, or burn any property of the another side.

First and before anything else, their purpose is to convince that from the part of Trump, that the US can extinguish in fire the nation of North Korea quickly and totally; and from the side of Kim, he is - and he knows it - he is just into convincing that though North Korea cannot aspire to extinguish the nation of America, it can still bloody the nose of the US so badly, that in aftermath should the US have succeeded to extinguish the nation of North Korea, in retrospect the US will regret that it was not worth the trouble at all.

So we must all not affiliated to North Korea nor to the US, or even affiliated but still first and foremost members of the category identified by best thinking fellow humans to be of the category calling itself homo sapiens, i.e. human animal of wisdom, think of ways and means by which we can convince Trump first and then Kim second, that there is no need at all to extinguish respectively the opposite side; but it is more than enough to give a demonstration of your prowess, to kill humans and to destroy property and environment.

How?

Here is another proposal from yours truly, as a member of the category called homo sapiens, i.e. human animal of wisdom:

1. Both Trump and Kim talk about working together as to concur where in a spot of the world's oceans they can give an exhibit of their respective power to effect mayhem on the other side, but the exhibit will not hurt any humans at all on either side.

2. Once they have selected the spot in the world's oceans, then they will put up all sorts of communication by which their show will be seen on international tv in every home in the world, or even accessible on any working tv at all.

3. At this point, I am sure even before they actually each side presents their respective demonstration, I am sure Kim will agree that the US can inflict more deaths even on a whole nation like as with the size of the nation of North Korea, than North Korea can do the genocidal disaster on the nation of America.

4. Now what?

5. Now let them read some wisdom words from ancient men of the best will for mankind, something like this text from the religion today the most adhered to by the category of organisms calling itself homo sapiens, i.e. human animal of wisdom.

6. From my part, as a Christian, I will bring forth the words of the founder of Christianism, one so called Jesus Christ:*
Quote:
Luke 14:31-32

Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.


*I am not a New Testament scholar, but that is one text from the Gospel that has always attracted my attention; I am sure ancient writings of other religions must have some similar text as the words of Jesus, in favor of negotiation and asking for terms of peace, rathere than slaughter and calamity.
0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Aug, 2017 10:39 am
Dear readers and posters here, I have realized that my thinking in this thread which is of my own authorship, should have gone into a bigger picture, and even the biggest picture altogether, namely, what is war insofar as man is concerned.

But who else if not only man is concerned with war or more exactly, in waging wars?

First and foremost I want to determine what is the urge that impels men to wage war against other men?

I use the word urge as in sex is an urge, greed is an urge, eating is an urge, vanity is an urge, hatred is an urge, I guess you all get me, what I mean by urge.

And right now I think that men undertake war from the urge of hatred.

So, in the context of the war of words between Trump and Kim, there is certainly the urge of hatred between them, and they assume also between their peoples respectively toward each other.

Why should Trump and Kim indulge in hatred toward each other, and take it for granted that their respecive peoples also hate each other?

Dear readers who do not transmit posts here as of now, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness what the posters in particular posters who have the urge to send posts here, what thoughts they have of comments to my thinking in this thread at this point in time?

And what is my thinking in this thread at this point in time?

Here, my idea that men wage wars against other men from their urge of hatred against other men.

So dear posters who have the urge to transmit a thought to this thread, please focus on my idea that men wage wars on other men owing to hatred of other men.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2017 06:46 am
@Susmariosep,
Susmariosep wrote:

But who else if not only man is concerned with war or more exactly, in waging wars?


Ants.
0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2017 12:08 pm
Dear readers here, this morning as usual I see several red flags indicating presence of new posts, in the threads in my listing of threads I visit every morning.

This thread here is surprisingly one of them with a red flag - surprisingly because no red flag has graced this thread for some mornings already, so no thinkers in a2k seem to have interest in the study of war and peace.

Just the same it is my favorite thread because I love to think about peace, and this thread is definitely concerned with peace; and the study of peace definitely entails the study of war, hence the study of war and peace.

This morning I have this thought that the UN is not doing the correct thing with North Korea, it just imposes sanctions on North Korea.

But you know what, dear readers here? that sanctions are designed to starve a people instead of bringing about peace between nations, in the present context the - so far safe for mankind, the war of words: harsh threatening words of mutual catastrophic nuclear incineration between Trump leader of the US and Kim Jong-un leader of North Korea, aka correctly called the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

Why do I say that the UN is not doing the correct thing with the tense situation between US and DPRK by imposing sanctions?

Because it is wrong to punish a people because of the incorrect behavior of their leader.

Don’t you, dear readers here, don’t you see how sanctions are definitely intended to starve a people and/or to deprive it of basic needs like in addition to food, medicines and all other things required to maintain a home and sustain a family?

In the shorter time than in the longer time, sanctions are intended in effect to make a people rise up in violence against their leader and the armed forces he controls, wherefore ironically more trouble for the nation of North Korea, inciting them to get killed by the armed forces of their leader.

But what can we do with the UN when it is an institution that is clearly siding with the nations which also endorse sanctions to supposedly attain peace among warring nations.

Think about that.

Read next post from me here.
0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2017 12:15 pm
Dear readers here, I seek to find out what are the societies for peace in the world today, by entering these two words, peace societies, into google, and here are below the hits in page one of google search mission.
Quote:
Google: peace societies
About 37,600,000 results (0.48 seconds)

1. Positive Peace - visionofhumanity.org‎
Adwww.visionofhumanity.org/peace‎

• A new approach to peacebuilding. Learn more.
Locations: Sydney, New York, The Hague, Mexico…

• Peace is possible - Conflict causes death, poverty and disease‎
Adwww.peacedirect.org/World_Peace‎
2. Stop conflict, save lives

Search Results

Peace Society - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Society
The Peace Society, International Peace Society or London Peace Society originally known as the Society for the Promotion of Permanent and Universal Peace, ...
‎History • ‎Secretaries • ‎Members • ‎Records of the Peace ...
People also ask
What is a peaceful society?


What was the Magdalen Society?


What is the American Colonization Society?


What is the United States Institute of Peace?


Feedback

American Peace Society - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Peace_Society
The American Peace Society is a pacifist group founded upon the initiative of William Ladd, in New York City, May 8, 1828. It was formed by the merging of many ...
‎History • ‎Footnotes • ‎Further reading

Peaceful Societies - CAS - UAB
https://cas.uab.edu/peacefulsocieties/
Peaceful societies are contemporary groups of people who effectively foster interpersonal harmony and who rarely permit violence or warfare to interfere with ...

Encyclopedia of Peaceful Societies | Peaceful Societies - CAS - UAB
https://cas.uab.edu/peacefulsocieties/societies/
Societies Vary: The nature of the peacefulness varies for each entry in the Encyclopedia of Selected Peaceful Societies portion of this website. In fact, the ...

Peace Societies In The Confederacy
www.civilwarhome.com/peacesocieties.html
Feb 16, 2002 - Peace Societies In The Confederacy. Soon after the war started, peace societies organized by disloyalists began appearing in the Confederacy ...

Inclusive and Peaceful Societies | European Development Days
https://eudevdays.eu/topics/inclusive-and-peaceful-societies
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development recognises the central role of peace in poverty eradication and sustainable development.

International Peace Society Collected Records (CDG-B Great Britain ...
https://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/CDGB/intpeacesociety.htm
Aug 21, 2015 - The Society for the Promotion of Universal and Permanent Peace, also known as the London Peace Society, was founded June 14, 1816.

Why building peaceful societies is part of the sustainable development ...
www.undp.org/.../Why-building-peaceful-societies-is-part-of-the-sustainable-develop...
May 18, 2016 - There is a strong focus on peaceful, just and inclusive societies in the 2030 Agenda – and explicit recognition that there can be no peace ...

1816–1870: The Peace Society, the First International, and the Reform ...
oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248353.003.01
In 1816, the year after the fighting finally stopped, the first British peace association was formed: the short-lived, pacific-ist Society for Abolishing War. A more ...

Peace Society @ University of Bradford Union of Students
https://www.bradfordunisu.co.uk/groups/peace-society
Description. Welcome to the Peace Society! Established in October, 2014 by a group of peace study students, the Peace Society brings passionate students ...

Searches related to peace societies
london peace society
peaceful society definition
characteristics of a peaceful society
examples of peaceful societies
peaceful society essay
most peaceful cultures in history
american peace
most peaceful ancient civilizations

0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2017 08:13 pm
Dear readers here, do you recall what I said about Trump and Kim holding a show of their respective fire power, but in a spot of the world's oceans that is not going to be harmful to nearby shores?

At this very moment the US and South Korea are into the exactly opposite idea/practice [see next post from me] that I propound below.
Quote:
Post: # 6,485,373 | Susmariosep | Wed 16 Aug, 2017 11:45 am

All humans for being members of the category homo sapiens, i.e. human animal of wisdom, we must whether of any nation affiliation, work together to convince both Trump and Kim to not have to resort to death and destruction, in order to prove which side is more deadly and destructive.

I for myself on my own personal thinking maintain that these two persons fellow human animals of wisdom, they do not really aside from oral bluffing want to kill anyone of the other side, or burn any property of the another side.

First and before anything else, their purpose is to convince that from the part of Trump, that the US can extinguish in fire the nation of North Korea quickly and totally; and from the side of Kim, he is - and he knows it - he is just into convincing that though North Korea cannot aspire to extinguish the nation of America, it can still bloody the nose of the US so badly, that in aftermath should the US have succeeded to extinguish the nation of North Korea, in retrospect the US will regret that it was not worth the trouble at all.

So we must all not affiliated to North Korea nor to the US, or even affiliated but still first and foremost members of the category identified by best thinking fellow humans to be of the category calling itself homo sapiens, i.e. human animal of wisdom, think of ways and means by which we can convince Trump first and then Kim second, that there is no need at all to extinguish respectively the opposite side; but it is more than enough to give a demonstration of your prowess, to kill humans and to destroy property and environment.

How?

Here is another proposal from yours truly, as a member of the category called homo sapiens, i.e. human animal of wisdom:

1. Both Trump and Kim talk about working together as to concur where in a spot of the world's oceans they can give an exhibit of their respective power to effect mayhem on the other side, but the exhibit will not hurt any humans at all on either side.

2. Once they have selected the spot in the world's oceans, then they will put up all sorts of communication by which their show will be seen on international tv in every home in the world, or even accessible on any working tv at all.

3. At this point, I am sure even before they actually each side presents their respective demonstration, I am sure Kim will agree that the US can inflict more deaths even on a whole nation like as with the size of the nation of North Korea, than North Korea can do the genocidal disaster on the nation of America.

4. Now what?

5. Now let them read some wisdom words from ancient men of the best will for mankind, something like this text from the religion today the most adhered to by the category of organisms calling itself homo sapiens, i.e. human animal of wisdom.

6. From my part, as a Christian, I will bring forth the words of the founder of Christianism, one so called Jesus Christ:*
Quote:

Luke 14:31-32

Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.

*I am not a New Testament scholar, but that is one text from the Gospel that has always attracted my attention; I am sure ancient writings of other religions must have some similar text as the words of Jesus, in favor of negotiation and asking for terms of peace, rather than slaughter and calamity.
0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2017 08:31 pm
Okay, here is the news from BBC World on US and South Korea into their war game again in the sea beside the Korean peninsula:
Quote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40957725

US-South Korea set for divisive military drills

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Foal Eagle, held earlier this year, saw US and South Korean troops practice a beach landing

The US and South Korea are conducting annual military drills which consistently infuriate Pyongyang, despite appeals to halt the exercise.

Last week North Korea appeared to back down from a threat to send missiles towards the US Pacific island of Guam, but said it would watch US actions.

It has already condemned these drills as pouring "gasoline on fire".

Washington describes the drills as defensive in nature, but the North sees them as preparation for invasion.

China and Russia earlier proposed a halt on military exercises in exchange for a freeze on missile tests.

But Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the military exercises were "not currently on the table as part of the negotiation at any level" and the Ulchi-Freedom Guardian (UFG) exercises are going ahead as planned.

On Sunday an editorial in North Korea's official government newspaper, the Rodong Sinmun said the exercises would worsen the state of the peninsula and warned of an "uncontrollable phase of a nuclear war".

• What does Kim Jong-un really want?
• What could North Korea do?
• The crisis in 300 words

What are these drills?

Media caption Observers have been watching the north and south watch each other for more than 60 years.

The US and South Korea hold two sets of war games every year, involving a massive number of troops and military hardware.

Foal Eagle/Key

Resolve is usually held for several weeks in spring, while Ulchi-Freedom Guardian (UFG) is held in autumn. This year's UFG is set to be held for the next 10 days.

Both involve land, sea and air military drills and computer simulations. Held in South Korea, they have also involved practice drills for terror and chemical attacks in recent years.

South Korea usually deploys about 50,000 troops while the US sends 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers.

They can also sometimes involve troops from other allies - last year's UFG saw the participation of nine other countries including the UK, Australia, Denmark and the Philippines.

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption

Last year's UFG saw an anti-terror drill in Seoul simulating a subway chemical attack

The UFG exercise, which dates back to 1976, is named after Ulchi Mundeok, a 7th Century Korean military leader who repelled an invasion from China.

What has been the rhetoric around them?

Both events routinely anger North Korea, which insists that the exercises are rehearsals for an invasion and signs of military aggression towards Pyongyang.

Last week, North Korean state media accused the US of "trying to ratchet up war frenzy while covering up the invasive nature" of the UFG exercise, while in 2010 it said the drills showed the US and South Korea were "harassers of peace and warmongers keen to bring a war to this land".

Image copyright AFP/Getty Images Image caption

Medical evacuations are also practiced during the exercises

Earlier this year during Foal Eagle/Key Resolve it warned it would "mercilessly foil the nuclear war racket of the aggressors with its treasured nuclear sword of justice".

But while it has frequently threatened serious retaliation, it usually ends up conducting shows of force, such as firing missiles or moving troops.

The US and South Korea say that the exercises are purely for defence purposes, and based out of a mutual defence agreement they signed in 1953.

They also say the exercises are necessary to strengthen their readiness in case of an external attack.

Image copyright AFP/Getty Images Image caption
The drills have also attracted South Korean opposition, such as this UFG protest earlier this week.

Have the drills caused conflict before?

Depending on the political climate, the drills have at times exacerbated relations between the two sides.

The UFG drill in 2015 took place amid high tensions, which bubbled over and resulted in North and South Korea exchanging artillery fire across the border.

Military officials took the unusual step of halting the UFG while emergency talks were held between the North and South. The drill resumed several days later.
0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Aug, 2017 02:44 pm
Dear readers here, have you all noticed that Trump is now taking up a non-xenophobic stance, by deciding to send more troops to Afghanistan, in order to effect the neutralization of the Taliban?*

That seems to me a better or more correct attitude in regard to war-making.

You see, all mankind must join together to oppose all Islamist movements, to effect mankind to embrace the authoritarian Islamic ideology of anti-democracy, in favor of their brand of Koranic religious conservatism, where women must cover themselves from the top of their head to the ankle of their feet, and religious leaders who are Islamic bigots will rule over fellow humans in everything, they these leaders insist to be the will of Allah.

In fact, honestly I would like to see US, Russia, and China get together to fight the ISIS fanatics.

Quote:
*Google: Trump wants more troops in Afghanistan

About 6,040,000 results (0.29 seconds)

Search Results

Does Trump need Congress to increase Afghanistan troops?

Washington Post • 4 hours ago

Trump calls for Pakistan, India to do more on Afghanistan

CNN • 10 hours ago

In reversal, Trump wants more troops in Afghanistan

The Columbus Dispatch • 10 hours ago

More for Trump wants more troops in Afghanistan

Trump wants an unlimited troop increase in Afghanistan. He's going to ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../trump-wants-an-unlimited-troop-increase-in-afghani...
5 hours ago - “If Trump wants to deploy more troops to Afghanistan, someone has to pay for it — and that's Congress,” said Cornell Law Dean Jens David...

In reversal, Trump wants more troops in Afghanistan
www.dispatch.com/news/.../in-reversal-trump-wants-more-troops-in-afghanistan
10 hours ago - President Donald Trump outlines a new approach to the war in Afghanistan in a speech Monday before a largely military audience at the ...

Trump demands Nato allies send more troops to Afghanistan
https://www.standard.co.uk › News › World
13 hours ago - Donald Trump demands Nato allies such as Britain send more troops to Afghanistan ... Trump announced his US defence strategy, saying he wants more ... Then-president George W Bush sent troops into Afghanistan after the ...

Donald Trump commits more US troops to Afghanistan and calls on ...
www.telegraph.co.uk › News
10 hours ago - Donald Trump has vowed to win the war in Afghanistan by committing more US troops as he called on Nato allies such as Britain to increase ...

Trump calls for Pakistan, India to do more on Afghanistan - CNNPolitics
edition.cnn.com/2017/08/21/politics/trump-afghanistan-pakistan-india/index.html
11 hours ago - US President Donald Trump is doubling down on Afghanistan, ... Trump calls out Pakistan, India as he pledges to 'fight to win' in ..... I will not say when we are going to attack, but attack we will," said Trump, before a crowd of US troops. ... US wants to win in Afghanistan, but not interested in nation building.

Trump Afghanistan speech: President to ask US for trust - CNNPolitics
edition.cnn.com/2017/08/21/politics/donald-trump-afghanistan-speech/index.html
17 hours ago - Trump to ask Americans to trust him on Afghanistan ..... "He wants to be the one to announce it to the American people," Mattis said. ... who opposed sending more troops to the war and was the closest link to the isolationist, ...

Donald Trump wants to send more troops into Afghanistan - Salon.com
www.salon.com/2017/08/.../donald-trump-wants-to-send-more-troops-into-afghanista...
1 day ago - Trump has been critical of America's involvement in Afghanistan in the past, but seems to have changed his tune.

Trump Afghanistan Strategy: Donald Trump wants India to help US in ...
timesofindia.indiatimes.com › India News
17 hours ago - Trump cleared the way for the deployment of thousands more US troops to Afghanistan, backtracking from his promise to swiftly end America's ...

Trump's years of tweets calling for U.S. to leave Afghanistan - Axios
https://www.axios.com/trumps-tweets-that-contradict-his-afghanistan-decision-247539...
Today, President Trump is expected to announce his plan to send more troops to Afghanistan to help push back the Taliban and ISIS groups. Why it matters: The ...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/24/2017 at 03:09:56