North Korea

422 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Because in Canada we have professional armed police forces dedicated to protecting us from criminals and their guns.

Is that why there are no murders in Canada? 

I'll admit, though, that it's awesome that if I'm killed they'll show up an hour later to draw an adorable chalk line around my body.

Quote:
The United Nations is ostensibly supposed to serve this role on the international stage, but seeing as they're headquartered in NYC, give the US a permanent veto, and have never taken any action whatsoever to stop the US from invading a country (not to mention that the Korean War was carried out under their auspices), DPRK most likely isn't terribly reassured.

Unlike everyone in North America who knows the Police will prevent them from being killed/mugged/carjacked/raped?

They can certainly draw an adorable chalk line around DPRK if the U.S. nukes them back to the stone age, yes?  And we can sort everything out afterwards in both cases.

Rev Pesky

From Mr. Magoo:

It was gracious of them to permit the Soviet Union/Russia, China, Pakistan and India.

I do find this whole "it's only fair" and "self-defense" argument kind of odd and somewhat antithetical to the usual progressive belief that there's no such thing as a good nuclear weapon.

If DPRK needs nukes because the US has nukes, then I need a gun, because criminals have guns.  Right?  Or why not?

You must have been taking lessons from 6079_Smith_W.  There was another who was good at dodging issues and making up arguments out of whole cloth.

The Soviet Union was able to develop nuclear weapons despite the USA's wishes simply because they had been allies during WW2, and there was considerable sentiment in the USA that they were the 'good guys' after the war. That didn't really change until the late 40's and early 50's. By that time it was too late to do anything about it.

China was a different story. They were not heavily involved in world trade post WW2, so sanctions wouldn't have had any effect, and even the USA was a bit chary about starting a war with China.

The USA did impose sanctions against India after some of it's nuclear testing, but those sanctions were lifted. In fact the USA didn't have a real problem with India having nuclear weapons given the situation between India and China. The USA was also instrumental in introducing nuclear technology to Pakistan. 

There's nothing in the nuclear history of those countries that overthrows the contention that the USA is the one that makes the rules.

As far as the the 'it's only fair' argument, are you saying that different countries should have a different set of rules applied? That is, of course, exactly what the USA does.

Is there something wrong with asking for equal treatment before the law? 

NDPP

The Atomic Bomb And The First Korean War

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/08/the-atomic-bomb-and-the-first-ko...

"The US has threatened to use nuclear weapons against North Korea before..."

 

An Isolated Tyrannical Regime - Not Pyongyang, It's Washington

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47767.htm

"The height of American criminal insanity is its insistence that the Korean crisis must be dealt with by either economic warfare through strangulating sanctions on North Korea and freezing and starving its people - or by overwhelming military force.

Grotesquely, the Americans talk about the world standing together against North Korea. More to the point, the world must stand and insist that Washington takes the only morally viable option of conducting diplomacy for a peaceful resolution.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Is there something wrong with asking for equal treatment before the law?

I dunno.  Is there something wrong with asking that if the police cannot or will not take guns away from criminals, that I be allowed to have one too?  For the same kind of "self-defense" that DPRK wants to claim?

What's the logical and meaningful difference between "we could come to harm from a potential adversary with greater arms than ours" and "I could come to harm from a potential adversary with greater arms than mine"?

NDPP

'Odd' That Canada Hasn't Joined US Missile Defence Program, Ex Top General Says

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-lawson-north-korea-missile-defence-1...

"The best way for Canada to defend its people from a nuclear-armed North Korea is to join the US anti-ballistic missile defence program, argues a former chief of the defence staff. And Tom Lawson, who served as Canada's top general under former prime minister Stephen Harper, said he's heartened to see signals from the Liberal government that they might be open to it..."

NDPP

UNSC Adopts Tougher Sanctions on North Korea (and vid)

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

"One shouldn't give in to emotions and drive North Korea into a corner,' Putin stated..."

 

 

Korean Nuclear Tension: Apocalypse...Almost Now  -  by Slavoj Zizek

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

"What is needed is no less than a new global anti-nuclear movement, a global mobilization that would exert pressure on nuclear powers and act aggressively, organizing mass protests and boycotts while denouncing our leaders as criminals and the like. It should focus not only on North Korea but also on those super-powers who assume the right to      nuclear weapons. The very public mention of the use of nuclear weapons should be treated as a criminal offense."

Rev Pesky

From Mr. Magoo, responding to a quote from me (at the beginning of the quoted passage:

Quote:

Is there something wrong with asking for equal treatment before the law?

 

I dunno.  Is there something wrong with asking that if the police cannot or will not take guns away from criminals, that I be allowed to have one too?  For the same kind of "self-defense" that DPRK wants to claim?

All I was doing was contrasting the world's response to North Korea's nuclear weapons compared to Israel's nuclear weapons. It was you who chose to interpret that as meaning I favoured Norkth Korea being allowed nuclear weapons.

​In fact one could equally well take it that the world response to Israel's nuclear weapons should be the same as the reponse to North Korea's nuclear weapons (sanctions imposed against Israel, f'rinstance). But I suspect you took it the way you did because you couldn't think of a valid reason to treat Israel any differently than North Korea in terms of nuclear weapons.

As far as comparing yourself to countries, that has little if any relevance to this situation. In fact, people that keep weapons in their homes are likely to be killed by those weapons, wielded either by a relative, or a random person who breaks in and steals the weapons. That situation is unlikely in the case of nuclear weapons.

Having said all that, however, I will add that nuclear weapons have only been valuable as offensive weapons once. That was when the USA possessed them, and no one else did.

Nowadays, when a nuclear strike is likely to induce a nuclear retaliation, nuclear weapons are pretty much defensive only. I can certainly understand why a country such as North Korea, or anyone else for that matter, would see value in nuclear weapons. They are the only weapons that give the USA pause, and even a relatively small country can possess enough nuclear warheads to cause the destruction of the United States.

So the real answer to nuclear weapons is a world order that doesn't allow the USA to willy-nilly overthrow any government they want for whatever purpose they want. That would be a good first step towards decreasing the number of nuclear weapons in the world.

voice of the damned

Pesky wrote:

Nowadays, when a nuclear strike is likely to induce a nuclear retaliation, nuclear weapons are pretty much defensive only. I can certainly understand why a country such as North Korea, or anyone else for that matter, would see value in nuclear weapons. They are the only weapons that give the USA pause, and even a relatively small country can possess enough nuclear warheads to cause the destruction of the United States.

So the real answer to nuclear weapons is a world order that doesn't allow the USA to willy-nilly overthrow any government they want for whatever purpose they want. That would be a good first step towards decreasing the number of nuclear weapons in the world.

So, how does this analysis apply to countries that want nukes, but that the US isn't planning to invade, eg. apartheid South Africa? They were trying for the bomb as well, but I'm pretty sure they weren't on the USA's attack-list.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

Pesky wrote:

Nowadays, when a nuclear strike is likely to induce a nuclear retaliation, nuclear weapons are pretty much defensive only. I can certainly understand why a country such as North Korea, or anyone else for that matter, would see value in nuclear weapons. They are the only weapons that give the USA pause, and even a relatively small country can possess enough nuclear warheads to cause the destruction of the United States.

So the real answer to nuclear weapons is a world order that doesn't allow the USA to willy-nilly overthrow any government they want for whatever purpose they want. That would be a good first step towards decreasing the number of nuclear weapons in the world.

So, how does this analysis apply to countries that want nukes, but that the US isn't planning to invade, eg. apartheid South Africa? They were trying for the bomb as well, but I'm pretty sure they weren't on the USA's attack-list.

This is merely pointless whataboutism. The Rev says that if the U.S. weren't running around changing regimes for business reasons, there would be fewer regimes who feel a serious need to invest in nuclear weaponry. He doesn't seem to be claiming that there would be no exceptions, especially examples from decades in the past. In fact, he has mentioned the biggest exception, Israel, several times already.

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Not saying names but I do remember arguing here with people who said electing Trump would make the US less aggressive with foreign interventions.

Not seeing a difference from what we expected Clinton to do.

I remember arguing that Trump would be unlikely to be very different in that way -- except more unpredictable and more awful at home.

I think both would have been dangerous in different ways. Clinton mused about responding to Russian cyber attacks with military force, and they have been blaming all their problems on Russia. She also criticized Trump for giving Russian soldiers enough warning time to get out of the way of US bombs falling on Syria, which if Russian troops had been bombed would more than likely have triggered outright war. Trump is said to be on good terms with Russia, however his bull-in-a-china-shop approach to foreign affairs may set off enough military conflicts to the point where China and Russia feel backed into a corner without any choice but to respond militarily.

voice of the damned

^^

Well, I have to say, I was a little confused by what the Reverend was saying, because on the one hand, he wrote... 

"I can certainly understand why a country such as North Korea, or anyone else for that matter, would see value in nuclear weapons. They are the only weapons that give the USA pause, and even a relatively small country can possess enough nuclear warheads to cause the destruction of the United States."

That bolded part would seem to suggest that he thinks the only reason ANY country wants nukes is to deter an attack from the US. But, as you say, he had already mentioned Israel(probably a better example than my South Afirca), a country that almost certainly doesn't fear attack from the US. And I don't think France, India, or Pakistan developed their arsenals because of fear of American aggression(though making themselves more independent of the US may very well have been a factor, especially in the case of France). 

But yeah, I'm sure among the countries vying for future nukes, there are those seeking to deter possible American aggression(North Korea being the example at hand on this thread). I'm also pretty sure that most of the countries currently possessing nuclear weapons would still want them regardless of what the USA does, and that, even in the event of the USA having its global power reduced to the status of Iceland, there would be countries seeking to develop nukes for reasons having nothing to do with the US.  

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

But yeah, I'm sure among the countries vying for future nukes, there are those seeking to deter possible American aggression(North Korea being the example at hand on this thread). I'm also pretty sure that most of the countries currently possessing nuclear weapons would still want them regardless of what the USA does, and that, even in the event of the USA having its global power reduced to the status of Iceland, there would be countries seeking to develop nukes for reasons having nothing to do with the US.  

Agreed.

Rev Pesky

From voice of the damned:

That bolded part would seem to suggest that he thinks the only reason ANY country wants nukes is to deter an attack from the US. But, as you say, he had already mentioned Israel(probably a better example than my South Afirca), a country that almost certainly doesn't fear attack from the US.

There is nothing in what I've posted to suggest that the only reason anyone would want nuclear weapons would  be to deter a USA attack. What I said was I can understand a country that feels that way, which is considerably different.

As far as South Africa, they had nuclear weapons, but dismantled them prior to the changeover to democratic government. If I remember correctly, the dismantling of their bombs was 'suggested' by the USA  before they would accept the turnover of power to the ANC. 

As far as why countries would want nuclear weapons, one of the reasons could be the applications to high-tech industries and medicine. 

However, the main point I made is that it is the USA that decideds who will be the 'good' nuclear weapons countries, and who will be the 'bad'. Thus, sanctions and bluster about North Korea's nuclear weapons, Iran's maybe nuclear weapons, Iraq's maybe nuclear weapons (remember Israel bombing Iraqi installations), Libya's non-existent nuclear weapons, but a complete pass for Israel.

And as far as that goes, contrast the record of Israel compared to North Korea. Israel has been a consistent violator of UN rules and rulings for many, many years, has invaded countries many times, has been the aggressive belligerent in many wars, is, in fact, the perfect definition of a 'rogue state'. But as far as nuclear weapons, no problem.

NDPP

The Rationality of Kim Jong-Un (And His Nukes)   -   by Gary Leupp

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/12/the-rationality-of-kim-jong-un-a...

"Kim Jong-un is not mad. Quite the contrary...Think about it from Jong-un's point of view..."

 

North Korea Solution Depends on 'Containment of the US' - Pilger

https://on.rt.com/8n26

"No one wants nuclear war, yet that is the trajectory the US and NATO are on with not just North Korea, but potentially China and Russia too, journalist John Pilger fears. In fact, he says the crisis over North Korea is just 'a sideshow to the main game."

voice of the damned

Pesky wrote:

There is nothing in what I've posted to suggest that the only reason anyone would want nuclear weapons would  be to deter a USA attack. What I said was I can understand a country that feels that way, which is considerably different.

Well, I guess I misunderstood what you wrote here... 

 I can certainly understand why a country such as North Korea, or anyone else for that matter, would see value in nuclear weapons. They are the only weapons that give the USA pause, and even a relatively small country can possess enough nuclear warheads to cause the destruction of the United States.

But I'm really not sure it's that far-fetched a misinterpretation. If someone wrote "I can certainly understand why shopkeepers in this neighbourhood want to own guns. They are the only weapons that frighten the Hells Angels", is it really crazy to think he's saying that the only reason to have guns is to ward off the Hells Angels? 

voice of the damned

In any case, possibly muddled presentation and/or interpretaion aside, I agree that preventing a US led "regime-change" is a very legitimate reason, among others, to want nuclear weapons. I'm actually a believer in any country that wants nukes being allowed to have them, and that includes North Korea, as well as South Korea and Japan, if they see fit. The only drawback I could see to that policy would be a bunch of mini arms-races around the globe, ie. countries won't be satisfied with just one bomb each, they'll always have to be playing one-up with their rivals, in order to assure they maintain the strategic advantage.  

voice of the damned

As for South Africa... 

...they had nuclear weapons, but dismantled them prior to the changeover to democratic government. If I remember correctly, the dismantling of their bombs was 'suggested' by the USA  before they would accept the turnover of power to the ANC. 

SA's nuke program was dismantled in 1989, when Nelson Mandela was still in jail. So it's not as if there was any imminent "turnover of power" on the table for anyone to be using as a bargaining chip. The explanation I've usually heard is that the racist regime just saw the writing on the wall, panicked about a "black bomb", and dismantled the program to keep it out of the hands of the ANC.  Given that the US had a long distrust of the ANC as a Soviet-front, I'm guessing they were probably pretty cool with what the National Party did. I can't find anything on the internet indicating that they were the ultimate instigators of it, though.  

 

 

NDPP

Pyongyang  Fires Missile Through Japan's Airspace Into Pacific Ocean  (and vid)

https://on.rt.com/8n90

"Pyongyang says boosting its missile and nuclear program is justified...'

NDPP

The Russia-China Plan For North Korea: Stability, Connectivity   -   by Pepe Escobar

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/15/the-russia-china-plan-for-north-...

"Largely unreported by Western corporate media, what happened in Vladivostok is really ground-breaking. Moscow and Seoul agreed on a trilateral trade platform, crucially involving Pyongyang, to ultimately invest in connectivity between the whole Korean peninsula and the Russian Far East. Geo-economics complements geo-politics..."

NDPP

Why Peace is Alien To The US

https://sptnkne.ws/f2wH

'You'd have to laugh - if it were not so grave. The Trump administration says that it is running out of patience for a diplomatic solution to the Korea crisis. This pseudo-piousness comes from a US government that continually refuses to enter into direct negotiations..."

 

NorthReport
cco

It'd be nice if at least one NDP MP stood up to point out that there's a term in international law for deliberate targeting of civilians, and another term for eradication of a nation, and that both those terms have been defined largely by the United States in the past.

Those terms, of course, are "crimes against humanity" and "genocide". Yes, even if the other guy shoots first, and is a really, really bad guy. Threatening to wipe a country off the map was a big deal when Ahmedinajad (sort of) did it. Not so much with Trump, apparently.

Most hilarious of all will be when pro-Trump types point DPRK's human rights record. "We had to destroy the populace to save it."

NDPP

Trump Addresses World Problems at the 72nd UN General Assembly (FULL SPEECH)

https://youtu.be/EF6QWJbykKM

Trump Addresses World Problems at the 72ns UN General Assembly. May the evil US hegemon soon pass away...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Yes, even if the other guy shoots first, and is a really, really bad guy. Threatening to wipe a country off the map was a big deal when Ahmedinajad (sort of) did it. Not so much with Trump, apparently.

I'm pretty ick'd by Trumps bombast, but to be fair, it's hardly any worse than either of the Kims has blurted, regularly, for years. 

I guess I just expect more of the POTUS than I do of a hereditary k00K dictator.  Maybe we just all do?

josh

So much for Trump not being a neo-con.

NDPP

US Reckless War Bluff  -  by Finian Cunningham

https://sptnkne.ws/f3Jq

"Those missiles are not directly threatening any of us,' Mattis said Monday..."

NDPP

NATO Is Seeking To Revive Cold War Climate - Lavrov At UNGA (and vid)

https://on.rt.com/8nu1

"...Lavrov denounced the escalationof tensions around the Korean Peninsula by calling it a 'very dangerous confrontation spiral.' The minister stressed that Russia condemns the North Korea nuclear tests conducted in violation of the UN resolutions, but added that war hysteria stirred up by the West around Pyongyang's actions could end up in a 'disaster'..."

Noops

cco wrote:

Most hilarious of all will be when pro-Trump types point DPRK's human rights record. "We had to destroy the populace to save it."

or..."We had to destroy the populace in order to bring freedom and democracy to yet another country."

Let's hope all this bluster will run out of steam in a few weeks/months.

NDPP

Kim Jong-UN Calls Trump 'Mentally Deranged US Dotard' in Response to UN Speech

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

"Action is the best option in treating the dotard..."

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Hands up, everyone else who read Kim's statement and had to google "dotard".

Admittedly, his Chaucerian vocabulary is totally on point.

Noops

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Hands up, everyone else who read Kim's statement and had to google "dotard".

Admittedly, his Chaucerian vocabulary is totally on point.

You can use the Oxford definition or perhaps this simple mnemonic :

Do(nald) (re)tard = Dotard

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Do(nald) (re)tard = Dotard

Or we could just not.

NDPP

'North Korean Leadership Won't Be Around Much Longer' - Trump

https://on.rt.com/8o0b

"North Korea says rockets to US 'inevitable' after Trump insults."

 

Unmasked: Trump Doctrine Vows Carnage For New Axis of Evil  -  by Pepe Escobar

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/22/unmasked-trump-doctrine-vows-car...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
"North Korea says rockets to US 'inevitable' after Trump insults."

Sadly, we may be looking at a world moment where two opposing idiots are perfectly ready to use extreme military force in "self defense" of an insult.

NDPP

US Has Direct Channels of Communication With Pyongyang Not 'Blackout Situation' - Tillerson

https://on.rt.com/8ol8

"The US is 'probing' North Korea to see if it is interested in dialogue, Tillerson told reporters during his visit to China on Saturday.

'We ask: Would like to talk?'

NDPP

North Korean Workers Prepare Seafood For [CANADIAN and] US Stores, Restaurants

https://t.co/KdHhUD9NOx

"AP also tracked the products made by N Korean workers to CANADA, Germany and elsewhere in the European Union. Chinese workers have job protections that give them the right to take time off, while North Korean workers complete their contracts with few complaints, sick days and almost no turnover. They are also considered cheaper..."

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Are you saying that Chinese companies are exploiting DPRK workers?

NDPP

Surrounded By Generals, Trump Remarks On 'The Calm Before the Storm'

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/10/07/nkor-o07.html

"Surrounded by top military leaders at the White House Thursday evening, US President Donald Trump ominously described the current world situation as 'the calm before the storm.'

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Well, regargless, I'm sure everybody involved has it coming to them.

NDPP

Jimmy Carter: What I've Learned From North Korea's Leaders

http://bit.ly/2xn8tHc

"The next step should be for the US to offer to send a high level delegation to Pyongyang for peace talks or to support an international conference involving North Korea, South Korea, the US and China, at a mutually acceptable site."

NDPP

US Defence Secretary Calls On Military To Be Ready For War Against North Korea

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/10/10/nkor-o10.html

"The imminence of a war in North East Asia with incalculable consequences is generating tensions within Washington, including within the White House, as well as in capitals around the world..."

NDPP

Gareth Porter on Trump's Nuclear War (E537 and vid)

https://www.rt.com/shows/going-underground/408087-uk-back-trump-war/

"We speak to award-winning journalist Dr Gareth Porter about the perils of potential British backing for a Trump nuclear war."

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Jimmy Carter: What I've Learned From North Korea's Leaders

I have a lot of respect for Mr. Carter.  Perhaps it's because he's probably the first U.S. President that I can remember campaigning and winning when I was a kid.  At the same time, I'm told that he's just another in an unbroken line of war criminals or whatever.

But when he says:

Quote:
I have visited with people who were starving. Still today, millions suffer from famine and food insecurity and seem to be completely loyal to their top leader. They are probably the most isolated people on Earth and almost unanimously believe that their greatest threat is from a preemptory military attack by the United States.

... I do have to wonder why the people of DPRK don't seem to view their own government as a problem.  He as much as acknowledges that they're starving.  Could spending nearly everything on flags and statues be a part of that?  NOPE!  It's all about the imminent invasion that hasn't happened, despite being "any moment now" for the last 60 years. 

They're like their own secular rapture cult.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Examine US history. During Carter's presidency, where was one shot fired by the US military? Where was one person killed by those forces? I think calling Carter a war criminal is wrong. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

If I got that wrong and he's the exception then I'm totally happy with that.

NDPP

US Masses Ships And Aircraft Outside North Korea

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/10/30/pers-o30.html

"The world may be closer to the brink of nuclear war than at any time in history..."

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
"The world may be closer to the brink of nuclear war than at any time in history..."

Notwithstanding the last twenty times they've said this, of course.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

If I got that wrong and he's the exception then I'm totally happy with that.

I always remembered he was the exception -- the only shot was the attempted rescue of the hostages but you can forgive that.

This compared to all the others....

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

U.S. Bans Entry of S Korean Activists Opposed to Trump’s War Threats in Korea

Fourteen members of the Fellowship of South Korean Youth — calling themselves the “Ban Trump’s Crazy Action” (BTC) delegation — were stopped at Incheon airport on October 25 and prevented from boarding their planes to the United States, where they had planned to protest Trump’s war threats in Korea. The group, which had planned to visit New York, Washington DC, and Los Angeles to demand an end to U.S. sanctions and war threats against North Korea, was turned away despite having acquired proper documentation to visit the United States.

The members of the delegation were told by the United Airline staff that there were problems with their visas. When the delegation asked for an explanation, they were told, “You need to find out why from the U.S. Embassy in Seoul. Due to privacy concerns, we cannot release any information.”

Following their entry denial, the BTC delegation held a press briefing at Incheon Airport. One representative of the delegation stated, “We received our visas through the proper channels, but suddenly our visas were rejected. We don’t understand what is so free about the so-called ‘land of the free.’ Every member of the BTC delegation is furious about this.”.....

U.S. Bans Entry of S Korean Activists Opposed to Trump’s War Threats in Korea

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..from democracy now headlines

Trump Pressures Japan to Buy Billions of Dollars of U.S. Weapons

President Trump met with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in Tokyo on Monday, where Trump pressured Abe to buy billions of dollars of U.S.-manufactured weapons. This comes amid escalating tensions on the Korean Peninsula, which have been largely sparked and intensified by President Trump himself, who has threatened repeatedly to annihilate the entire nation of North Korea. Later on Monday, during a visit to Seoul, South Korea, Trump struck a slightly more diplomatic tone, talking of a potential deal with North Korea, although he did reiterate that the U.S. is prepared to use military action against North Korea. Hundreds of South Koreans protested

...

South Koreans Greet 'Warmongering Trump' With Clear Message: 'Shut Up, Get Out'

Denouncing U.S. President Donald Trump for intensifying "fears of war on the Korean Peninsula," thousands of South Koreans gathered in front of the U.S. embassy in Seoul on Tuesday to protest Trump's arrival, hoisting signs that sent an unambiguous message: "shut up and get out."

The peaceful demonstrations against the U.S. president—who has threatened to unleash "fire and fury" upon South Korea's northern neighbor, a move that would endanger millions of lives—are expected to carry on through Wednesday, when Trump is scheduled to deliver a speech on North Korea.

"The war-threatening, weapons salesman Trump is not welcome here, especially as he demands that South Korea pay more to host U.S. troops and set aside land for useless weapons like the THAAD missile defense system," Choi Eun-a of the Korean Alliance for Progressive Movements—one of the more than 200 groups participating in protests during Trump's two-day visit—said in a statement.....

Pages