More Korean War Games

306 posts / 0 new
Last post
voice of the damned

Fidel wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

 The fact that Park Geun Hye is the daughter of Park Chung Hee doesn't give her anywhere near the sort of power that he had.   

Chun Doo hwa didn't order soldiers to slaughter Koreans all on his own. He ahd to get US approval to move a Korean division of soldiers under joint US-Korean command to Kwangju to carry out the slaughter.

Yeah, I know. As Cumings put it...

Indeed, reading through the materials makes it clear that leading liberals _ like Jimmy Carter and his ambassador in Seoul, William Gleysteen, his National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, and especially Richard Holbrooke (then under-secretary of state for East Asia) have blood on their hands from 1980: the blood of hundreds of murdered or tortured young people in Gwangju.

But I'm not sure what that has to do with public opinion in the ROK circa 2013.

http://tinyurl.com/c4bb87a

Fidel

voice of the damned wrote:

 The fact that Park Geun Hye is the daughter of Park Chung Hee doesn't give her anywhere near the sort of power that he had.   

US-backed military dictator Chun Doo hwan didn't order soldiers to slaughter Koreans by his own authority. He obtained US approval to move a Korean division of soldiers under joint US-Korean command to Kwangju to carry out the mass murder of South Korean protesters. That sonofabitch has been allowed to come and go from Korea, the USA and other countries with diplomatic immunity since 1980.

Why do South Korea and Uncle Sam & friends insulate known criminals from international law like this? Not only do US proxies in Seoul and their foreign military partnership on the peninsula not understand what democracy is, they have no respect for justice, either.

Fidel

Youre not sure of more than just public opinion in South Korea, believe me.

voice of the damned

Fidel wrote:

Youre not sure of more than just public opinion in South Korea, believe me.

Well, what is it that you think I should be more sure of?

voice of the damned

Why do South Korea and Uncle Sam & friends insulate known criminals from international law like this?

Actually, Chun, along with his predeccesor Roh Tae Woo, was jailed for a brief period, Chun particualrly for his role in May 18th. Certainly not long enough for the tastes of most people in Gwangju who recall that time.

Interestingly, it was Kim Dae Jung, who had actually been sentenced to death under Chun, who pushed for the commutation. Not sure his reasons, Michael Breen atrributes it to Kim's Catholic belief in forgiveness, though I find that a little mystical.

But I'm still not clear how this relates to what people in the ROK want in regards to the US forces.

http://tinyurl.com/dyakh6s

Fidel

Election Fraud Suspected, South Korea

CNN wrote:
Korea had the presidential election on December 19, 2012. The strong man's daughter, Geun-hye Park, was elected. But many Koreans affirm that the election was fraudulent and illegal. Many kinds of evidence for the affirmation were found. The important evidence is the electronic ballot counting. There was no official investigation carried out by the Lee government, resulting in serious damage of the trust of South Koreans in the government and the Republic of Korea National Election Commission. In this situation, a lot of questions have been raised regarding the presidential election as well, with as many as 230,000 people  having signed in the petition for manual counting.

Quote:

"I'm a mother of two babies in South Korea.

I want my daughters to feel proud of their country.

But they wont

because democracy disappear in South Korea.

I belive in CNN's justice"

Apparently some of us have more faith in South Korea's tainted democracy than Koreans themselves.

South Korea is just another client state of the U.S. Military government with thousands of troops occupying the peninsula. What that has to do with democracy in Korea is apparently a complete mystery for certain babblers.

The truth is that ordinary South Koreans want real democracy not the fake kind, and just as importantly they want diplomacy with the North.  US-backed puppets in Seoul are there to make sure it doesn't happen.

voice of the damned wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Youre not sure of more than just public opinion in South Korea, believe me.

Well, what is it that you think I should be more sure of?

You don't even seem to realize that rabble is an anti-imperialist site, and here you are expressing an unrelenting apologism for imperialism. If you can't figure out that youre barking up the wrong tree here, then what else might you be unsure of in general?

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

Oh bullshit Fidel, just because someone doesn’t see eye to eye with you on something doesn’t mean their argument against you is an apology for what they disagree with you on.  When confronted with evidence that a majority of South Koreans understand the US and UN have to be in their country you simply declare their nation and government illegitimate becouse well, that just can't be possable in your mind... You can’t even distinguish between the Korea of 1980 and the one today.

 

Fidel

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Oh bullshit Fidel, just because someone doesn’t see eye to eye with you on something doesn’t mean their argument against you is an apology for what they disagree with you on.  When confronted with evidence that a majority of South Koreans understand the US and UN have to be in their country you simply declare their nation and government illegitimate becouse well, that just can't be possable in your mind... You can’t even distinguish between the Korea of 1980 and the one today.

I think when someone realizes they are losing an argument they tend to start making remarks of a personal nature. And that's fine because the truth is what it is. First you said that elections are fair and transparent in South Korea, and it is apparent that they are anything but.

And you said there is no anti-American sentiment in South Korea since 2000+ South Korean protesters were murdered by the US-backed military dictatorship in 1980. The truth is that South Koreans haven't forgotten.

PSY`s Anti-America Protesting Past?

Quote:
In 2002, Psy walked onto the stage at a massive performance meant to protest the large U.S. military presence in South Korea. He wore an outlandish, glittered red costume and gold face paint. As the crowd cheered him on, Psy lifted a large model of a U.S. tank and, to cheers and applause, smashed it against the stage.
.

Smashing a U.S. tank in effigy does not sound like appreciation for the 60 year-old U.S. Military occupation of the peninsula to me.

South Koreans protest land seizure for United States military base expansion, 2005-2007

Quote:
Though estimates vary, as many as 74,200 protesters and resisters were involved in the resistance campaign at some point. While as many as 187,800 police were involved in the eviction process. As of March 2011, the expansion process is still under way in Pyeongtaek, and officials estimate the final transition may be complete by 2016.

I wouldn't say that anti-American sentiment doesn't exist in South Korea. It does. 'Americans not welcome' signs on the front doors of Korean businesses doesn't sound like love for the U.S. Military occupation to me.  

I think you just don't care what Koreans actually think, Bec. And that is typical of citizens living in the empire country. A few British citizens still think England was a benevolent empire welcome in whichever country they happened to be carrying out their soccer hooliganism in Europe. Vicious empires come and go.

"Fucking USA"?  Are your friends in South Korea familiar with the words to that one, Bec?

 

6079_Smith_W
voice of the damned

You don't even seem to realize that rabble is an anti-imperialist site, and here you are expressing an unrelenting apologism for imperialism. If you can't figure out that youre barking up the wrong tree here, then what else might you be unsure of in general?

No. An apologist for imperialism would be if I was making arguments in defense of the USFK being in Korea. I'm not doing that. I'm questioning whether or not people who oppose the USFK can really be said to represent public opinion in Korea.

It's like, I'm personally against NATO and Canada's involvement in NATO, even moreso since the end of the Cold War and the seemingly neverending expansion of its mandate. But if someone were to suggest that NATO is something being forced on Canadians against their will, I would point out that almost all Canadian voters now vote for pro-NATO parties, that opinion polls show most Canadians support continued invovlement, and that I personally know lots of people who support NATO.

Basically, if you're expecting any action to come about on the anti-Canada-in-NATO front, it's gonna have to come from Canadians themselves. And if Canadians don't agree with that idea, then you've got bigger problems than just some guys on message boards in non-NATO countries disagreeing with you.

And if you're not expecting any action to come about on the anti-imperialist front(presumably because Uncle Sam never listens to anyone), then I don't know what the point is of demanding that the USA do anything, be it leave Korea or whatever.

And yes, Fucking USA. They played that video on a big-screen near Democracy Square the first time I attended a May 18th event in Gwangju. Must say, that video being played at a public event didn't exactly buttress the notion that the ROK in the 21st Century is like what it was in the days of Generals Park and Chun.  

 

voice of the damned

From Smith's blog...

DR. AHN

It still needs to be confirmed, but Bae was allegedly caught carrying sensitive video footage of the dark side of the North Korean society—“kotjebi” [(꽃제비), lit. “flowering swallows,”] and prostitutes. There is only one reason why the North is doing this: to bring the U.S. to the negotiating table. It should be noted that they have always detained an Asian American—quite deliberately, I suppose.

I don't think Aijalon Gomes, the guy Carter got out, was Asian-American.  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11105918

6079_Smith_W

And even if it were the case, he is speculating.

Fidel

from Why North Korea Needs Nuclear Weapons Stephen Gowans (posted previously)

Quote:
Nuclear arms have political utility. For countries with formidable nuclear arsenals and the means of delivering warheads, nuclear weapons can be used to extort political concessions from non-nuclear-armed states through terror and intimidation. No country exploits the political utility of nuclear weapons as vigorously as the United States does. In pursuing its foreign policy goals, Washington threatened other countries with nuclear attack on 25 separate occasions between 1970 and 2010, and 14 occasions between 1990 and 2010. On six of these occasions, the United States threatened the DPRK. [30] There have been more US threats against North Korea since. (The United States’ record of issuing threats of nuclear attack against other countries over this period is: Iraq, 7; China, 4; the USSR, 4; Libya, 2; Iran, 1; Syria, 1. Significantly, all these countries, like the DPRK, were under communist or economically nationalist governance when the threats were made.)

Obviously North Korea wants to reduce its conventional troop numbers and rely on nuclear deterrent. Nuclear weapons can only be viewed as defensive in North Korea given the half dozen times the US Military dictatorship has threatened the North with nuclear weapons and illegally so since Nuremberg. It is apparent that the Gladio Gang refuses to not only not respect international law since WW II, they also refuse to respect sovereignty of countries not in possession of WMD.

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

Big deal, you've proven nothing, you can always find stuff on the internet and South Koreans whom dis-like the USA and want them out; just like you can find South Koreans who are anti North Korean... No one here has said they don't exist. 

They are not (no where close) in the majority...

When exactly has the USA (6 times) ever threatened a preemptive nuclear attack on North Korea? You are talking about a preemptive first strike surprise attack, right? The US has said it has the capability to react to North Korea should it shoot a nuclear missile at the USA but I’ve never read where the USA threatens a first strike (6 times). I'm pretty sure that would be big news...

Fidel

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

When exactly has the USA (6 times) ever threatened a preemptive nuclear attack on North Korea? You are talking about a preemptive first strike surprise attack, right? The US has said it has the capability to react to North Korea should it shoot a nuclear missile at the USA but I’ve never read where the USA threatens a first strike (6 times). I'm pretty sure that would be big news...

The illegal threats began with your megalomaniacal psychopaths in the US Military namely MacArthur who was given the hook after the UN asked Eisenhower who was in charge, him or the mad hatter threatening North Korea with nuclear incineration. The idiot wanted to commit mass murder in North Korea in order to draw China and the USSR into a nuclear war. And given that the USAF had already levelled every major city in the North, North Koreans inferred the threats to be real and still do.  Look it up don't be lazy. Power of the internet at your finger tips. Try it some time youll be amazed.

[url=The">http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/Nuclear_Final.pdf][s... Changing Political Utility of Nuclear Weapons: Nuclear Threats from 1970 to 2010[/url] Sam Black is a Research Associate at the Stimson Center, a think tank in Washington, USA.

It's all there under headings "Threatmaker Target" "Speaker Action" and "Quote/Description" recorded by U.S. Congress etcetera ad nauseum and part of the historical record. Look it up.

I'm out of this thread. I can no longer tolerate the pro-imperialist bs and feigned ignorance of the facts flying around here. It's disgusting.

Rabble moderators, WTF?

Bacchus

Hmmm so its the US who threatened it when in fact the General who threatened it was canned for threatening it? Wouldnt that mean the US was NOT threatening it?  Much like they never threatened it in Vietname or Iraq or Afghanistan?

 

Bacchus

Hmmm it does seem to be true:

MacArthur did not advocate the use of nuclear weapons to recover the situation.[81][82] In his testimony before the Senate Inquiry, he said that he had never recommended their use.[83] In 1960, MacArthur challenged a statement by Truman that he had wanted to use nuclear weapons, and Truman issued a retraction, stating that he had no documentary evidence of this claim; it was merely his personal opinion. According to Major General Courtney Whitney, MacArthur did at one point consider a plan to use radioactive wastes to seal off North Korea, based upon a 1950 proposal by Louis Johnson, but never submitted this to the Joint Chiefs.[81] In 1985 Richard Nixon recalled discussing the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with MacArthur:

MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy the bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants... MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off, which I think speaks well of him.[84]

Bradley had proposed to the Joint Chiefs that nuclear weapons be placed at MacArthur's disposal in July 1950, but after consideration of the matter, the Joint Chiefs did not adopt the proposal.[85] However, ten B-29 bombers were deployed to Guam. While Truman publicly denied that he was considering the use of nuclear weapons, he authorised the transfer to Guam of all their components except for the fissile cores.[86]

At a press conference on 30 November 1950, Truman was asked about the use of nuclear weapons:

Q. Mr. President, I wonder if we could retrace that reference to the atom bomb? Did we understand you clearly that the use of the atomic bomb is under active consideration?
Truman: Always has been. It is one of our weapons.
Q. Does that mean, Mr. President, use against military objectives, or civilian—
Truman: It's a matter that the military people will have to decide. I'm not a military authority that passes on those things.
Q. Mr. President, perhaps it would be better if we are allowed to quote your remarks on that directly?
Truman: I don't think—I don't think that is necessary.
Q. Mr. President, you said this depends on United Nations action. Does that mean that we wouldn't use the atomic bomb except on a United Nations authorization?
Truman: No, it doesn't mean that at all. The action against Communist China depends on the action of the United Nations. The military commander in the field will have charge of the use of the weapons, as he always has.[87]

The implication was that the authority to use nuclear weapons had been handed over to MacArthur.[88] Truman was forced to issue a clarification that "only the President can authorize the use of the atom bomb, and no such authorization has been given."[87] Truman had touched upon one of the most sensitive issues in civil-military relations in the post-World War II period: civilian control of nuclear weapons, which was enshrined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1946.[89]

 

 

Thats from Wikipedia. However it is also clear that the use of nuclear weapons was never really considered as a real possibility and not threatened either (tho that would not mean media outlets couldnt do that for the government)

 

 

voice of the damned

Bruce Cumings(again), via reviewing two books about Korea, offers this interpretation of Truman sacking MacArhthur...

MacArthur wanted to nuke China but Truman overruled him, Becker says. Wrong again. In April 1951, Truman dismissed MacArthur, in order to put a reliable commander in the field should he decide to nuke China...

I'm not sure what Cumings source is for that last bit of information, but it can possibly found in his history of the Korean war(which I've never read). That LRB review is well worth the read.

http://tinyurl.com/d8z2phc

Bacchus

Of course as I read further, the threats existed but not from Truman or Macarther or until the last phase of the Korean War:

The increasingly unpopular war in Korea dragged on, and the Truman administration was beset with a series of corruption scandals. He eventually decided not to run for re-election.Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic candidate in the 1952 presidential election, attempted to distance himself from the President as much as possible.[174] The election was won by the Republican candidate, General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower,[175] whose administration ramped up the pressure on the Chinese in Korea with conventional bombing and renewed threats of using nuclear weapons. Coupled with a more favorable international political climate in the wake of the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953, this led the Chinese and North Koreans to agree to terms. The belief that the threat of nuclear weapons played an important part in the outcome would lead to their threatened use against China on a number of occasions during the 1950s.[176]

Fidel

Bacchus wrote:

Hmmm so its the US who threatened it when in fact the General who threatened it was canned for threatening it? Wouldnt that mean the US was NOT threatening it?  Much like they never threatened it in Vietname or Iraq or Afghanistan?

 

If it wasn't for the UN, the pipe and glasses would have continued threatening North Korea with nuclear annihilation. And those threats were serious given that the Yanks had just committed mass murder in Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima five years prior. Or will you be denying that, too? ffs

MacArthur (and hawks) were mad as hatters over China's intervention at the Yalu River on Thanksgiving day with MacArthur casting an imperialist gaze over the way at China. Yanks had their asses handed to them by several hundred thousand Korean and Chinese soldiers who had mobilized overnight. Since then the imperialists realize that land war in Asia is unwinnable hence the focus on aerial blitzkriegs ever since.

Yanqui imperialists offered two atomic bombs to France in 1954 in order that they might take care of imperialists' collective problem in Viet Nam. The French refused.

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

Reading Into South Korea’s Nuclear Debate

Quote:

The third nuclear test conducted by North Korea on February 12 was the latest in a long history of provocations. In many capitals, this event was noted with some alarm and then more or less pushed aside by other issues. Not so for denizens of the southern half of the Korean Peninsula. There, the North's nuclear test was so threatening that it has moved onto center stage a once-fringe debate about whether South Korea should acquire nuclear weapons of its own. Washington and Beijing should take notice. 

Public opinion polling in South Korea over the last decade has consistently demonstrated majority support both for an indigenous nuclear weapons effort and the return of US tactical nuclear weapons, which Washington withdrew in 1991. In two recent polls conducted in the wake of the North Korean test, 64 percent and 66 percent of those surveyed agreed that South Korea should possess its own nuclear weapons. This is not surprising as a simple matter of equality with North Korea, ignoring for a moment the thorny technical and policy issues that developing nuclear weapons would pose to South Korea. Public opinion seems to reflect a general sense of insecurity among South Koreans more than a real desire that their government build nuclear weapons.

Devil’s Advocate: Does South Korea need nuclear weapons?

Quote:

Stephen Gowans at The Centre for Research on Globalization recently asked the question ‘Does North Korea Need Nuclear Weapons?’ Seoul, Washington and most of the world are of course too concerned with geo-security implications of the DPRK’s nuclear ambitions to indulge in such ideological debates, but Gowans argues passionately that North Korea is theoretically in the right. I can’t say I agree with his rather hopeful conclusion that nukes in the North will bring ‘political utility’ and ‘reduce the likelihood of war’, but if some are willing to argue that North Korea does need nuclear weaponry then are some of the calls for equality in Seoul so ridiculous?

 

Bacchus

Sorry if facts disturb you so Fidel, but honestly do you only read conspiracy sites? Did you not see above where I corrected myself on my assertions on Korea? How does that make me a apologist?

 

Pointing out historic fact (and this is France remember? the people that kept conducting nuclear war tests in the pacific long after everyone told them not to?)  is not bullshit, just not the same as the reality in your fantasy world

Bacchus

Its not revision when its declassified documents which tell us what happened as opposed to the speculation of the day

Fidel

If you were paying attention those threats were published by American and European news sources at the time Vietnamese were defending themselves from imperialist aggressions not today when some American apologists are attempting to revise history. For all intents and purpose the North Vietnamese inferred the threats were real as they were intended. Yanqui imperialists made so many nuclear threats against countries they have threatened to attack militarily and against countries they have actually waged military aggression against. It's called nuclear blackmail for those who are unfamiliar with nuclear imperialism of the last century and ongoing today. And it is against international law since Nuremberg to threaten other countries with military aggression in general.

Here another American statesman is quoted as having threatened to use nuclear weapons:

This day in History May 24, 1964 Goldwater suggests using atomic weapons

Bacchus, youre an embarrassment to progressive social forums everywhere. I suggest quitting while you apparently still have an ounce of self respect. I certainly do not respect your bare faced apologies for nuclear imperialism. Disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I suspect you are not.

Bacchus

And I guess 

Bacchus, youre an embarrassment to progressive social forums everywhere. I suggest quitting while you apparently still have an ounce of self respect. I certainly do not respect your bare faced apologies for nuclear imperialism. Disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I suspect you are not.

is an improvement over your previous comment :

Bacchus, youre so full of shit that your eyes are brown. Go screw yourself, fucktard.

Fidel

Bacchus, why have you referred to yourself as a fucktard? I don't understand, is this another apology?

Bacchus

Uh huh, as you know I am merely quoting the comment you originally had there which you replaced.

Fidel

Bacchus wrote:

Its not revision when its declassified documents which tell us what happened as opposed to the speculation of the day

Is that like U.S. inter-governmental memos handed off to Wikileaks?

Michael Moore talks about US Military Govmint memos, like the ones the state department leaked about Cuba leading up to Bay of Pigs. Apparently those 1960's memos were the hawks way of convincing one another that Cubans were fed up with Fidel and were ready to support a CIA-led counterrevolution. It was all bullshit, as everyone realizes now. But the leaked and declassified memos at least made American hawks feel good about their rabid anticommunism at the time. They have no qualms about lying to even one another when the opportunity for warfiteering presents itself. War capitalism is the most lucractive as we have witnessed since Afghanistan and Iraq. War and mass murder is what the Gladio Gang dream of on a fairly constant basis.

But you digress. You can't deny the fact that the U.S. Military government has threatened dozens of countries with nuclear weapons throughout the cold war era, and they continue doing so today with North Korea and other countries on the nuclear mafia's shitlist.

And you really should stop referring to yourself in such derogatory terms like that. It can't be good for your inflated ego.

Fidel

Oh horsehit! American revisionists are a dime a dozen these days.

In his essay on Eisenhower and Dulles, USC professor of history Ronald Steel wrote that during the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, J.F. Dulles, one of the early architects of U.S. imperialism in the last century,  “told the French that the United States would use atomic weapons against the communist-led Vietnamese rebels.”

Whether or not JF Dulles offered atomic weapons to the French, France obsviously rejected them in favour of not wanting to provoke nuclear wrath of the Soviet Union. Yanqui imperialists would have loved nothing better than to use nukes by proxy without actually involving themselves. The USSR and USSA fought a number of proxy battles around the world during the cold war.

Herring and Immerman wrote:

[img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7283/8727795932_dde614339a.jpg[/img]

All this attempted revisionism aside, apologists for U.S. imperialism are at a loss to explain 25 verified nuclear threats against other countries since WW II.

The apologists are still at a loss to explain why the U.S. Military dictatorship still has nuclear weapons stationed in Europe since their former cold war nemesis, the USSR, does not now exist. They are at a loss to explain why the nuclear mafia is the only country with nuclear weapons positioned on foreign soil and roaming the seven seas.

Apologists for nuclear blackmail are at a loss to explain why nuclear weapons even have a legitimate purpose when they can not now nor ever have a lawful purpose.

Bullshit on you, Bacchus. Bullshit on you.

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

I seen the original post as well. You changed it.

Fidel

I think you two are imagining things. Just like the U.S. Military government imagines pipsqueek North Korea is a threat to anyone.

There is a threat to peace and security on the Korean peninsula and to Asian countries in general. That threat is foreign, nuclear-armed and menacing more than just North Korea in the region. This is what a waning vicious empire does in its last stages.

When vcious empires become so corrupt and bankrupt and losing economic influence around the world, it resorts to military aggression. It's all they can do to try and regain that which they once had. It's broken, and all the kings soldiers can't put Humpty back together. It's finished.

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

What ever dude...

Fidel

Youre just disappointed that we don't subscribe to the imperialist Yanqui bullshit, like you and the other dude in the minority of opinions here in this thread.

Neither you nor the other dude are interested in facts just expounding on the right wing propaganda. Your argument is weak and lacking credibility in general as long as the U.S. Military dictatorship continues menacing other countries with nuclear weapons, practices "war games" immediately next to and adjacent countries it threatens with nuclear blackmail and U.S. military presence in distant hemispheric regions of the world general.

The U.S. Military dictatorship in Warshington's problem is that it doesn't know when to leave other countries. It's been 60 years since North Korea's 9/11. Uncle Sam should get the hell home where he belongs - the USA is falling apart at the seams due to wild and wanton taxpayer spending on all things military. That's what military dictatorships do, though.

Only Koreans can decide their own fate and unite into one strong and prosperous country. Uncle Sam has no business on the peninsula and definitely no business threatening Koreans with nuclear incineration, like the U.S. Military government has done at least half a dozen times since destroying North Korea with blitzkrieg in the 1950's. The U.S. Military government has no legitimate business whatsoever surrounding Korea and China with nuclear weapons. None nada zilch. They should get the fuck home and stop threatening other sovereign nations militarily.

ETA: And at least I am man enough to admit that Bacchus has totally changed my opinion of the U.S. Military dictatorship's perceived nuclear threat to Viet Nam in 1954. Now I am merely unsure of which of the two Gladio partners in crime actually threatened to use nuclear weapons in Viet Nam that year. For this I am thankful to the babbler known as Bacchus. I now think that Gladio nations, America and France, actually had no intention of using nuclear weapons in Viet Nam, at least not in that specific year of 1954. It may have had something to do with realizing that the USSR had nuclear weapons capability themselves, and that the fascist hawks own right to exist on the planet may have been threatened in return.

And we can be sure that Vietnamese everywhere are now relieved to find out that none of the then nuclear-armed Gladio nations(a sum total of the USA by itself) actually wanted to accept historical responibility for threatening millions of their people with nuclear holocaust in the years before commencement of aerial bombing, chemical weapons attacks, and U.S. Military destroying so many villages with machine gun fire and flamethrowers in order to save those human beings from a fate far better than freedom and democracy American style.  We now know that the Gladio nations had much more integrity and respect for humanity than to actually use nuclear weapons to commit mass murder of millions of fellow human beings.

My opinion of the U.S. nuclear-armed military dictatorship has been elevated somewhat raised to a new high water mark as a result of Bacchus posting that important information about the 'Pentagon papers' leaked to the lapdog newz media. Thank you, Bacchus. Well done.

NDPP

Conservative Militarism and History  -  by Yves Engler

http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/05/conservative-militarism-and-history/

"Do a billion Youtube hits justify a war that left four million dead? A Conservative minister thinks so..."

MegB

Fidel, you're entitled to disagree with other babblers, but once again you've shown us that you're incapable of disagreeing without being abusive.

You've earned a 24 hour timeout.

NDPP

South Korean People Oppose the Continued 'US Nuclear War Games: Demonstrators Arrested by SK Police (and Photos)

http://www.4thmedia.org/2013/05/12/photo-news-south-korean-students-oppo...

"The photos were taken on May 11th in the afternoon. The demonstration took place in Busan, the most south eastern port city where a nuclear propelled US aircraft carrier, called the 'Nimitz Strike Group' arrived yesterday May 11..."

 

Pyongyang Slams 'Reckless' Arrival of USS Nimitz for S Korea War Games

http://rt.com/news/us-carrier-south-korea-172

"North Korea has decried 'blackmail' and 'provocation' at the arrival of the US aircraft carrier group Nimitz to its southern neighbor. The warships will take part in joint exercises with South Korea, as tensions in the peninsula run high. Pyongyang's cross-border affairs ministry branded teh deployment a 'grave military provocation'..."

NDPP

Hey Fidelio, welcome back. Yes,  well throw it on the same pile with 911, 'Arab Spring' etc. Many of those that would be posting 'contra' Yanqui imperialism have been taken out already. So beware of offering them up yourself as an easy target too eh?

Fidel

Thanks, NDPP.  Only Koreans have the right to decide the fate of their own country. Anything else is revisionist baloney.

Rabble claims to support a number of progressive ideals, like feminist and basic human rights and admirably so. Basic human right victories are not to be refought here in babble forums according to babble policy.

And yet here we are "debating" North Koreans' fundamental right not be threatened (again) with physical elimination by a foreign enemy armed to the eye teeth and still treating Korea as if a territorial prize of war. All human beings on earth have a right to exist without constant foreign military threats on their front doorstep regardless of what lapdog newz media or their imperialist handlers have to say about it.

And if that isn't enough, this so called babble debate is allowed and encouraged. We are even shouted down by posters arguing on the side of Yanqui imperialism. Anti-abortionists are not welcome here, and rightfully so. But anyone who wants to argue for the right of imperialists to threaten North Koreans with nuclear blackmail and a continuation of U.S. Military aggression  directly related to the events of the 1950's? This is encouraged and even fomented here on babble.

Disgraceful.

Fidel

This thread and the crude scribblings in reply to us make mock of the 'anti-imperialist' ideal referred to loosely in babble policy.

It seems babble's actual policy is to provide welcome debate of friendly imperialism. Uncle Sam is actually Canada's friendly gladio ally whose imperial right to threaten mass murder of Koreans and other sovereigns is now considered "debatable" right here on babble. The long-time imperialist military occupation of Korea is now considered "necessary" because the barbarians can't be trusted with democracy the same as Chileans couldn't be trusted with democracy in 1973. These racist-imperialist points of view are now considered respectable and dignified according to Rabble's unwritten policy.

Just be civil with these anti human rights advocates for Uncle Sam is all babble moderators ask of us. Is that asking too much? Yes, I think it is, and progressive posters should be highly offended.

Imagine that you and I plunked ourselves down in the middle of feminist forum where they happen to be discussing women's basic right to abortion, say, in Korea. You and I interrupt with insanely anti-feminist talk of the imperial right to threaten mass rape in Korea. We begin by introducing the bizarre idea of "threats of nuclear-armed rape" of Korea and lasting decades after the initial rape occurred when millions of Koreans were mass raped by a foreign military and every major city levelled by blitzkrieg for added effect.  And then we begin arguing in favour of the stranger, a notorious nuclear-armed rapist,  to remain at the scene of the crime with stated intention to threaten mass rape, once again. It is for Koreans own good, we might explain. And the victims of mass murder "rape" in the 1950's should never be allowed to defend themselves against the same mass rapist threatening them for the last six decades in a row non-stop. How long would those views be tolerated in a feminist forum? We'd likely be incinerated lickity split.

But in this case Koreans are treated differently according to unwritten babble policy. The foreign rapist is perfectly within his imperial rights to remain there on the peninsula, which pro imperialists might see as a giant nuclear-armed dildo if that helps them see things more clearly,  andcontinuing to threaten even more mass rape for some reason or other  that I can't fathom. Apparently Koreans require threatening with nuclear-armed rape according to our American friend and his bacchup.  And for some reason i don't think framing it in terms of nuclear-armed rape would help them understand this imperialist crime against peace any better. In fact, I think this analogy would only confuse them even more than they already are.

These forums used to be teeming with human rights. Not anymore.

Hands off Korea!

Peace out.

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

Fidel, to echo Rebecca West, you are entitled to disagree with other babblers, but making such statements as "racist-imperialist points of view are now considered respectable and dignified according to Rabble's unwritten policy" and "these forums used to be teeming with human rights. Not anymore." is way off base (and untrue!).

babble tries to encourage respectful debate amongst all conitrbutors and our policy certainly does not encourage "tacist-imperialist points of view"

If your "peace out" is an indication you will not be participating on this Korea thread anymore, that would be best.

Fidel

Bacchus check your messages.

Bacchus

Continuing to insult me and fight hru PM cuz you cant do it here doesnt help

Bacchus

Sure they can, since they were asking for them to be used as a fellow ally in need. That makes them responsible, your attempts at bullying me here or in PM notwithstanding

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Fidel, Kaitlin asked you not to post in this thread again. Please abide by that request.

Fidel

There were no personal insults in that message. Forum s/w maintains a sent copy to support my claim of innocence in that regard. Your American government sources of information lack credibility and integrity given their history of intragovernmental lies to one another for their own purposes. And, France was not nuclear weapons-capable in 1954 and therefore could not be held solely responsible for the threat if supported by one of just two nuclear-armed countries at the time.

Slumberjack

I read it as a suggestion.

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

Slumberjack wrote:

I read it as a suggestion.

As did I, but it would seem that is no longer the case.

Slumberjack

Yes, and KM strikes me as being quite capable of putting the boots to the sort of language exhibited by Fidel all on her own, and so it's a little disheartening that her fellow moderator indicated through his intervention that he doesn't share in this view.

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

Slumberjack, Fidel displayed a pattern of disrespectful behaviour on the thread that had been commented on by other mods as well as me, and he had been given many warnings. His last sentiment was moderated because he was previously asked to leave the thread, which he chose not to follow.

Another mod stepped in because we are not on threads all day long and we work as a team.

I suggest we let this issue go now because it is now become exhuasting to talk about.

Pages