Korean War?

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Bush said North Korea is part of the Axis of Evil.

*Googles "President of the United States"*

*Clicks link to "whitehouse.gov"*

*Discovers that, apparently, George W. Bush isn't the president of the United States anymore. Huh.*

*Remains perplexed as to why kropotkin thinks W. is at all relevant to the discussion*

Seems to me that the Axis of Evil torch has been taken up by that Man of Peace, Obama.  If you don't think that the decades long game playing and constant threats by the US are involved in this then that is your right. His hate propaganda is very relevant IMO.

I guess if I was North Korea or Iran I might just be afraid of the bully but defiant at the same time. I love the positive press coverage in America that McCain got for his Beach Boys parody, Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran.  So none of that shit is relevant or provocation?  Hey lets have another story on how out of touch with reality the North Korean leadership is before we cut to a commentary by Sarah Palin, a leading candidate to run the US in two years.

It is defiantly all the North's fault.  What right do they to they have to be left in peace when America doesn't like their regime?  There is no peace unless it is Pax Americana and that is not peace it is subservience to a bully.  [see Wikileaks for appropriate diplomatic quotes setting out the respect of America for its allies and democracy]

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am sure that any reunification arrangement would include third parties such as China and the US and would include a treaty that the US withdraw from Korea. With North Korea gone and South Korea satisfied and accepted by China as having authority over the entire country, I am sure the US would have better things to do with its people than to have them there-- especially if their presence was an obstacle. Further the nature of the current military technology means that distance is not a huge impediment and they could withdraw to bases in other places such as Japan and still provide whatever military presence the US would want in the region.

China for its part likely would love to see the end of North Korea, apart from it being a pain it also costs money. The economic arrangements between S. Korea and China are themselves a deterrent and China is much more powerful than it used to be. With the US out of Korea, China would not be concerned about S. Korea as a military threat when Korea's economy would be the first casualty of any hostility.

There is no guarantee of this.

So far, the U.S. has not given up a single one of its over 700 foreign military bases.

Cueball wrote:

Can you explain the necessity of South Korea's decision to do a live fire exercise in the disputed zone, other than assertion of national "pride"?

South Korea didn't have a choice in the matter. Not really. The U.S. puts pressure on its "ally" or "client state" South Korea to hold these annual joint military excersizes so the U.S. can gain military intelligence on North Korea: How it responds, response time, the units that respond/are deployed, the weapons used and the state of their technology, the tactics employed, new military commanders identified, etc.

Frmrsldr wrote:

So far, the U.S. has not given up a single one of its over 700 foreign military bases.

They did in fact give up Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Base in the Philippines in 1991 (then some of the largest overseas American military bases) following a vote to not renew their leases by the Philippine Senate followed shortly by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo which effectively decimated Clark. That said, this was very much the exception and not the rule and the US placed considerable pressure on the Philippine government at the time to renew the leases. So if such a move was on the table with South Korea, I wouldn't be surprised to see similar political pressure exerted (as we've seen in the case of the bases in Okinawa)

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

No- no guarantee but I can't see China not asking and if it meant the end of N Korea, I have a hard time seeing the US not agreeing.

For the U.S. governmental war hawks (as opposed to the budget hawks) who are so far the predominant majority, the idea of giving up U.S. military bases in South Korea would require a major paradigm shift.

It seems China, for its part, would even allow the current U.S. bases to exist, so long as there aren't any constructed in the future north of the current DMZ border.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am sure that any reunification arrangement would include third parties such as China and the US and would include a treaty that the US withdraw from Korea. With North Korea gone and South Korea satisfied and accepted by China as having authority over the entire country, I am sure the US would have better things to do with its people than to have them there-- especially if their presence was an obstacle. Further the nature of the current military technology means that distance is not a huge impediment and they could withdraw to bases in other places such as Japan and still provide whatever military presence the US would want in the region.

China for its part likely would love to see the end of North Korea, apart from it being a pain it also costs money. The economic arrangements between S. Korea and China are themselves a deterrent and China is much more powerful than it used to be. With the US out of Korea, China would not be concerned about S. Korea as a military threat when Korea's economy would be the first casualty of any hostility.

There is no guarantee of this.

So far, the U.S. has not given up a single one of its over 700 foreign military bases.

No- no guarantee but I can't see China not asking and if it meant the end of N Korea, I have a hard time seeing the US not agreeing.

 

The main obstacle is likely not the deal-- the US and China likely can agree fairly easily-- the problem would be the fear on both sides of the instability so both would need to be convinced that period would be short.

A big problem of courseis the interest of N Korea likely will not be at the table as China and the US work out their geo-political needs.. That said the N Koreans are already suffering under the effects of this political posturing.

BTW those who think the South is grat there is a great video about how they handle their labour movement. I attended a labourtek in Toronto back a couple years ago and we saw a video that was a real eye-opener on what the South can be like.

The problem I have with some of this thinking is that China is automatically the one that is obstructionist, and the USA open to compromise. The fact is that any reunification will substantially change the internal political landscape of Korea, both North and South. The ultimate result could still be a state under Chinese influence, and this is something that many people in South Korea and in the United States would be opposed to, and willing to block.

So, in that light, given the Chinese openess to reunification and change in North Korea, we might even look at the most recent incident as an attempt by the South Koreans and the United States to increase tension and block concilliation and re-unification.

I think that is very likely true. [@ Cueball above]

I'd like to know more about re-unification politics within South Korea. Including, but not limited to, who is dead opposed [probably only said in code words]. These people would be looking to maintain the status quo- until the the surrender of the regime in the DPRK. [I suspect they are afraid of an uncontrolled collapse.]

On the DPRK side, they know the doom in the status quo. They are looking for some kind of insitutional enshrinement of their power. Which means permanent recognition of the borders and states and security thereof.... and presumably some kind of economic aid under their control and which they think would be enough to leverage a sufficent level of economic development and stability. [Like people dont starve and the stae is not dependent on aid.]

In this scenario we would have the ROK hawks provoking the DPRK to 'keep them in their place'. But with too much hubris to realize that the DPRK is well positioned to up the ante a bit: some heavy shelling across the border, to which a response would cause a severe crisis in the South Korean economy.

So far, it looks like a massively overplayed hand by the ROK. I think I've read that the egg on their face seals their unseating in the next election.

To extend Cue's point: what the hawks dont like is that any re-unification deal hammered out now would push institutional government changes on the ruling oligarchy, and provide legal assurances that China has equal access to the business opportunities of rebuilding the North. It would seem the hawks are looking to keep the status quo until the DPRK regime has no choice left but to sue for getting out with their individual asses protected.

Frmrsldr wrote:

So far, the U.S. has not given up a single one of its over 700 foreign military bases.

Wikipedia - List of United States Air Force Installations - Closed Facilities

I count 17 overseas United States Air Force bases closed since the 1990's.

Can't find similar lists for the other three branches.

The live fire exercises on the island consisted of firing a few rounds of artillery at a slow pace away from North Korea. The South Koreans conducted these exercises before. Nothing was done by the South Koreans that was new. North Korea conducts live exercises near the DMZ. I don't see South Korea lobbing rounds into the North. The live fire exercises are necessary because the artillery on the island is necessary for the defense of sovereign South Korean territory. The exercise involving US forces did not take place in the disputed territory or anywhere near it.

A foreign owned island breaks up a nation's territorial limit. The island belongs to South Korea so the international border would fall between the island and the North Korean mainland. Even if the Northern Limit Line is adjusted in favor of North Korea, the place that the shells landed in the sea from the South Korean exercise would never be considered North Korean waters. There is no place in the world where a foreign island is engulfed by a nation's territorial limit creating a sea version of Lesotho.

There is a long history of US Forces leaving foreign bases for one reason or another. There were bases in Panama, Taiwan, Netherlands, Thailand, and even one in Libya that do not exist as American bases.
After the Cold War the US closed down a lot of foreign military bases.

It is also not true that the Philippines are the only territory the United States has given up. The Panama Canal Zone, Palau, and the US returned sovereignty to Okinawa to Japan. Residents of places like Puerto Rico and Guam support their status as American territory. They would not want independence even if the US offered it to them.

The 700 base claim is misleading. What is a base? Is an outpost in Afghanistan a base? There are a few Americans stationed in Canada. Are these sites considered US bases or Canadian bases with American personnel stationed at them? There are things like geographical separated units that are assigned to a main base but are separated from it by a long distance. So, do we count that as one or two bases? How about sites that are not even manned? How about Marines at US embassies?

wdsaddasd wrote:

The live fire exercises on the island consisted of firing a few rounds of artillery at a slow pace away from North Korea. The South Koreans conducted these exercises before. Nothing was done by the South Koreans that was new.

 

 

Then one has to ask, why if previous exercises that you allege happened without incident, why did South Korea go ahead with these ones, when they explicitly asked not to?

Furthermone, both sides conduct exercises by the DMZ routintely without incident, this is true. But you are being misleading because there is no DMZ here, the two sides are toe to toe. If there were a DMZ, the Islands would be part of it. There would be no South Korean military presense, and there would be no exercises.

Snert wrote:

"Lobbing homemade rockets into our territory will be met with brutal force. Don't say you weren't warned. We have the support of the Left now, because we made sure you know ahead of time".

Gee I think that is the message that Israel sent to Lebanon. I agree that Israel's brutal force and destruction of whole neighbourhoods was not justified but it was accepted by our media and many empire apologists as a reasonable response to a minor threat.

Still not an inkling of what was going on in the minds of the South Korean government when it decided to go ahead with the drill after being warned not to, eh Magoo?

Why, on the first occasion they didn't even bother warning the locals to bomb shelters as they did in the more recent, eventually canceled exercise. Can you explain such distain for the safety of their people in the first case, in the light of the preperations they made in the second?

Badgering you? Hardly, I am really curious about your concept of what was going on the minds of the South Korean government. So in your view its ok for the President of South Korea to blithely take the position of there is "no damn way I am taking marching orders from Dear Leader" even if some other people have to die for it? Is that what you are saying?

Snert wrote:

Quote:

So in your view its ok for the President of South Korea to blithely take the position of there is "no damn way I am taking marching orders from Dear Leader" even if some other people have to die for it? Is that what you are saying?

 

That seems to be the way of things elsewhere in the world, yes?

And this reason measures up as superior to the "pride" of the "dear leader", exactly how? Dear Leader can just claim that there is "No damn way I am taking marching order from the United Nations" to find himself judged innocent on the high moral plain you are using to make ethical assessments.

I see that at least you have had to retreat into totally cynical amorality in order to justify the merry-go-round of evasions you have treated this thread too over the last day and a half, in order to justify your completely irrational views. Face it. You just don't like the "commie bastards" and like our boys better.

Snert wrote:

Quote:

And this reason measures up as superior to the "pride" of the "dear leader", exactly how? Dear Leader can just claim that there is "No damn way I am taking marching order from the United Nations"

 

NK is a UN signatory. If his refusal to respect the border as-is (which, as I noted above, was in fact respected for decades) then he should start by withdrawing from this darn UN for which he has no use. Nobody grants Israel the right to flout the UN on the grounds of their sovereignty, so why should we make some kind of exception for Dear Leader?

That is the most bizarre statement I have read on this board in sometime. Israel grants Israel the right to flaunt the UN on the grounds of its "sovereignty" on a daily basis, and the USA is not out there doing joint military exercises with the PLO off the coast of Tel Aviv.

In fact, there is no legal basis for Israel's control of 60% of the territory that it now occupies. And I am not even talking about the West Bank. I am talking about a good deal of the territory on the Israeli side of the "green line".

But you were talking about morality. Leader of state merely have to declare they are "not taking orders" from whoever, and they are justified in causing the deaths of their own people... just because... "that is the way of the world". Coming from that standpoint, I find it hard to believe that you are not an enthusiastic fan of Kim Jong Il because that is the logic of dictators and cynical petty tyrants.

Gee! And I had always thought that the first responsibility of humane leadership was to prevent ones people from coming to harm, not putting them in harms way by engaging in completely unecessary demonstration of national "will" just to score a "diplomatic" point.

Quote:

But you were talking about morality. Leader of state merely have to declare they are "not taking orders" from whoever, and they are justified in causing the deaths of their own people

It's not them causing those deaths. Particularly when the action they choose harms nobody. Unless you consider an insult to be harm, of course.

Quote:

War is Peace

... and the side that shot some ocean are the bad guys and the guys who murdered 4 people are the good guys.

Only in your comic book universe is the world divided into good guys and bad guys. But I am glad you have clambered out of the ethical hole you created for yourself when you claimed that rulers using people as pawns in their diplomatic games is justifiable because that is the "way of the world". At least believing that the world is divided into "good and evil" is an ethical standard, even if it is one that shares a dubious connection to religion.

But, to be clear, when Orwell said divised doublespeak, he did not mean to actually affirm the paradigm of good and evil as functional in the world. Quite the opposite.

South Koreans dismissed intel that North might attack island

Quote:

"It's a clear dereliction of duty by the military and intelligence authorities," the conservative Munhwa Ilbo newspaper said in an editorial Thursday. "It frankly showed the national security system is basically in serious disorder."

South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff tried to play down Won's comments, saying the intelligence was that North Korea ordered its troops to prepare to return fire should South Korea conduct artillery drills.

That explanation did nothing to cool anger among opposition lawmakers, many of whom were already critical of Lee's handling of the attack.

So not only was South Korea officially warned by North Korea, but its intelligence outfit apprised the government of the precise nature of the action intended by North Korea... and they went ahead anyway...

So let me get this straight.  If Hamas KNOWS that their actions are likely (or certain) to provoke a response, and if that response will be a violent response, Hamas has a duty to the people to stand down?  Yes or no?

Cueball wrote:

If I go to a protest and defy the police after they warn me not to do something, and someone else is killed because of my action, and I knew that my action was likely to cause that result surely I bare responsibility for that outcome. No?

Gosh, no.

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Cueball wrote:

If I go to a protest and defy the police after they warn me not to do something, and someone else is killed because of my action, and I knew that my action was likely to cause that result surely I bare responsibility for that outcome. No?

Gosh, no.

Really, so I go to a protest with a great big stick and tell the police to fuck off repeatedly, and insult them and berate them and they warn me not to do that otherwise they will teargas the crowd and arrest everyone in sight. Yet I continue to do so, and they then carry out their promise. I have no personal responsibility in this matter, at all?

There is a reason we call people who do this kind of the provocateurs. That is becauase they are engaging in provocation.

Quote:

everything they do is a direct response to Isreali violence, provocation and occupation. Everything that any Palestinians do against Israel is a response to that.

Nonsense. Lobbing a few rockets into Israel does nothing to prevent violence and everything to provoke it. Yes, there will be violence used against them regardless, but please don't pretend that antagonizing Israel doesn't result in more violence than not antagonizing them. Israel is often frank about this ("This is in response to...")

Being consistent and having principles seems to be inconvenient for you, Cueball. I guess you're more of a "git 'er done" kind of fellow. No time for bourgeois affectations like "being honest" or "sometimes backing down when you've got the wrong end of it".

First off, I'm not saying it's wrong for them to lob rockets into disputed territory, just as I'm not saying it's wrong to fire some artillery out into the water *from* "disputed territory" (though it's worth noting that really, only NK disputes the territory, and even then only recently).

I'm simply noting that if firing into the water is provocation, so too is firing some rockets into Israel.  And if South Korea had some kind of moral obligation to not antagonize North Korea, lest they respond with murder, so too should Hamas.  Does being under occupation mean that it IS acceptable to play with lives??  That makes it OK to act in a way that's going to result in a whole apartment block being shelled??

Isn't the safety the population the goal here, not symbolic resistance? 

Anyway, I'm not really waiting for you to agree.  I doubt you've ever once backed down once your heels are dug in.  But there will always be other readers, googlers, lurkers, etc., and I hope they don't have to come away with the belief that everyone here thinks this is South Korea's fault for insulting Dear Leader when he told them not to.

doodle21 wrote:

Snert wrote:

So let me get this straight.  If Hamas KNOWS that their actions are likely (or certain) to provoke a response, and if that response will be a violent response, Hamas has a duty to the people to stand down?  Yes or no?

I don't see how flipping a situation around is going to change peoples positions.

The answer to this whole discussion is simple.

US or Western or Western allied country = bad guys

Anyone else = good guys

No. Actually. You just have to look at the facts. Hamas and the Palestinian people are under constant daily attack by the Israeli state, everything they do is a direct response to Isreali violence, provocation and occupation. Everything that any Palestinians do against Israel is a response to that.

I am sure that Magoo was looking to make hay out of the fact that some Palestinians sometimes fire off toy rockets at Israeli settlers in southern Israel. The reason I call them settlers is because Snert has made a big issue of the sanctity of UN recognizes borders. Well in fact, when Palestinians teenagers fire toy rockets into Israel they are actually firing rockets into territory that is quite clearly Palestinian territory as defined by the 1948 partition.

The land were the Israeli settlement of Sderot was founded was ethnically cleansed after 1948, and sits on the remains of the Arab town of Najd.

Since of course Israel has no UN sanctioned borders other than those outlined in the 1948 partition, everything else is legally Arab land.