War with N Korea is a sham

[RobertEarl]

It's nothing more than a marketing scheme made up to soak the US, or maybe even China?

There is just something fishy about all this. I mean what the heck has N Korea got that we don't have tons of?

Sure S Korea is under the gun, nothing new there. But in the age of the defense budgets getting cut this whole scary 'Yong Don Whateverson' just seems like a big scam.

N Korea ain't attacking no one, but the US might. Them's the facts. Discuss.

[rightsideout]

1. Technically, we still are at war with North Korea.

We've been at war with them for 60 years, but there's been a cease fire for several decades. The US has 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea.

The real problem with North Korea for the US, is China. It could get interesting

[RobertEarl]

2. Right

They are the ace in the hole for when the warmongers need to scare us and get more money. I have a feeling we have satellites that could buzz any weapon system N Korea could get flying. And if we don't we are slackers. We are not slackers.

N Korea is being used for some kind of scam.

[Katashi_itto]

32. Kudos for getting away with great conspiracy theory OP.

Yep, we are marketing a war. One of the most lame OPs I've seen all week.

[whistler162]

25. Shhhh... don't bring facts into a argument!

[liberal N proud]

26. Not war - a Police Action

The Korean Conflict was officially title a Police Action.

In the United States, the war was initially described by President Harry S. Truman as a "police action" as it was conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.[29] It has been referred to as "The Forgotten War" or "The Unknown War" because of the lack of public attention it received both during and after the war, and in relation to the global scale of World War II, which preceded it, and the subsequent angst of the Vietnam War, which succeeded it.


What's the difference?

[graham4anything]

3. Richard Clarke warned George W. Bush about something happening before 9-11 came about

At what point is knowledge denied and something happens, because there is a 99% chance nothing will happen?

JFK flipped a coin and nothing happened.
Bush ignored(or something else) Richard Clarke and flipped a coin and something happened.

"You got to know when to hold on, know when to fold on, know when to walk away, know when to run," (c) Don Schlitz, the Gambler (sung by Kenny Rogers).

(btw, liberal idol Clarke also has said "Drones are the most humane form of warfare", and I liked what Clarke said after 9-11, so it means I like what he says now.

(note, using the term flipping a coin as a metaphor, they most likely did not actually flip a coin to decide, or did they?)

[pinboy3niner]

5. "You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em"

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/k/kenny+rogers/the+gambler_20077886.html

[RobertEarl]

6. Exactly

Bush ignored good advice from Clark.

Lets look at the year 2001. The defense budget, thanks to Clinton, was less that 300 B. The warmongers hated that. It is now 700 B. They succeeded in a 400 B increase in defense spending. How? By scaring everyone. Looking the other way, as Bush did, gave them a new 'Pearl Harbor'.

I'll bet they had you scared, right?

[graham4anything]

7. Back before 9-11, things were different, no matter what one says.

I am a NYer now in Jersey, however in the late70s 80s was in the WTC every single day

Every summer before 9-11-2001, I attended many free concerts lunchtime at the WTC
including 2001.

I never imagined those ugly yet beautiful buildings not being there. I can see the skyline about five minutes away from my house and damn if I don't notice what is not there every single day.
Sure, the first WTC happened, but it basically failed, and who would have thought a second one would do what it did. No other bombing of a building did the damage this did.
(yes, I am of course know, but not getting into any of the CTs around).

Was I scared? Before, no. I really didn't think there were no-border attackers.

Iraq IMHO was a personal revenge by W for Saddam's attempted asssassination, and I think that was proven by the vicious killing of his sons and the making sure those pictures were televised and printed worldwide. Oil? Well, thanks to the ditching of Jimmy Carter in 1980, we all need oil, sad to say.

Was it pre-planned? Seems like its farfetched, when W could have just sent some assssassins in to do the job easier and done the same thing, no?

But after the 2000 election, I was (before 9-11) not worried, in that I thought Bush would be a failed do nothing one term as no one thought he was legit, and he easily would have been beaten in a rematch with Gore in 2004.

All things are different now and there are threats.

another question-
what are you going to do with the who knows how many workers in those military industry here in America, if there was no military industry and they were all unemployed?
The cost of that might actually be bigger than the cost of the industry itself.

I would say North Korea isn't going to do anything, and we are most certainly not going to do anything unless they do (and hopefully nothing comes of it).
It is very hard to take North Korea seriously, especially after the pictures last week or two with Dennis Rodman there.
But, what if they are?

I trust President Obama to do the right thing.

There are major John Kerry fans on this board-who would trust him with doing the right thing.
Therefore, as Kerry is SOS, I would assume the Kerry people would trust whatever Kerry does, to being the right thing, either way.

But, they don't actually have anyway of hitting us directly, do they?
Why would China at this junction, get involved if something happened.
What is in it for them? I don't see anything good coming out of it for them.

Now, could this be the Pentagon wanting more money? Sure. But, even if it is, does the problem go away or is the problem independent of the issue of money at this time?

[RobertEarl]

8. You played that hand

And I call you.

You ramble about threats and those threats were called by Clarke, et all, and were ignored. And now we are at glorious war!

Which then you beg to wonder what we would do about all those men we have lined up to go to war.. geez a'mightee. Tell you what we do with them that would be more productive than making war... put them on bikes generating electricity.

No, I've seen your kind before... supporting war and wondering how we can survive without it. Which is pretty gawd damn dumb, don't you think?

[graham4anything]

11. Well, were we better off ditching LBJ and having Nixon win in 1968?

Now, if you say LBJ was God awful, and did what Bush did, well, NO that is not true.

LBJ quit in 1968, Bush ran in 2004.
LBJ was attempting to end the war and was sabatoged.
Bush didn't give a shit once he attained his objective(getting Saddam's sons, and getting saddam out, and after a few years, getting Saddam killed(I still don't understand why Saddam did not blab away knowing he was about to die, that is a mystery).

And it's not rambling.
It's going back/forth on a complex issue that has no easy answers as we live in a complex world.

BTW, I would have picked LBJ to stay in the race and kick Nixon's butt.Based on everything that happened after, and how long it took Nixon to end the war anyhow.
And remember, losing was NOT an option back then as the space race proved.
Funny thing is, once they got LBJ out, nobody seemed to care about losing anymore anyhow, as the Republicans attained their objectives winning the Presidency that should have been LBJ's and then later Bobby and Teddy.

So, were we better or worse off after 1968? Looking back at all
(And I loved the Kennedy's all of them, but Bobby was not going to be the nominee most likely anyhow, nor would he have done any better than HHH did being that the party itself was so split.)
LBJ would have found a way to win, especially in the south where Wallace took so many votes.

One or the other.

[graham4anything]

9. 2nd answer from a different angle-

What else was the choice after 9-11?
Should we have given OBL a ticker tape parade down Broadway and not gone into Afghanastan or done anything?

And where would that President have been had they done so?

What choice do we have AS LONG AS there are people like Republican Rep. Peter King and all the others in office on the republican side who immediately invoke it?

We don't live in a world where they don't exist, they are here.(til they are voted out).
And anyone who says things like, lets give OBL a pass or a parade, would have not survived ten minutes after 9-11.

AND-what is your opinion of what will happen in the weeks/months ahead?

[Live and Learn]

10. Pardon? We were already going after Bin Laden the proper way.

Clinton came close to getting him. Bush and his illegal wars never did!!! Obama did get him and did it properly through the use of intelligence.

War should always be a last result and the people that have to fight it should never be lied to, period.

[graham4anything]

12. Had 2000 not occured, Gore would have gotten him.

Am I wrong to assume then, that if Gore droned OBL after getting notes from Richard Clarke or whomever would have been in that position, all would be happy with that, right?

I would.

But Afghananstan was NOT illegal.
Iraq was but NOT Afghanastan.

And I trust President Obama NOT to lie, same as I trusted Bill, and will trust Hillary.

[Live and Learn]

13. I don't think Afghanistan was legal either.

You can't invade a sovereign nation to go after an individual. Please remember that innocent civilians are always the most numerous victims of all wars. How many innocents did we kill in revenge for the 3000 or so Americans killed that day? Would we be justified in even killing one innocent person? I don't think so.


You might be right about Gore. I know everything would have been different had his win not have been nullified by the SCOTUS.

I don't think Obama would lie to us but we know damn well our media will.

[ColesCountyDem]

19. I respectfully disagree about Afghanistan.

OBL did mastermind the attacks on 9-11, and he was being sheltered by he Taliban regime. The Taliban refused to arrest him and hand him over to the US for trial. As a nation, we had and do have a legitimate right to self-defense AND the right to apprehend ANYONE who engineers an attack on our nation.

Iraq was a completely different kettle of fish.

[Live and Learn]

21. We will have to agree to disagree then.

I am not even sure we really had any credible proof that Bin Laden was in Afghanistan at the time. Even if we did, I don't believe refusing to extradite a wanted fugitive gives anyone the right to invade a country. If it were a reason, we wouldn't need extradition treaties.

[ColesCountyDem]

30. We can agree to disagree.

I have no problem with respectful disagreement. Regarding extradition, although extradition treaties are the 'norm', they are by no means mandatory in order to achieve that end. A further complication in the case of OBL vis a vis the Taliban was whether or not we were negotiating with the de jure or de facto government of Afghanistan; my legal opinion is that the Taliban were no more the de jure government of Afghanistan than were the Northern Alliance,e.g. . Afghanistan at that time was a dysfunctional 'failed state' in much the same way Somalia is today.

[valerief]

14. PNAC was waiting for their new "Pearl Harbor." 9-11 warnings weren't ignored. They were embraced. nt

[graham4anything]

15. But they didn't need 9-11 to do what they did

They could have covertly sent someone in to do it and it would have been far easier

All events could happen and did not mean it was connected to all events, as each could exist without the other.
Probably, every single scenerio in life is written or thought about. And 99% don't occur.

Regardless, once the WTC was destroyed, were we suppose to do nothing at that point?

So it is apple/oranges, before 2000 and after 2000, before 9-11, and after.

It seems to show the actions lead to consequences.

So what would John Kerry do about North Korea and what would Hagel do about North Korea.
Those two will decide the ultimate fate. If one trusts them, one trusts the right thing will be done.

[valerief]

40. Huh? The point was to raid the Treasury in the name of war. nt

[graham4anything]

41. No, the point for W was to avenge his father and it was a personal grudge

The bankrupting was due to 9-11 itself. It cut all business for a long time.

If it happened during a democratic presidents term, it would have been rebuilt quick and life would have gone on quickly (like in the UK when they had one event after another, or in Israel when they have an event, life goes on).

Bush left the symbolic nothing hole in the ground though to use it as a campaign talking point reminder.

[valerief]

43. No. It's always about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. nt

[HiPointDem]

4. there's always been something fishy about NK in general.

[Bonobo]

16. "N Korea ain't attacking no one, but the US might. Them's the facts. Discuss."

Okay, I'll start.

They are NOT facts. N. Korea is batshit crazy and the fact is that you would be a tremendous fool to NOT prepare yourself for them to do something crazy.

But then again, I live in Japan where they could really cause some damage -and you don't.

[pinboy3niner]

22. Agree and disagree

The U.S. taking the usual precautions is normal during a state of heightened rhetoric and tensions.

But I don't think NK is crazy. Their rhetoric and provocations are likely calculated to force re-start of negotiations so they can gain an easing of sanctions. That appears to be their goal. And they already have the UN SecGen calling for negotiations...

[sendero]

27. I certainly hope.....

.... that their throwing of a tantrum does not benefit them AGAIN. They keep doing this bullshit because it WORKS. One of these days the tantrum is going to get really out of hand. "Negotiate", fine. Give them one goddam thing, NO.

[caseymoz]

17. Don't completely dismiss it.

It might be more dangerous than it looks. What if Kim Jong-un is under-qualified?

It seems to me this family has progressed from one loose canon to a looser one every generation. Un really might not know what he's doing. Maybe he's trying to top his father and grandfather, and maybe he thinks Dad's mistake was in not being bold enough.

I hope that's not it, because if it is, we're trouble. I've noticed what seems to be a dearth of demands from North Korea. The fact that none have been reported yet is distressing.

If so, I hope there's a coup, because otherwise, what's bound to happen won't go well for anybody.

[Skidmore]

18. And Li'l Kim and the NK Generals aren't trying to pick a fight.

Hell, they are on the CIA payroll.

[GoCubsGo]

46. They're probably looking for more foreign aid.

The pull this kind of crap whenever they need food, medicine and such. It's the old "Help us or we'll try to blow you up" routine. DimSon is also testing his boundaries. The level of concern is mainly due to the fact that he's new, and the powers that be here don't know just exactly how crazy his is. His dad and grandfather were complete loons, and odds are he is, as well.

[blkmusclmachine]

20. Another Phony War For The Profiteers in DC.

[bleedinglib]

23. The war mongers are at it again!!

In an attempt to avoid military budget cuts ? The D. C. war dogs have fabricated this saber ratteling nonsense to scare little old ladies
& maybe even increase the military budget. Little dong is stupid, but not crazy!!

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. You're both badly mistaken and quite ignorant

North Korea has a history of acts of provocation; ever heard of the USS Pueblo? Or the sinking of the Cheonan? They've committed acts that could potentially have led to war before now, the exercise of restraint on the part of the USA and South Korea has been the only thing that's prevented it. South Korea has indicated that they will respond to future acts of provocation more robustly; the US has backed them in this. North Korea has a new leader whose military bluster may be by way of asserting his authority and fitness to rule in the eyes of the generals, it's definitely part of a domestic political game, but it may have wider consequences if there's more there than just talk. It's completely absurd to suggest that somehow the Pentagon is behind the North Korean announcement of "readiness for attack" and closing of the border and reactivation of their halted nuclear programme and nuclear weapons testing; this is not Iraq, Kim is not Saddam. North Korea actually has weapons of mass destruction and is developing ICBMs, and is behaving in a belligerent manner.

North Korea hasn't attacked anyone yet, and may not; the whole thing may be a high-stakes act to wring the maximum in concessions from the US and South Korea in negotiations...but the possibility of war is there, and it's not a sham.

[cali]

29. +1

[ColesCountyDem]

31. +1 n/t

[Comrade_McKenzie]

33. +1! You mean the world ISN'T a complete fiction?! nt

[mainer]

35. Let's keep those incidents in perspective

USS Pueblo: 1968. Kim Jong Un wasn't even born yet. Blaming him for the Pueblo is like blaming Obama for Vietnam.

Cheonan, 2010 (prior to Kim Jong Un's taking power): There is some question as to how this happened. NK denies doing it, and you would think that if this was meant to be an act of belligerence, that they would have taken credit for it. They did not.

Some theorize that the Cheonan actually hit a mine. Some think that there was a colossal error on the part of a NK sub captain, which NK then had to deny to save face. More interesting theories here:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-sank-the-south-korean-warship-cheonan-destabilization-of-the-korean-peninsula/19375

[hack89]

36. They found physical evidence of a NK torpedo in the wreck of the Cheonan

A serial number engraved on a metal fragment found at the site of the sunken Navy warship Cheonan has led an international team of experts to conclude that a North Korean torpedo attack was responsible for the sinking, South Korean government sources told the JoongAng Ilbo yesterday.

The serial number, comprised of numerals and one Korean letter, were extremely similar to engravings on a North Korean torpedo the South obtained seven years ago in western waters, they said.

http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2920725

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Yup

[RobertEarl]

44. You're funny, spider

But in the end you agree with me. Quote: "..the whole thing may be a high-stakes act to wring the maximum in concessions..."

All in all, however, you seem only to be projecting your own fear and ignorance.

No shit there is a possibility of war. But who would win? The only winners are the racketeers who love their wars and they money they make.

Remember when Carter made great strides to make peace with NK? Clinton too. And what did the warmongers say then? Pretty much the same as your dribble.

Whose side are you on?

[Throd]

50. Just because the MIC exists, doesn't mean North Korea isn't a serious threat.

[fujiyama]

52. Great post!

Agree completely.

[In_The_Wind]

55. +1

[cali]

28. A war with NK is unlikely.

But you have things all wrong. NK does have a history of launching localized attacks on SK interests. Furthermore, we really don't know what to expect from kim jong un. He's largely a cipher.

You might consider actually informing yourself of the recent history.

[Javaman]

34. what's interesting about what you state is this...

$900M in outdated military equipment found in Washington warehouse

http://www.examiner.com/article/900m-outdated-military-equipment-found-washington-warehouse-more-on-orde

Congress Reviews Reserve forces Equipment Needs

http://www.militaryinfo.com/news_story?textnewsid=9135

Could just be a coincidence, but what quickly improves a military's hardware then a threat from without?

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars churned through a lot of equipment. Heck, the military is trying to figure out whether or not to leave hundreds of Stryker vehicles in Afghanistan or not, due to the cost of shipping them back to the US.

So could the whole thing with NK be a smoke screen excuse to "upgrade" military hardware? AKA big pay day for military contractors?

I'm just spit balling. Other than the two above articles I didn't find anything else.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Since the Korean War never really ended

And the US media is not on 24/7 countdown to confrontation.

Whatever.

[The Straight Story]

39. And yet folks are scared of anyone here owning a gun

And whip up fear all the time on the issue.

The leader of NK is slightly on par with some folks who go on shooting rampages - they have everything to lose but do it anyway.

Most countries have armies, many have nukes. There are a few though that are just crazy enough to do something stupid just because they are a little off kilter and want to make a name for themselves.

If I owned a gun, which I don't, and I told people I was going to shoot them and then went outside, loaded up, moved closer to my targets for a better shot (even still on my own property) ya think folks would just downplay it?

[graham4anything]

42. NO guns and bullets by private people, more drones by our Government.

simple solving of both issues.

no need for long drawn out ground wars.

drone them if they are a threat.

[spanone]

45. seems like more opinion than fact.

[LittleKG]

47. Who are you

To say its a "sham". You have no evidence..

[cyberswede]

49. Anyone can have an opinion.

[In_The_Wind]

54. Hello ~ LittleKG

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Zax2me]

48. Yep. It's a shakedown.

Desperate.
Behind the scenes a payoff number to go back under ground has probably already been proposed.

[MannyGoldstein]

51. Ha! They should know by now that this President never

folds like a cheap lawn chair.

They'll never get every last thing they want.

[neverforget]

53. They may not be attacking anyone now, but they sure have in the past

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea

[datasuspect]

56. opportunity presented by MIC to let Uhhhhmerica

and China swing their cocks a little.