Comments on: If North Korea is bad… http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/05/25/if-north-korea-is-bad/ Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:49:55 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: lacoste http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/05/25/if-north-korea-is-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-179145 lacoste Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:56:41 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=5714#comment-179145 <a href="http://www.suprafirst.com/" target="_blank">Supra Shoes</a> <a href="http://www.suprafirst.com/mans-supra-cruizer-shoes-c-19.html" target="_blank">Supra Cruizer Shoes</a> <a href="http://www.suprafirst.com/mens-supra-muska-skytop-shoes-c-20.html" target="_blank">Supra Skytop</a> Supra Shoes
Supra Cruizer Shoes
Supra Skytop

]]> By: Philthyrex http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/05/25/if-north-korea-is-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-170120 Philthyrex Fri, 29 May 2009 07:27:42 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=5714#comment-170120 Something that I haven't seen mentioned here or at another similar posting about the "millions of lives saved" by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is this; we didn't have to invade them and fight until a surrender either! Those numbers are just speculation about an action that wasn't the only necessary alternative to the slaughter of Japanese civilians by atomic bombs. Japan could never launch a full scale invasion of the US, that is a lot of ocean to cross! Considering the amount of damage that our conventional bombing had already done, described in the horrifying film "The Fog of War", we could have contained Japan, or at least maintained a vigil of defense of our west coast. Was surrender necessary if they can't hurt us? Just like Iraq; is it necessary to declare victory if it does us more harm than good? It seems to me foolish pride, our obsession with American military "victory". Bring 'em home. Line them up at the borders if you are really that scared of the outside world. Peace, Phil Something that I haven’t seen mentioned here or at another similar posting about the “millions of lives saved” by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is this; we didn’t have to invade them and fight until a surrender either! Those numbers are just speculation about an action that wasn’t the only necessary alternative to the slaughter of Japanese civilians by atomic bombs. Japan could never launch a full scale invasion of the US, that is a lot of ocean to cross! Considering the amount of damage that our conventional bombing had already done, described in the horrifying film “The Fog of War”, we could have contained Japan, or at least maintained a vigil of defense of our west coast. Was surrender necessary if they can’t hurt us? Just like Iraq; is it necessary to declare victory if it does us more harm than good? It seems to me foolish pride, our obsession with American military “victory”. Bring ‘em home. Line them up at the borders if you are really that scared of the outside world. Peace, Phil

]]> By: Andy http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/05/25/if-north-korea-is-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-170086 Andy Thu, 28 May 2009 03:25:10 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=5714#comment-170086 It would be in the best interests of both Japan and the USA to sever all military ties. Note that I said MILITARY ties. I'm all for cultural, social and economic ties. It would be in the best interests of both Japan and the USA to sever all military ties. Note that I said MILITARY ties. I’m all for cultural, social and economic ties.

]]> By: Andy http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/05/25/if-north-korea-is-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-170071 Andy Wed, 27 May 2009 20:15:39 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=5714#comment-170071 When did it become the job of the U.S. to "protect the security of the world"? Why not just protect America? North Korea is not a threat to America. But the military-industrial complex needs something to justify its parasitic existence. When did it become the job of the U.S. to “protect the security of the world”? Why not just protect America? North Korea is not a threat to America. But the military-industrial complex needs something to justify its parasitic existence.

]]> By: Andy http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/05/25/if-north-korea-is-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-170069 Andy Wed, 27 May 2009 20:09:29 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=5714#comment-170069 The Israeli tail wags the American dog. None of America's mideast foreign policies are in its interests. They only serve to benefit Israel. That just shows you what a powerful, organized, well-financed and determined lobby can accomplish in a corrupt and dysfunctional political system. The Israeli tail wags the American dog. None of America’s mideast foreign policies are in its interests. They only serve to benefit Israel. That just shows you what a powerful, organized, well-financed and determined lobby can accomplish in a corrupt and dysfunctional political system.

]]> By: Lear K http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/05/25/if-north-korea-is-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-170065 Lear K Wed, 27 May 2009 17:26:00 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=5714#comment-170065 "Obama Calls on World to ‘Stand Up To’ North Korea” read the headline. The United States, Obama said, was determined to protect “the peace and security of the world.” Shades of doublespeak, doublethink, 1984. North Korea is a small place. China alone could snuff it out in a few minutes. Yet, the president of the US thinks that nothing less than the entire world is a match for North Korea. We are witnessing the Washington gangsters construct yet another threat like Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, John Walker Lindh, Hamdi, Padilla, Sami Al-Arian, Hamas, Mahkmoud Ahmadinejad, and the hapless detainees demonized by the US Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld as “the 700 most dangerous terrorists on the face of the earth,” who were tortured for six years at Gitmo only to be quietly released. Just another mistake, sorry. The military/security complex that rules America, together with the Israel Lobby and the financial banksters, needs a long list of dangerous enemies to keep the taxpayers’ money flowing into its coffers. The Homeland Security lobby is dependent on endless threats to convince Americans that they must forego civil liberty in order to be safe and secure. The real question is who is going to stand up to the American and Israeli governments? Who is going to protect Americans’ and Israelis’ civil liberties, especially those of Israeli dissenters and Israel’s Arab citizens? Who is going to protect Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans, Lebanese, Iranians, and Syrians from Americans and Israelis http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05272009.html “Obama Calls on World to ‘Stand Up To’ North Korea” read the headline. The United States, Obama said, was determined to protect “the peace and security of the world.”

Shades of doublespeak, doublethink, 1984.

North Korea is a small place. China alone could snuff it out in a few minutes. Yet, the president of the US thinks that nothing less than the entire world is a match for North Korea.

We are witnessing the Washington gangsters construct yet another threat like Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, John Walker Lindh, Hamdi, Padilla, Sami Al-Arian, Hamas, Mahkmoud Ahmadinejad, and the hapless detainees demonized by the US Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld as “the 700 most dangerous terrorists on the face of the earth,” who were tortured for six years at Gitmo only to be quietly released. Just another mistake, sorry.

The military/security complex that rules America, together with the Israel Lobby and the financial banksters, needs a long list of dangerous enemies to keep the taxpayers’ money flowing into its coffers.

The Homeland Security lobby is dependent on endless threats to convince Americans that they must forego civil liberty in order to be safe and secure.

The real question is who is going to stand up to the American and Israeli governments?

Who is going to protect Americans’ and Israelis’ civil liberties, especially those of Israeli dissenters and Israel’s Arab citizens?

Who is going to protect Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans, Lebanese, Iranians, and Syrians from Americans and Israelis

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05272009.html

]]> By: Eric http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/05/25/if-north-korea-is-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-170062 Eric Wed, 27 May 2009 16:36:18 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=5714#comment-170062 Actually, Andy, Pakistan is proof that even having nuclear weapons doesn't spare a country from being bullied by the US. In fact, the US's national interests, prerogatives, and security would be little affected by Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability. It is only Israel's capacity to bully Iran that would be severely diminished. It's bad enough when the US foments war to protect its own crass prerogatives. But the US is fomenting war only to protect Israel's crass prerogatives - even though such a war could very well be suicidally costly for the US and everyone else on the planet. Actually, Andy, Pakistan is proof that even having nuclear weapons doesn’t spare a country from being bullied by the US.

In fact, the US’s national interests, prerogatives, and security would be little affected by Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability.

It is only Israel’s capacity to bully Iran that would be severely diminished. It’s bad enough when the US foments war to protect its own crass prerogatives. But the US is fomenting war only to protect Israel’s crass prerogatives – even though such a war could very well be suicidally costly for the US and everyone else on the planet.

]]> By: Roslyn http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/05/25/if-north-korea-is-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-170049 Roslyn Wed, 27 May 2009 04:38:32 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=5714#comment-170049 Hear, hear, Iggy. Hear, hear, Iggy.

]]> By: iggy http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/05/25/if-north-korea-is-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-170044 iggy Wed, 27 May 2009 01:33:23 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=5714#comment-170044 I totally agree with you about Japan. And to think we have occupied their country with dozens of military bases for over 6 decades now! The USA currently has over 1000 bases in other countries! There is no other country that even comes close to us in this regard. Do we really need 1000 bases? I think we would be way better off copying countries like Japan and Germany, who have proven themselves much more worthy than us. They both have achieved amazing things despite both being occupied countries and saddled with paying billions in bogus reparations. Unfairly I should say. But that is what happens to the losers of wars I guess. Germany especially has been hit the hardest with the bogus overpaid "reparations", which had been paid in full many decades ago, but still continue to be paid to relatives. I totally agree with you about Japan. And to think we have occupied their country with dozens of military bases for over 6 decades now! The USA currently has over 1000 bases in other countries! There is no other country that even comes close to us in this regard. Do we really need 1000 bases? I think we would be way better off copying countries like Japan and Germany, who have proven themselves much more worthy than us. They both have achieved amazing things despite both being occupied countries and saddled with paying billions in bogus reparations. Unfairly I should say. But that is what happens to the losers of wars I guess. Germany especially has been hit the hardest with the bogus overpaid “reparations”, which had been paid in full many decades ago, but still continue to be paid to relatives.

]]> By: iggy http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/05/25/if-north-korea-is-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-170043 iggy Wed, 27 May 2009 01:26:08 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=5714#comment-170043 Until Israel is forced to admit to it's nuclear capabilities and crimes of the past 4 decades, peace will not come, and more and more countries will attempt to become nuclear. Israel is the biggest impediment. Here we are, a country totally broke, and we are still giving billions to Israel to support settler madmen who do not work and spend all their time attacking old men Palestinian farmers who have no way to defend themselves. Not only do the settlers carry machine guns, but they are supported by IDF soldiers. On top of this, we are forced to give Egypt comparable billions so they remain neutral while Israel carries out its genocidal crimes. We have to cut off Israel and Egypt both and force Israel into allowing the IAEA to monitor their nuclear capabilities. Israel should at the very least have to live up to the same IAEA examination that Iran has been living up to the past few years. Until Israel is forced to admit to it’s nuclear capabilities and crimes of the past 4 decades, peace will not come, and more and more countries will attempt to become nuclear. Israel is the biggest impediment. Here we are, a country totally broke, and we are still giving billions to Israel to support settler madmen who do not work and spend all their time attacking old men Palestinian farmers who have no way to defend themselves. Not only do the settlers carry machine guns, but they are supported by IDF soldiers. On top of this, we are forced to give Egypt comparable billions so they remain neutral while Israel carries out its genocidal crimes. We have to cut off Israel and Egypt both and force Israel into allowing the IAEA to monitor their nuclear capabilities. Israel should at the very least have to live up to the same IAEA examination that Iran has been living up to the past few years.

]]> By: Obvious Guy Says http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/05/25/if-north-korea-is-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-170042 Obvious Guy Says Wed, 27 May 2009 01:13:57 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=5714#comment-170042 <em>"comparing Truman to Kim jong-il you out to be drug out and shot in the foot, since there is obviously nothing in your head."</em> Truman wanted Stalin's attention - he got it. The Hermit King wants the world's attention - he got it. Neither of them <i>really</i> needed the bomb to achieve what they wished for but resorted to it anyways. They are the same. “comparing Truman to Kim jong-il you out to be drug out and shot in the foot, since there is obviously nothing in your head.”

Truman wanted Stalin’s attention – he got it.
The Hermit King wants the world’s attention – he got it.
Neither of them really needed the bomb to achieve what they wished for but resorted to it anyways.

They are the same.

]]> By: Andy http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/05/25/if-north-korea-is-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-170039 Andy Tue, 26 May 2009 22:27:56 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=5714#comment-170039 Morally or ethically absolutely not. If there were a valid geopolitical reason, other then maintaining American hegemony, that would be a different story, although I can't think of any such reason off the top of my head. Actually given America's long history of agressive interventionism in other countries affairs, especially in non-strategic places, I would say most countries are quite justified in trying to obtain nuclear weapons as an insurance policy against America. Serbia, Panama, Iraq, even the Rolling Thunder aerial campaign against North Vietnam, I don't think any of these things would have happened had the countries in question had nuclear weapons. Morally or ethically absolutely not. If there were a valid geopolitical reason, other then maintaining American hegemony, that would be a different story, although I can’t think of any such reason off the top of my head. Actually given America’s long history of agressive interventionism in other countries affairs, especially in non-strategic places, I would say most countries are quite justified in trying to obtain nuclear weapons as an insurance policy against America. Serbia, Panama, Iraq, even the Rolling Thunder aerial campaign against North Vietnam, I don’t think any of these things would have happened had the countries in question had nuclear weapons.

]]>