North Korea artillery fire hits South Korean island [Archive]

JoshLowry

11-23-2010, 01:37 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/11/23/world/asia/AP-AS-Koreas-Tension.html?_r=1&hp

(Reuters) - North Korea (http://www.reuters.com/places/north-korea) on Tuesday fired dozens of artillery shells at a South Korean island, setting buildings on fire and prompting a return fire by the South, Seoul's military and media reports said. Seoul's YTN television quoted a witness as saying 60 to 70 houses were on fire after the shelling.
The military confirmed the exchange of firing, without providing more details.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AM0TZ20101123

http://nimg.nate.com/orgImg/yt/2010/11/23/PYH2010112306720001300_P2.jpg

JoshLowry

11-23-2010, 01:40 AM

Al-Jazeera English stream: http://www.livestation.com/channels/3-al_jazeera_english

Anti Federalist

11-23-2010, 01:43 AM

Wtf?

ETA - Oh wait, gotta justify those troops and bases...

Kotin

11-23-2010, 01:46 AM

Yikes.. Hope this does not escalate...

Hiki

11-23-2010, 01:49 AM

Yikes.. Hope this does not escalate...

In some sick way, I kinda do. I just hope they leave civilians alone when it does.

puppetmaster

11-23-2010, 01:56 AM

oh it will escalate.....

Maximus

11-23-2010, 01:58 AM

Nothing like a war to distract the people from the TSA

Philhelm

11-23-2010, 02:05 AM

Nothing like a war to distract the people from the TSA

Nothing like the TSA to distract the people from a war.

foofighter20x

11-23-2010, 02:06 AM

This is seriously crazy.

Reason

11-23-2010, 02:10 AM

YouTube - N. Korea fires on S. Korea (23/11/2010) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YYCUhX4h5g)

Reason

11-23-2010, 02:20 AM

YouTube - Tension as North Korea fires on South Korea, killing 1 and injuring 15! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjcNOqSMgOw)

HOLLYWOOD

11-23-2010, 02:32 AM

18 American military members killed last week in AFGHANISTAN...

$84 Billion approved by Obama, Hillary, and Gates for new Nuclear weapons...

TSA molestation of Americans continues...

Ireland to receive $146 Billion in IMF cash bailout to hedge collapse...

US is now the largest holder of US Debt ~$900 Billion...

Portugal and Spain about to default...

US State Department world embarrassment in phony Taliban commander negotiation...

NOW... back to looking over there!

Philhelm

11-23-2010, 02:39 AM

18 american military members killed last week in afghanistan...

$84 billion approved by obama, hillary, and gates for new nuclear weapons...

Tsa molestation of americans continues...

Ireland to receive $146 billion in imf cash bailout to hedge collapse...

Us is now the largest holder of us debt ~$900 billion...

Portugal and spain about to default...

Us state department world embarrassment in phony taliban commander negotiation...

Now... Back to looking over there!

+1984

RonPaulFanInGA

11-23-2010, 02:54 AM

North Korea, apparently, attacked them. So if South Korea wants to retaliate; let them. Just keep our country out of it.

Philhelm

11-23-2010, 02:57 AM

North Korea, apparently, attacked them. So if South Korea wants to retaliate; let them. Just keep our country out of it.

"Bwahahahahahahaha!!!"
-Signed: the U.S. government

Dripping Rain

11-23-2010, 02:58 AM

this is very bad news. Although I still have hope for peace between the 2 (formerly one) nations But its inevitable. We cant create an embargo and a blockade on a country backing it into a corner and expect them to roll over. screw the neocons

edit: btw we still dont have the full story behind this, maybe the North was responding to a military provocation by the South, maybe its a lie. After all This maybe propaganda to get us into yet another war. So I hope we get to hear the other side too.

cindy25

11-23-2010, 03:11 AM

strange how little coverage this is getting; Huffington has it but neither antiwar.com or drudge mention it

Kotin

11-23-2010, 03:22 AM

strange how little coverage this is getting; Huffington has it but neither antiwar.com or drudge mention it

Well it is the middle of the night..

HOLLYWOOD

11-23-2010, 03:49 AM

"Death to the Imperialists by a 1000 cuts"... now who said that again?

Noob

11-23-2010, 03:55 AM

JohnEngland

11-23-2010, 04:18 AM

Hiki

11-23-2010, 04:27 AM

I just wish they would blow the North Korean dictatorship into oblivion, it's unbelievable how such a country can still exist in the year 2010.

cindy25

11-23-2010, 04:34 AM

Drudge headline "It Begins"

time for those 18-21 to have a plan B (dual citizenship, funds abroad )

vita3

11-23-2010, 05:47 AM

Where can we get 100% honest verifiable news reporting on this?

nobody's_hero

11-23-2010, 05:51 AM

In some sick way, I kinda do. I just hope they leave civilians alone when it does.

For real. Just get the **** over with. They've been staring at each other across the DMZ for over half a century.

wildfirepower

11-23-2010, 05:51 AM

Where can we get 100% honest verifiable news reporting on this?
The firing has stopped. It was just warm up.

Son of Detroit

11-23-2010, 05:52 AM

Change the title to "Start of WWIII".

nobody's_hero

11-23-2010, 05:52 AM

Where can we get 100% honest verifiable news reporting on this?

It's on CNN's homepage.

(not sure if you consider that honest and verifiable, though; you might be like me)

vita3

11-23-2010, 05:56 AM

CNN is not legit (IMO)

Tinnuhana

11-23-2010, 05:56 AM

I'll see what I can find. Maybe Hong Kong has something balanced. The Japanese have no love lost on the North, seeing as they send little submarines over and kidnap Japanese citizens. It's only about 9pm here, so it's two hours before the news.
My brother was stationed at Camp Casey years ago. He was told that they were there to hold out as long as possible if a flood of North Korean army headed south.

Tinnuhana

11-23-2010, 06:01 AM

This is sort of interesting and avoids the situation. Not sure if this is from NK or just documentation on events in the area.

http://northkoreastar.com/

awake

11-23-2010, 06:03 AM

And the the first casualty of war is? ... Yup... the truth.

Tinnuhana

11-23-2010, 06:04 AM

http://www.atimes.com/

This one is good: Asia Times in English. I remember this paper from Mogambo economics write-ups favorable to Ron paul during the primaries.

Cui Zhiying, director of the Korean Peninsula Research Office under the Asia-Pacific Research Center of Tongji University in Shanghai, said the North's latest provocation shouldn't be seen as seeking confrontation, but rather its own way of signaling to the US that it wants dialogue. "North Korea has repeatedly expressed that it wants dialogue with the US and it wants the six-party talks to resume. But the US and South Korea have not been forthcoming. So, North Korea is pressuring them to come to the talks," Cui said.

North Korea's antics come amid an ongoing power transition from Dear Leader Kim Jong-il to his third and youngest son, Kim Jong-eun, who is believed to be 27. The rapidly unfolding succession process, sparked by Kim Jong-il's stroke in the summer of 2008, led to the North Korean leader visiting China twice this year, which is seen as paving the way for earning China's endorsement for the successor and seeking China's economic support for the economically hobbled country.

"Kim Jong-il is sculpting his son with a strong leader's image with the latest nuclear move," said Tetsuo Kotani, a research fellow at the Okazaki Institute, a think-tank in Tokyo.

With the successor in place, South Korean analysts see North Korea as being more stable. "Some view the North's brinkmanship as a way to seek outside help to improve its internal dire situation. Yet I am inclined to see it as a sign of the North's confidence that it can pull through both the succession and on the nuclear front," said Koh at Stanford University.

Baptist

11-23-2010, 06:07 AM

As long as our government stays out of it. Pray for innocents on all sides.

Standing Like A Rock

11-23-2010, 06:33 AM

Reminds me of what a brilliant man said,

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

- Albert Einstein.

JacobG18

11-23-2010, 06:36 AM

S.Korea says it test-fired in area before N.Korea firing

Nov 23 (Reuters) - South Korea said it was conducting regular military drills off the west coast before North Korea started firing dozens of shells, but that its firing exercises did not aim to the North.

"We were conducting usual military drills and our test shots were aimed toward the west, not the north," a South Korean military official said.

North Korea said on Tuesday that Seoul had initiated firing of shells, prompting it to take an instant military action. [ID:nTOE6AM05B]

(Reporting by Ju-min Park, writing by Miyoung Kim; Editing by Yoo Choonsik)

vita3

11-23-2010, 06:45 AM

I read that island has had this happen at least 2 times in the past 20 years. In reading the Asian Times article, looks like N. Korea is doing this to talk. Obama admin has failed us not talking to N.Korea & Iran. (imo) i understand we are in very tough position w/ both Nations, but ignoring these building powder kegs is insanity.

teacherone

11-23-2010, 06:59 AM

The thing is, we don't want more countries around the world making nuclear weapons. These weapons are one of the the most evil creations man has made - just imagine a war with nukes... millions are guaranteed to die.

One surely cannot escape the moral element of trying to prevent nukes in the world.

If North Korea attacks a peaceful country like South Korea, it'll surely pressurise the South to defend itself by getting nukes. This'll all put pressure on peaceful Japan etc. and before you know it, the whole of East Asia is glowing deadly green.

I don't think anyone can stand back from this situation. It has to be addressed.

you're using the same argument used to advocate gun control.

nukes are not going away, countries have them both "good" and "bad".

pushing around little countries and ordering them to disarm does not make a safer world.

a nuclear armed world...is a polite one (believe it or not).

Agorism

11-23-2010, 07:00 AM

Saddam Hussein is shooting missiles again.

RM918

11-23-2010, 07:27 AM

you're using the same argument used to advocate gun control.

nukes are not going away, countries have them both "good" and "bad".

pushing around little countries and ordering them to disarm does not make a safer world.

a nuclear armed world...is a polite one (believe it or not).

The problem here, as much as I ascribe to the ideology with firearms, is that accidentally shooting yourself in the foot, putting a hole through your door or the stereotypical psycho with a gun would be relegated, if everyone were armed, to a small number, unfortunate tragedies that likely couldn't be avoided anyway.

Nukes, anything that happens will kill off far more people before the problem is solved.

torchbearer

11-23-2010, 07:31 AM

my friend just deployed to south korea. he was bringing his family and children to live on base.

teacherone

11-23-2010, 07:33 AM

The problem here, as much as I ascribe to the ideology with firearms, is that accidentally shooting yourself in the foot, putting a hole through your door or the stereotypical psycho with a gun would be relegated, if everyone were armed, to a small number, unfortunate tragedies that likely couldn't be avoided anyway.

Nukes, anything that happens will kill off far more people before the problem is solved.

considering how the USA is the only country in history to use atomic weapons as an act of war we have very little moral capital pushing this argument.

smaller countries want nukes to protect themselves from US.

WE are the world's aggressor.

Travlyr

11-23-2010, 07:33 AM

If we could just eliminate all the guns in the world, it would be a safer place. Who believes that?

fisharmor

11-23-2010, 07:35 AM

a nuclear armed world...is a polite one (believe it or not).

You beat me to it, but I was going to argue the logical reverse.
A non-nuclear armed world is an impolite world.

Do you think it's coincidence that the USA and the USSR, despite being bitter enemies, never entered into direct conflict?
Do you think it's coincidence that both sides sought out non-nuclear armed patsys to support during the cold war?

Korea is the result of not having nuclear weapons.

Why do you think Iran wants them so badly? It's not for the official government-approved media reason. It's so that they can be sure that we will stay the fuck out of their business. And they know that nuclear weapons are the only way we will be kept out.

Spending money on new weapons is probably the only thing Obama has done so far that I approve of. Our current armament is 40 years old. Our ICBMs have an accuracy rated in miles. (This is why MIRV was invented.) We therefore also have to maintain bomber fleets so that we can be sure we can actually hit the city we are aiming at.

And Google can read newspaper headlines from space.

I think you'll find that the cost, even with R&D, of a tactical system of low-yield nukes (like 1kt) which is deployable from within the borders of the US which has pinpoint accuracy the world over is likely less expensive than just the keeping of 30,000 troops in Korea.

Plus, such a system has the advantage of possibly being used. Our current armament is useless precisely because it will never be used, and that is because of the already stated reason that it will kill millions. If it's never, ever going to be used, then it is a complete waste of money.

Of course, I don't know if that's what Obama has planned, but it would be the smart thing to do, militarily... and I know that this is what some in the military have been pushing for.

armstrong

11-23-2010, 08:24 AM

bump for interesting

malkusm

11-23-2010, 08:26 AM

Do you think it's coincidence that the USA and the USSR, despite being bitter enemies, never entered into direct conflict?
Do you think it's coincidence that both sides sought out non-nuclear armed patsys to support during the cold war?

Why do you think Iran wants them so badly? It's not for the official government-approved media reason. It's so that they can be sure that we will stay the fuck out of their business. And they know that nuclear weapons are the only way we will be kept out.

+rep

JohnEngland

11-23-2010, 08:32 AM

Reminds me of what a brilliant man said,

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

- Albert Einstein.

I know what Einstein's getting at there, but technically you're probably not going to be able to wage a global war with sticks and stones... unless we manage to build the mother of all catapults, capable of ranges of 1,000s of miles :p

angelatc

11-23-2010, 08:46 AM

Wow - what a busy morning. Ireland's government has collapsed, the Koreans are having a go, the stock market is tanking, the CIA got punked...

I am surprised that the market is only down 100.

Teaser Rate

11-23-2010, 08:58 AM

I really doubt this will escalate much further for a few reasons, the most important of which is that no side in the conflict wants to risk all-out war.

China - They don’t want a potential nuclear showdown in their backyard or having to deal with millions of North Korean refugees in case of a regime change, it’s much cheaper to keep the peace by giving North Korea what it wants.

US - Our military is already spread too thinly around the world and we don't have the resources to finance additional foreign expenditures; more importantly, we can’t risk alienating China given current economic conditions. It is in our best interest to support the Chinese appeasing North Korea.

South Korea - The minimum level of casualties would be a staggering number even in the easiest of military victories, and the worst case scenario would involve their capital being evaporated. It doesn’t make sense to pay that high of a price to avenge a few innocent lives.

North Korea - There are no scenarios under which their leadership would survive an open war with the South (which would also bring in the US and potentially China against them). While they must avoid it at all costs, they also need to keep playing a game of chicken with the rest of the world by occasionally firing a few guns and sinking a few ships to keep extorting enough money to continue oppressing their people.

If this situation was a game, the status quo would be the Nash equilibrium. Millions of innocent people are being starved, enslaved and murdered and it’s in no one’s best interest to help them.

Freedom 4 all

11-23-2010, 09:02 AM

Change the title to "Start of WWIII".

I don't think so. If this DOES escalate, NK will get crushed into oblivion within weeks. South Korea will have the US, Canada, England and most of the Western world on its side. Does NK even have any allies whatsoever? I can't imagine China or Russia jeapordizing their diplomatic relations with the West for some tinpot dictatorship they barely even trade with.

TNforPaul45

11-23-2010, 09:06 AM

Saddam Hussein is shooting missiles again.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAH

Well that settles it, if it's HIM we HAVE to get involved, huh? lol

TNforPaul45

11-23-2010, 09:07 AM

I don't think so. If this DOES escalate, NK will get crushed into oblivion within weeks. South Korea will have the US, Canada, England and most of the Western world on its side. Does NK even have any allies whatsoever? I can't imagine China or Russia jeapordizing their diplomatic relations with the West for some tinpot dictatorship they barely even trade with.

Not if Iran and Venezuela uses it as an excuse to attack us to defend North Korea, and all three are already loosely allied ( or so the Millitary-Industrial complex tells us ).

Nothing like a juicy false-flag attack somewhere to get this shit pot stirred up.

Elwar

11-23-2010, 09:10 AM

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is about to come to an end...

South Korea is such a better place for defense contractors to go to make a shit ton of money.

Jeremy

11-23-2010, 09:12 AM

Wtf?

ETA - Oh wait, gotta justify those troops and bases...

Is it just me or have you turned into a conspiracy theorist lately, lol.

vita3

11-23-2010, 09:32 AM

One thing I believe is China, will not abandon N. Korea

puppetmaster

11-23-2010, 09:47 AM

wonder what brought this on....wonder who or what was in those buildings.....or is it just NK being NK

Thomas

11-23-2010, 09:55 AM

so the north was test firing on that island, supposedly west, and the south told them to stop and they didn't, then this happened....and this could be succession related, to make the heir look powerful to his people and the world...

klamath

11-23-2010, 09:59 AM

considering how the USA is the only country in history to use atomic weapons as an act of war we have very little moral capital pushing this argument.

smaller countries want nukes to protect themselves from US.

WE are the world's aggressor.
Bullsh*t. We maybe are but WE are not the only agressor. This is the kind of stuff that really turns people off. We have our problems but every other country in the world has its problems, because people have problems.

pcosmar

11-23-2010, 10:19 AM

wonder what brought this on....wonder who or what was in those buildings.....or is it just NK being NK

This was borught on by several things. UN involvement being first and foremost. This "war" should have been decided over 50 years ago.

This latest was begun when during joint US and S Korean war games a German Made Torpedo hit a S Korean ship.
Despite that N Korea does not use German Torpedoes (and others in the area do) It was blamed on N Korea.
It has been escalating since.

Pericles

11-23-2010, 10:25 AM

This is seriously crazy.

That is probably an accurate description of the leadership of N. Korea.

GunnyFreedom

11-23-2010, 10:33 AM

Korea is the murkiest and least unjustifiable foreign intervention of all our unjustifiable foreign interventions. That doesn't mean that I support our staying in Korea -- I do not -- I just recognize that it is the least egregious of all our egregious interventions. While I do not support any of our foreign interventionism at all, Korea is the one and only place where I would allow other noninterventionists to disagree with me without questioning their noninterventionist principles.

So while I, personally, advocate for complete noninterventionism to include withdrawal from all non US holdings around the planet, Korea is truly the one and only place on the planet where if someone disagreed with me I would not go off on the kneejerk neocon rant.

Please bear that in mind for if and when Osan eventually weighs in on this. I do not know what he thinks one way or the other, but I do know that he is closer to this than any of us. He probably still has very close family who are in dire danger should hot warfare re-erupt on the peninsula.

Pericles

11-23-2010, 10:40 AM

pcosmar

11-23-2010, 11:02 AM

A bit of history. Though not the full story no doubt.

http://library.thinkquest.org/10826/korea.htm

It is a mess we should have never been involved in, but one we could have changed, and didn't.

It was also the reason MacArthur was fired.

A friggin' mess that continues. But I suppose it is profitable for the MIC.
:(

Freedom 4 all

11-23-2010, 11:17 AM

If we could just eliminate all the guns in the world, it would be a safer place. Who believes that?

In theory, I would actually agree with that statement. However, there is literally a 0% chance of it happening. To truly eliminate guns we'd also have to take guns from every police force, military, and criminal on Earth. No amount of gun control would make that happen in a million years. Now that the gun has been invented, people WILL have guns, we can't uninvent them. And as long as ONE person has a gun, we're safer with EVERYONE having guns because it's a deterrence from actually using them.

pcosmar

11-23-2010, 11:25 AM

In theory, I would actually agree with that statement. However, there is literally a 0% chance of it happening. To truly eliminate guns we'd also have to take guns from every police force, military, and criminal on Earth. No amount of gun control would make that happen in a million years. Now that the gun has been invented, people WILL have guns, we can't uninvent them. And as long as ONE person has a gun, we're safer with EVERYONE having guns because it's a deterrence from actually using them.

:confused:
In Theory???
You mean the world was safer when armies carried Swords and Bows.

I think not.

Acala

11-23-2010, 11:33 AM

I don't think anyone can stand back from this situation. It has to be addressed.

Really? Just watch me.

It is none of our business. We should remove all of our troops, bases, ships, spies, and operatives from the area and let those people do with their own countries, lives, and property what they desire. If they kill each other, too bad. But it is not my problem beyond my general state of sadness for the wretched state of the human race.

On the other hand, YOU should be free to go over there yourself and fix the situation using YOUR life and YOUR money.

Acala

11-23-2010, 11:34 AM

I'm much more willing to help out when people want to defend themselves and want the tools for defense and training on being better able to defend themselves.

I think you SHOULD help out. Get on a plane and go. But leave me, my property, and my children out of it, thank you.

Kludge

11-23-2010, 11:35 AM

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is about to come to an end...

How do you figure? The US is sending more private contractors to Afghanistan than ever before and the "deadline" has been pushed to 2014. The war in Iraq has certainly scaled down, but I don't think there will be a US withdrawal for quite a few more years, with a resolution of permanent bases throughout the region.

GunnyFreedom

11-23-2010, 11:39 AM

I think you SHOULD help out. Get on a plane and go. But leave me, my property, and my children out of it, thank you.

:rolleyes: This is why I avoid saying things that can easily be misinterpreted. Especially amongst our group there is always someone willing to misinterpret things in a way to go hostile on a hair trigger. Peri wasn't saying anything differently than I said, I just stuck all the caveats in because I knew if I didn't someone would accuse me of neohitlarianism or some such nonsense.

KCIndy

11-23-2010, 11:41 AM

Just my two cents worth, but I seriously doubt this is going to erupt into a full blown war. IMHO this is North Korea elbowing - with really hard, sharp elbows - for more foreign aid in the form of cash, food and supplies.

The North Koreans realize that Obama is not going to order a military attack. Most likely there will be a renewed call for talks. Keep in mind that it was just a couple of days ago that there was an announcement about a brand spankin' new nuke site in North Korea.

After a lot of squawking, accusations and counter accusations, North Korea will end up on the receiving end of a lot of US taxpayer cash and surplus grain, in exchange for their promise to dismantle their nuclear plants and allow inspectors in....

A promise which they'll promptly break as soon as they receive the aid, of course. :rolleyes:

pcosmar

11-23-2010, 11:47 AM

:rolleyes: This is why I avoid saying things that can easily be misinterpreted. Especially amongst our group there is always someone willing to misinterpret things in a way to go hostile on a hair trigger. Peri wasn't saying anything differently than I said, I just stuck all the caveats in because I knew if I didn't someone would accuse me of neohitlarianism or some such nonsense.

This was started at the end of WWII, as was the UN. This was the UN's first action.

Now think "track record".

On August 8th, 1945 the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, and on the following day, they landed in North Korea. The Americans did not land on Korea until September 8th, 1945. The Soviet Union stayed north of the 38th parallel, like they agreed to do. However, by the time the Americans landed in Korea, the Soviet Union was well under way developing a Communist government in North Korea.
By this time the communists were fully entrenched in the US as well.

The United Nations declared that the government of South Korea, established by the means of a free election was the only legitimate government of Korea. The Soviet Union refused to accept the declaration of the United Nations, and on October 12th 1948, declared the People's Democratic Republic of Korea (North Korea) to be the only legitimate government. Tensions mounted.

The United Nations declared.
There you have it. In a nut shell.
:(

jclay2

11-23-2010, 11:47 AM

Acala

11-23-2010, 11:50 AM

FSP-Rebel

11-23-2010, 11:53 AM

There's some decent articles about this ordeal over here: http://www.dailynk.com/english/

Brian4Liberty

11-23-2010, 12:02 PM

I wonder... Trade talks and currency talks get heated. China fires ICBM off of Los Angeles. North Korea fires artillery at the South. Related?

Anti Federalist

11-23-2010, 12:13 PM

Bullsh*t. We maybe are but WE are not the only agressor. This is the kind of stuff that really turns people off. We have our problems but every other country in the world has its problems, because people have problems.

Oh, so we should just gloss over the innocents getting vaporized every day by our smart munitions and drones, so we don't "turn people off".

Last time I looked, based on this story, the only nations aggressively launching munitions against civilian target were us, and now the North Koreans.

Good company to keep.

But god forbid we the people fight back against tyranny and some innocents get hurt or killed.

Oh, no, fuck no, can't have that.

Freedom 4 all

11-23-2010, 12:15 PM

:confused:
In Theory???
You mean the world was safer when armies carried Swords and Bows.

I think not.

Well, shit was bad back then for a lot of reasons, but if Afghanistan and Iraq were fought with swords and shit, I'm guessing the casualty counts on both sides would be way lower. I'm also guessing police brutality would be less if they didn't have guns (or tasers) and terrorism wouldn't be a big scary threat like it is now. Without guns, it would take a hell of a lot more time to do the kind of damage we can now in an instant.

EDIT: I'm just saying. This shouldn't be construed as support for gun control. Like I said, if anyone has a gun, we should all have them.

UtahApocalypse

11-23-2010, 12:16 PM

Rumors hitting the MSM that Kim Jung II has died....

dannno

11-23-2010, 12:18 PM

Bullsh*t. We maybe are but WE are not the only agressor. This is the kind of stuff that really turns people off. We have our problems but every other country in the world has its problems, because people have problems.

The US military is the military of the global central banking industrial complex... so ya.. we ARE the primary aggressors in the world.

pcosmar

11-23-2010, 12:52 PM

Well, shit was bad back then for a lot of reasons, but if Afghanistan and Iraq were fought with swords and shit, I'm guessing the casualty counts on both sides would be way lower. I'm also guessing police brutality would be less if they didn't have guns (or tasers) and terrorism wouldn't be a big scary threat like it is now. Without guns, it would take a hell of a lot more time to do the kind of damage we can now in an instant.
A simple fact is that more were killed in wars fought with swords. Tens of thousands, dead in a single battle. as opposed to thousands of rounds fired and a handful killed.

EDIT: I'm just saying. This shouldn't be construed as support for gun control. Like I said, if anyone has a gun, we should all have them.
No, But it is an argument used often. The fact is, less have died in wars since the advent of firearms.
Tyrants always disarm the people.(swords or guns)
That is the reason for the 2nd Amendment.

Back to Korea. It is a battlefield of other nations. Both N and S Korea are simply pawns in the game.
It has been so for 100 years.
Placing blame on one party or the other ignores the puppet-masters behind the scene.

Meatwasp

11-23-2010, 01:20 PM

Oh, so we should just gloss over the innocents getting vaporized every day by our smart munitions and drones, so we don't "turn people off".

Last time I looked, based on this story, the only nations aggressively launching munitions against civilian target were us, and now the North Koreans.

Good company to keep.

But god forbid we the people fight back against tyranny and some innocents get hurt or killed.

Oh, no, fuck no, can't have that.

How many innocents died in Vietnam? Or communists Russia. America has it's faults but all you ever see is bad bad bad America.

tremendoustie

11-23-2010, 01:26 PM

How many innocents died in Vietnam?

Lots, thanks to the US government.

Or communists Russia.

Yep, they were scumbags too.

America has it's faults but all you ever see is bad bad bad America.

Are we talking about the US federal government, or the land mass, cultures, and people of "America"?

I'm talking about the former. And they're a bunch of mass murderers.

Chieppa1

11-23-2010, 01:30 PM

Pericles

11-23-2010, 01:39 PM

I understood what YOU said and have no problem with it.

Maybe I misunderstood Peri. Maybe not. Perhaps HE will set me straight and be clear that he doesn't support US intervention. I don't think that is clear from his post.

There is non intervention and then there is non intervention. Am I going to watch my neighbor get raped because I believe in non intervention? No. Should the USA guarantee the territorial integrity of any nation on Earth? No. Have we entered into agreements with other countries that we should keep? Yes. Once you say you are going to do something, you should do it.

Now on to Korea - South Korea has matured as a county since 1950 and is capable of defending themselves under most circumstances and shouldn't need our help. However, we have given S. Korea a security assurance, and pending mutual agreement to dissolve the pact, we should keep our word.

And if you want to get on a personal level, yes I'll get on the plane to do that, and no you're not invited to come along with me. Wars are best conducted by professionals.

Meatwasp

11-23-2010, 01:39 PM

Lots, thanks to the US government.

Yep, they were scumbags too.

Are we talking about the US federal government, or the land mass, cultures, and people of "America"?

I'm talking about the former. And they're a bunch of mass murderers.

I still shiver when I think of all those million bones piled up when the red army took over Vietnam. You are probably too young to remember that.

Pericles

11-23-2010, 01:43 PM

I still shiver when I think of all those million bones piled up when the red army took over Vietnam. You are probably too young to remember that.
And Cambodia, and Laos .........

From my point of view, selling material so others can invade their neighbors ought to violate the libertarians sacred NAP. This is why I find that view that we erred in not selling war material to Japan so they could continue to conquer China, Korea, and the rest of the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere so interesting.

TheeJoeGlass

11-23-2010, 01:44 PM

you're using the same argument used to advocate gun control.

nukes are not going away, countries have them both "good" and "bad".

pushing around little countries and ordering them to disarm does not make a safer world.

a nuclear armed world...is a polite one (believe it or not).

I agree. There is still a black market for nukes aswell. I'm sure most major countries that say they do not have nukes, do. I heard someone say that over 130 suitcase sized nukes are still missing and most believe the C.I.A. does NOT know where they are.

Fredom101

11-23-2010, 01:45 PM

I still shiver when I think of all those million bones piled up when the red army took over Vietnam. You are probably too young to remember that.

The US military killed over a million people and lost over 50,000.

And with all of this madness, the war was based on a lie.

How can you defend either side here? Killing is killing, except in the case of self defense, which this certainly was not.

Pericles

11-23-2010, 01:49 PM

The US military killed over a million people and lost over 50,000.

And with all of this madness, the war was based on a lie.

How can you defend either side here? Killing is killing, except in the case of self defense, which this certainly was not.

I respect Joan Baez because she was 100% consistent in her condemnation of the Communists just as much as US policy. Everybody else (including members of the board) seem to be traveling on a one way road.

pcosmar

11-23-2010, 01:50 PM

I still shiver when I think of all those million bones piled up when the red army took over Vietnam. You are probably too young to remember that.

I remember. and am convinced that it would have been far less were it not for our involvement.
Much of it was in retaliation.

then there is this.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/21/Agent-orange-deformities-vietnam.jpg/300px-Agent-orange-deformities-vietnam.jpg

During the Vietnam war, between 1962 and 1971, the United States military sprayed 20,000,000 US gallons (80,000,000 L) of chemical herbicides and defoliants in Vietnam, eastern Laos and parts of Cambodia, as part of the aerial defoliation program known as Operation Ranch Hand.[2] The goal was to defoliate rural/forested land, depriving guerrillas of food and cover and clearing in sensitive areas such as around base perimeters.[29] The program was also a part of a general policy of forced draft urbanization, which aimed to destroy the ability of peasants to support themselves in the countryside, forcing them to flee to the U.S. dominated cities, depriving the guerrillas of their rural support base.

:(

teacherone

11-23-2010, 01:53 PM

I respect Joan Baez because she was 100% consistent in her condemnation of the Communists just as much as US policy. Everybody else (including members of the board) seem to be traveling on a one way road.

you people lack grammar skills---i was clearly speaking in the present tense.

if you would like to point out a few communist empires with military bases covering the globe, intelligence officers covering the planet, and soldiers killing in numerous countries please do.

pcosmar

11-23-2010, 01:57 PM

Some of this board forgets that the US government is a communist Government.

Not what it is suppose to be, but what it is.

Marxists v Trotskyites

It has long been so.
:mad:

Heimdallr

11-23-2010, 01:57 PM

Elwar

11-23-2010, 02:09 PM

How do you figure? The US is sending more private contractors to Afghanistan than ever before and the "deadline" has been pushed to 2014. The war in Iraq has certainly scaled down, but I don't think there will be a US withdrawal for quite a few more years, with a resolution of permanent bases throughout the region.

As a contractor, if given the choice between going to either the hot desert in Iraq with nothing but sand and months with no clouds or the mountainous Afghanistan where it's like pioneer land with months of miserable cold...or going to a base in South (North) Korea, I'd choose to go to Korea. I've had a few friends who went to South Korea to take jobs there mainly because it was a lot nicer than the Middle East.

There's already enough of a defense contractor infrastructure set up in South Korea that I bet there's a big shift already of people wanting to re-focus to that.

Though, with October just passing, the contracts are set for another year so we're locked in at least until August or so.

Pericles

11-23-2010, 02:10 PM

Shit shit shit shit SHIT!

Now we're NEVER gonna hear the end of this from the neocons :mad:

"What if we weren't there to intervene? DID YOU WANT THE BLOOD OF MILLIONS OF DEAD SOUTH KOREANS ON YOUR HANDS?!"

(Assuming we intervene)

Canada was right there with the USA from 1950 to 1953

Canadian Army

Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians)
2nd Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery (RCHA)
1st Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery (RCHA)
81st Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery (RCA)
The Corps of Royal Canadian Engineers (RCE)
The Royal Canadian Corps of Signals
The Royal Canadian Regiment (RCR)

2nd Battalion
1st Battalion
3rd Battalion

Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI)

2nd Battalion
1st Battalion
3rd Battalion

Royal 22e Régiment (R22eR)

2nd Battalion
1st Battalion
3rd Battalion

Does this mean that Canada is a bunch of happy civilian murderers, too?

Acala

11-23-2010, 02:13 PM

So I didn't misunderstand. [Gunny please note] Pericles is advocating an interventionist foreign policy.

Have we entered into agreements with other countries that we should keep? Yes. Once you say you are going to do something, you should do it..

So some politicians BEFORE I WAS BORN made an Unconstitutional promise and I have to pay for it? When do we get out of that? Or are you advocating perpetual war?

However, we have given S. Korea a security assurance, and pending mutual agreement to dissolve the pact, we should keep our word..

I never gave my word. Some lying sacks in Washington gave THEIR word primarily to funnel my money into the pockets of the military industry. I am not bound.

And if you want to get on a personal level, yes I'll get on the plane to do that, and no you're not invited to come along with me. Wars are best conducted by professionals.

Excellent. As long as you professionals don't expect me to pay your salary and I don't have to suffer the blowback from your ill-considered violent actions

Pericles

11-23-2010, 02:25 PM

So I didn't misunderstand. [Gunny please note] Pericles is advocating an interventionist foreign policy.

So some politicians BEFORE I WAS BORN made an Unconstitutional promise and I have to pay for it? When do we get out of that? Or are you advocating perpetual war?

I never gave my word. Some lying sacks in Washington gave THEIR word primarily to funnel my money into the pockets of the military industry. I am not bound.

Excellent. As long as you professionals don't expect me to pay your salary and I don't have to suffer the blowback from your ill-considered violent actions

Neither you nor I can undo the past. Pretending that we can is one of the reasons in my view why libertarianism does not get more traction from the rest of the citizenry.

Like it or not, the USA took on the role of S. Korea's private security company. I wasn't asked if it was a good idea, either.

Do we unilaterally break the contract?

teacherone

11-23-2010, 02:28 PM

Neither you nor I can undo the past. Pretending that we can is one of the reasons in my view why libertarianism does not get more traction from the rest of the citizenry.

Like it or not, the USA took on the role of S. Korea's private security company. I wasn't asked if it was a good idea, either.

Do we unilaterally break the contract?

uh...yes please.

is this a serious question?

do you literally believe that we OWE south korea anything?

do you wish to send our young to die because a commitment some politician made?

pcosmar

11-23-2010, 02:28 PM

Do we unilaterally break the contract?
What Contract?

Do you mean the UN Charter?
I am all for disposing of it in entirety.
:cool:

Heimdallr

11-23-2010, 02:30 PM

Canada was right there with the USA from 1950 to 1953

Canadian Army

Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians)
2nd Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery (RCHA)
1st Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery (RCHA)
81st Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery (RCA)
The Corps of Royal Canadian Engineers (RCE)
The Royal Canadian Corps of Signals
The Royal Canadian Regiment (RCR)

2nd Battalion
1st Battalion
3rd Battalion

Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI)

2nd Battalion
1st Battalion
3rd Battalion

Royal 22e Régiment (R22eR)

2nd Battalion
1st Battalion
3rd Battalion

Does this mean that Canada is a bunch of happy civilian murderers, too?

What? Not sure what you're talking about. I never referred to Canada at all in my post.

Vessol

11-23-2010, 02:34 PM

I wasn't aware that the United States was a privately held company.

Tell me, where does the income of this company come from?

An "agreement" held by two Mob Gangs(US Government and South Korean Government) has no standing when both the funds from both sides is collected through involuntary means.

Pericles

11-23-2010, 02:40 PM

uh...yes please.

is this a serious question?

do you literally believe that we OWE south korea anything?

do you wish to send our young to die because a commitment some politician made?
One of the great things about the Internet is that life consists of simple either or choices - anybody that disagrees with me must believe X. Real life consists of a number of options and involves other players in the game, who each make independent choices.

There are ways of getting this done that don't require sending in Marine rifle companies. Part of effective diplomacy (and business negotiation for that matter) involve credible threats. When advocating a policy that restricts options, the diplomacy becomes more difficult. Many on this board don't go for the gun control propaganda. paradoxically, being heavily armed is the best way to deter attack. Why should it work differently between countries?

Credible threats keep the peace.

I'll type this again very slowly. We should be getting out of foreign entanglements - but WE ARE NOT THERE YET!. Until we get there, we have to deal with reality - which is that we have US citizens within artillery range of the NKPA, and North Korea needs to be afraid of what we might do if they do not adhere to the norms of international behavior.

teacherone

11-23-2010, 02:42 PM

these two posts contradict each other in too many ways to list...i'll just assume you agree with me now.

Neither you nor I can undo the past. Pretending that we can is one of the reasons in my view why libertarianism does not get more traction from the rest of the citizenry.

Like it or not, the USA took on the role of S. Korea's private security company. I wasn't asked if it was a good idea, either.

Do we unilaterally break the contract?

One of the great things about the Internet is that life consists of simple either or choices - anybody that disagrees with me must believe X. Real life consists of a number of options and involves other players in the game, who each make independent choices.

There are ways of getting this done that don't require sending in Marine rifle companies. Part of effective diplomacy (and business negotiation for that matter) involve credible threats. When advocating a policy that restricts options, the diplomacy becomes more difficult. Many on this board don't go for the gun control propaganda. paradoxically, being heavily armed is the best way to deter attack. Why should it work differently between countries?

Credible threats keep the peace.

I'll type this again very slowly. We should be getting out of foreign entanglements - but WE ARE NOT THERE YET!. Until we get there, we have to deal with reality - which is that we have US citizens within artillery range of the NKPA, and North Korea needs to be afraid of what we might do if they do not adhere to the norms of international behavior.

Elwar

11-23-2010, 02:43 PM

One of the great things about the Internet is that life consists of simple either or choices - anybody that disagrees with me must believe X. Real life consists of a number of options and involves other players in the game, who each make independent choices.

There are ways of getting this done that don't require sending in Marine rifle companies. Part of effective diplomacy (and business negotiation for that matter) involve credible threats. When advocating a policy that restricts options, the diplomacy becomes more difficult. Many on this board don't go for the gun control propaganda. paradoxically, being heavily armed is the best way to deter attack. Why should it work differently between countries?

Credible threats keep the peace.

I'll type this again very slowly. We should be getting out of foreign entanglements - but WE ARE NOT THERE YET!. Until we get there, we have to deal with reality - which is that we have US citizens within artillery range of the NKPA, and North Korea needs to be afraid of what we might do if they do not adhere to the norms of international behavior.

South Korea has an army that is big enough to take care of themselves.

They should hire all of the US contractors that are there if they want. We shouldn't be paying one cent into this scuffle between nations on the other side of the world.

tremendoustie

11-23-2010, 02:46 PM

I'll type this again very slowly. We should be getting out of foreign entanglements - but WE ARE NOT THERE YET!. Until we get there, we have to deal with reality - which is that we have US citizens within artillery range of the NKPA, and North Korea needs to be afraid of what we might do if they do not adhere to the norms of international behavior.

You refer to "we" as some national collective. "We have ... We might ...". If you want to finance some sort of action against NK, feel free -- but you don't have a right to force me to do so.

Heck, depending on the situation, I might even support a particular action to stop an aggressor.

tremendoustie

11-23-2010, 02:46 PM

South Korea has an army that is big enough to take care of themselves.

They should hire all of the US contractors that are there if they want. We shouldn't be paying one cent into this scuffle between nations on the other side of the world.

Agreed -- especially if "we" is the federal government.

Pericles

11-23-2010, 02:50 PM

What Contract?

Do you mean the UN Charter?
I am all for disposing of it in entirety.
:cool:

From http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2800.htm

Under the 1953 U.S.-R.O.K. Mutual Defense Treaty, the United States agreed to help the Republic of Korea defend itself against external aggression. In support of this commitment, the United States has maintained military personnel in Korea, including the Army's Second Infantry Division and several Air Force tactical squadrons. To coordinate operations between these units and the over 680,000-strong Korean armed forces, a Combined Forces Command (CFC) was established in 1978. The head of the CFC also serves as Commander of the United Nations Command (UNC) and U.S. Forces Korea (USFK). The current CFC commander is General Walter “Skip” Sharp.

Several aspects of the U.S.-R.O.K. security relationship are changing as the U.S. moves from a leading to a supporting role. In 2004 an agreement was reached on the return of the Yongsan base in Seoul--as well as a number of other U.S. bases--to the R.O.K. and the eventual relocation of all U.S. forces to south of the Han River. Those movements are expected to be completed by 2016. In addition, the U.S. and R.O.K. agreed to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Korea to 25,000 by 2008, but a subsequent agreement by the U.S. and R.O.K. presidents in 2008 has now capped that number at 28,500, with no further troop reductions planned. The U.S. and R.O.K. have also agreed to transfer wartime operational control to the R.O.K. military on April 17, 2012.

As I believe in the Constitution of the United States and swore an oath to uphold the same, (which on occasion makes me an odd duck on this board) I'm obligated to uphold those treaties legally entered to by the President as properly ratified by the Senate.

tremendoustie

11-23-2010, 02:55 PM

As I believe in the Constitution of the United States and swore an oath to uphold the same, (which on occasion makes me an odd duck on this board) I'm obligated to uphold those treaties legally entered to by the President as properly ratified by the Senate.

No, you're not. The constitution is a document that limits the federal government. To swear an oath to it means you will stand against federal government actions that exceed those limits -- it doesn't mean you endorse or will support every action within those limits.

If taxes were raised to 100%, or they passed a constitutional amendment re-instituting slavery, would you support it, and participate in its enforcement? I hope not.

Acala

11-23-2010, 02:57 PM

Neither you nor I can undo the past. Pretending that we can is one of the reasons in my view why libertarianism does not get more traction from the rest of the citizenry.?

The past is past. In the present we simply march the soldiers home and that is the end of OUR problem in Korea.

Like it or not, the USA took on the role of S. Korea's private security company. I wasn't asked if it was a good idea, either.?

We marched in, we can march right out again. We are under no obligation to defend any other nation.

Do we unilaterally break the contract?

1. There ain't no contract.

2. If there WAS a contract it would be void for lack of Constitutional authority for the US to become a security force for another country.

3. Contracts are breached ALL the time. If this is a contract, breach it!

4. Contracts that have no specified duration will be presumed to have a reasonable duration. Fifty years is beyond reasonable. Contract terminated.

Your view means perpetual war because in your view we can't withdraw from an engagement until it is won. But all of our wars are unwinnable by design. Therefore, they last forever.

pcosmar

11-23-2010, 02:58 PM

Pericles, Though I respect you, I disagree with you on this.

This latest round of bullshit was started by the sinking of a S Korean ship.
It was sunk by a German made torpedo, most likely fired from a US sub engaged in training with the S Koreans. Regardless whether it was an accidental "Friendly Fire" incident or a False Flag attack is irrelevant.
N Korea was blamed and the shit storm started.

It is something we should have never been involved in in 1945. Should have not been involved in in the 50s and should have no presence there today. It could have been ended in the 50s were it not for UN interference. But that is what they do.

The US is going down the tubes. We will have no other role than to be the enforcer of UN policy.
To raise children to be good soldiers for the UN Police forces.

Reality sucks.

robert9712000

11-23-2010, 02:59 PM

I think if more countries in the world had nuclear weapons, this would be a more peaceful world.

For one ,the US would be less likely to meddle in other countries affairs if they could actually retaliate against the US, to a point that the average American would experience how horrible war is.Instead of just seeing it on TV with no more care about what we do than the same care that's applied to whose gonna be on dancing with the stars.

Second,people always apply the logic that everyone having nukes means its gonna be a mass world destruction,but in reality with a very small exception world leaders aren't suicidal and want to retain there power.So therefore i highly doubt nukes will ever be used in war again.The only reason we did initially is because we were the only ones that had em.If the Japanese had had nukes back then i almost guarantee we wouldn't have dropped the bomb.

Acala

11-23-2010, 03:00 PM

From http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2800.htm

As I believe in the Constitution of the United States and swore an oath to uphold the same, (which on occasion makes me an odd duck on this board) I'm obligated to uphold those treaties legally entered to by the President as properly ratified by the Senate.

The President is not authorized under the Constitution to obligate the US to defend another country. Therefore, the war in Korea is unconstitutional and you are not only not obligated to participate but your support for it is undermining the Constitution.

agitator

11-23-2010, 03:00 PM

I wasn't aware that the United States was a privately held company.

It is a corporation. And it does seem the bankers own it.

Acala

11-23-2010, 03:07 PM

Pericles

11-23-2010, 03:08 PM

The President is not authorized under the Constitution to obligate the US to defend another country. Therefore, the war in Korea is unconstitutional and you are not only not obligated to participate but your support for it is undermining the Constitution.

The treaty power is only limited by the treaty may not contradict other provisions of the Constitution. From Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing.

This is why it is important not to have a huge standing Army - because the requlars can be sent hither and yon at whim as long as Congress funds it. When you have to call forth the Militia (which has Constitutional limitations on its use), this crap would come to a stop.

Vessol

11-23-2010, 03:12 PM

It is a corporation. And it does seem the bankers own it.

It's not a valid corporation though. It's income is not gathered through legitimate means, but rather through coercion and violence.

Kludge

11-23-2010, 03:12 PM

And Cambodia, and Laos .........

From my point of view, selling material so others can invade their neighbors ought to violate the libertarians sacred NAP. This is why I find that view that we erred in not selling war material to Japan so they could continue to conquer China, Korea, and the rest of the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere so interesting.

Interesting problem. Is selling something useful to a bad person necessarily bad?

Semi-related note -- Many people think the major offense by Japan against China during that period of time was the rape of Nanking. I don't think those people have ever heard of Unit 731 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731).

Acala

11-23-2010, 03:15 PM

The treaty power is only limited by the treaty may not contradict other provisions of the Constitution. From Article VI:

This is why it is important not to have a huge standing Army - because the requlars can be sent hither and yon at whim as long as Congress funds it. When you have to call forth the Militia (which has Constitutional limitations on its use), this crap would come to a stop.

The President does not have unlimited treaty powers. The President does not even have the power to deploy troops without a declaration of war. And, of course, there was no such declaration in Korea.

tremendoustie

11-23-2010, 03:16 PM

Pericles, did you see my post on the last page?

Pericles

11-23-2010, 03:20 PM

The President does not have unlimited treaty powers. The President does not even have the power to deploy troops without a declaration of war. And, of course, there was no such declaration in Korea.
One of the points of debate in the War of 1812, was since Congress did declare war, the militia could be used to invade Canada, and was not limited solely to repelling invasion.

pcosmar

11-23-2010, 03:21 PM

This is why it is important not to have a huge standing Army - because the requlars can be sent hither and yon at whim as long as Congress funds it. When you have to call forth the Militia (which has Constitutional limitations on its use), this crap would come to a stop.

Now there I agree 100%.

but it's NOT the reality.

Reality sucks.
:mad:

teacherone

11-23-2010, 03:24 PM

anyway back to the original topic...

anyone else find it weird that there have been no updates?

seems like a news gag order is in place

Pericles

11-23-2010, 03:25 PM

No, you're not. The constitution is a document that limits the federal government.

Says who? Find that language in the Constitution and post it to this thread.

Acala

11-23-2010, 03:26 PM

One of the points of debate in the War of 1812, was since Congress did declare war, the militia could be used to invade Canada, and was not limited solely to repelling invasion.

The improper seizure of power by the Federal government started almost as soon as the ink was dry on the Constitution. That doesn't make it right.

But YOUR position is that we SHOULD be policing the world rather than bringing the troops home to guard our own borders. Isn't it? Or is your position that because we are already involved where we shouldn't be we must stay involved until there is peace in the world? (meaning forever) Or is your position that we should intervene in the affairs of other nations whenever YOU think we should even though they pose no direct or immediate threat to us?

We have been on the brink of this discussion before and now that you are out in the open I would like to get your position clarified.

Pericles

11-23-2010, 03:28 PM

The improper seizure of power by the Federal government started almost as soon as the ink was dry on the Constitution. That doesn't make it right.

But YOUR position is that we SHOULD be policing the world rather than bringing the troops home to guard our own borders. Isn't it? Or is your position that because we are already involved where we shouldn't be we must stay involved until there is peace in the world? (meaning forever) Or is your position that we should intervene in the affairs of other nations whenever YOU think we should even though they pose no direct or immediate threat to us?

We have been on the brink of this discussion before and now that you are out in the open I would like to get your position clarified.

My position is that the US does what it says it will do according to the treaties the US has made with other countries. Do you disagree?

tremendoustie

11-23-2010, 03:40 PM

Says who? Find that language in the Constitution and post it to this thread.

When the constitution says that an agency "will have the power to", that doesn't mean that if you swear an oath to the constitution, you're obligated to support the particular action they take. The constitution describes how the government will work -- an advocacy of the constitution does not mean an endorsement of the particular actions of the persons in power.

Any kind of evil could be done with a constitutional amendment, and most kinds could be done without a constitutional amendment.

Does that mean you're committed to support any kind of evil, so long as its done constitutionally?

Acala

11-23-2010, 03:42 PM

My position is that the US does what it says it will do according to the treaties the US has made with other countries. Do you disagree?

The US should refudiate all treaties that require expenditure of US funds or use of US armed forces for the benefit of other countries or for anything other than defending the borders of this country from direct attack. And we should never make another such treaty. So we disagree.

Pericles

11-23-2010, 03:43 PM

When the constitution says that an agency "will have the power to", that doesn't mean that if you swear an oath to the constitution, you're obligated to support the particular action they take. The constitution describes how the government will work -- an advocacy of the constitution does not mean an endorsement of the particular actions of the persons in power.

Any kind of evil could be done with a constitutional amendment, and most kinds could be done without a constitutional amendment.

Does that mean you're committed to support any kind of evil, so long as its done constitutionally?

That is why oaths are serious business. Still looking for that part of the Constitution that is a limit on the federal government only?

Pericles

11-23-2010, 03:45 PM

The US should refudiate all treaties that require expenditure of US funds or use of US armed forces for the benefit of other countries or for anything other than defending the borders of this country from direct attack. And we should never make another such treaty. So we disagree.

So you don't believe in free trade?

american.swan

11-23-2010, 03:46 PM

This is the Neo-Con, America the Mighty attitude is pretty much INGRAINED in most Conservative voters. This person is a common ally with me on most stuff. But he's one of those coverts via Glenn Beck and Fox News. Its pretty simple to see THEY DON"T GET IT:

okay. how does south korea say "attacks on civilians will not be tolerated" and then barely respond? not to mention two s. korean marines were killed and dozens more injured... how do you say "HEY YOU GOT ME GOOD WITH THAT SUCKERPUNCH. I'M ...NOT GOING TO RESPOND BUT I'M NOT GOING TO TOLERATE IT EITHER" and we just ignore the blatant attack and the pentagon is not moving more forces to the region. and btw, when i turned on talk radio, they're still just talking about the body scanners. PLEASE, what a non-issue. wake up America!

I can't even respond. We discuss Hajek and small government all day. But this is an issue I have with most people. They can't shake it.

Seoul is 30km from NK. It is one of the largest metropolitan areas in the world. A few lives, while valuable and a terrible lose, are a whole lot better than having one of the largest metropolitan areas on earth bombed. NK could level Seoul. Which would you choose?

The current South Korean admin is about as pro-war pro-business like Bush. I want to see video of these 200 rounds from NK. I'm skeptical. Sure, NK could do this. NK might have done this. Until I get more proof, I have no idea. Maybe SK set off some tnt.

tremendoustie

11-23-2010, 03:46 PM

If in a certain case you believe an oath to the constitution implies the endorsement of evil, I don't think you should abide by that oath.

Elwar

11-23-2010, 03:46 PM

anyway back to the original topic...

anyone else find it weird that there have been no updates?

seems like a news gag order is in place

There are squabbles back and forth all the time.

Hopefully they're both sitting back hoping that the other doesn't make the next move.

tremendoustie

11-23-2010, 03:47 PM

That is why oaths are serious business. Still looking for that part of the Constitution that is a limit on the federal government only?

It's evil to take an oath that implies support for evil -- and the right thing to do is to renounce such an oath immediately.

That's not at all the way I interpret an oath to the constitution -- but if it's the way you interpret it, I think such an oath should not be made or kept.

Pericles

11-23-2010, 03:50 PM

If in a certain case you believe an oath to the constitution implies the endorsement of evil, I don't think you should abide by that oath.
There are natural law limits on the Constitution itself - no law can make murder or theft legal.

Now in which article is the Constitution limited to the federal government only?

Acala

11-23-2010, 03:55 PM

So you don't believe in free trade?

How do you derive that? How does limiting our armed forces to our soil impair free trade?

I don't believe in using the armed forces to force "free" trade on anyone or to protect shpping lanes, if that is what you mean. Nor do I believe in "managed" trade a la NAFTA.

But let's get back to clarifying YOUR position. I have stated mine. You are avoiding the subject. Do you or do you not believe that the US government should use its military to intervene in disputes among other nations?

tremendoustie

11-23-2010, 03:55 PM

There are natural law limits on the Constitution itself - no law can make murder or theft legal.

Sure it could. Pass an amendment, it'd be constitutional.

Chattel slavery was constitutional at one time.

The constitution inherently authorizes violations of natural law -- if we're going to put that condition on it.

Now in which article is the Constitution limited to the federal government only?

I don't understand why you keep asking this. The constitution specifically describes what powers particular branches will have, and that they don't have any that are not specifically enumerated.

It does not say that any branch MUST exercise any particular power. A federal government that doesn't do anything at all is completely constitutional -- to advocate that is not to advocate a violation of the constitution.

Pericles

11-23-2010, 04:05 PM

Sure it could. Pass an amendment, it'd be constitutional.

Chattel slavery was constitutional at one time.

I don't understand why you keep asking this. The constitution specifically describes what powers particular branches will have, and that they don't have any that are not specifically enumerated.

It does not say that any branch MUST exercise any particular power. A federal government that doesn't do anything at all is completely constitutional -- to advocate that is not to advocate a violation of the constitution.

I keep bringing up because that notion contradicts Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing.

Why would there be any language that says judges in every state are bound by the Federal Constitution and treaties anything in the state constitutions or laws notwithstanding?

This concept is is also found in Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Which clearly states there are powers prohibited the states by the constitution, thus it can not apply to the federal government only.

This concept that the Constitution is only a limit on the federal government is from a 1833 SCOTUS case. 19th century SCOTUS decisions are as a rule, not well written, as they just decided the case before them, and didn't really seem to get wrapped up in Constitutional interpretation - that is a 20th Century and later thing. It is vitally important that this false view of the Constitution be fought.

Pericles

11-23-2010, 04:08 PM

How do you derive that? How does limiting our armed forces to our soil impair free trade?

I don't believe in using the armed forces to force "free" trade on anyone or to protect shpping lanes, if that is what you mean. Nor do I believe in "managed" trade a la NAFTA.

But let's get back to clarifying YOUR position. I have stated mine. You are avoiding the subject. Do you or do you not believe that the US government should use its military to intervene in disputes among other nations?
It shouldn't, but there are treaty obligations that require it. Get us out of the treaties - fine with me - but don't ever violate an obligation as long as it exists.

I was going to go NAFTA on you since it does require the US to spend money to benefit other nations - but we agree on that.

Acala

11-23-2010, 04:24 PM

It shouldn't, but there are treaty obligations that require it. Get us out of the treaties - fine with me - but don't ever violate an obligation as long as it exists.

So we terminate all foreign entanglements and then the obligation no longer exists. Simple. Treaties only last until one party withdraws. So they are no impediment to ending the world empire.

And you agree that starting from a clean slate we should mind our own business and not interfere in the affairs of other countries or disputes between other countries even if there seems to be good guys and bad guys involved? Or do you believe in policing the world?

Pericles

11-23-2010, 04:40 PM

So we terminate all foreign entanglements and then the obligation no longer exists. Simple. Treaties only last until one party withdraws. So they are no impediment to ending the world empire.

And you agree that starting from a clean slate we should mind our own business and not interfere in the affairs of other countries or disputes between other countries even if there seems to be good guys and bad guys involved? Or do you believe in policing the world?

I don't advocate policing the world. We should mind our own business, and that business includes being aware of threats to the US, which should be negated as early as possible using indirect means. Where we may differ is I do advocate having an effective intelligence service that can effectively analyze what is going on in the world and how those events may impact the US.

To put it in concrete terms, on 7 DEC 41, the first Japanese Zero flying over Hawaiian airspace should have been flamed ASAP because we knew it was coming and were ready to deal with it.

Acala

11-23-2010, 05:06 PM

I don't advocate policing the world. We should mind our own business, and that business includes being aware of threats to the US, which should be negated as early as possible using indirect means. Where we may differ is I do advocate having an effective intelligence service that can effectively analyze what is going on in the world and how those events may impact the US.

To put it in concrete terms, on 7 DEC 41, the first Japanese Zero flying over Hawaiian airspace should have been flamed ASAP because we knew it was coming and were ready to deal with it.

I don't have a problem with gathering intelligence.

Where I think we differ is what YOU consider a threat to the US. The US has not faced a real threat of invasion in my lifetime - 50 years. And that means that we should not have had troops outside our borders or fired a shot in anger in my lifetime.

Where we also may differ is in trying to use covert means to do things we shouldn't be doing by overt means. No assassinations. No messing with elections. None of the usual CIA crap. Just mind our own business and keep an eye out for imminent threat.

And to put it in concrete terms, if we had not been messing around in the Phillippines and China, the Japanese would not have attacked in the first place.

tremendoustie

11-23-2010, 05:06 PM

It shouldn't, but there are treaty obligations that require it. Get us out of the treaties - fine with me - but don't ever violate an obligation as long as it exists.

Sorry, the president doesn't get to create obligations for me. Send him out there if you want.

tremendoustie

11-23-2010, 05:10 PM

I keep bringing up because that notion contradicts Article VI: ...

Perhaps I miscommunicated, or you misunderstood. My point was not that the constitution only concerns the federal government. My point was that the constitution is a limit on what the government can do.

An oath to the constitution is an agreement to oppose expansion of government beyond those limits -- not an agreement to support any and every government action that is within those limits.

GunnyFreedom

11-23-2010, 05:44 PM

Want to retract this? I didn't misinterpret what he said.

OK, you were right, Peri is in favor of fulfilling our treaty obligation to help defend South Korea. I still maintain that Korea is the one place in the world where a non-interventionist can disagree and still be a non-interventionist. I still will take more of an exception against those calling Peri an 'interventionist' than I will take against Peri for having pity/empathy for the situation South Korea is in.

The bottom line is that the situation in Korea is the LEAST clear of all our interventionist/noninterventionist questions around the world. To a large degree, the situation they are now in is due to our original ill-advised involvement. The people of South Korea overwhelmingly want us there, and there are actually sound rational arguments to be made for "best self interest" that simply cannot be made about any other case in the world.

I myself am still a noninterventionist wrt Korea, but I can allow for this one special case that people of our political persuasion disagree on without considering them statists, interventionists or whatever. The situation here is not so crystal clear like it is everywhere else like the Middle East, Germany, Japan, etc. It's just NOT, and no amount of wishing will make it so.

I also say that Korea is the LAST place on the planet Earth than any sane person would want to go to war. The people who claim that North Korea would be crushed in 2 weeks should open war break out there don't have a clue what they are talking about. Open war in North Korea would result in WW2 or Vietnam type casualties at minimum, and may go on like that for a decade. It's just not the sort of soft target that people make it out to be.

Vessol

11-23-2010, 06:05 PM

South Korea admits to firing the first shots?

YouTube - 2nd Korean War? South admits firing first shells in row with North Korea (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O33sfN00oDk)

tangent4ronpaul

11-23-2010, 06:09 PM

There is nothing like a foreign conflict to draw attention away from domestic unrest....

-t

TheHumblePhysicist

11-23-2010, 06:23 PM

tpreitzel

11-23-2010, 06:24 PM

There is nothing like a foreign conflict to draw attention away from domestic unrest....

-t

Uh, huh ... it'll give the air travelers a convenient diversion why suffering through unconstitutional searches and seizures.

Pericles

11-23-2010, 06:34 PM

OK, you were right, Peri is in favor of fulfilling our treaty obligation to help defend South Korea. I still maintain that Korea is the one place in the world where a non-interventionist can disagree and still be a non-interventionist. I still will take more of an exception against those calling Peri an 'interventionist' than I will take against Peri for having pity/empathy for the situation South Korea is in.

The bottom line is that the situation in Korea is the LEAST clear of all our interventionist/noninterventionist questions around the world. To a large degree, the situation they are now in is due to our original ill-advised involvement. The people of South Korea overwhelmingly want us there, and there are actually sound rational arguments to be made for "best self interest" that simply cannot be made about any other case in the world.

I myself am still a noninterventionist wrt Korea, but I can allow for this one special case that people of our political persuasion disagree on without considering them statists, interventionists or whatever. The situation here is not so crystal clear like it is everywhere else like the Middle East, Germany, Japan, etc. It's just NOT, and no amount of wishing will make it so.

I also say that Korea is the LAST place on the planet Earth than any sane person would want to go to war. The people who claim that North Korea would be crushed in 2 weeks should open war break out there don't have a clue what they are talking about. Open war in North Korea would result in WW2 or Vietnam type casualties at minimum, and may go on like that for a decade. It's just not the sort of soft target that people make it out to be.

And let me add another wrinkle. Japan is easily within range on NK missiles, and Japan has to regard NK as a potential threat. As a result of the treaty we forced on Japan to end WWII, we are responsible for Japan's strategic defense.

The basic concept of the rule of law is that it is binding on all, and you don't get to ignore the laws and treaties you don't like.

Pericles

11-23-2010, 06:37 PM

I would like to see N. Korea be destroyed by the BIGGEST EXPLOSION EVER!!! I'll bet if we pool our resources, we could make a bomb big enough to destroy the entire country in one blast! I would be able to see the mushroom cloud from my house in California! That would be awesome!

Of course, South Korea would be hurt too, so I guess that plan is no good, but still, just imagine the epicness...

Of course that was the Eisenhower doctrine of massive retaliation, adopted curiously enough in 1953.

Then the Soviets went us one better than the A-bomb, by detonating the H-bomb in 1953, so the US was playing catch up in terms of throw weight for a few years, until we figured out how to build H-bombs.

kahless

11-23-2010, 06:38 PM

South Korea admits to firing the first shots?

Not really. As part of a drill. South Korea has a right to military exercises on their island and within their territory. If you take North Korea's claim that they were in disputed territory, their retaliation in taking of civilian lives was clearly not necessary.

I am skeptical of any media organization, particularly RT which put that nice spin at the beginning of the report only to correct themselves. USA Today has some details further down in the article.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-11-23-korea-artillery_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

The firing came amid South Korean military drills in the area. North Korea's military had sent a message to South Korea's armed forces early Tuesday to demand that the drills stop, but the South continued them, another military official said.

During the drills, South Korean marines on the island shot artillery toward southern waters, away from North Korea, the official said.

Acala

11-23-2010, 06:48 PM

OK, you were right, Peri is in favor of fulfilling our treaty obligation to help defend South Korea.

So if it is just about treaty obligations, then Peri would also have supported the war in Vietnam, as well as troops in Japan, since those are part of our obligations under SEATO. And troops in Germany are part of our obligations under NATO. Indeed, I would be willing to bet that most, if not all, of our world empire has a treaty to go along with it. A treaty is just a goddamned piece of paper and it does not justify otherwise immoral, unaffordable, and inane acts.

The bottom line is that the situation in Korea is the LEAST clear of all our interventionist/noninterventionist questions around the world. To a large degree, the situation they are now in is due to our original ill-advised involvement. The people of South Korea overwhelmingly want us there, and there are actually sound rational arguments to be made for "best self interest" that simply cannot be made about any other case in the world.

On the contrary, the situation is as clear as can be: North Korea is not a threat to the US and never has been. Therefore, we have no business being involved. The fact that they want us there is totally irrelevant. We have spent fifty years on a fool's errand.

I myself am still a noninterventionist wrt Korea, but I can allow for this one special case that people of our political persuasion disagree on without considering them statists, interventionists or whatever. The situation here is not so crystal clear like it is everywhere else like the Middle East, Germany, Japan, etc. It's just NOT, and no amount of wishing will make it so.

Yes, it IS the same. If this country is not threatened with invasion or destruction, the military has no business being involved. If you accept "policing" Korea, what principled objection can you have to policing the rest of the world? Like everything else in government, foreign policy must be controlled by principle. And like everything else in government failure to keep strict and unwavering controls on its powers and activities results in disaster. That is why our foreign policy is a disaster. Unless you are a bank or military contractor.

Anti Federalist

11-23-2010, 08:40 PM

///

farrar

11-23-2010, 08:43 PM

I know what Einstein's getting at there, but technically you're probably not going to be able to wage a global war with sticks and stones... unless we manage to build the mother of all catapults, capable of ranges of 1,000s of miles :p

hahaha, that is what I thought when I first read that a few years ago. I still have the same distinct metal cinematic clip stuck in my head of a caveman rolling out "the mother of catapults" and a "enemy" just starring at him, droping his pebble and thinking like "wtf?"

farrar

11-23-2010, 08:53 PM

[quote=Pericles;2998046]There are natural law limits on the Constitution itself - no law can make murder or theft legal./quote]

Yeah, the constitution isn't the Declaration of independence. It does not assume any natural rights. I tend to argue that natural rights tend to have a higher authority than law, and where law violates them (even if in the constitution) opposition to such a law is a moral high ground. Unfortunately governments in particular do not let you slide on such "trivial" things as morality.

That said though, I would still prefer rule of law, even if with a few moral lapses, to some sort of tyrant like law.

cindy25

11-23-2010, 09:04 PM

while S Korea had the right to conduct these exercises it was stupid and arrogant of them. Pull out the US bases, and let them fight if they want

ExPatPaki

11-24-2010, 09:41 AM

while S Korea had the right to conduct these exercises it was stupid and arrogant of them. Pull out the US bases, and let them fight if they want

I'm not sure where this obscure right to provoke comes from. Does North Korea have the same right to military exercises in Yeonpyeong involving 70,000 troops, which are to simulate an invasion?

US troops were supposed to be also involved in this very exercise but opted out at the last minute, probably because they knew it would provoke the North Koreans. The two countries have already had skirmishes over this island, one in 1999 and one in 2002. What did the South Koreans expect?