[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-November-12, 04:32, said:

Yes, this is a %&(W)$(^ game.

Its called "Look how stupid Drews is".

It involves pointing out the myriad of mistakes, counter factual, logical inconsistencies, and god knows what else that litter your posts.
You don't really think that people on the forums engage with you because they value your opinion, care what you have to say, or think that they are going to change your mind?
Conversely, do you think that your brilliant logic and detailed knowledge of US - North Korean is going convince anyone of the truth of your ways?

If I want to have an intelligent conversation about this topic I have plenty of options...

This here is the grown up version of pulling wings off of flies.

Excuse me, but I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, apparently you are. I am just posting a viewpoint opposed to the groupthink so prevalent here. We will see how it all turns out at the next elections.

[ldrews]

Watching some new programs this morning I was reminded that the North Korean nuclearization problem doesn't stop with North Korea. The expectation is that North Korea will sell their nuclear/ICBM products to other groups in order to obtain much needed cash. I shudder to think of, for example, jihadist groups with nuclear capability.

[Winstonm]

This, from PBS, offers an understanding of the steps taken over the years with North Korea.

[RedSpawn]

 ldrews, on 2017-November-12, 11:27, said:

Watching some new programs this morning I was reminded that the North Korean nuclearization problem doesn't stop with North Korea. The expectation is that North Korea will sell their nuclear/ICBM products to other groups in order to obtain much needed cash. I shudder to think of, for example, jihadist groups with nuclear capability.

It's very interesting, no one in the global sphere desires to be held hostage by another sovereign country having nuclear capability, but there is a fine line between protecting American interests (whatever that really means) and playing God with people's lives.

Here is a proposition of what true American interests should mean -- very interesting:

Source: http://www.heritage....vital-interests

This is about protecting our people and global citizens AND PROTECTING OUR MARITIME SEA TRADE ROUTES which support our economy and the broader global economy.

We don't need North Korea holding us hostage and fu%^ing up our prosperity which, in part, is based on heavily regulated and guarded sea lanes in the Asia-Pacific rim.

See map below:

[RedSpawn]

 Winstonm, on 2017-November-12, 12:53, said:

This, from PBS, offers an understanding of the steps taken over the years with North Korea.

Good read.

Is there a particular reason no one wants to discuss how the United States abrogated responsibility to honoring clause 13(d) of the Korean Armistice Agreement?

Granted it was in the 1950's but it was a major breach and solidified North Korea's contempt for and suspicion of American interests. If North Korea caught us bringing nuclear capabilities into the region and directly violating the Armistice, should they label us an Axis of Evil?

Have we acted in good faith and have we played an integral part in creating the North Korea that we have grown to hate and worry about?

Quote

History teaches us that man and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. --Abba Eban

Quote

United States abrogation of paragraph 13(d)

Paragraph 13 of the Armistice Agreement mandated that neither side introduce new weapons into Korea, other than piece-for-piece replacement of equipment. In September 1956 the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Radford indicated that the U.S. military intention was to introduce atomic weapons into Korea, which was agreed to by the U.S. National Security Council and President Eisenhower. However paragraph 13(d) prevented the introduction of nuclear weapons and missiles. The U.S. unilaterally abrogated paragraph 13(d), breaking the Armistice Agreement, despite concerns by United Nations allies. At a meeting of the Military Armistice Commission on June 21, 1957, the U.S. informed the North Korean representatives that the United Nations Command no longer considered itself bound by paragraph 13(d) of the armistice. In January 1958 nuclear armed Honest John missiles and 280mm atomic cannons were deployed to South Korea, a year later adding nuclear armed Matador cruise missiles with the range to reach China and the Soviet Union.
The U.S. believed that North Korea had introduced new weapons contrary to 13(d), but did not make specific allegations. North Korea also believed the U.S. had introduced new weapons earlier, citing Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission inspection team reports for August 1953 to April 1954.

North Korea denounced the abrogation of paragraph 13(d). North Korea responded militarily by digging massive underground fortifications resistant to nuclear attack, and forward deployment of its conventional forces so that the use of nuclear weapons against it would endanger South Korean and U.S. forces as well. In 1963 North Korea asked the Soviet Union and China for help in developing nuclear weapons, but was refused.

Following the abrogation of paragraph 13(d), the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission (NNSC) largely lost its function, and became primarily office based in the DMZ with a small staff.

Source: https://www.triposo....T__0ab86078122c

We have downplayed our breach of the Armistice and we have to be intellectually honest and acknowledge that we acted in bad faith, but I am sure we had noble intentions.

[Al_U_Card]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-November-12, 13:33, said:

Good read.

Is there a particular reason no one wants to discuss how the United States abrogated responsibility to honoring clause 13(d) of the Korean Armistice Agreement?

Granted it was in the 1950's but it was a major breach and solidified North Korea's contempt for and suspicion of American interests. If North Korea caught us bringing nuclear capabilities into the region and directly violating the Armistice, should they label us an Axis of Evil?

Have we acted in good faith and have we played an integral part in creating the North Korea that we have grown to hate and worry about?



Source: https://www.triposo....T__0ab86078122c

We have downplayed our breach of the Armistice and we have to be intellectually honest and acknowledge that we acted in bad faith, but I am sure we had noble intentions.

Likely the intelligence agencies furnished the "proof" of NK non-compliance as well ..... and then destroyed those documents at the same time as the JFK stuff...

[RedSpawn]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-November-12, 14:05, said:

Likely the intelligence agencies furnished the "proof" of NK non-compliance as well ..... and then destroyed those documents at the same time as the JFK stuff...

In the legal community, they call this evidence the tasty fruit from the poisonous tree. The United States has proof that NK has violated the Armistice but it has to reveal the illegal data collection and surveillance methods used to obtain said proof. What an interesting conundrum!

So that evidence never sees the light of day because the United States doesn't want to reveal its violation of international law.

It's a lovely way to build trust within the global community.

[RedSpawn]

 ldrews, on 2017-November-12, 11:27, said:

Watching some new programs this morning I was reminded that the North Korean nuclearization problem doesn't stop with North Korea. The expectation is that North Korea will sell their nuclear/ICBM products to other groups in order to obtain much needed cash. I shudder to think of, for example, jihadist groups with nuclear capability.

Perchance is this a slippery slope logical fallacy?

Maybe not as the initial act is somewhat ominous instead of innocuous.

However, the United States is engaging in jingoism with North Korea.

Source: https://en.m.wikiped...g/wiki/Jingoism

[barmar]

 ldrews, on 2017-November-11, 10:54, said:

That is a loaded question. First, my foreign policy success standard in the case of North Korea is to achieve a peaceful resolution. You are the one who seems intent on war and loss of life. Why is that?

You're the one who said Trump is addressing it. But all he's done is warn them how powerful our military is.

[Al_U_Card]

I gather that there are dozens of sealed indictments. Any speculation on those individuals that might be named? Any chance of them NOT being part of the Trump coterie? Any relation to Trump's election debate "promise" to investigate Hilary? Just curious.

[Al_U_Card]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-November-12, 13:11, said:

It's very interesting, no one in the global sphere desires to be held hostage by another sovereign country having nuclear capability, but there is a fine line between protecting American interests (whatever that really means) and playing God with people's lives.

Here is a proposition of what true American interests should mean -- very interesting:

Source: http://www.heritage....vital-interests

This is about protecting our people and global citizens AND PROTECTING OUR MARITIME SEA TRADE ROUTES which support our economy and the broader global economy.

We don't need North Korea holding us hostage and fu%^ing up our prosperity which, in part, is based on heavily regulated and guarded sea lanes in the Asia-Pacific rim.

See map below:

That is quite a map. Any reason why every country is integral but the US has Ca, Or and Wa as separate entities?

[ldrews]

 barmar, on 2017-November-12, 17:58, said:

You're the one who said Trump is addressing it. But all he's done is warn them how powerful our military is.

So to you "addressing" it means already having a solution rather than searching for a solution?

[ldrews]

On this recent Asian trip the US delegation/businesses signed 250 billion dollars of trade agreements. I assume everyone thinks that this is a result of actions that Obama put into place over a year ago.

[rmnka447]

 Winstonm, on 2017-November-12, 12:53, said:

This, from PBS, offers an understanding of the steps taken over the years with North Korea.

Thanks! Interesting piece.

But it seems to infer that North Korea was reacting to US/UN moves rather than US/UN moves being a reaction to things that North Korea was doing. Either is plausible. But the nature of obtaining intelligence in a closed society like North Korea may make it impossible to divulge information that support the latter.

Early in the piece, it mentions that North Korea became a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty participant and had reached agreement with South Korea to not obtain or use atomic weapons. It further stated that it wouldn't let IAEA inspectors examine its nuclear wastes and then dropped out of the NPT. The examination of such waste may provide strong evidence about the nature of NK's nuclear activities. So, denial of such inspection is worrisome and potential indicator that North Korea was surreptitiously going beyond peaceful use of nuclear power.

Additionally, the testing and development of longer range missiles doesn't make sense if all you're able to put on them is conventional explosives. So that too is worrisome.

The article also frames simply in terms of nuclear weapons. But Kim Jung-Un has made it clear that he seeks re-unification of all Korea under his leadership. So part of his nuclear weapons development may be to use it as a bargaining chip to undermine or remove US support of South Korea to enable such a takeover. Or, after he develops such capability and has ICBMs deployed against US targets, use it as a deterent against US support against a conventional weapons attack on South Korea.

[ldrews]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-November-12, 16:41, said:

Perchance is this a slippery slope logical fallacy?

Maybe not as the initial act is somewhat ominous instead of innocuous.

However, the United States is engaging in jingoism with North Korea.

Source: https://en.m.wikiped...g/wiki/Jingoism

Does the same fallacy apply to allowing lots of guns in society being a precursor to lots of shootings?

[RedSpawn]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-November-12, 18:22, said:

That is quite a map. Any reason why every country is integral but the US has Ca, Or and Wa as separate entities?

The CA, OR, and WA represent the states with major sea ports through which goods currently arrive from the Pacific Ocean to enter the United States. These goods are shipped on container ships or the mega-ships and arrive at these sea ports and are docked, unloaded, and logistically processed so that trucking companies or railroad companies receive the payload and deliver it to manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and a bevy of middlemen.

It's a finely tuned and well oiled machine until North Korea demands to be a part of the financial action by becoming a nuclear power, a power broker in the Asia-Pacific Rim, and a major gatekeeper of the Korean Peninsula.

Always follow the money and you will find American interests. This is what America's unbridled consumerism looks like from a maritime perspective:

[ldrews]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-November-12, 20:51, said:

Always follow the money and you will find American interests.

Always follow the money and you will find everybodies' interests. Fixed that for you.

[RedSpawn]

 ldrews, on 2017-November-12, 20:14, said:

On this recent Asian trip the US delegation/businesses signed 250 billion dollars of trade agreements. I assume everyone thinks that this is a result of actions that Obama put into place over a year ago.

To be clear, countries signed trade agreements totaling 25% of a trillion dollars which is the functional equivalent of winning a $1,000,000 lottery, 250,000 separate times. WOW!

We could label this a Trump victory but guess what?

Every president takes international deals that multinational corporations broker in the Asia-Pacific Rim and claim them as their own political victories.

Source: https://www.reuters....a-idUSKBN1D91BZ

Take for example: Boeing. They signed an agreement to sell $37 billion of aircraft to China and Trump said, "See I did that! That's me and America winning so much!" He included that figure in the $250 billion trade total for his visit even though it is highly unlikely he was pivotal to the hard-knuckled trade talks between Chinese government officials and Boeing senior management.

All Trump wanted and needed for his base was a public relations ego boost and the China visit provided the perfect platform for such political commentary especially with an eye-popping $250 billion total. He is doing what politicians do. . . playing to their base.

And Obama signed a trade agreement as well and that deal was allegedly the biggest trade deal since NAFTA but it is dwarfed by the $250 billion trade agreement in China.

Source: http://www.nbcnews.c...-biggest-nafta/

Basically, what's profitable for Corporate America and the Wall Street money handlers is good for their partners, managers, employees, shareholders, and consumers.

And what is profitable for Wall Street and Corporate America is good for wholly-owned politicians whose campaigns are largely financed by crafty, "well-intentioned" billionaires and shadow corporations who funnel dark money through PACs and SUPER-PACs.

NOTE: I used the term "who" since corporations have recently assumed personhood in America's political institutions thanks to our fabulous Supreme Court and the infamous Citizens United ruling.

Rate this a Trump victory, but understand it's the U.S. corporations already domiciled and doing business in China that are the true heroes of this success story. Trump is the good will ambassador who shows up to showcase and champion their victories and accept the trophy on their behalf.

[Winstonm]

 rmnka447, on 2017-November-12, 20:15, said:

Thanks! Interesting piece.

But it seems to infer that North Korea was reacting to US/UN moves rather than US/UN moves being a reaction to things that North Korea was doing. Either is plausible. But the nature of obtaining intelligence in a closed society like North Korea may make it impossible to divulge information that support the latter.

Early in the piece, it mentions that North Korea became a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty participant and had reached agreement with South Korea to not obtain or use atomic weapons. It further stated that it wouldn't let IAEA inspectors examine its nuclear wastes and then dropped out of the NPT. The examination of such waste may provide strong evidence about the nature of NK's nuclear activities. So, denial of such inspection is worrisome and potential indicator that North Korea was surreptitiously going beyond peaceful use of nuclear power.

Additionally, the testing and development of longer range missiles doesn't make sense if all you're able to put on them is conventional explosives. So that too is worrisome.

The article also frames simply in terms of nuclear weapons. But Kim Jung-Un has made it clear that he seeks re-unification of all Korea under his leadership. So part of his nuclear weapons development may be to use it as a bargaining chip to undermine or remove US support of South Korea to enable such a takeover. Or, after he develops such capability and has ICBMs deployed against US targets, use it as a deterent against US support against a conventional weapons attack on South Korea.

You are confused as to timelines. The missile tests came after a successful nuclear test. Also, Kim Jung-un did not come into power until December of 2011.

Most of North Korea's goals are based on survival as a nation.

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-November-12, 20:06, said:

So to you "addressing" it means already having a solution rather than searching for a solution?

If "searching for a solution" is sufficient to be "addressing the problem", how is what Trump is doing different than Obama?