North Korea attacks South Korea over military exercise?

Posted by The Right Scoop The Right Scoop on November 23rd, 2010 in Politics | 58 Comments

via HotAir. Last night North Korea attacked South Korea:

North Korea launched a massive artillery barrage on a South Korean island Tuesday, killing two South Korean marines, wounding at least 14 others and setting more than 60 buildings ablaze in the most serious confrontation since the North’s sinking of a South Korean submarine in March.

South Korea immediately responded with its own artillery barrage and put its fighter jets on high alert, bringing the two sides – which technically have remained in a state of war since the Korean armistice in 1953 – close to the brink of a major conflagration.

South Korea called the shelling of the civilian-inhabited island of Yeonpyeong, which lies near the disputed maritime border separating North and South Korea, a breach of the 57-year-old armistice that halted the Korean War without a peace agreement.

The North fired an estimated 200 artillery shells onto the island, and the South returned fire with about 80 shells from its own howitzers. The attack began just after 2:30 p.m.

According to this CNN news report, North Korea called and demanded that South Korea cease a military exercise. It was after that incident that North Korea attacked:

email



Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FRAOPO3PP2EK7WG3E2YS3MSK5U Star Spankled

    Obama’s weakness has unleashed all the mad dogs on the world ! NO one fears US retaliation anymore , because they know our “President” wont stand up to those who want to wipe us off the map so why would he stand up for our allies. Expect more attacks .
    I get up every morning and wonder if Israel is still there .

    • Anonymous

      I get up wondering if we will still be here.

    • Paulchri

      You shouldn’t worry about Israel. They’ll be fine. When someone gets bullied long enough, they start to seek ways of getting back at the bully. If they can make the bully look weak, all the better. Obama will do what has been planned for him. I try not to get emotionally worked up about these things, because they are just another move on the chess board. The only thing is, there is only one person playing the game, so to speak. Nobody is going to wipe us off the map. We are almost finished as a world power. We need to get used to that. We will be used for our military resources, but our republic is almost over. There will be more attacks, but not from a foreign threat. They will be for the purpose of continuing down the road of the police state and control grid in America. They may set off a dirty bomb and blame it on Iran or Korea. It is called a false flag incident. I am not sure what the media hype about Korea is right now. I thought that they wanted to go after Iran first. Either way, we are screwed and it has nothing to do with a real foreign threat.

  • Sbucca

    Obama wants to shut down camp Gitmo ? Why is president always making the USA look like the bad guy ? We are opened up to more terrorism because of his actions.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770715455 Daniel Tumser

      Red herring, gitmo and terrorism have nothing to do with North Korea. NK is an actual country with a uniformed and flagged military.

      Obama’s weakness more than likely is playing a roll in NK testing it’s cage, but gitmo wouldn’t even be used against North Koreans at all.

    • Paulchri

      Maybe you should re-evaluate how good we are. Then decide what would really cause people to hate us. That might lead you to believe as many do, including Ron Paul. Maybe if we just tended to our own problems and left people alone while defending our borders and keeping people out of our country who don’t like us, we would be more safe. If anybody becomes a “real” threat to us, we can handle it. Have you ever feared a military takeover from another country? Why do you fear supposed terrorists? No country in the world believes we can be overthrown. Why do Americans get their panties in a frizzy about a few Arabs? Why have most of things we have done to stop terrorism in the US been massively oppressive to Americans? Maybe there are other reasons that we kill other people in their own countries, and occupy and control them for almost a decade.

  • http://community.livejournal.com/black_avenger_1/profile Virus-X

    This could be far worse than some people know. A fellow Veteran Soldier that was stationed in South Korea said that Kim Jong-il is even less sane than his father, and that Kim’s son is worse than HIS father.

    The North Koreans have one of the largest standing armies in the world, because they knew they could not match the technological might of the South Koreans’, and the forces of the 8th Army are, numerically, nothing compared to that of what the NORKS have on hand. They were there as a deterrent, and with the Dalai Obama in charge, the deterrent element is NO LONGER THERE (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Biden_Obama_will_be_tested.html).
    Do not forget that the last time we had open warfighting in Korea, the Soviets and Red Chinese intervened, though they tried to do so secretly. The Chinese offensive came through the use of troops AND air support, engaging our infantry and pilots. The Soviets tried to fight even more secretly. Now, things have changed only in the fact that the NORKS are nuclear armed. The Soviets (which I still think of them as) and Red Chinese can’t be happy about this happening in their backyard, but they could be more keen on preventing American intervention and intimidating the Dalai Obama into ordering the 8th to stand down. IF they are unable, IF the Dalai Obama (invertebrate, soft-bodied, gutless mollusk he is) does order PACOM (Pacific Command) and the 8th Army into action, IF the DMZ is crossed by the NORKS, we could be seeing a replay of the Korean War, which was damned near the dress rehearsal for World War 3. What the NORKS did was a blatant act of war between 2 nations that were already AT war, so de-escalation will be pretty difficult.

    • Don17k

      But don’t forget, the last fighting was when Mao was in charge personally. He was not trying to trade with the west. He didn’t export much of any value to Capitalist economies.

      I think if China militarily protected North Korea while they were clearly the aggressor, there would be a boycott of Chinese goods almost worldwide, and that would take the power out of their sales (not a typo) in a hurry.

    • Paulchri

      Why do we care? Don’t we have our own problems to solve. Let them kill each other if they are going to. If they are a direct threat to us, we can handle it. Every war since world war two has been winnable. Yet we won non of them. Why? Don’t say because of politics, because that is BS. It was because we were not there righteously, and we were not there for our own defensive purposes. We are not in Iraq and Afghanistan for defensive purposes either. Americans don’t fight to win anymore. We fight and die for the NWO and their agenda. You really should get to know your owners. As it is we are enslaved to the central banks, and under growing numbers of international treaties that govern us. We don’t elect people that serve us, we elect people that sell us out. Without exception for the last sixty years plus.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770715455 Daniel Tumser

        America won Gulf War 1 and 2 as well as a few other non-declared military adventures around the world.

        America isn’t constantly at war because it’s some masterful powerplay of the illuminati or whatever the tinfoil hats tell people today. America is perpetually at war because war rallies people into collective/group/tribal thinking under whichever flag the belligerent flies and gets that population to happily permit further invasion of their rights/property.

        It happens constantly, this is why those on the left always phrase things like “the war on drugs,” it’s to get the moral equivalence of war so people will be ginned up into a righteously compliant collective submitting to the state apparently on their own. Wars cause an unrivaled expansion of the state, so it’s in the interest of the state’s power to constantly enter wars.

        You don’t need a global conspiracy, it’s American governments doing it to Americans, including the conservative messiah Reagan.

        • Paulchri

          I don’t know much about the Illuminati, but I do know about the G20, IMF, UN, WTO, and the like. I also know that the Bilderger Group meets in private and consists of many reps from all major power nations in the world. I know that information leaked from those meetings most often comes true. Information like agreeing to go start a war and what they want to do with it. The UN is the public world government. Bilderbergers and the like are the world government that decides who is going to do what as sovereign nations in private. Globalist have written books about what they want to do. They say as much in interviews. Those interviews don’t make main stream in America, but they do in Europe. Europe is closer to accepting it. If our gvnmt wanted us to compete in world markets as a sovereign nation, they wouldn’t have signed us into NAFTA. They knew the effects of that. Everyone did. They are systematically destroying our economy, putting us under international treaties to be governed by, and creating a police state control grid. That is not an accident, unless you believe they are more ignorant than the average American who pays attention to what they are doing. If you look at the record, both the left and the right have played us to do the same things to us in a continuous progression almost without fail. Tribalism is used to manipulate us, but showmen in the house and senate don’t believe in a principled left and right. They know who puts them there. It is not small donors. Billion dollar candidacies are not funded by small donors. The money comes through the fed res banking system. If you don’t think that world government is something that our politicians have been putting us under and are moving us to, then don’t worry about the globalists. If you think that they are, then the question is “do they do this because it is truly good for us to give up our sovereignty”?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770715455 Daniel Tumser

            I never expect that the government does anything solely for the benefit of the people it CLAIMS authority over, or necessarily any benefit. I also don’t think that there is anybody competent enough in the bureaucratic monstrosity to manage what you’re saying.

            I’ve dealt with enough bureaucracy and politicians in person to come to the conclusion that this is less the dark side and Dark Vader and more bumbling.

            I don’t doubt people want a world government or that the EU is way ahead in moving to it. What I also know is that the EU is in the middle of enormous domestic backlash from the people and some members of parliament. Whether they have the balls to take that backlash where it needs to go we will see.

            I’m an Agorist, all government is equally legitimate in my eyes, not legitimate at all. As governments grow and expand and intrude upon peoples rights and disregard them more and more, the more people will either violently or non-violently resist and work outside the system. I don’t except the concept of a global government any more than I accept the United States Government.

            The only silver lining to people establishing a world government is that it would mean there is only 1 government to wither away and destroy before everyone is free.

            • Paulchri

              Wouldn’t and Agorist do better in a system of less control? At some point, control can stifle any movement. The Jews in 1930s and 40s Germany either fled, or were completely repressed unto death. One sector of society was used against the other. I agree that none of this would be possible without the consent of the people, but human nature through fear generally promotes submission to the oppressor. All they have to do is get a certain portion of society to act out against the other using fear, as they do with the terrorist issue. Look what they have been able to get people to do and accept.

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770715455 Daniel Tumser

                Yes, the desire is total freedom but Agorist theory doesn’t simply end with people living counter-economically if it’s on the hypothetical scale mentioned earlier. Theoretically at that point the people would be black market armed to the point if the government wished to quash the people again it would be a losing or no-win war. The ideal is to starve the state into non-existence resulting in non government at all due to lack of revenue to fund it’s oppression.

                The goal of Agorism is a Market Anarchy, likely it can only get that far through reaction to totalitarianism but the appeal before then is the ability for people to liberate themselves independently from state economic tyranny without a requirement of a widespread “class consciousness” like that nonsense Marx vomited up years ago.

                • Paulchri

                  It seems to me that the states were essentially set up that way. If a state wanted to allow its people to live this way, it could. The militias were essentially the same thing. Well regulated “within” the state and locally organized. States rights could, theoretically, allow for an Agorist existence. That existence would be another check on states ability to become tyrannical, which by default would make the fed gvnmt less of a threat. As I see it, the only fed involvement allowed in commerce is disputes between the states, not private citizens or their movements. According to our supreme law, at least.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770715455 Daniel Tumser

                  Except that for there to be a “state” in the sense of those 50 things represented in the flag, there has to be a government to set the borders for where that state ends. That government is then going to claim the authority to regulate behaviors over the people living within those arbitrarily set lines in the dirt. That illusion of authority will then be enforced by a necessary State monopoly on violence and the initiation/threat of it on people who do not fall in line.

                  In the old west it wasn’t so much as enforcement of laws in our normal sense, because laws are handed down by a legislative body binding everyone. (not counting Natural Law) It was a system of resolving disputes, and RESPONDING to the destructive/coercive initiation of force naturally flowing from innate self-interest and empathy.

                  Agorism is Anarcho-Capitalism achieved through non-aggressive non-political means (counter-economics). Agorist Class Theory is the notion that through individual empowerment and the encroachment of the Political (plundering) class that the Plundered Class will evade the overreach of the state. This would result in the cycle describe earlier.

                  In a way it’s like the Marxist Class Theory, except it’s about INDIVIDUAL freedom and the power of the marketplace. But where it is alike is that Marx said that the oppression of the Bourgeoisie would overtime result in enough collective class consciousness in the proletariat for them to rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie, the Vanguard and Vanguard Elite would take over the system of the Bourgeoisie to clear away the remnants of capitalism and usher in stateless classless socialism/communism.

                  Agorist Class Theory says that the Political Class through the natural process of governments expanding will drive the Plundered class (the individuals/the capitalists) away, depriving the state of revenue. The cycle eventually starving the government into collapse, dissolving the Red/White/Grey/Black market distinctions leaving nothing but Agora, the truly free market.

                  There hasn’t been a TRUE example in history of a completely libertarian anarchism, so the old west isn’t a perfect example, nor was medieval iceland. It was just an example of what MIGHT happen through peoples voluntary stateless associations.

                • Paulchri

                  I agree that it is too bad that we need nationalism for the purpose of protection against others who would invade or corrupt. Either way, human nature serves as the element of destruction to all theories. It may be possible to have short periods of freedom in a society, but the world will not allow it for long. I have a desire for rebellion against the oppression of the State, but am forced to consider first the practicality of that desire, as in all possibilities as well. Practically speaking, I think the best chance we have is our constitutional republic. When Lincoln attacked sovereign states and forced obedience, he ended any possibility of conserving our constitutional republic. We would have to go back to that point, to even put a dent in the State’s control and tyranny. I too am not a fan of the states either. I am more of a county person. A county is a small enough area to allow for preservation of freedoms. The sheriff is supposed to have more authority than any federal tyrant. Militias were supposed to be on the local level as well. If we have to deal with mutually shared destruction, it would be nice to have it on the county level. Just give every county a nuke, and when Multnomah county in Oregon takes away our rights by vote, we could just nuke em. Then the next time someone screwed with us, they would have to nuke us before they did it. Before you know it there would be a chain reaction of nukes all across the country and we wouldn’t have to worry about it anymore. Heh heh.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770715455 Daniel Tumser

                  I fully concede that presently a Libertarian Anarchism is just as impossible as Anarcho-Syndicalism (theoretical communism/stateless socialism).

                  The following addresses the majority of people, not 100% population

                  For Libertarianism to work it long term it requires people to fully be persons in the sense that Immanuel Kant meant it. He felt that it was Mankind’s rationality that primarily differentiated us from the other animals, it gives us our dignity.

                  In this situation people would have to be what Kant would also call Autonomous, the combination of freedom and responsibility. There would also need to be widespread respect for or application of either the Non-Aggression Axiom, Natural Law or The Veil of Ignorance.

                  If any or all of these are to be the case, there has to be education both in elevating peoples thinking philosophically and their ability to relate to other human beings who are different.

                  Outside the realm of practicality though and purely on a ethical/theoretical level, the Hobbesean scare arguments most people put out are not arguments for a state as much as they are appeals against chaos. This is in line with the Hobbesean assumption about the “State of Nature.” Missing the point entirely though for most of these people is the fact that just because the state of nature may be bad does not mean that the bad of Government is suddenly justified.

                  The same problem again occurs with people who argue the Lockean social contract, that the state is to protect our rights, natural or civil. In ethical philosophy Kant responded as a Deontologist to the idea of mercy killings and euthanasia that they are logically absurd, the idea of destroying yourself to save yourself does not work for him.

                  The states entire myth of authority is predicated on the notion that it can intrude upon anyone and violate people according to it’s own rules. How can something which necessarily violates everyones rights be justified as the guardian of rights?

                  I wonder which is the cause or effect, my Libertarianism or my affinity for Virtue Ethics.

                • Paulchri

                  So in other words “we are screwed”.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770715455 Daniel Tumser

                  Presently, but there is no historical precedent for the kind of population I’m speaking of. The most apparent and dire obstacle to my eyes is mankind’s tribalism, I am not yet convinced this is part of our nature which is unalterable as our selfishness clearly is. A libertarian anarchism would be much more likely to succeed on the long term in smaller or more homogeneous populations like medieval Iceland was for centuries, though not completely libertarian. I don’t see myself or many of my peers of Generation Y rejecting tribalistic labels as anomalies but the product of long-term exposure and interaction with people and ideas which are different from ourselves and our own ideas.

                  It has taken a long time for the State to inculcate this reflexive mentality of state-sponsored subsistence, collectivist thinking, omission of Natural Law ethics and submission to Hobbesean fear-mongering. It will likewise take time to re-cultivate a rebellion inspiring sense of individual self-respect, dignity and reciprocal altruism which was at one point relatively common place on this continent.

                  The wide-spread and outspoken advocation of radical Lockean Natural Law was not a spontaneous event in colonial America, it was the result of a long process of people arguing it and people being more receptive to it in response to a progressively repressive and distant central government. Cato’s Letters are a prime example of this, originally published in England they were eventually brought over and republished in the colonies.

                  The expansion and intrusion of government we see today is a travesty but all circumstances, good or bad, present opportunities and it’s reaching critical mass with more people today than in decades, maybe centuries.

                  Rothbard and Konkin disagree vehemently about how to do things, but they both agreed it would take time. Entrepreneurs and public school teachers alike can both tell you that perseverance is a principle virtue.

                  Never despair, always look for what can be made over where you find yourself.

  • Vidg2003

    • Obomba

      Yes We Can’t…

  • NORTH KOREA SUCKS

    The North Koreans are a bunch of small-dicked pussies that feel the need to bully others with war. They are also pissed off that South Koreans have more beautiful women. Which is a result of North Koreans abusing their women when they laugh at their small North Korean dicks.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/MVKB24PATKM3BXCRTLD62FUKK4 Richard

    Here we have North Korea bullying his neighbour by sinking a ship and now attacking the territory with no retaliations.South Korea with no backbone is complaining to the teacher (the UN).Never mind the sanctions the belligerent is used to it,the South Korea should be provided with a nuke,it has a full grown dragon to fight.That nuke could provide a cold war hopefully,because world war III is in the making

    • Don17k

      I would recommend a retaliation in kind.

      We know where the artillery came from. That installation should be leveled. Their submarine sank an South Korean ship, the sub needs to be destroyed. If we can’t locate the sub, the base it would have come from needs to be destroyed.

      Retaliations lose their effectiveness in direct proportion to the delay in implementation, of course. Ideally, the artillery installation should have been wiped out within an hour after the guns fell silent. The message to Kim, and to his military personnel, would be that when they swing a punch, they lose that fist.

      Ideally, the military at some level, will put their country ahead of their leader, and refuse to carry out his orders. He might execute a general… but I don’t think he’ll kill everyone on that base. We have to make it clear that WE WILL!

      • Marie

        A retaliation by who? I hope you’re not talking about us…

        “We have to make it clear that WE WILL!”… We will….what? What will we do?

        Just curious, I want to make sure of what you are saying…

        • Don17k

          A retaliation by us. We have 25000+ troops there, and they aren’t on vacation. Regardless of what you might have heard the media say that this is the most violence since the Korean War “ended in 1953,” it did not end. There was a truce, nothing more. The North Koreans have broken that truce. I think we have as much right to respond to this as we ever did in 1950-52. As far as I know, UN 83 still stands.

          And I was saying we have to make it clear that there’s a stiff price for launching an attack. If a NK base launches an attack resulting in deaths, that base will be destroyed, and any personnel remaining there are in jeopardy.

          • Marie

            So you are saying that we should go to war with N. Korea? Why? Why should we do that? How would that benefit US or help US in anyway? Why should we get involved? Why should American soldiers die for another country….AGAIN?

            I know, I sound like a 2 year old with the whys….but I really want to understand why we have to try to take care of the rest of the world when we can’t even take care of ourselves…..

            • Don17k

              I didn’t say go to war again. We’re actually still at “war” with them. It never ended. But I’m not talking about any boots on the ground. I’m talking about a measured response to their action. They used torpedoes and artillery shells, not troops. No American troops would be placed in harm’s way.

              • Marie

                If we retaliate that’s exactly what will happen. War, and troops being harmed.

                And you didn’t answer any of my whys….

                • Don17k

                  I did answer, you must have missed it.

                  Why “go to war” with North Korea? We already are at war with them, just as we have been for 60 years, since Truman was President.

                  How would it benefit the US? It will be a chance to write a formal end to the conflict there, which will mean we’ll be able to pull out most of the 28000 troops we deploy there on a constant, year-round basis (that’s down from 37000 during Bush’s and Clinton’s Presidencies, but we may have to ramp it back up now anyway….)

                  And why should Americans die for another country again? I don’t think any would die, because the action I’m advocating doesn’t involve troops, just missiles. But if there were any US casualties, it would be very few, and it would be so that their buddies can come home from there, and so that others wouldn’t have to go.

                  Under no circumstances should we deploy nukes anywhere near the region. The two Koreas are much too close in proximity, and the winds in the area too strong, especially in winter. Radiation clouds would tend to blow all over.

                • Anonymous

                  This is Marie…I’m actually signed in this time…
                  I didn’t miss a thing….well maybe I did…you say we have been at war with Korea for 60 years…..I must have missed that one. We haven’t been fighting with them, like bang bang shootem up fighting….I’m not a very smart person but I do know that we aren’t fighting a war with them. We don’t like their policies or the way they do things but we aren’t at war….

                  Why do WE need to end the conflict over there?

                  “But if there were any US casualties, it would be very few”…Sorry but very few…to many in my book.
                  We don’t need to get involved in their crap. And you haven’t given me any good reasons why we should. If it’s because we have troops over there….bring them home.

                  All this is null and void anyway. Our government is so damn stupid, they’re gonna get involved anyways…
                  I think I’m done with this conversation….it truly annoys me….

                • Don17k

                  The conflict began in 1950, as a result of North Korea’s invasion of South Korea. The UN passed Resolution 83, authorizing force, and we responded, along with several other nations. In 1953, there was a truce. That’s just a cease-fire. But the conflict was never resolved and there was no peace treaty, and that’s why we’ve had tens of thousands of troops stationed there for the last 60 years… to repel invasions of South Korea and to respond to attacks on them.

                  Well, there have now been two attacks in a month, and dozens of people have been killed. Kim Jong Il is about 83. His son is ready to take over, and it looks like more aggressive behavior will be coming from them in the near future. Sanctions clearly don’t work, because Kim’s family doesn’t feel it. If there was only one sack of rice left in the country, you can guess who would be eating and who wouldn’t, right?

                  Are the tens of thousands of troops we have over there active combat troops, or Christmas decorations?

                  You want reasons for America to get involved… KIA and Hyundai alone employ tens of thousands of Americans in America. If North Korea invades, those companies are gone, along with many other South Korean companies who employ thousands more in America. There’s billions of dollars of trade, thousands more jobs. There are also the American interests in South Korea that we need to protect.

                • Anonymous

                  KIA and Hyundai….. I think I get it now….money? Well maybe if we would build here in our own country, we wouldn’t have to worry about that…. Killing to keep jobs in a country that we shouldn’t even be working in, makes no sense to me….

                  I just can’t understand your thinking on this….at all.

                • Don17k

                  KIA and Hyndai do build cars here. They employ tens of thousands of Americans, in America. But I only brought it up because you for a reason why American interests are involved if South Korea is taken over. And this doesn’t even take into account the American investment in Korea.

                  I advocate the use of remote-launched force to destroy the bases from which the North Koreans launch attacks that kill people. If they were just shooting their artillery as a show of force… at targets placed at a range to demonstrate that they could shell populated areas of South Korea if they wanted to…

                  I would say respond in kind to that, let them know that we could do the same. You know, they shoot our hat off her head… we shoot their hat off theirs. But if they start shooting the toes off people’s feet, it’s time to shoot their trigger-finger off their hand. If we can’t do that, then shoot the gun-hand off their wrist.

    • Paulchri

      Why not just mind our own dang business? Why do we care if N Korea takes out SK? Why not let the world blow themselves to kingdom come, and just protect ourselves? We have no responsibility to it, and no right either. Have you ever heard of entangling alliances? Someone once said “stay the heck out of them”. That was good advice.

  • Jonnyboy

    it’s amazing what weakness and incompetence is showing through this crap in chief. the media can spin it all they want but guess what, the world and the rest of Americans know what kinda cowardice pathetic narcissist he is.

    honestly, if he treats our allies like Israel like crap can you imagine what he thinks of you? don’t think for a second that he actually would sacrifice anything for you.

  • Jonnyboy

    it’s amazing what weakness and incompetence is showing through this crap in chief. the media can spin it all they want but guess what, the world and the rest of Americans know what kinda cowardice pathetic narcissist he is.

    honestly, if he treats our allies like Israel like crap can you imagine what he thinks of you? don’t think for a second that he actually would sacrifice anything for you.

  • Ikemen1

    NORTH KOREA is control by China..China shot a missile 30 miles of the coast of California a few weeks ago… China Flexing her Muscles.. China is the new Super Power… USA got lazy,fat and stupid..

    • Paulchri

      I’ll agree with you on the stupid part. Why is China in this position today? We are stupid, that is why. We don’t make them compete fairly with tariffs anymore. We buy all their toxic goods made by slave labor. They take the money and buy our debt. We bring them from 1950s technology to current in the 1990s. (thanks to traitor Clinton) They have the upper hand in almost every respect, because we set it up that way. China is no real threat to us. The reason is because we leave them alone, and let them use us as a tool to get what they want. They know, as Hitler and Japan did, that they cannot take us militarily, so they succeeded in helping take us down economically. As they stated they would a long time ago.

      • http://community.livejournal.com/black_avenger_1/profile Virus-X

        Tariffs isn’t the way to compete fairly. If you want to get a bigger marketshare, then you simply build a better mouse trap. You don’t tax people for buying somebody else’s, or tax somebody for selling their own to you. The US hasn’t made any effort to make the nation a more fertile ground for small business, because the federal government has been far too concerned with spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax. It’s gotten so far out of hand, they now tax you for how successful you are, they tax you for taking a good risk on someone else’s success, then tax you after you die, if you have the audacity to try leaving goods or money to your kids, as opposed to the US Treasury and IRS. If we were to stop this tax-mania, eliminate all federal agencies and functions that are un-Constitutional, we’d save in the trillions, pretty easily. With that, in a few short years (maybe 5 – 8), we could completely pay off foreign debtors (like the Red Chinese of the PRC), domestic debt (to Wall Street private investors) and even eliminate such things as income tax, altogether (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLD6VChcWCE). With taxes lowered to both individuals and entities, you get two benefits. The businesses have the capital, now, to hire, as opposed to outsourcing internationally for cheap labor. Also, the employees have bigger checks for a variety of reasons.

        1: The companies that can afford to pay them more probably will, in order to keep them, considering the job market will be a seeker’s market, as opposed to the company’s market (like it is, now).

        2: The federal government will be letting them keep a lot more of that money their jobs give them.

        With the increased money in pocket, they are able to exercise their increased buying power, and businesses will compete for that money. This is how we defeat China, not by adopting their flawed and stupid ways. China has a captive audience and dirt cheap labor, but a consequence of that is poor quality. As for not being able to take us militarily, don’t kid yourself. We’re funding their military quite heavily, between giving them MIRV technology, to paying for a revamped PRC Navy, and they are a significant threat:

        http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/china%E2%80%99s-military-threatens-america-we-will-hurt-you/

        http://lonelyconservative.com/2010/10/obama-dismantles-americas-economy-while-funding-chinas-military/

        http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/20/144237.shtml

        http://rightwingnews.com/2010/11/wnd-report-missile-launch-off-california-likely-from-chinese-sub/

        The Nazis and Imperial Japanese thought no such thing, along the lines of ‘they can’t take us’. That’s ignorance and BS. The Japanese, if they didn’t believe they could take us, certainly wouldn’t have launched a first strike against us, and the Nazis certainly wouldn’t have declared war on us, shortly thereafter. While the Chinese don’t have the ability to go head-to-head with us in the Pacific or Atlantic, that doesn’t mean those are their only means of fighting with us, considering they’d most likely be getting help from the Soviets (i.e.: federated Russians), NORKS and Iranians, two of which are very close to American soil, and very much within (missile) striking distance.

        • Paulchri

          I agree with most of what you are saying, but there needs to be an equalizer of the cost of goods from slave run countries. Or, just quit trading with them. Have been purposely de-industrialized. Our industry was the foundation of our economy. Unless we produce something, we cannot stay alive, or competitive. Our forests have been shut down by executive order. Our natural resources have been “preserved” by extreme environmentalism. This was a planned event. We have signed treaties that let the world put us out of business. The national GDP is a joke. Those numbers are fraudulent. They are based on non-production factors. This is just another thing they use to fool people into thinking we have a strong economic foundation. I really started questioning Bush the first time he said “the fundamentals of our economy are strong”. I knew better almost ten years ago.

          We will not end up in hyper inflation and a greatest depression on accident. It is not just “those silly ignorant politicians” making mistakes that is causing it. Taxing and spending is a big part of how they are going about it, but I would simply argue that there are almost no politicians on the scene right now who will do what it will take to stop it. Even if they do, we are in for a nightmare in this country. It literally cannot be stopped.

          Have been consistently selling us out for many years. This happens on both sides of the fence. To correct it, you have to believe that the Federal Reserve will be shut down. You have to believe that congress will take control of our money supply and do politically impossible things with it. We would have to become protectionists and let our industry thrive again. We would have to fire 2/3 of the federal gvnmt. We would have to end SS and medicare at least for the younger people. We would have to nullify mountains of legislation that helped create the problem. We would have to get rid of 80% of all taxation.

          Tariffs used to pay for our federal gvnmt, before we had income tax’. Tariffs protected our industries. Tariffs made countries like China compete with us at our level of standards, and would take away their power in the world. Not a bad idea, if you ask me.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770715455 Daniel Tumser

            Tariffs accomplish nothing but artificially skew the market to encourage further incompetent manufacture by local industry while the rest of the market marches on.

            This is what we saw with the tariffs on Japanese autos decades ago. What happened? Americans put off buying new cars as long as they could, being a durable good car markets can sure slow down like that very well. American auto quality did not improve because they American companies felt not incentive to, Government furthered the strangling regulations and American consumers saw that Japanese cars were of higher quality and lasted longer.

            Americans would have ended up saving money with Japanese cars anyway but here’s the real kicker. Cars being the durable goods they are, Americans just waited the tariffs out and after experiencing the crap, they went to Japanese cars.

            Protectionist policies like trade wars by tariff would do nothing but further ace this region out of the marketplace and screw us over. Our market is not enough to collapse the entire world singlehandedly anymore.

            • Paulchri

              I believe what you are saying is true to some extent, but if our markets were free, that wouldn’t be a problem. The big 3 and the crony corporate gvnmt kept many companies from popping up and competing with quality vehicles in America. After WW2, Japan was not free to run themselves as they wished. They were forced to change their culture and buy into the globalist model, which required a more westernized approach to culture and society. A free market allows the best to win. We haven’t had that since the Fed Res was established. (1913) Since then, we have had a private central bank creating money without public knowledge, and giving it out to those that it wanted. Only banks and companies were supported that followed their wishes, just as the federal government hands out our money to states an controls them with it.

              I agree, tariffs are not the only answer, but can be used to protect a free market society from falling economically to countries with slave labor. Otherwise we will never compete in a world market without incentives for others to raise their game. If we utilized our natural resources, we would not be nearly as dependent on world trade, but could be much more independent. If you take away our dependence, you take away our need to compete in world markets. Otherwise, the only natural conclusion is the eventual loss of our sovereignty, economic status, and power to adequately defend ourselves.

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770715455 Daniel Tumser

                We haven’t had a free market for a lot longer than 1913, if we ever had it at all. Remember that the Gilded Age (ie. the age of Robber Barons) was ushered in at the hands of government favoritism and aided monopoly. In a truly free market Rockefellers obscene power grab never would be possible.

                What you describe as globalism is necessarily part of a truly free market, it is only one part though. Capitalism in it’s present implementation is not a free market anywhere in the world, what it is is neo-mercantilism.

                You don’t seem to understands, tariffs don’t protect a free market society because the instant you have a tariff you have an artificial skew in the market favoring one regions producers more than others. Tariffs instantaneously make the market no longer free. A free market society is a term that makes little sense either, if the free market is restricted within the arbitrary borders of one nation/region in what sense is it really a free market?

                If we take away tariffs that would MAKE the incentives to raise their games. There is also lowering corporate taxes. There is also governments not favoring unionization.

                If you’re going to talk about a free market, a REAL free market, sovereignty has no place in the discussion. Adding sovereignties imposes distortions on the markets, adds favoritism and sentimentality.

                Also keep in mind just what it is that the US exports, because it sounds like you are teetering on economic isolationism/protectionism. America is the tech capital of the world, we’re also the great consumers of everything, if you were to take us out of the world markets you would ruin the GDP due to exports or goods related to imports, there is no way that American would maintain our standard of living without participating in the world market. What it sounds like you’re hinting at would cripple this region we call “The United States.”

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770715455 Daniel Tumser

                We haven’t had a free market for a lot longer than 1913, if we ever had it at all. Remember that the Gilded Age (ie. the age of Robber Barons) was ushered in at the hands of government favoritism and aided monopoly. In a truly free market Rockefellers obscene power grab never would be possible.

                What you describe as globalism is necessarily part of a truly free market, it is only one part though. Capitalism in it’s present implementation is not a free market anywhere in the world, what it is is neo-mercantilism.

                You don’t seem to understands, tariffs don’t protect a free market society because the instant you have a tariff you have an artificial skew in the market favoring one regions producers more than others. Tariffs instantaneously make the market no longer free. A free market society is a term that makes little sense either, if the free market is restricted within the arbitrary borders of one nation/region in what sense is it really a free market?

                If we take away tariffs that would MAKE the incentives to raise their games. There is also lowering corporate taxes. There is also governments not favoring unionization.

                If you’re going to talk about a free market, a REAL free market, sovereignty has no place in the discussion. Adding sovereignties imposes distortions on the markets, adds favoritism and sentimentality.

                Also keep in mind just what it is that the US exports, because it sounds like you are teetering on economic isolationism/protectionism. America is the tech capital of the world, we’re also the great consumers of everything, if you were to take us out of the world markets you would ruin the GDP due to exports or goods related to imports, there is no way that American would maintain our standard of living without participating in the world market. What it sounds like you’re hinting at would cripple this region we call “The United States.”

                • Paulchri

                  Yes, it would cripple us, but that is going to happen anyway. I do advocate for isolationism and protectionism. I don’t know that we are still the tech capital of the world, but increasingly just the consumer capital of tech goods. In Eugene, Oregon a company shut down last year because it was producing out of date technology. The cost of refitting was too high, so they moved overseas. We might be able to compete by shedding gvnmt regulation and labor unions, but ultimately, other nations will just lower their standards and profit margins and compete us out of business. The level of lifestyle that the average American lives is not real, therefor it is not sustainable. By that I mean that the wealth was built on debt that was accumulated with fiat currency. I do believe that we could have reached this level of living with a protectionist system, but many of the technologies came from the military industrial complex, then made it into the markets. It would have taken us much longer to get there, but it would have been sustainable once we achieved it. We wouldn’t have needed a world economy to reach it. We could be independent in our technology and higher living. We needed fiat currencies and global controllers to reach our level quickly as we have. I believe it is an illusion to think that they wanted it to be sustainable. So now we have a failing currency and economy and no protections against it. I am open to any other practical solutions, but I just haven’t seen them presented. I don’t believe we can have sovereign nations in the world, and maintain a higher standard of living with open economic borders. When they succeed in ending economic borders and crashing all of the currencies, they will go after others sovereign rights. We will end up with global controllers who use puppet gvnmts to oppress the masses. At this point, they will possess all of the technology and control of all of it. There will be no semblance of a free market to oppose them, or the ability to escape their technology and usurp their economic system. This is why I am a protectionist, and an isolationist.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770715455 Daniel Tumser

                  You give too much credit to global controllers with regard to regulations and technological monopoly. Where there are government controls you will find a black market.

                  We’ve seen the Treaty of Versailles and the UN. A global government would collapse under it’s own ineptitude within a decade, they can’t even manage Europe. Unless you believe the conspiracy theories about the Illuminati in which all of these global governance failings are orchestrated to hide the true skillful puppeteering of world events.

                  I don’t like the idea of global governance and tyranny, but I’m no fan of local governance and tyranny either. Both are to be resisted, as they are and will be. What I like is the idea of a global free market of individuals, no governance needed.

                • Paulchri

                  The UN is largely symbolic at the moment. If we collapse, and our military is largely overseas, our government might just hand them over to UN control like Clinton did. If they succeed in creating a new world currency, with the IMF in charge, they could have a new source of funding. At this point there would be no perceived consent of the people to worry about.

                  Just a thought.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770715455 Daniel Tumser

                  At what point do even our local or semi-local or federal governments worry about “consent of the people” right now?

                  Money is nothing more than a regions general agreement on a medium of exchange. Dollars, IMF notes, Amero, beer, gold or cigarettes, all only work if the parties involved accept their supposed value. Enough people around the world would reject the notion and either go to bartering or as we saw in a South American nation, resort to a commodity (beer in this real world case) as their medium of exchange.

                  When your bank notes are not valued by any of the people you might do business with, or are backed by gold by an entity that is untrustworthy it doesn’t matter how many wheelbarrows you have of the currency.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770715455 Daniel Tumser

                  At what point do even our local or semi-local or federal governments worry about “consent of the people” right now?

                  Money is nothing more than a regions general agreement on a medium of exchange. Dollars, IMF notes, Amero, beer, gold or cigarettes, all only work if the parties involved accept their supposed value. Enough people around the world would reject the notion and either go to bartering or as we saw in a South American nation, resort to a commodity (beer in this real world case) as their medium of exchange.

                  When your bank notes are not valued by any of the people you might do business with, or are backed by gold by an entity that is untrustworthy it doesn’t matter how many wheelbarrows you have of the currency.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770715455 Daniel Tumser

                  At what point do even our local or semi-local or federal governments worry about “consent of the people” right now?

                  Money is nothing more than a regions general agreement on a medium of exchange. Dollars, IMF notes, Amero, beer, gold or cigarettes, all only work if the parties involved accept their supposed value. Enough people around the world would reject the notion and either go to bartering or as we saw in a South American nation, resort to a commodity (beer in this real world case) as their medium of exchange.

                  When your bank notes are not valued by any of the people you might do business with, or are backed by gold by an entity that is untrustworthy it doesn’t matter how many wheelbarrows you have of the currency.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770715455 Daniel Tumser

                  At what point do even our local or semi-local or federal governments worry about “consent of the people” right now?

                  Money is nothing more than a regions general agreement on a medium of exchange. Dollars, IMF notes, Amero, beer, gold or cigarettes, all only work if the parties involved accept their supposed value. Enough people around the world would reject the notion and either go to bartering or as we saw in a South American nation, resort to a commodity (beer in this real world case) as their medium of exchange.

                  When your bank notes are not valued by any of the people you might do business with, or are backed by gold by an entity that is untrustworthy it doesn’t matter how many wheelbarrows you have of the currency.

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770715455 Daniel Tumser

                We haven’t had a free market for a lot longer than 1913, if we ever had it at all. Remember that the Gilded Age (ie. the age of Robber Barons) was ushered in at the hands of government favoritism and aided monopoly. In a truly free market Rockefellers obscene power grab never would be possible.

                What you describe as globalism is necessarily part of a truly free market, it is only one part though. Capitalism in it’s present implementation is not a free market anywhere in the world, what it is is neo-mercantilism.

                You don’t seem to understands, tariffs don’t protect a free market society because the instant you have a tariff you have an artificial skew in the market favoring one regions producers more than others. Tariffs instantaneously make the market no longer free. A free market society is a term that makes little sense either, if the free market is restricted within the arbitrary borders of one nation/region in what sense is it really a free market?

                If we take away tariffs that would MAKE the incentives to raise their games. There is also lowering corporate taxes. There is also governments not favoring unionization.

                If you’re going to talk about a free market, a REAL free market, sovereignty has no place in the discussion. Adding sovereignties imposes distortions on the markets, adds favoritism and sentimentality.

                Also keep in mind just what it is that the US exports, because it sounds like you are teetering on economic isolationism/protectionism. America is the tech capital of the world, we’re also the great consumers of everything, if you were to take us out of the world markets you would ruin the GDP due to exports or goods related to imports, there is no way that American would maintain our standard of living without participating in the world market. What it sounds like you’re hinting at would cripple this region we call “The United States.”

        • Paulchri

          What did we do to Japan before they attacked us? The same thing we are doing to Iran. The Japanese said that they knew they couldn’t take us on our own soil. All of these examples you give on this subject are in the context of fighting a war on foreign soil.

    • Anonymous

      Is your name a transliteration of イケメン?

  • Me

    Propaganda: in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. The USA knows what it meant with the Iraq’s WMD, or mass delusion. Why wont the USA just stop pointing fingers and just finish it? Get the North and South going, when the fighting starts, we will have a reason!!! If two neighbors live next to eachother, and one neighbor fires bullets into the other’s pool, and gets that neighbor mad to the point they fire back at the aggressors house causing a fire, every one gets mad! Okay, the USA is involved, I guess the North will just give in. I don’t think that Russia could conduct exercises and fire into American waters without some sort of retaliation. If the American government has convinced its own people this is okay, than we are in trouble….

  • KeninMontana

    After reading through the posts on this thread,there are a number of items to clear up. First, the island of Yeonpyeong is a fortress,yes there are a few civilian inhabitants but the overwhelming majority of the island’s population are ROK military. The ROK positions did return fire after they had been fired upon (Scoop mentioned this above) and those here who have alleged that South Koreans lack a backbone exhibit a decided lack of knowledge on the subject. An estimated 24.5 million people inhabit the metropolitan area in and around the capital Seoul,just 40 miles south of the DMZ ( well within the range of modern heavy artillery) these people carry out their daily lives knowing full well what their situation would be were the cease fire to end. Hardly sound like wimps to me. The armed forces of the ROK are some of the toughest,most disciplined,best trained and equipped troops anywhere in the world, ask anyone who has served along side them. US forces that are stationed in South Korea are there under the auspices of the UN (along with forces from other nations) as a direct result of the cease fire agreement of 1953. In other words, the first step to getting our troops out would be to leave the UN (not a bad thing by any stretch). As to the North Koreans,as some have pointed out the generals are no fools they are completely aware of just what would result from an all out attack on the south,they are realists, once the succession is done in the North,things will quiet down, even money that Kim’s son will not live to see 6 months in power. As to the Japanese and Germans in regards to WW2. The Japanese Military knew full well they could not win a protracted war with the US, the best they were hopeful for was that by knocking out our Pacific Fleet they could get themselves entrenched enough that we would agree to a redrawing of spheres of influence in the Pacific Rim. However with the fact that the attack on Pearl Harbor was ultimately a failure, Isoroku Yamamoto, knew for a fact that even if fully successful the attack would not win or prevent the US from going to war, ” Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it would not be enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House.” So to say the Japanese did not have severe reservations about going to war with the US is uninformed at the very least. The Germans were reluctant partners obligated by treaty with Japan to declare war against the US once we declared war on Japan. The German High Command knew full well that once this step was taken the war was for all practical purposes, lost.

get updates on twitter

trs awesome meter

Share

subscribe to us


Places of Interest

Admin

archives