North Korea: a rebellious angsty teenager
-
Mother's mother: ROK
Mother's father: DPRK fled to ROK during the border skirmish of 1953
Father's mother: Heilongjiang PRC Chinese
Father's father: Jewish trader based in Heilongjiang
-
Let's just say I have a very complicated background...
Not bad wah, both Israel and North Korea got nukes.
And both attacked the USA.
The USS PUEBLO was a U. S. Navy vessel sent on an intelligence mission off the coast of North Korea. On January 23, 1968, the USS PUEBLO was attacked by North Korean naval vessels and MIG jets. One man was killed and several were wounded. The Eighty-two surviving crew members were captured and held prisoner for 11 months. The pages on this site tell the story of the Pueblo Incident and present the USS PUEBLO Veteran's Association.
On June 8, 1967, US Navy intelligence ship USS Liberty was suddenly and brutally attacked on the high seas in international waters by the air and naval forces of Israel. The Israeli forces attacked with full knowledge that this was an American ship and lied about it. Survivors have been forbidden for 40 years to tell their story under oath to the American public. The USS Liberty Memorial web site tells their story and is dedicated to the memory of the 34 brave men who died.
Both your countries fucked with USA.
Not bad.
-
Originally posted by richong 3216:
.
Xtreyier: "Nukes are terrifying and horrifying solutions to solve problems and must be prevented from proliferating ...........to us and our next generations ....."
If that is the case, dont you think from the logical point of view, all nuclear weapons should be destroyed & banned forever for the sake of mankind. (Please read my 1st post on this issue dated 28.05.09).
I fully agree with you that ALL nukes should be destroyed and banned forever for the sake of mankind.
But how can the superpowers even begin to talk about nuke disarmament when planet Earth's mother son two bit dictators are secretly building up their nuke arsenals? The superpowers tried a few times with the SALT talks, and there was hope when Yeltsin administered Russia, but not now, with greater proliferation.
There are some who believe that every nation should own nukes, then if each knows each other has them, then they will not use them, for it would mean MAD ( Mutually Aided Destruction)
But this is a fallacy, for humans are not perfect, let alone leaders of nations as nutcase Kim had proven. He is willing to sacrifice his starving people in a nuke provocation to protect his rule (misrule). He only needs to hide under well built shelters and when the bomb drops, millions die. When the dust is settled, he walks out a free man, to postuer and sue for peace with the balance of his nukes.
How many more leaders of the tripe that are similar with nutcase Kim? Many more, I assure you, from 3 world impoverish states, impoverished only because of their corruption, mismanagement and anti-humanity ideologies.
I am no greenpeace peacenik or tree hugger. I believe military deterrence will protect peace, but nukes are too far a terrifying and awesome force to be held in hands of humanity, no matter how lofty in idealism a leader is.
Thus we MUST prevent nuke proliferation today, starting with nutcase kim. Realistically, I may not live long enough to see planet Earth nuke free, but in time with patience and advancement of science, the horror of nukes will be removed and rendered obsolute, such as space based weapons or lasers.
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
Not bad wah, both Israel and North Korea got nukes.
And both attacked the USA.
The USS PUEBLO was a U. S. Navy vessel sent on an intelligence mission off the coast of North Korea. On January 23, 1968, the USS PUEBLO was attacked by North Korean naval vessels and MIG jets. One man was killed and several were wounded. The Eighty-two surviving crew members were captured and held prisoner for 11 months. The pages on this site tell the story of the Pueblo Incident and present the USS PUEBLO Veteran's Association.
On June 8, 1967, US Navy intelligence ship USS Liberty was suddenly and brutally attacked on the high seas in international waters by the air and naval forces of Israel. The Israeli forces attacked with full knowledge that this was an American ship and lied about it. Survivors have been forbidden for 40 years to tell their story under oath to the American public. The USS Liberty Memorial web site tells their story and is dedicated to the memory of the 34 brave men who died.
Both your countries fucked with USA.
Not bad.
I just waiting to find a person who is of Iranian-Venezuela heritage~... Epic win...
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
Thus we MUST prevent nuke proliferation today, starting with nutcase kim.
Why not the US start it?
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
I fully agree with you that ALL nukes should be destroyed and banned forever for the sake of mankind.
But how can the superpowers even begin to talk about nuke disarmament when planet Earth's mother son two bit dictators are secretly building up their nuke arsenals? The superpowers tried a few times with the SALT talks, and there was hope when Yeltsin administered Russia, but not now, with greater proliferation.
There are some who believe that every nation should own nukes, then if each knows each other has them, then they will not use them, for it would mean MAD ( Mutually Aided Destruction)
But this is a fallacy, for humans are not perfect, let alone leaders of nations as nutcase Kim had proven. He is willing to sacrifice his starving people in a nuke provocation to protect his rule (misrule). He only needs to hide under well built shelters and when the bomb drops, millions die. When the dust is settled, he walks out a free man, to postuer and sue for peace with the balance of his nukes.
How many more leaders of the tripe that are similar with nutcase Kim? Many more, I assure you, from 3 world impoverish states, impoverished only because of their corruption, mismanagement and anti-humanity ideologies.
I am no greenpeace peacenik or tree hugger. I believe military deterrence will protect peace, but nukes are too far a terrifying and awesome force to be held in hands of humanity, no matter how lofty in idealism a leader is.
Thus we MUST prevent nuke proliferation today, starting with nutcase kim. Realistically, I may not live long enough to see planet Earth nuke free, but in time with patience and advancement of science, the horror of nukes will be removed and rendered obsolute, such as space based weapons or lasers.
You biased against DPRK but favours Israel.
I don't like.
Must be fair.
Want to attack must attack both.
Otherwise don't attack.
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
You biased against DPRK but favours Israel.
I don't like.
Must be fair.
Want to attack must attack both.
Otherwise don't attack.
DPRK oppressing his own people.
Israel got oppress her own people or not ?
If I have to which country to favor.. I rather choose Israel.
-
Palestinian refugees
-
Israel got oppress her own people or not ?
Arabs in Israel complain of discrimination
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL5r-6_7eLU
http://www.jkcook.net/Articleheadings/Articlegroup2.htm
http://www.jkcook.net/Articleheadings/Articlegroup15.htm
http://www.jkcook.net/Articleheadings/Articlegroup16.htm
http://www.jkcook.net/Articlesindex.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
DPRK oppressed his own people.
Israel got oppress her own people or not ?
If I have to which country to favor.. I rather choose Israel.
My opinion too...
But the DPRK brainwash their people so much that they think that their leadership is the best in the world... o.O... Let us not shatter their blissful dreams...
-
My opinion too...
My thinking is different.
Israel is built on the suffering of others, so I despise them more.
DPRK oppresses its own people not others.
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
My thinking is different.
Israel is built on the suffering of others, so I despise them more.
DPRK oppresses its own people not others.
Har ? So you saying it's OK to oppress it's own people ah ?? Wah lau.. you're a sick man Mr Chia. Then you keep cursing PAP oppress Singaporeans ? Hypocrite leh !
I seriously don't understand this hor... West Bank and Gaza both bordering Muslim countries.. Why don't they leverage on this fact and push for progress ? I mean look at the living conditions of both states, and there's no economic progress in Palestinian territory. Some more so much in-fighting between muslim brothers.
If anything... the sufferings are brought upon by themselves , no ?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Har ? So you saying it's OK to oppress it's own people ah ?? Wah lau.. you're a sick man Mr Chia. Then you keep cursing PAP oppress Singaporeans ? Hypocrite leh !
I seriously don't understand this hor... West Bank and Gaza both bordering Muslim countries.. Why don't they leverage on this fact and push for progress ? I mean look at the living conditions of both states. Some more so much in-fighting between muslim brothers.
If anything... the sufferings are brought upon themselves , no ?
Aiyah... This kind of things... No right no wrong~...
-
If anything... the sufferings are brought upon themselves , no ?
How?
-
Beyond Dissidence: Interview with Noam ChomskyWhat do you think about Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip? What might be done in order to achieve a peaceful solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine?
The US-Israeli attack on Gaza was a savage and brutal war crime. The term US- Israeli is accurate. Israel relied on US weapons, in violation of US, as well as international, law, and the US provided crucial diplomatic and ideological support. The diplomatic support included blocking UN efforts to bring the conflict to an end. The ideological support included overwhelming votes in Congress supporting the aggression, and almost universal agreement that it was justified, even if, perhaps, disproportionate.
In fact, the attack was completely without justification. The way this issue is framed -- by President Obama and virtually everyone else -- is that Israel had a right to defend itself against Hamas rockets. But that is not the issue at all.
The issue is whether Israel had a right to defend itself by force against rockets. It is universally agreed that force can be used only when peaceful means are exhausted. No one believes that the Nazis had the right to use force in defence against the terror of the partisans.
In this case peaceful means had not even been tried. A narrow choice would have been for Israel to accept a ceasefire, which in fact it has never done. To take only the most recent case, a ceasefire was declared in June 2008. Israel did not adhere to it: it maintained the harsh siege, which is an act of war, even preventing the UN humanitarian mission UNRWA from replenishing its stores, "so when the ceasefire broke down, we ran out of food for the 750,000 who depend on us," UNRWA Director John Ging reported. Nevertheless, Hamas scrupulously observed the ceasefire. Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev conceded that Hamas had not fired a single rocket until after Israel invaded the Gaza Strip on 4 November, under the cover of the US elections, and killed six Palestinians. Israel rejected additional ceasefire proposals from Hamas virtually until the day of the attack.
More broadly, Israel could have ceased its criminal activities in the other part of Palestine, the West Bank. Until they do that they cannot object to resistance. Within the West Bank resistance is impossible. In fact, the US-run Palestinian military forces were able to suppress even expression of support for Palestinians being slaughtered in Gaza, and they are greatly praised for that achievement by leading Democratic liberals close to the Obama administration, like Senator John Kerry, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.Virtually everything Israel does in the occupied territories is criminal, and the Israeli government knows it. Immediately after the 1967 war Israel was informed by its highest legal authorities that the Geneva Conventions apply to the occupied territories, so that any transfer of population there is illegal. Defence Minister Moshe Dayan conceded that settlement violated international law, but added that "there is nothing new in that, so we will continue." The Security Council has repeatedly condemned these actions, including those now taking place in Jerusalem. In 2004 the World Court reaffirmed that the Geneva Conventions apply. The US Justice Department agreed, in a separate declaration. The criminality extends to most of what Israel does in the occupied territories, always with firm US military, diplomatic, economic and ideological support.
In brief, Israel had ample opportunity to employ peaceful means, so that there was no justification whatsoever for the US- Israeli attack.
As for what should be done, that is very clear. For 35 years there has been a very broad international consensus on a political settlement: a two-state settlement on the internationally recognised borders, perhaps with "minor and mutual modifications", in the words of official US policy pre-1971, before the US broke with world opinion on this matter. Since that time the US has blocked the consensus, and still does, including Barack Obama. There has been one break in this rejectionist stand. After the Camp David negotiations broke down in 2000, President Clinton recognised that no Palestinians could accept the US-Israeli terms, and proposed his "parameters": somewhat vague, but more forthcoming. He then stated that both sides had accepted the parameters, and both had expressed reservations. The two sides met in Taba, Egypt in January 2001, and came very close to an agreement. In their final press conference, they said that with a little more time they might have resolved all of the issues. The negotiations were called off prematurely by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and never officially resumed. Much has changed since 2001 but the essentials remain: if a US president were willing to accept a diplomatic settlement, it could be achieved. The international consensus is by no means perfect, but it would be a great improvement over the current situation, and could be a stage towards something better for both Jews and Palestinians.
In a recent interview published in Znet you made an extraordinary comment on the current financial crisis and capitalism, arguing that "capitalism can't end because it never started". Why has neo-liberalism resulted, especially in the US and some EU countries, with state intervention in the economy? And what risks now face developing countries like Turkey?First we have to dismantle illusions about state intervention in the economy. In the US, as in other advanced economies, the economy relies very heavily on the dynamic state sector for innovation, development, procurement, bail outs, and many other methods. Take what we are now using: computers and the Internet. They were developed largely in the state sector, for decades, before they became a source of private profit in the market. That is not an exception, it is the norm. What is novel in the present crisis is the scale of state intervention, in particular to subsidise the financial institutions, although such intervention is also familiar from the past. One basic principle of what is called capitalism is that the public pays the costs and takes the risks while profit is privatised.
It is true that the very shallow intellectual foundations of the neo-liberal era have collapsed, in particular, the mythical efficient market hypothesis -- the belief that by some miracle markets will take care of problems that arise. Of course, the principle was never adopted by the rich for themselves. Ronald Reagan has been anointed the high priest of free markets. In the real world, he was by far the most protectionist US president in post-war US history, called upon the Pentagon to instruct backward US management in advanced Japanese-style production techniques, and in other ways acted to ensure the wealth and power of the private sector. Obama is doing the same. Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the IMF, is quite right when he criticises the Obama administration for following the dictates of Wall Street, acting to ensure that the institutions that created the crisis remain intact. Obama's chief advisers include those who share primary responsibility for the crisis, as the business press and others have observed. More independent voices, including Nobel Laureates in economics, have been excluded.
Though the crisis broke out in the US it quickly became global. The US will not emerge unscathed, but it may well be strengthened relative to its major competitors, the European Union and Japan. China and India are a separate matter.
What do you think about the election of Obama? Will US policies change radically?
My own expectation, based on Obama's record and his campaign, was that he would be a familiar centrist Democrat who would draw back from the most extreme Bush policies and try to remedy the serious damage that Bush did to US standing in the world, in part by a change of rhetoric, in part by some small gestures. That is a fair summary of what has happened so far.
A few weeks ago you joined those intellectuals criticising Human Rights Watch's report on Venezuela, saying it "does not meet even the most minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility". What do you see as the future of human rights?
The authors of the report were leading Latin American scholars. I agreed with its basic thrust and signed. There has been a vigorous debate online between HRW and the authors since. I think the essential criticism is accurate. Human rights organisations have generally played a very beneficial role: with regard to Turkey, for example, where the HRW representative, Jonathan Sugden, carried out extremely important and honourable work, I was able to appreciate this on the scene (he has since been expelled). But there are occasions when they have been much too influenced by pressures coming from funders and the great powers, particularly the US.
I do not see what question one can raise about human rights as a concept: it should be among our highest goals to struggle for the realisation of human rights.
You are a prominent philosopher, well known as a father of modern linguistics, on the one hand, and a leading political and public figure widely known for your views on world politics on the other. How do you view the responsibilities of intellectuals? Is being dissident enough?The term intellectual is used generally to refer to people with privilege and access to resources who engage in commentary on human affairs. It does not necessarily correlate with insight or understanding. In general, privilege confers responsibility: in particular, responsibility to seek the truth and to meet ethical standards. History reveals that, by and large, intellectuals have been servants of power, radically violating these responsibilities. There are always independent minds that confront the crimes of the powerful and seek to support the victims. They are usually punished in one or another way, depending on the nature of the society. That pattern goes back to the earliest historical records, and persists with rare exceptions, as is easily shown. Contemporary Turkey is one of the striking exceptions. In Turkey leading writers, artists, journalists, academics, publishers and others have taken an unusually strong and courageous stand against the crimes of state and in support of the victims, and many have suffered severely for their honesty. And they have gone far beyond being dissident: they have engaged in courageous and honourable civil disobedience. It was a great privilege for me to be able to take part briefly in some of their activities. But this is rare. I will not run through my personal activities in the US and elsewhere in the past 40 years, but they go far beyond dissidence. Much more significant is the fact that the same is true, often far more so, for a great many people who remain unknown but who deserve most of the credit for progress towards justice and peace over the years.
You have argued that consent in the status quo is a media product. How do you reconcile your criticism of the media with your presence within it?
The role of the media in manufacturing consent is very well documented. The phrase, incidentally, is not mine. It is taken from the essays on democracy by Walter Lippmann, the leading American public intellectual of the 20th century, a Wilson- Roosevelt progressive. Lippmann described the "manufacture of consent" as an innovation in the "art of democracy". He recommended these methods. They should be used, he wrote, to control the "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders" -- the general population -- whose "function" in a democracy is to be "spectators", not "participants" in making and implementing decisions. That is a standard theme among elite intellectuals from widely varying sociopolitical systems.
Like other dissidents I have virtually no access to mainstream media in the US or the West generally. -
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
I think you better go.
First tell people go attack Iran. now tell people to wipe out nuclear armed North Korea.
Crazy shit lah you xtreyier.
Israel then don't care.
A lof of bullshit coming out from you xtreyier.
This is very bad.
The above was your response to mine:-
"Nutcase Kim must go. Wiping him,his general staff and hardcore politburo members out of the equation is the only solution to the problem. Starving N.Koreans, innocent S.Koreans and japanese do not deserve to suffer or die for the ambitions of a few."
Crazy?
In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford outlawed political assassination: Section 5(g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."
This is a good law and prevents interference with foriegn leaders. If there are no such laws, or only paid lip service, many dictators would have been wiped out but at the same time, it could lead to abuses such as leaders who disagree with american policies and aims being wiped out as well.
Thus such laws must be upheld and protected at all costs.
But weighted against the death of millions, can such a law be useful and even valid? Can any leader who have such laws in their constitution turn a blind eye to what may be the greatest tragedy to happen on Earth after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the perpetrators walk freely?
There is a loophole within the law. Like any law that is broken by man, that man must be held responsible and face up to the consequences, such as being tried for the crime and hang if found guilty.
If the US President is afraid to take that responsibility, prefering to maintain clean hands and let millions die whom he had sworn to protect, then destroy the Kim gang and let another take the blame.
Only US has the best capability and technology avaliable to destroy them, while many others don't.
But MORE CRITICALLY, in case anyone had failed to notice, it is NO longer a crime to wipe out Kim and gang.
Do remember that they had withdrawn from the armistice of 1953, meaning technically - NORTH KOREA IS NOW AT WAR WITH US AND S.KOREA. Any deaths are acts of war. Wiping out Kim and gang is only to prevent more bloodshed. This is something all can comprehend.
The latest press reports claims no significant troop movements, but the truth is, the significant troop movements ARE ALREADY ENTRENCHED in their positions and special forces team in-place in South Korea for the past 50 years!
US and South Korea best not be like Neville Chamberlin, asleep or like the Poles sipping coffee, thinking nothing of any threat when Hitler's Panzers crash through the borders of Poland, or worse still, like our ex colonial masters who were dancing in Raffles Hotel when Jap bombs were dropping around them, secure in the belief Spore is an 'impregnable fortress'.
-
US and South Korea best not be like Neville Chamberlin, asleep
That is bullshit british propaganda.
Neville Chamberlain WAS NOT asleep.
His plan was to allow Germany to expand eastwards until Germany and Soviet Union came to a clash.
Like for example China's plan is to let DPRK provoke USA until DPRK and USA come to a clash.
Then you go and say China fell asleep.
Not so, it was China's plan to instigate a clash between DPRK and USA.
Chamberlain's plan was to turn Europe from A:
to B:
It was a DELIBERATE plan.
It was planned to be that way.
It was planned in Britain so that Germany would expand eastwards until they shared a border with Soviet Union and then go and attack Russia.
It was a DELIBERATE plan.
Who go and say that Chamberlain blur blur or stupidly go and trust Hitler and naively let him annex territory is talking nonsense.
He or she is talking complete rubbish and knows nothing of the topic; except follow british official propaganda, which is total rubbish.
-
Heath: I think the Soviet Union has a lot of troubles. They are facing domestic economic difficulties and agricultural predicament, and there are also differences within the leadership, over questions of tactics and timing, not over long-term strategy.
Mao: I think the Soviet Union is busy with its own affairs and unable to deal with Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, China and the Pacific. I think it will lose.
Heath: However, its military strength is continually augmented. Although the Soviet Union has encountered troubles at many places in the world, its strength is continuing to grow. Therefore, we deem this to be the principal threat. Does the Chairman think the Soviet Union constitutes a menace to China?
Mao: We are prepared for it to come, but it will collapse if it comes. It has only a handful of troops, and you Europeans are so frightened of it! Some people in the West are always trying to direct this calamity toward China. Your senior, Chamberlain, and also Daladier of France were the ones who pushed Germany eastward.
Heath: I opposed Mr. Chamberlain then.
http://english.pladaily.com.cn/special/mao/txt/w24.htm
World War II came as the biggest disaster throughout world history. It taught the current generation and those to come their biggest lesson, said Mr. Putin. "We must remember that lesson, and make necessary conclusions out of it so as to build a safe up-to-date world, and arrange relations between countries on certain patterns."
As the President turned to the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, he made an emphatic remark:
"We ought to view all things in their historical context. References are often made to, say, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which is alleged to result in a plot between Soviet Russia-that is, the Soviet Union-and Hitler's Germany, and eventually bring the Baltic countries' annexation.
"What can I say on that score? We ought to regard it all in its historical context. I dare ask you to get back to the developments of September 1938, when notorious agreements were signed in Munich between nazi Germany and West European countries. They came down into history, later on, and are often referred to as 'the Munich plot'."
The agreements exposed Czechoslovakia to nazi Germany to be devoured. Western partners, in a way, showed Hitler where he ought to turn to satisfy his skyrocketing ambitions. That was the eastward direction, stressed the President.
http://en.rian.ru/onlinenews/20050222/39702785.html
Statement by His Excellency Mr. Adam Daniel ROTFELD, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland. Fifty-ninth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War:
We are told sometimes that the criminal plot of the two dictatorships – Stalin’s and Hitler’s – was legitimate under the international law of the time. What’s more, it constituted a justified or even essential defense in view of the Munich Agreement concluded in September 1938 among Nazi Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and France. That treaty was designed to channel German aggression eastward. True, it was a shameful Agreement conceived to appease the aggressor at the expense of Czechoslovakia.
http://www.polandun.org/templates/state ... 09may.html
Beijing, February 17–18, 1973, 11:30 p.m.–1:20 a.m.
Talks between Mao Zedong and Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs:
...Chairman Mao: (Pointing at Dr. Kissinger) They are uniting and the Soviet Union wants the Communist Party to get into office. I don’t like their Communist party, just like I don’t like your Communist party. I like you, but not your Communist party. (Laughter)
In the West you always historically had a policy, for example, in both World Wars you always began by pushing Germany to fight against Russia.
Dr. Kissinger: But it is not our policy to push Russia to fight against China, because the danger to us of a war in China is as great as a war in Europe.
Chairman Mao: (Before Dr. Kissinger’s remarks are translated, he makes remarks in Chinese and counts on his fingers. Miss Tang then translates Dr. Kissinger’s remarks and after that Chairman Mao’s remarks.)
What I wanted to say is whether or not you are now pushing West Germany to make peace with Russia and then push Russia eastward. I suspect the whole of the West has such an idea, that is to push Russia eastward, mainly against us and also Japan. Also probably towards you, in the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean.
Dr. Kissinger: We did not favor this policy. We preferred the German opposition party which did not pursue this policy. (Chairman Mao, smoking a cigar, offers cigars to Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Lord who decline.)...
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100320.pdf
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xviii/
Beijing, February 18, 1973, 2:43–7:15 p.m.
Talks between Chou En-lai, Premier of China and Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs:
PM Chou: Originally Western Europe had hoped that Germany would go eastwards.
Dr. Kissinger: Western Europe.
PM Chou: At Munich.
Dr. Kissinger: Yes, at Munich. Western Europe had very superficial leaders. They didn’t have the courage to pursue any policy towards a conclusion. Once they had done Munich it made no sense to fight for Poland. But that is a different issue. And I don’t blame Stalin, because from his point of view he gained himself the essential time.
PM Chou: But there was one weak point, that they were not sufficiently prepared.
Dr. Kissinger: That is right.
PM Chou: They did make preparations but they were not entirely sufficient. And in Zhukov’s memoirs he also touched upon this. Have you read this?
Dr. Kissinger: Yes. And they deployed their forces too far forward.
PM Chou: Also scattered in three directions.
Dr. Kissinger: So, but the basic point that I want to make is not to debate history but to say the lessons of both wars are that once a big war starts its consequences are unpredictable, and a country which encourages a big war in the hope that it can calculate its consequences is likely to produce a disaster for itself. The Germans had made very careful plans in World War I, and they had exercised them for 30 years, but when the war . . .
PM Chou: You mean after the Pact of Berlin?
Dr. Kissinger: World War I—1914—the Schlieffen Plan.
PM Chou: You mean after the Treaty of Berlin.
Dr. Kissinger: Oh, after 1878, yes, that’s right. But they had exercised the Schlieffen Plan every year after 1893, for 21 years, and they had calculated everything except the psychological strain on a commander under battle conditions. So they thought they were starting a 6-months war and they wound up with a 4-year war. Not one European leader in 1914, if he had known what the world would look like in 1918, would have gone to war. And nor would Hitler in 1939. Let us apply it to the current situation, these observations. If one analyzes the problem of pushing the Soviet Union toward the East, or maybe you trying to push it towards the West . . .
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100320.pdf
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xviii/
Beijing, October 20, 1975, 4:15–6:35 p.m.
Talks between Teng Hsiao-p’ing, Vice Premier of the State Council, People’s Republic of China and Henry Kissinger
Secretary Kissinger: What things?
Vice Premier Teng: Well, problems of various descriptions [mentioned] earlier.
By recalling history, I mean the period prior to the Second World War—the period 1936 to 1939, which is particularly worthwhile to recall. The Doctor studies history and I think is more knowledgable than I.
As I understand, the Doctor once said that in actuality the Soviet Union has gone beyond the Rhineland. This shows that the Doctor has made a study of it. After the Germans entered into the Rhineland you may recall what was the attitude of the British and French, and what was the policy pursued by Chamberlain and Daladier. They pursued a policy of appeasement towards Hitler, and shortly after that the Munich agreement was concluded.
In pursuing such policies the purpose of Chamberlain and Daladier was obvious. They wanted to direct the peril Eastward, and their first aim was to appease Hitler so that he would not take rash actions. Their second aim was to direct the peril toward the East. The stark historical realities have brought out the failure of the policies carried out by Chamberlain and Daladier. Their policies have gone to the opposite of their wishes. They neither got international peace and stability nor achieved their purpose of directing the peril of Hitler to the East...
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100322.pdf
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xviii/
JOHN CLEARY: Yes, your trip to Iraq has been portrayed by those who wanted to caricature you as as foolish as Chamberlain’s to see Hitler.
TONY BENN: Yes but that’s a load of rubbish, because in the case of Chamberlain and Hitler, Chamberlain supported Hitler. I’ve got hold and have got at home the captured German Foreign Office documents reporting what Lord Halifax, the British Foreign Secretary, said on behalf of Chamberlain to Hitler. He said, ‘I’ve come, Herr Chancellor, to congratulate you on destroying Communism in Germany and acting as a bulwark against Communism in Russia.’
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/stories/s1087072.htmTwo weeks after Munich Baldwin said in a conversation with Lord Hinchingbrooke: "Can't we turn Hitler East? Napoleon broke himself against the Russians. Hitler might do the same".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Baldwin#Later_life -
Originally posted by xtreyier:
North Korea warns of attack, says truce no longer valid
North Korea vows response if UN imposes sanctions :-
Activity spotted at two North Korea missile sitesAn ICBM missile simulation on youtube.
A nuclear weapon's awesome destruction simulation on youtube
Some say the rest of the world should unite and pressurize nutcase kim ( I call him a nutcase but certainly didnt say he is stupid ) to abandon his nuclear programme and weapons. But who is actually pressurizing who now?
"The world will soon witness how our army and people stand up against oppression and despotism by the UNSC and uphold their dignity and independence."
Don't say nutcase Kim didn't warn the world. The ICBMs will be ready in 2 weeks time. The world has D - 14 days to react. The countdown for the murder of millions has begun.
Timecheck 0005hrs 010609 Pyongyang Standard Time.
Missle ETA Musudan-ri 010609 0300hrs.
Orbital Telemetry projections optimal.
D-12 and counting...
-
...Severely weakened by the Great Depression and in no position to make military threats, Chamberlain and Daladier hoped to push Hitler's ambitions eastward. The one unifying belief all four leaders shared was their fanatical hatred of the Soviet Union and anything remotely related to International Communism.
A strong and well-armed Nazi regime in Central Europe, they believed, was a necessary buffer to Soviet power. And with their own domestic economic crises and their labor unions going communist, France and England focused their attention not on the threat of fascism but on the growing influence of the Soviet Union. (Their positions on the Spanish Civil War bear this fact out.)
France and England hoped Germany would spark a shooting war with the Soviet Union and then they could sit back and watch the fascists and communists tear each other apart. It didn't work out that way...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josep
..."The declassified intelligence documents reflect the political processes which took place before and after the Munich Agreement of September 30, 1938, which is also called the 'Munich conspiracy,'" Ivanov explained.
These documents were kept in the archives as top secret for 70 years. They show that the Soviet political leadership was informed about the preparations for the meeting of Neville Chamberlain and Eduard Daladier, on the one hand, and Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, on the other, and predict its potential military and political consequences for Europe. The papers show what unprecedented pressure Britain and France brought to bear on Czechoslovakia, demanding that it ceded Sudeten to Germany.
"Moscow was receiving secret reports to the effect that the British and French ambassadors in Prague were persuading the Czechoslovak president to give over the Sudeten region to the Germans. Moreover, Prague was offered to cancel mutual assistance pacts with other countries," Ivanov said...
..."As early as November 1938, diplomatic missions of a number of countries reported to their departments that Britain and France would not prevent Germany's eastward expansion," Ivanov said...
The documents received after the Munich conspiracy are particularly valuable. They analyze the post-Munich situation in Europe and clearly show that Britain was trying to draw Germany and the Soviet Union into active hostilities," Sotskov emphasized in an interview with RIA Novosti...
Later, on November 25, Grippenberg reported his conversation with a British government member who assured him that Britain and France would not interfere in Germany's eastward expansion.
"Britain's position is as follows: let's wait until Germany and the U.S.S.R. get involved in a big conflict," the document reads.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080929/117271264.html
...The well-known historian, veteran of the Soviet intelligence, retired Major General Lev Sotskov, who was dealing with examination and analysis of the archive documents points out that Great Britain which did not hamper the German expansion eastward deliberately tried to involve Germany and the USSR in a military confrontation. Also, France adhered to such position according to the declassified documents.
The Munich agreement, on the basis of which Germany occupied the Sudet region, according to definition, could not prevent the war; it is more likely that this treacherous and perfidious action opened the gates for Hitler to the East. In March, 1939 Germany occupied the remaining part of Czechoslovakia and on September 1st of the same year the German troops attacked Poland. Thus the Second –World massacre started...http://eng.nob.su/2008/12/11/the-truth-about
...A key factor in Britain and France's attitude towards Hitler was a desire to steer his ambitions eastwards and into war with Russia. In that way, it was hoped, the two perils could eliminate each other.
Stanley Baldwin, who preceded Chamberlain, was fairly frank. In 1936, he told Tory MPs alarmed about Hitler, that it would not 'break his heart' if the tensions in Europe led to 'the Nazis fighting the Bolshies'.
-
Life of a teenager in the last Communist Freedom Paradise, North Korea - From UK Telegraph Press.
-
At last it looks like someone has decided to keep up with the joneses & comes out with excerpts for others to read of what another side is saying, thinking & happening.
However sometimes I wonder if everyone will read thru completely when it's too voluminous. The pros & cons of some political propositions are so diverse & complex that one debate ad infinitum & you are no wiser (even if there is an ending).
-
Eeerr maybe it's time for another war. At least an air war.
Call it an ego check for both sides.
Pity a unified Korea would squash Japan dominion over . . . . everything Japanese lol.
Gary: He said to me at the lift lobby 90% of the exact words - �Mr Tan,if you walk out of here tomorrow,you might get killed.You might meet with a mysterious accident,you might disappear and nobody will know what happened to you! Mr Tan, some things and people in this country you cannot offend! Some people are above all things! You better make sure you know this! Mr Tan,we can arrange for things to happen to you.You understand or not!�
Mr Tan you should have told the police officer FARK YOU -
Originally posted by Miracles&Prophecies:
Gary: He said to me at the lift lobby 90% of the exact words - ”Mr Tan,if you walk out of here tomorrow,you might get killed.You might meet with a mysterious accident,you might disappear and nobody will know what happened to you! Mr Tan, some things and people in this country you cannot offend! Some people are above all things! You better make sure you know this! Mr Tan,we can arrange for things to happen to you.You understand or not!”But what has this got to do with DPRK???