The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Fred Reed ArchiveBlogview
Milk-Bar Clausewitzes, Bean Curd Napoleons
In the Reign of Kaiser Don
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Why do those inadequate little men in Washington and New York dream of new wars? Because the empire is near a tipping point.

Washington must either either start a war in Korea, or get faced down by the North, its carriers ignored, its bombers “sending signals” and making “shows of force” without result. For the empire this is a loss of face and credibility, and an example to others that America can be challenged.

Iran has not caved to Washington’s threats and sanctions and clearly isn’t going to. Another strategic loss, a big one, unless–the hawks seem to think–remedied by a war. Iran wants to trade with Europe and Europe likes the idea. Worse, Iran is becoming a vital part of China’s aim to integrate Europe and Asia economically. To the empire this smells of death. The frightened grow desperate.

China shows no signs of backing down in the South China Sea. For Washington, it is either war now, when it thinks it might win, or be overshadowed as China grows.

Russia has irrevocably gotten the Crimea, is quietly absorbing part of the Ukraine, and looks as if its side is going to win in Syria. Three humiliating setbacks for the empire. Loss of control of the Mideast would be a strategic disaster for Washington.

Continued control of Europe is absolutely vital. European governments have groveled but now even they grow restless with Washington’s sanctions against Russia, and European businessmen want more trade eastward. Growing trade with Asia threatens to loosen Europe’s shackles. Washington cannot allow this.

When you have militarily stupid politicians listening to pathologically confident soldiers, trouble is likely. All of these people might reflect how seldom wars turn out as those starting them expect. Wars are always going to be quick and easy. Generals not infrequently advise against a war but, once it begins, they bark in unison. They seldom know what they are getting into. Note:

The American Civil War was expected to be over in an afternoon at First Manassas. Wrong, by four years and some 650,000 dead.

Germans thought that World War I would be be a quick war of movement, over in a few weeks. Wrong by four years and fantastic slaughter, and was an entirely unexpected trench war of attrition ending in unconditional surrender. Not in the Powerpoint presentation.

When the Japanese Army urged attacking Pearl Harbor, their war aims did not include two cities in radioactive rubble and GIs in the bars of Tokyo. That is what they got.

When the Wehrmacht invaded Poland, having GIs and the Red Army in Berlin must have been an undocumented feature. Very undocumented.

When the French re-invaded Vietnam after WWII, they did not expect les jaunes to crush them at Dien Bien Phu, end of war. Les Jaunes did.

When the Americans invaded Vietnam, having seen what had happened to the French, the thought did not occur that it might happen to them too. It did.

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, having seen what happened to the US in a war against peasants, they did not expect to lose. They did.

When the Americans attacked Afghanistan, having seen what happened to the Soviets there, they did not expect to be fought to a slowly losing draw. They were.

When the Americans attacked Iraq, they did not expect to be bogged down in an interminable conflagration in the whole region. They are.

Is there a pattern here?

ORDER IT NOW

From the foregoing one might conclude that when grrr-bowwow-woofs start wars, they seldom foresee the nature of the war or its outcome. This is particularly true of military men, who seem to have little grasp of their profession. Whether anyone else could better predict does not matter. The generals do not.

Why? One reason is that war by its nature is not very predictable. Often the other side proves uncooperative, imaginative, and resourceful. Another reason is that militaries inculcate unreasonable confidence in their own powers. Troops cannot be told that they are mediocre soldiers, and may lose, that their publics may not support the war, that the other side may prove superior. Consequently they are told, and tell themselves, that they are the best trained, best armed, most lethal force imaginable. They tell themselves that they have great fighting spirit–cran, bushido, oorah. If this is so, they think, how can they not win?

Just now, the usual damned fools in Washington and New York contemplate wars against Russia in Syria, China in the South China Sea, North Korea, Russia in the Ukraine, and Iran. All of these offer superb chances for disastrous and unexpected consequences.

Pregnant-and-girl simulator, forced on American troops by feminists. The intention obviously is to humiliate, and they have succeeded. The problem is, first, that we have troops willing to put up with this and second, and far worse, is that the generals, who know perfectly well the effects of this sort of thing, have let the military become the playground of feminists, homosexuals, transvestites, transgenders, single mothers, and so on. They value their careers over the military.

Pregnant-and-girl simulator, forced on American troops by feminists. The intention obviously is to humiliate, and they have succeeded. The problem is, first, that we have troops willing to put up with this and second, and far worse, is that the generals, who know perfectly well the effects of this sort of thing, have let the military become the playground of feminists, homosexuals, transvestites, transgenders, single mothers, and so on. They value their careers over the military.

An attack on North Korea will be called a “surgical strike.” “Surgical” is a PR phrase implying that no civilians will be killed, that the war will be quick and cheap. You know, like Iraq, a cakewalk. This idea has little relation to military reality. The assumptions will be that American intelligence actually knows where the North’s missiles and nukes are, that North Korea is too stupid to put them deep underground, that Kim Jong Un won’t respond with a massive attack on the South, that he doesn’t have aircraft that can carry a nuke for a short distance–to Seoul, say, or a carrier-battle group, or to the barracks of the 28,000 GIs in South Korea, that the North Korean infantry could not get into Seoul, thirty-five miles away, forcing the US to bomb the South Korean capital into rubble.

Them is a lot of assumptions.

Similarly, we hear that the US military could devastate Iran. Today, “US military” means airplanes. American ground forces are small, not rapidly deployable and–if I may lapse into rural accuracy–pussified, obsessed with homosexuality, girls in combat, trans this and trans that, and racial and sexual quotas in the officer corps. The Pentagon has trouble finding recruits physically fit enough for combat arms.

Iranians are Muslims, not pansies and not afraid to die. They might not–I would say definitely will not–cave in to bombing. They might close the Straits of Hormuz (“Damn, sir! I was sure we could blow up all those missiles they have on pickup trucks.”) They might launch dispersed infantry attacks into various surrounding countries. Getting them out would be a hell of lot harder than letting them in.

In all of these contemplated wars, there is the belief in the Last Move: that is, that after the US defeats the Russian Air Force over Syria, which it could, Russia would throw up its hands, go home and do nothing–instead of, say, occupying the Caucasus, which it could. Always, always, the assumption is that the other side will behave as the bow-wow-woofs think it will.

ORDER IT NOW

People tend to think of countries as suprahuman entities with rational minds. We say, “Russia did this” or The US decided that….” Countries don’t decide anything. Men (usually) do. You know, McCain, Hillary, generals, delusional Neocons, and Trump, who is eerily similar to Kaiser Wilhelm, another stochastic military naif with a codpiece need. These massive egos are not well suited to backing down or conceding that they have made a mistake.

This egotism is important. Washington’s vanities could not accept being humiliated, not allow any country to show that resistance to America is possible.

The carrier Forrestal, 1967. A single Zuni ground-attack missile was fired accidentally, hitting a plane. A huge fire ensued, bombs cooked off, 134 men were killed, and the ship was devastated, out of service for a very long time. One five-inch missile.

The carrier Forrestal, 1967. A single Zuni ground-attack missile was fired accidentally, hitting a plane. A huge fire ensued, bombs cooked off, 134 men were killed, and the ship was devastated, out of service for a very long time. One five-inch missile.

Suppose that the Navy fired on a Chinese ship in the South China Sea, expecting Beijing to roll over as it would have thirty years ago–but it didn’t, instead leaving a carrier in flaming ruin. This is far from impossible. Carriers can be surprisingly fragile, and China has has focused resources specifically of defeating the American Navy in what it regards as its home waters. The American fleet has not fought a war since 1945. It doesn’t really know how well its weapons will work against their weapons.

Times have changed. Carriers today are useful only for bombing defenseless countries. Against serious opposition–Russia and China for example–they serve only as trip wires. The carrier itself does not amount to much, but if you cripple one, you are at war with the US. This is less scary than it used to be, which is dangerous in itself, but still not something one undertakes casually.

The following news story is worth reflection:

Surprise! Boo! “ T he uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced”

“American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk – a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

“By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.

The story clearly was not written by a student of submarines or carriers, but the incident occurred, ten years ago–and Chinese submarines are getting rapidly better.

Emotionally unable to walk away from a local defeat, Washington would have to double down, likely by bombing China. The consequences would be disastrous, unpredictable, perhaps nuclear. Things soldiers do not think about: revolution when the United States, already deeply divided with the middle and lower classes pushed to the wall financially, suffer the depression that would follow on ending commerce with America’s largest trading partner–China. The lower middle class, already pushed to the wall, having no savings, finds prices going way up at Walmart. Apple stores have no iPhones. Boeing loses Chinese orders, laying off thousands. This list could go on for many pages. The elderly will remember the civil unrest during Vietnam.

ORDER IT NOW

If the war remained conventional, the outcome might boil down to which population could best survive privation–the Chinese, only a generation or so removed from living hard, or America’s squealing millennials, looking for safe spaces. If the Pentagon destroyed the Three Gorges Dam, and killed several million people, China might go nuclear. Note that if a few well-placed nuclear bombs shut down food distribution in the US for even a month, people in the cities would be fighting for food on the third day, and eating each other on the fifth.

This, those absurd vanities and overgrown children in New York are playing with.

(Republished from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, China, Iran, Neocons 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Sean says:

    A long tern view of national security would mandate cutting China of from access to the US’s technology and home market while forcing China into an arms race.The peril from Kim’s ICBM nukes is economic. The Chinese fox has promised to use help with N. Korea and got access to the US in return–over and over again.

    The efficacy of the Korean threat for China should be at an end, but I am afraid North Korean upping of the ante to the nuclear level in cahoots with China will yet again provide a rationale to overrule economic interests on the grounds of national security. China wins again and again and again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    China has made clear that its help with North Korea is conditioned on the US not deploying missiles in South Korea and conducting military exercises with South Korea. These conditions are unacceptable to the US, and thus the US is using the failure of Chinese help as a pretext for further military entrenchment in the Korean peninsula and the establishment of missiles there.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/china-russia-combine-to-challenge-trump-on-north-korea/article/2627743

    Russia and China agreed Tuesday that North Korea should halt missile tests and the United States should not deploy a missile shield or conduct large-scale military exercises with South Korea.

    The joint agreement came after a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Moscow and follows what the North Korean regime claims was a successful test of an intercontinental ballistic missile. The agreement was first reported by Reuters.
     
    , @Grandpa Charlie
    As long as the PRC continues to exploit the supposed independence of the DPRK, the USA has the moral ability to declare war on the DPRK and attack in mass, or just to attack based on that the DPRK has already declared war on the USA.

    Almost no one in the USA wants to call the spade a space in this business, so thank you, Sean.

    Meanwhile, getting back to Fred's article, of the various choices for wars to be prosecuted by the USA, war with the DPRK has easily the best chances for a quick ending and successful conclusion. Think of the possible benefits for Trump, for the USA, and for the Korean people. USA could "get the job done" and then exit the peninsula for ever. China would likely be pleased to no longer have to deal with the most corrupt and cruel ruling class anywhere in this corrupt and cruel world (the Kim dynasty). Of course, there would be (or will be) the risk of world nuclear war. As there is anyway - I mean, if USA continues to do nothing, when would it start? when major cities in Japan are destroyed?

    The commander of USAF in the Pacific has indicated that it's all ready to go. He didn't specify nukes or not, but probably not nukes. Anybody who knows the fighting spirit of the ROK military, knows that they could go north across the 38th, swiftly and effectively to occupy the North up to the border with the PRC. Not even the most clueless anti-USA journalist has ever claimed that ordinary Koreans of the North support the Kim dynasty. Yes, it's a choice that may go wrong. Or not. In any event, of the choices available, is this not the one with the least risk of annihilation and the greatest prospect of a benign conclusion?

    Don't know if you agree with my thinking based on a situation that you have brought out into the open, but in any case, THANK YOU for being willing to write realistically about it.
    , @dearieme
    "A long tern view of national security would mandate cutting China of from access to the US’s technology " How? Have you visited any labs recently?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /freed/milk-bar-clausewitzes-bean-curd-napoleons/#comment-1954745
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Reed’s column makes for depressing reading but hits the nail on the head.

    Read More
  3. Fred, you’re a lot better on topics such as this than on Mexico.

    There are probably “net assessers” in the military who have a reasonably good idea of the colossal risks that wars on such extended lines of communication would entail, and some people who have “war gamed” various scenarios and also have a reasonably good idea of the stupendous risks that the U.S. is running by taking on so many opponents, at such great distances, at once, none of which threaten any genuine vital interests of the United States. Unfortunately, the neocons who have hijacked U.S. diplomatic and military policy are probably impervious to such counsel.

    A significant military defeat suffered by the U.S. (carriers going down with all hands, aircraft losses similar to those suffered by the Israelis in the 1973 war or large numbers of Americans killed or taken prisoner on the ground) might be the shock to the system that starts a revolution of some sort.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    Diversity Heretic,

    "so many opponents ... at once" ????

    Methinks, dear Heretic, that you have taken Fred's meaning off on a tangent? I assumed - and do assume - that the premise of Fred's article is that USA has several choices, among them being "DO NOTHING" and "DO ALL OF IT," but really the choices worth considering are to do which one of these? Because the "DO NOTHING" choice would probably end in disaster - for the American people, for the Korean people, for Russian people, for the world, and - oh yes - for the Donald, and even for those hollow greed machines that we call "neocons" supposing that they really are living beings and not the, you know, the man-size lizards.

    Do them ALL and do them all AT ONCE ????? Are you crazy?

    Do the one that has been utterly foisted on us, the one that is honorable, the one that has the best chance of success, in many respects but especially in regard to getting US out of Asia.
    , @restless94110
    I can't agree with you on all points of your comment.

    Fred writes a bunch of nonsense when he writes about 9/11 of Mexico, but he's outrageously dead-on in his military writings.

    The humiliation of the US military and of the US leadership whould start a revolution....of some sort. It would depend on the damage..

    One thing is certain though: almost nobody in the United States understands the nature of our precarity, and no one is ready for any kind of defeat or worse.
  4. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Sean
    A long tern view of national security would mandate cutting China of from access to the US's technology and home market while forcing China into an arms race.The peril from Kim's ICBM nukes is economic. The Chinese fox has promised to use help with N. Korea and got access to the US in return--over and over again.

    The efficacy of the Korean threat for China should be at an end, but I am afraid North Korean upping of the ante to the nuclear level in cahoots with China will yet again provide a rationale to overrule economic interests on the grounds of national security. China wins again and again and again.

    China has made clear that its help with North Korea is conditioned on the US not deploying missiles in South Korea and conducting military exercises with South Korea. These conditions are unacceptable to the US, and thus the US is using the failure of Chinese help as a pretext for further military entrenchment in the Korean peninsula and the establishment of missiles there.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/china-russia-combine-to-challenge-trump-on-north-korea/article/2627743

    Russia and China agreed Tuesday that North Korea should halt missile tests and the United States should not deploy a missile shield or conduct large-scale military exercises with South Korea.

    The joint agreement came after a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Moscow and follows what the North Korean regime claims was a successful test of an intercontinental ballistic missile. The agreement was first reported by Reuters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    The Kim-dynasty billionaire rulers of the North, being boundlessly greedy and arrogantly reckless, as is the nature of all billionaires, are saying that they are willing to talk only when the ROK (the only democratically government on the peninsula) surrenders its sovereignty by allowing the billionaire-government of the North to veto whatever defense arrangements the South finds it necessary to make. Is that a bad joke, or what?

    Russia and China are cooperating these days, but would they really object. in the long run, if the USA blew up the North to leave it open to being welcomed into the ROK with all-Korea elections to follow? For one thing, the North is probably the most corrupt country in Asia ... and that corruption is certainly integrated into the corruption that plagues both China and Russia.

    The key to pulling it off would have to be that Trump would need to understand the benefits of USA withdrawal from the peninsula - really from Asia. China and Russia would understand that benign situation as well. And it would secure the Donald of a place among the great "states people" of history. And the American people would be grateful (1) to see that, for once, we see some usefulness coming out of the gargantuan investment made in USA's military power, and, (2) that we are finally out of Asia - honorably. Even Senator McCain - who has been upset for so long, really only because he wants at some point to be able to say that we left on a WIN - even Senator McCain would cheer.
  5. @Sean
    A long tern view of national security would mandate cutting China of from access to the US's technology and home market while forcing China into an arms race.The peril from Kim's ICBM nukes is economic. The Chinese fox has promised to use help with N. Korea and got access to the US in return--over and over again.

    The efficacy of the Korean threat for China should be at an end, but I am afraid North Korean upping of the ante to the nuclear level in cahoots with China will yet again provide a rationale to overrule economic interests on the grounds of national security. China wins again and again and again.

    As long as the PRC continues to exploit the supposed independence of the DPRK, the USA has the moral ability to declare war on the DPRK and attack in mass, or just to attack based on that the DPRK has already declared war on the USA.

    Almost no one in the USA wants to call the spade a space in this business, so thank you, Sean.

    Meanwhile, getting back to Fred’s article, of the various choices for wars to be prosecuted by the USA, war with the DPRK has easily the best chances for a quick ending and successful conclusion. Think of the possible benefits for Trump, for the USA, and for the Korean people. USA could “get the job done” and then exit the peninsula for ever. China would likely be pleased to no longer have to deal with the most corrupt and cruel ruling class anywhere in this corrupt and cruel world (the Kim dynasty). Of course, there would be (or will be) the risk of world nuclear war. As there is anyway – I mean, if USA continues to do nothing, when would it start? when major cities in Japan are destroyed?

    The commander of USAF in the Pacific has indicated that it’s all ready to go. He didn’t specify nukes or not, but probably not nukes. Anybody who knows the fighting spirit of the ROK military, knows that they could go north across the 38th, swiftly and effectively to occupy the North up to the border with the PRC. Not even the most clueless anti-USA journalist has ever claimed that ordinary Koreans of the North support the Kim dynasty. Yes, it’s a choice that may go wrong. Or not. In any event, of the choices available, is this not the one with the least risk of annihilation and the greatest prospect of a benign conclusion?

    Don’t know if you agree with my thinking based on a situation that you have brought out into the open, but in any case, THANK YOU for being willing to write realistically about it.

    Read More
    • Troll: CK, Che Guava, Stonehands
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You sound like Douglas MacArthur circa 1950:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2014/12/15/a-christmas-far-from-home-an-epic-tale-of-courage-and-survival-during-the-korean-war/20260755/

    U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, drunk on public adulation from his service in World War II and his inspired amphibious invasion at Inchon earlier in 1950, bragged that the Korean War was over and that U.S. troops who had swept across most of North Korea would be home by that Christmas.
     
    , @restless94110
    You are diluded. America has no moral "ability" to do anything. That's a violation of international law and it is exactly what the Nazis were tried for in Nuremberg after WWII ended.

    The DPRK has not declared war against the United States either, so you are imagining things for a 2nd time.

    Let's just call a spade a spade, shall we?

    Getting back to Fred's article, did you even read it? An attack on NK would be catastrophic. That's what Fred wrote. And all you got out of it was that of all of the choices to go to war for absolutely no reason, the best choice would be to war on Korea?

    And you reason? That it would be the most likely to be the quickest and most effective? And this is exactly what Fred said is the problem with those think militarily about all this: they think and have thought it would be so quick and so easy, and so surgical.

    And you actually read Fred's article? What parts of his article did you read?

    Are you senile? What are you talking about, Grampa?
    , @MarkinLA
    So it is OK that the US starts a war that ends in the complete destruction of Seoul?
    , @nsa
    Hey GrandMa Charlene,
    You need to stop watching ZioVision and get out more. There is zero chance of an attack on either China or Korea for one obvious reason.....there's nothing in it for the conniving jooies so why would they foolishly waste their useful idiot's assets? Think about it.....
    , @Thirdeye

    Anybody who knows the fighting spirit of the ROK military, knows that they could go north across the 38th, swiftly and effectively to occupy the North up to the border with the PRC.
     
    You can't be serious. The central Korean peninsula is ideal defensive terrain that channels attacking forces into narrow debouches that are ranged in by considerable firepower (that applies to the southern as well as the northern side). Whoever tries to move is just going to get blown up. That single fact is probably the most stabilizing aspect of the whole situation on the peninsula.

    Not even the most clueless anti-USA journalist has ever claimed that ordinary Koreans of the North support the Kim dynasty.
     
    The Kim Dynasty has engineered a quasi-religions Suche ideology that makes the most rabid Maoism of the Cultural Revolution look tame. Their national myth is that Kim Il-Sung, through supernatural powers, drove away the Japanese then fended off a US invasion with no outside help. There would be plenty of North Koreans convinced that they are fighting under divine providence, just like with ISIS. You might consider the Japanese defense of Peleliu with a few Mosuls and Raqqas thrown in as what might await in the caved hills and cities of North Korea.
    , @Chris Mallory

    the most corrupt and cruel ruling class anywhere in this corrupt and cruel world (the Kim dynasty).
     
    Cruel? Maybe. But for corrupt the child molesters of DC have that title lock, stock and barrel.

    Anybody who knows the fighting spirit of the ROK military, knows that they could go north across the 38th, swiftly and effectively to occupy the North up to the border with the PRC.
     
    Better hope they can move faster than a NORK heavy artillery piece can be loaded and fired. Otherwise they will be coming back home to bombed out craters.
    , @Sean
    The recent accelerated progress of North Korea with nuke minuturisation and missile range make it obvious to me that China has given Kim requisite technical help, thereby enabling North Korea to be a threat to the US at just the time when the economic rapist Chinese need to be needed by the US as a wedge against Trumps threatened trade barriers.

    North Korea is a cat's paw of China and being being used to get America to open its economy to China in return for (don't laugh) help with North Korea. In the recent deal Trump gave the Chinese everything they wanted, and almost immediately afterward North Korean nuke capability took a great leap forward--no doubt in anticipation of the next round of China -US trade negotiation,
    , @Druid
    IDIOT!
  6. @Anonymous
    China has made clear that its help with North Korea is conditioned on the US not deploying missiles in South Korea and conducting military exercises with South Korea. These conditions are unacceptable to the US, and thus the US is using the failure of Chinese help as a pretext for further military entrenchment in the Korean peninsula and the establishment of missiles there.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/china-russia-combine-to-challenge-trump-on-north-korea/article/2627743

    Russia and China agreed Tuesday that North Korea should halt missile tests and the United States should not deploy a missile shield or conduct large-scale military exercises with South Korea.

    The joint agreement came after a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Moscow and follows what the North Korean regime claims was a successful test of an intercontinental ballistic missile. The agreement was first reported by Reuters.
     

    The Kim-dynasty billionaire rulers of the North, being boundlessly greedy and arrogantly reckless, as is the nature of all billionaires, are saying that they are willing to talk only when the ROK (the only democratically government on the peninsula) surrenders its sovereignty by allowing the billionaire-government of the North to veto whatever defense arrangements the South finds it necessary to make. Is that a bad joke, or what?

    Russia and China are cooperating these days, but would they really object. in the long run, if the USA blew up the North to leave it open to being welcomed into the ROK with all-Korea elections to follow? For one thing, the North is probably the most corrupt country in Asia … and that corruption is certainly integrated into the corruption that plagues both China and Russia.

    The key to pulling it off would have to be that Trump would need to understand the benefits of USA withdrawal from the peninsula – really from Asia. China and Russia would understand that benign situation as well. And it would secure the Donald of a place among the great “states people” of history. And the American people would be grateful (1) to see that, for once, we see some usefulness coming out of the gargantuan investment made in USA’s military power, and, (2) that we are finally out of Asia – honorably. Even Senator McCain – who has been upset for so long, really only because he wants at some point to be able to say that we left on a WIN – even Senator McCain would cheer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @restless94110
    You lead off your reply claiming that for the leader of North Korea it's all about money. I did not realize that you had some kind of personal knowledge of the mind and motives of the Kim dynasty. Do you have a weekly card game with the Leader?

    In other words, you don't know what you are talking about, Grandpa.

    So why are you talking? Is that a bad joke, or what?

    You are the veritable definition of "arm-chair warrior."

    You ask a rhetorical question: would Russia and China really object?

    Gramps, they are objecting right now. Are you saying, would they also really object if we bombed all of the NKorean people killing millions of them?

    Are you really saying that?

    Grampa, I do not know what kind of medications you are on. But you need different ones. If addled dilusional thinking are the side effects of your medication regimen, please see your doctor as soon as possible.

    In the meantime, why are you infecting a reasonable and serious assessment of the likely utter failure of any military action by the United States with your visions of mayhem and death?

    I don't understand why anyone would want that for anyone on Earth. There is no justification for that. It is a war crime. It is against international law.
    , @RebelWriter
    Let McCain lead the charge, then.
  7. @Diversity Heretic
    Fred, you're a lot better on topics such as this than on Mexico.

    There are probably "net assessers" in the military who have a reasonably good idea of the colossal risks that wars on such extended lines of communication would entail, and some people who have "war gamed" various scenarios and also have a reasonably good idea of the stupendous risks that the U.S. is running by taking on so many opponents, at such great distances, at once, none of which threaten any genuine vital interests of the United States. Unfortunately, the neocons who have hijacked U.S. diplomatic and military policy are probably impervious to such counsel.

    A significant military defeat suffered by the U.S. (carriers going down with all hands, aircraft losses similar to those suffered by the Israelis in the 1973 war or large numbers of Americans killed or taken prisoner on the ground) might be the shock to the system that starts a revolution of some sort.

    Diversity Heretic,

    “so many opponents … at once” ????

    Methinks, dear Heretic, that you have taken Fred’s meaning off on a tangent? I assumed – and do assume – that the premise of Fred’s article is that USA has several choices, among them being “DO NOTHING” and “DO ALL OF IT,” but really the choices worth considering are to do which one of these? Because the “DO NOTHING” choice would probably end in disaster – for the American people, for the Korean people, for Russian people, for the world, and – oh yes – for the Donald, and even for those hollow greed machines that we call “neocons” supposing that they really are living beings and not the, you know, the man-size lizards.

    Do them ALL and do them all AT ONCE ????? Are you crazy?

    Do the one that has been utterly foisted on us, the one that is honorable, the one that has the best chance of success, in many respects but especially in regard to getting US out of Asia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @restless94110
    Your assumption that Fred's article was about choices, as if the United States was in a supermarket looking at cuts of meat for dinner tonight, is false.

    For one thing, the do nothing choice is the only choice that might not end in disaster for all those entites you listed in your comment. Might. And this is clearly what Fred has written.

    And because you have mis-read Fred, you jump to: it has to be one of them. So you pick what you say is the "honorable" choice?

    What is honorable about messing with a country that is basically saying: stop doing your war games all around our country all the time, remove your troops from out Penninsula, leave us alone.

    Other countries have nuclear capability, grampa. And still others will get nuclear capability in the future.

    North Korea has seen and still sees (in Venezuela) that the US does regime change. So, why would any sane leader ever give up nuclear weapons? The US is demanding that they do just that, claiming (some of US people are, while other US people are not) that the US will not then affect regime change.

    The United States has made a feature length Hollywood movie about North Korean regime change!!!!!

    What have you been smoking, Grampa?
    , @Simplyamazed
    You assume that those left out just sit there and don't see an opportunity to take advantage of the situation. The kind of unexpected consequences Fred is warning about. Then things spiral out of control, like World War One, for instance.
    , @animalogic
    No, don't do NOTHING -- do DIPLOMACY!
  8. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Grandpa Charlie
    As long as the PRC continues to exploit the supposed independence of the DPRK, the USA has the moral ability to declare war on the DPRK and attack in mass, or just to attack based on that the DPRK has already declared war on the USA.

    Almost no one in the USA wants to call the spade a space in this business, so thank you, Sean.

    Meanwhile, getting back to Fred's article, of the various choices for wars to be prosecuted by the USA, war with the DPRK has easily the best chances for a quick ending and successful conclusion. Think of the possible benefits for Trump, for the USA, and for the Korean people. USA could "get the job done" and then exit the peninsula for ever. China would likely be pleased to no longer have to deal with the most corrupt and cruel ruling class anywhere in this corrupt and cruel world (the Kim dynasty). Of course, there would be (or will be) the risk of world nuclear war. As there is anyway - I mean, if USA continues to do nothing, when would it start? when major cities in Japan are destroyed?

    The commander of USAF in the Pacific has indicated that it's all ready to go. He didn't specify nukes or not, but probably not nukes. Anybody who knows the fighting spirit of the ROK military, knows that they could go north across the 38th, swiftly and effectively to occupy the North up to the border with the PRC. Not even the most clueless anti-USA journalist has ever claimed that ordinary Koreans of the North support the Kim dynasty. Yes, it's a choice that may go wrong. Or not. In any event, of the choices available, is this not the one with the least risk of annihilation and the greatest prospect of a benign conclusion?

    Don't know if you agree with my thinking based on a situation that you have brought out into the open, but in any case, THANK YOU for being willing to write realistically about it.

    You sound like Douglas MacArthur circa 1950:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2014/12/15/a-christmas-far-from-home-an-epic-tale-of-courage-and-survival-during-the-korean-war/20260755/

    U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, drunk on public adulation from his service in World War II and his inspired amphibious invasion at Inchon earlier in 1950, bragged that the Korean War was over and that U.S. troops who had swept across most of North Korea would be home by that Christmas.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    You, Anonymous, sound like Kim Jong-Un, the punk billionaire!

    If you want more, I got 'em by the dozens!
    , @Simply Simon
    MacArthur made a terrible mistake by charging up to the Yalu River in winter with token resistance from the NKoreans. All hell broke lose when the Chinese came pouring across that frozen river and wreaked havoc upon our troops who were not at all prepared either for the vicious Korean weather or the fanatic onslaught of the Chinese. MacArthur was directly responsible for the needless deaths of thousands of GIs that resulted from enemy fire, frozen to death or later died as POWs. Also guilty for not stopping MacArthur from his madness was President Truman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who had authority over him. Of course Truman later fired the general, unfortunately after all the damage was done. Reed pretty well sums it up in his column about the folly of wars like Korea when a misguided five-star is treated with adulation by Congress and the American people upon his return from Korea. In his speech before both Houses of Congress MacArthur made the statement, "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away." He should have faded away quietly after WWII.
  9. Too bad that it couldn’t be done peacefully, as it was in the case of Germany. Yet and still, it would be, at long last, the conclusion to the defining Great War that began in 1914 and once Korea is reunified, ends approximately a century later.

    Courage to imagine is what is needed now. And forgeddabout war with Iran: let Israel take that on, if they want. And forgeddabout war with Venezuela: let the billionaires of Columbia take that on, if they want. And what else was contemplated by Fred? Oh, yeah, Syria and Ukraine. Aren’t we all sick and tired of hearing about such “CNN wars”? Bloody expensive way to bring up viewership! So that leaves, oh yes, the SCS idea of a naval war, except that we never did take up Vietnam’s offer to serve as home port for the US Navy. So we would need to start there, with an alliance with Vietnam. But, really, we already have with Korea what might be with Vietnam – should have been already, if treasonous neocons did not rule in DC – so that isn’t a real option, the “SCS war” at this time. Maybe with an alliance with Vietnam, it coulda shoulda, but it didn’t. And anyway an alliance with Vietnam would have forestalled it in the first place.

    That leaves what? The one option that makes sense: get rid of the corrupt and contemptible Kim-dynasty dictatorship of the DPRK.

    Read More
    • Replies: @restless94110
    As we say in New York: look at you.

    Saying that the Kim dynasty is comtemptible. So the Deep State warmongers in the United States that are attempting a soft/hard coup on a duly elected United States President are not equally contemptible?

    Why are you looking to another country when your own country is so completely corrupt and in such serious disarray?

    What kind of person would sit around and rattle on and on about some place that they have no business even thinking about.

    Wasn't it George Washington who said that foreign entanglements and standing armies would be the death of the Republic?

    What part of that message are you not undertanding?

    P.S., it is not "different" now, Gramps, just because it is 2017 and not 1780. The Founders knew that no matter what age of time a Republic happens to be in, it is utterly stupid and fatal to get involved in foreign entanglements and keep standing armies.

    And luckily, as Fred has pointed out, this lesson has been shown t be true right now in the 21st century where we have lost or stalemated (which is the same as a loss) in 6 countries and working on 2 more losses. Maybe 3.

    You can see it right in front of your eyes, Grampa!!! Are you blind as well as diluded?
    , @macilrae

    That leaves what? The one option that makes sense: get rid of the corrupt and contemptible Kim-dynasty dictatorship of the DPRK.
     
    However remember that our outlook on that country is largely based on the propaganda we have been fed: this has indeed lead us to believe that life there is none too hot. However the arrogance of successive US governments (with their "messages" and massive joint maneuvers preferred to actual dialogue) has had to make life far, far more miserable for the ordinary N. Koreans and has given their rulers at least some excuse for what they have done.

    Excellent piece from Fred here - complementary to Saker's.
  10. @Anonymous
    You sound like Douglas MacArthur circa 1950:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2014/12/15/a-christmas-far-from-home-an-epic-tale-of-courage-and-survival-during-the-korean-war/20260755/

    U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, drunk on public adulation from his service in World War II and his inspired amphibious invasion at Inchon earlier in 1950, bragged that the Korean War was over and that U.S. troops who had swept across most of North Korea would be home by that Christmas.
     

    You, Anonymous, sound like Kim Jong-Un, the punk billionaire!

    If you want more, I got ‘em by the dozens!

    Read More
  11. The Saker just about now (within the last less-than-a-day) posted a fine article examining the very question that we have been attempting to deal with here. Namely, of the various options for choosing the “best of all possible wars” – which would we choose.

    As for Korea, the Saker’s comments are cryptic – really subminimal. Here it is:

    “Prevailing against Iran or the DPRK is clearly beyond the actual US military capabilities.” — The Saker

    Well, that answers that … or does it?

    In any case, we really do need to insist on an answer to the question of what is the real relation between the PRC and the DPRK. Here in the American blogosphere we have fallen into the sloppy intellectual habit, probably acquired from MSM of all places – that the DPRK can be independent of Beijing, so that Beijing can calculate that it will not be exposed to any retaliation whatsoever regardles of what Pyongyang does, while at the same time we think somehow that any attack on the DPRK is, really, an attack on what amounts to a province of China. If you think about it, that is so insane or lame.

    Even if – or especially if – the North of Korea is already Chinese territory, then we should definitely take advantage of the ambiguity, we should absolutely not fail to get at Beijing by destroying some targets within the North of Korea. And if the Kim dynasty of the DPRK is really independent of the PRC, then we should do everyone the favor of removing the Kim-dynasty tragi-comedy from the border of China, where it can only be a mortifying embarrassment to the CCP. Of course, in any case, we should avail ourselves of the opportunity presented to exit Asia while we still have some pride and a little, if not much, honor left.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    Here is the link to the Saker's overall excellent article:

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-end-of-the-wars-on-the-cheap-for-the-united-states/
    , @restless94110
    Listen to the Saker.

    It is not our provence to insist on anything about China's relationship to North Korea. It is not our business.

    I am literally watching a diluded fool (you) rationalize why the US should commit war crimes against North Korea.

    None of your rationalizations are valid. All of them are violations of international law and would do untold damage not only to world populations but to the reputation of the United States.

    What you are rationalizing would destroy the United States' stature in the world forever.

    Why would you want to do that?
    , @anonymous
    Please reflect on your habitual use of "we" in reference to the USG. People who self-identify with their rulers are essential for the warmongers. Isn't that why Americans are subjected to camouflage uniforms and "thank you for your service" spectacles at athletic events?
    , @Sunbeam
    You know your analysis of a possible North Korea conflict has an assumption build into it.

    That the US and South Korea (and are they really on board with a shooting war) conduct an offensive attack on North Korea (and how that goes ... well we'd have to see).

    Meanwhile China does nothing.

    See any possible things that might go wrong here? Even if North Korea isn't their favorite client state in the whole world, they might have some interest in keeping the US from installing a new regime. Maybe.

    And as for what China could do to throw a wrench into this whole thing... well I can think of lots.

    What about you?
    , @Anonymous
    Tough talk from someone who is living in their moms basement and has no skin in the game.

    What you are really saying is that the war with N Korea wouldn't affect you.

    No worries about our soldiers who are in firing range, on land, and sea.

    The quick war scenario is a myth. N Korea saw what happened to Libya after Gadaffii fell. Their people are being sold as slaves now. Better to go in a blazing glory than be a slave.
    , @Anonymous

    the various options for choosing the “best of all possible wars”
     
    Best option -- "None".

    Priorities for the USA are as follows:

    1. Eliminate government corruption at Federal, State, and Local levels. Whether or not that can be accomplished without open violent rebellion is moot, but it is absolutely necessary to the future of the USA as democratic republic with Constitutionally-defined individual rights. If we accept oligarchy, that's a choice, for sure. Regrets always come later.

    2. Systematic ejection of foreign nationals who established residence illegally, and all of their offspring. To the extent that is unworkable, denial of all citizenship rights, present and future, to individuals meeting that definition.

    3, Rebuild and re-structure the economy, beginning with renovation of infrastructure.
  12. @Grandpa Charlie
    The Saker just about now (within the last less-than-a-day) posted a fine article examining the very question that we have been attempting to deal with here. Namely, of the various options for choosing the "best of all possible wars" - which would we choose.

    As for Korea, the Saker's comments are cryptic - really subminimal. Here it is:

    "Prevailing against Iran or the DPRK is clearly beyond the actual US military capabilities." -- The Saker

    Well, that answers that ... or does it?

    In any case, we really do need to insist on an answer to the question of what is the real relation between the PRC and the DPRK. Here in the American blogosphere we have fallen into the sloppy intellectual habit, probably acquired from MSM of all places - that the DPRK can be independent of Beijing, so that Beijing can calculate that it will not be exposed to any retaliation whatsoever regardles of what Pyongyang does, while at the same time we think somehow that any attack on the DPRK is, really, an attack on what amounts to a province of China. If you think about it, that is so insane or lame.

    Even if - or especially if - the North of Korea is already Chinese territory, then we should definitely take advantage of the ambiguity, we should absolutely not fail to get at Beijing by destroying some targets within the North of Korea. And if the Kim dynasty of the DPRK is really independent of the PRC, then we should do everyone the favor of removing the Kim-dynasty tragi-comedy from the border of China, where it can only be a mortifying embarrassment to the CCP. Of course, in any case, we should avail ourselves of the opportunity presented to exit Asia while we still have some pride and a little, if not much, honor left.

    Here is the link to the Saker’s overall excellent article:

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-end-of-the-wars-on-the-cheap-for-the-united-states/

    Read More
    • Replies: @restless94110
    In my initial reply to your comment referencing the Saker article, I had not yet read the article.

    I simply commented on the absurdity of your ideas regarding North Korea.

    Now that I have read the Saker's article, I don't understand why you wrote those comments or even had those thoughts!

    The Saker makes clear that the modern method of war for America requires three things that absolutely have to be true: A demoralized enemy, air superiority, and the ability to have boots on the ground. Near the end of his article, the Saker created a handy table for all of the possible places that the US could engage or is enggated in.

    North Korea's entry consists of: it is unknown if the enemy is demoralized (I would say it is clear that it is not), a Yes for air superiority, and a No for boots on the ground.

    Meaning that North Korea would be a loss for America if it were to attack it.

    This makes your reference to the Saker's article, complete with a 2nd entry just to make sure that we know where the article is and read it, extremely confusing.

    The Saker has pointed out that it would be a loss to the United States to do what you advocate, just as Fred pointed out the same thing. Yet you have used both articles to make up your own scnenario?

    Why would you do such a thing? How could you read these great analysists and then come to the opposite and suicidally stupid conclusion?

    I believe that you are a prime example of the America people: gullible, sousciant, arrogant, full of hubris, and bone-headedly, stubbornly foolish.

  13. @Diversity Heretic
    Fred, you're a lot better on topics such as this than on Mexico.

    There are probably "net assessers" in the military who have a reasonably good idea of the colossal risks that wars on such extended lines of communication would entail, and some people who have "war gamed" various scenarios and also have a reasonably good idea of the stupendous risks that the U.S. is running by taking on so many opponents, at such great distances, at once, none of which threaten any genuine vital interests of the United States. Unfortunately, the neocons who have hijacked U.S. diplomatic and military policy are probably impervious to such counsel.

    A significant military defeat suffered by the U.S. (carriers going down with all hands, aircraft losses similar to those suffered by the Israelis in the 1973 war or large numbers of Americans killed or taken prisoner on the ground) might be the shock to the system that starts a revolution of some sort.

    I can’t agree with you on all points of your comment.

    Fred writes a bunch of nonsense when he writes about 9/11 of Mexico, but he’s outrageously dead-on in his military writings.

    The humiliation of the US military and of the US leadership whould start a revolution….of some sort. It would depend on the damage..

    One thing is certain though: almost nobody in the United States understands the nature of our precarity, and no one is ready for any kind of defeat or worse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @restless94110
    The first line of my reply should have read:

    I can't agree with you MORE on all points of your comment.
  14. @Grandpa Charlie
    As long as the PRC continues to exploit the supposed independence of the DPRK, the USA has the moral ability to declare war on the DPRK and attack in mass, or just to attack based on that the DPRK has already declared war on the USA.

    Almost no one in the USA wants to call the spade a space in this business, so thank you, Sean.

    Meanwhile, getting back to Fred's article, of the various choices for wars to be prosecuted by the USA, war with the DPRK has easily the best chances for a quick ending and successful conclusion. Think of the possible benefits for Trump, for the USA, and for the Korean people. USA could "get the job done" and then exit the peninsula for ever. China would likely be pleased to no longer have to deal with the most corrupt and cruel ruling class anywhere in this corrupt and cruel world (the Kim dynasty). Of course, there would be (or will be) the risk of world nuclear war. As there is anyway - I mean, if USA continues to do nothing, when would it start? when major cities in Japan are destroyed?

    The commander of USAF in the Pacific has indicated that it's all ready to go. He didn't specify nukes or not, but probably not nukes. Anybody who knows the fighting spirit of the ROK military, knows that they could go north across the 38th, swiftly and effectively to occupy the North up to the border with the PRC. Not even the most clueless anti-USA journalist has ever claimed that ordinary Koreans of the North support the Kim dynasty. Yes, it's a choice that may go wrong. Or not. In any event, of the choices available, is this not the one with the least risk of annihilation and the greatest prospect of a benign conclusion?

    Don't know if you agree with my thinking based on a situation that you have brought out into the open, but in any case, THANK YOU for being willing to write realistically about it.

    You are diluded. America has no moral “ability” to do anything. That’s a violation of international law and it is exactly what the Nazis were tried for in Nuremberg after WWII ended.

    The DPRK has not declared war against the United States either, so you are imagining things for a 2nd time.

    Let’s just call a spade a spade, shall we?

    Getting back to Fred’s article, did you even read it? An attack on NK would be catastrophic. That’s what Fred wrote. And all you got out of it was that of all of the choices to go to war for absolutely no reason, the best choice would be to war on Korea?

    And you reason? That it would be the most likely to be the quickest and most effective? And this is exactly what Fred said is the problem with those think militarily about all this: they think and have thought it would be so quick and so easy, and so surgical.

    And you actually read Fred’s article? What parts of his article did you read?

    Are you senile? What are you talking about, Grampa?

    Read More
  15. @Grandpa Charlie
    The Kim-dynasty billionaire rulers of the North, being boundlessly greedy and arrogantly reckless, as is the nature of all billionaires, are saying that they are willing to talk only when the ROK (the only democratically government on the peninsula) surrenders its sovereignty by allowing the billionaire-government of the North to veto whatever defense arrangements the South finds it necessary to make. Is that a bad joke, or what?

    Russia and China are cooperating these days, but would they really object. in the long run, if the USA blew up the North to leave it open to being welcomed into the ROK with all-Korea elections to follow? For one thing, the North is probably the most corrupt country in Asia ... and that corruption is certainly integrated into the corruption that plagues both China and Russia.

    The key to pulling it off would have to be that Trump would need to understand the benefits of USA withdrawal from the peninsula - really from Asia. China and Russia would understand that benign situation as well. And it would secure the Donald of a place among the great "states people" of history. And the American people would be grateful (1) to see that, for once, we see some usefulness coming out of the gargantuan investment made in USA's military power, and, (2) that we are finally out of Asia - honorably. Even Senator McCain - who has been upset for so long, really only because he wants at some point to be able to say that we left on a WIN - even Senator McCain would cheer.

    You lead off your reply claiming that for the leader of North Korea it’s all about money. I did not realize that you had some kind of personal knowledge of the mind and motives of the Kim dynasty. Do you have a weekly card game with the Leader?

    In other words, you don’t know what you are talking about, Grandpa.

    So why are you talking? Is that a bad joke, or what?

    You are the veritable definition of “arm-chair warrior.”

    You ask a rhetorical question: would Russia and China really object?

    Gramps, they are objecting right now. Are you saying, would they also really object if we bombed all of the NKorean people killing millions of them?

    Are you really saying that?

    Grampa, I do not know what kind of medications you are on. But you need different ones. If addled dilusional thinking are the side effects of your medication regimen, please see your doctor as soon as possible.

    In the meantime, why are you infecting a reasonable and serious assessment of the likely utter failure of any military action by the United States with your visions of mayhem and death?

    I don’t understand why anyone would want that for anyone on Earth. There is no justification for that. It is a war crime. It is against international law.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    You are an idiot, and doubtless be vanisihing after your one stupid post.
  16. @Grandpa Charlie
    Diversity Heretic,

    "so many opponents ... at once" ????

    Methinks, dear Heretic, that you have taken Fred's meaning off on a tangent? I assumed - and do assume - that the premise of Fred's article is that USA has several choices, among them being "DO NOTHING" and "DO ALL OF IT," but really the choices worth considering are to do which one of these? Because the "DO NOTHING" choice would probably end in disaster - for the American people, for the Korean people, for Russian people, for the world, and - oh yes - for the Donald, and even for those hollow greed machines that we call "neocons" supposing that they really are living beings and not the, you know, the man-size lizards.

    Do them ALL and do them all AT ONCE ????? Are you crazy?

    Do the one that has been utterly foisted on us, the one that is honorable, the one that has the best chance of success, in many respects but especially in regard to getting US out of Asia.

    Your assumption that Fred’s article was about choices, as if the United States was in a supermarket looking at cuts of meat for dinner tonight, is false.

    For one thing, the do nothing choice is the only choice that might not end in disaster for all those entites you listed in your comment. Might. And this is clearly what Fred has written.

    And because you have mis-read Fred, you jump to: it has to be one of them. So you pick what you say is the “honorable” choice?

    What is honorable about messing with a country that is basically saying: stop doing your war games all around our country all the time, remove your troops from out Penninsula, leave us alone.

    Other countries have nuclear capability, grampa. And still others will get nuclear capability in the future.

    North Korea has seen and still sees (in Venezuela) that the US does regime change. So, why would any sane leader ever give up nuclear weapons? The US is demanding that they do just that, claiming (some of US people are, while other US people are not) that the US will not then affect regime change.

    The United States has made a feature length Hollywood movie about North Korean regime change!!!!!

    What have you been smoking, Grampa?

    Read More
  17. @Grandpa Charlie
    Too bad that it couldn't be done peacefully, as it was in the case of Germany. Yet and still, it would be, at long last, the conclusion to the defining Great War that began in 1914 and once Korea is reunified, ends approximately a century later.

    Courage to imagine is what is needed now. And forgeddabout war with Iran: let Israel take that on, if they want. And forgeddabout war with Venezuela: let the billionaires of Columbia take that on, if they want. And what else was contemplated by Fred? Oh, yeah, Syria and Ukraine. Aren't we all sick and tired of hearing about such "CNN wars"? Bloody expensive way to bring up viewership! So that leaves, oh yes, the SCS idea of a naval war, except that we never did take up Vietnam's offer to serve as home port for the US Navy. So we would need to start there, with an alliance with Vietnam. But, really, we already have with Korea what might be with Vietnam - should have been already, if treasonous neocons did not rule in DC - so that isn't a real option, the "SCS war" at this time. Maybe with an alliance with Vietnam, it coulda shoulda, but it didn't. And anyway an alliance with Vietnam would have forestalled it in the first place.

    That leaves what? The one option that makes sense: get rid of the corrupt and contemptible Kim-dynasty dictatorship of the DPRK.

    As we say in New York: look at you.

    Saying that the Kim dynasty is comtemptible. So the Deep State warmongers in the United States that are attempting a soft/hard coup on a duly elected United States President are not equally contemptible?

    Why are you looking to another country when your own country is so completely corrupt and in such serious disarray?

    What kind of person would sit around and rattle on and on about some place that they have no business even thinking about.

    Wasn’t it George Washington who said that foreign entanglements and standing armies would be the death of the Republic?

    What part of that message are you not undertanding?

    P.S., it is not “different” now, Gramps, just because it is 2017 and not 1780. The Founders knew that no matter what age of time a Republic happens to be in, it is utterly stupid and fatal to get involved in foreign entanglements and keep standing armies.

    And luckily, as Fred has pointed out, this lesson has been shown t be true right now in the 21st century where we have lost or stalemated (which is the same as a loss) in 6 countries and working on 2 more losses. Maybe 3.

    You can see it right in front of your eyes, Grampa!!! Are you blind as well as diluded?

    Read More
  18. @Grandpa Charlie
    The Saker just about now (within the last less-than-a-day) posted a fine article examining the very question that we have been attempting to deal with here. Namely, of the various options for choosing the "best of all possible wars" - which would we choose.

    As for Korea, the Saker's comments are cryptic - really subminimal. Here it is:

    "Prevailing against Iran or the DPRK is clearly beyond the actual US military capabilities." -- The Saker

    Well, that answers that ... or does it?

    In any case, we really do need to insist on an answer to the question of what is the real relation between the PRC and the DPRK. Here in the American blogosphere we have fallen into the sloppy intellectual habit, probably acquired from MSM of all places - that the DPRK can be independent of Beijing, so that Beijing can calculate that it will not be exposed to any retaliation whatsoever regardles of what Pyongyang does, while at the same time we think somehow that any attack on the DPRK is, really, an attack on what amounts to a province of China. If you think about it, that is so insane or lame.

    Even if - or especially if - the North of Korea is already Chinese territory, then we should definitely take advantage of the ambiguity, we should absolutely not fail to get at Beijing by destroying some targets within the North of Korea. And if the Kim dynasty of the DPRK is really independent of the PRC, then we should do everyone the favor of removing the Kim-dynasty tragi-comedy from the border of China, where it can only be a mortifying embarrassment to the CCP. Of course, in any case, we should avail ourselves of the opportunity presented to exit Asia while we still have some pride and a little, if not much, honor left.

    Listen to the Saker.

    It is not our provence to insist on anything about China’s relationship to North Korea. It is not our business.

    I am literally watching a diluded fool (you) rationalize why the US should commit war crimes against North Korea.

    None of your rationalizations are valid. All of them are violations of international law and would do untold damage not only to world populations but to the reputation of the United States.

    What you are rationalizing would destroy the United States’ stature in the world forever.

    Why would you want to do that?

    Read More
  19. @restless94110
    I can't agree with you on all points of your comment.

    Fred writes a bunch of nonsense when he writes about 9/11 of Mexico, but he's outrageously dead-on in his military writings.

    The humiliation of the US military and of the US leadership whould start a revolution....of some sort. It would depend on the damage..

    One thing is certain though: almost nobody in the United States understands the nature of our precarity, and no one is ready for any kind of defeat or worse.

    The first line of my reply should have read:

    I can’t agree with you MORE on all points of your comment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    I thought that's what you might have meant. I'm old enough to have talked to guys who were in the first Korean War. They said the NORKs and Chicoms weren't supermen, but they were pretty tough customers. None of those veterans would have had any enthusiasm for a sequel.
  20. @Grandpa Charlie
    Diversity Heretic,

    "so many opponents ... at once" ????

    Methinks, dear Heretic, that you have taken Fred's meaning off on a tangent? I assumed - and do assume - that the premise of Fred's article is that USA has several choices, among them being "DO NOTHING" and "DO ALL OF IT," but really the choices worth considering are to do which one of these? Because the "DO NOTHING" choice would probably end in disaster - for the American people, for the Korean people, for Russian people, for the world, and - oh yes - for the Donald, and even for those hollow greed machines that we call "neocons" supposing that they really are living beings and not the, you know, the man-size lizards.

    Do them ALL and do them all AT ONCE ????? Are you crazy?

    Do the one that has been utterly foisted on us, the one that is honorable, the one that has the best chance of success, in many respects but especially in regard to getting US out of Asia.

    You assume that those left out just sit there and don’t see an opportunity to take advantage of the situation. The kind of unexpected consequences Fred is warning about. Then things spiral out of control, like World War One, for instance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    "You assume that those left out just sit there and don’t see an opportunity to take advantage of the situation." -- Simplyamazed

    "those left out" - Please be more specific. Are you making an oblique reference to China? Or to Iran? Are you saying that as soon as USA moves on Korea, Russia will move on Ukraine, Israel will move on Iran, and, Columbia will move on Venezuela (or vice versa) ???
  21. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Grandpa Charlie
    The Saker just about now (within the last less-than-a-day) posted a fine article examining the very question that we have been attempting to deal with here. Namely, of the various options for choosing the "best of all possible wars" - which would we choose.

    As for Korea, the Saker's comments are cryptic - really subminimal. Here it is:

    "Prevailing against Iran or the DPRK is clearly beyond the actual US military capabilities." -- The Saker

    Well, that answers that ... or does it?

    In any case, we really do need to insist on an answer to the question of what is the real relation between the PRC and the DPRK. Here in the American blogosphere we have fallen into the sloppy intellectual habit, probably acquired from MSM of all places - that the DPRK can be independent of Beijing, so that Beijing can calculate that it will not be exposed to any retaliation whatsoever regardles of what Pyongyang does, while at the same time we think somehow that any attack on the DPRK is, really, an attack on what amounts to a province of China. If you think about it, that is so insane or lame.

    Even if - or especially if - the North of Korea is already Chinese territory, then we should definitely take advantage of the ambiguity, we should absolutely not fail to get at Beijing by destroying some targets within the North of Korea. And if the Kim dynasty of the DPRK is really independent of the PRC, then we should do everyone the favor of removing the Kim-dynasty tragi-comedy from the border of China, where it can only be a mortifying embarrassment to the CCP. Of course, in any case, we should avail ourselves of the opportunity presented to exit Asia while we still have some pride and a little, if not much, honor left.

    Please reflect on your habitual use of “we” in reference to the USG. People who self-identify with their rulers are essential for the warmongers. Isn’t that why Americans are subjected to camouflage uniforms and “thank you for your service” spectacles at athletic events?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    Anonymous suggests to me "Please reflect on your habitual use of “we” in reference to the USG" I think that Anonymous means USA. Anyway, yes, I agree, it's a sloppy habit and is done by myself just to save keystrokes and avoid repetition of "USA". But okay, there's an evil side to it - so I'll try my best to avoid that usage in the future.

    BTW: I get that "thank you for your service" thing way too often, and I don't like it. I try to straighten young people out, but I go back to the old days of the M1 Garand and the UMTS Act, and it would take forever to bring them up to date. The best I can come up with is, "I'll say this: I have a lot of respect for George Washington, but it's all been down hill from there."
  22. dearieme says:
    @Sean
    A long tern view of national security would mandate cutting China of from access to the US's technology and home market while forcing China into an arms race.The peril from Kim's ICBM nukes is economic. The Chinese fox has promised to use help with N. Korea and got access to the US in return--over and over again.

    The efficacy of the Korean threat for China should be at an end, but I am afraid North Korean upping of the ante to the nuclear level in cahoots with China will yet again provide a rationale to overrule economic interests on the grounds of national security. China wins again and again and again.

    “A long tern view of national security would mandate cutting China of from access to the US’s technology ” How? Have you visited any labs recently?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    'dearieme" addresses Sean about PRC stealing technology from the USA. And yes, that's a problem, and it's been going on a long time. People have been and are bribed, that's what it is all about. So it's very similar to the problem that the PRC has been using the neocons of the USA for a long time, and that is most probably all about bribery too. "Yet none dare call it treason."

    To me, USA is analogous to the decline and fall of Old China, when every colonial power was invited in to buy what parts of China they wanted. Not even the UK had enough to make it the hegemon: there was no one hegemon. Ross Perot had a book that he wrote in opposition to the trend: Not for Sale at any Price and Wally Hickel, I think, had something similar published somewhat earlier.

    Germany grabbed most of what later became Japan's Manchukuo -- home of the Japanese "Kwantung" Imperial Army that ended democracy in Japan and brought in the rule of Tojo and, pretty much, led directly to WW II.
  23. bossel says:

    Germans thought that World War I would be be a quick war of movement, over in a few weeks.

    Not really. That was more propaganda than anything else. The military leadership were IIRC well aware of what could happen. Attacking France with pretty much all they had & trying to finish it quickly, so that resources would be freed to deal with Russia. That was the plan, but they already expected a prolonged & bloody conflict if that failed.

    the Chinese, only a generation or so removed from living hard,

    If you think that Chinese millennials are any hardier than those in the US, you clearly haven’t been in China for quite a long time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    "If you think that Chinese millennials are any hardier than those in the US, you clearly haven’t been in China for quite a long time."
    Sure, you are thinking about the kids of the newly urbanised middle classes. I'm sure they are no tougher than the "western"version. However, there are still 100's of millions of Chinese young people who live relatively hard rural lives. They, I suspect, wont be "snowflakes"....
  24. JL says:

    This is a fantastic article that really distills the whole, seemingly mindless, mess that is US foreign policy into a distinct and understandable format. US relative decline is now on plain display for the entire world to see. While in possession of still considerable force, the US now faces a decision: save itself, or save the empire. It doesn’t have the resource for both.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    'dearieme" addresses Sean about PRC stealing technology from the USA. And yes, that's a problem, and it's been going on a long time. People have been and are bribed, that's what it is all about. So it's very similar to the problem that the PRC has been using the neocons of the USA for a long time, and that is most probably all about bribery too. "Yet none dare call it treason."

    To me, USA is analogous to the decline and fall of Old China, when every colonial power was invited in to buy what parts of China they wanted. Not even the UK had enough to make it the hegemon: there was no one hegemon. Ross Perot had a book that he wrote in opposition to the trend: Not for Sale at any Price and Wally Hickel, I think, had something similar published somewhat earlier.

    Germany grabbed most of what later became Japan's Manchukuo -- home of the Japanese "Kwantung" Imperial Army that ended democracy in Japan and brought in the rule of Tojo and, pretty much, led directly to WW II.
    , @Grandpa Charlie
    Sorry that I got JL mixed up with dearieme. Anyway, here is something that JL said:

    "This is a fantastic article that really distills the whole, seemingly mindless, mess that is US foreign policy into a distinct and understandable format."

    Here's the format that I see whereby the mindless mess of US foreign policy becomes understandable. The neocons are corrupt. They take money from the PRC (or from the Standing Committee of the CCP) just as they take money from Israel. And they are able to control MSM in the USA and thus to control the perception that many people have of what the mindless mess really is or intends. That's how I see it. You don't believe it? Google on "Clinton bribery China" and you'll get a look at it. Then think about this: maybe the corruption goes deeper (into the "deep state") than the Clintons and the DNC. Maybe the corruption has been going on for a long time, maybe since the early '70s. But while yes, of course, Slick Willy has obviously been on the take, you hesitate to believe that these professional diplomats - Kissinger, Nuland, etc. - they are professional "states persons" - above suspicion and ...

    "None dare call it treason."

    BTW: the American people say "Hell with the Empire, save ourselves." The neocons say, "Hell with the American people, save the Empire."
  25. Sunbeam says:
    @Grandpa Charlie
    The Saker just about now (within the last less-than-a-day) posted a fine article examining the very question that we have been attempting to deal with here. Namely, of the various options for choosing the "best of all possible wars" - which would we choose.

    As for Korea, the Saker's comments are cryptic - really subminimal. Here it is:

    "Prevailing against Iran or the DPRK is clearly beyond the actual US military capabilities." -- The Saker

    Well, that answers that ... or does it?

    In any case, we really do need to insist on an answer to the question of what is the real relation between the PRC and the DPRK. Here in the American blogosphere we have fallen into the sloppy intellectual habit, probably acquired from MSM of all places - that the DPRK can be independent of Beijing, so that Beijing can calculate that it will not be exposed to any retaliation whatsoever regardles of what Pyongyang does, while at the same time we think somehow that any attack on the DPRK is, really, an attack on what amounts to a province of China. If you think about it, that is so insane or lame.

    Even if - or especially if - the North of Korea is already Chinese territory, then we should definitely take advantage of the ambiguity, we should absolutely not fail to get at Beijing by destroying some targets within the North of Korea. And if the Kim dynasty of the DPRK is really independent of the PRC, then we should do everyone the favor of removing the Kim-dynasty tragi-comedy from the border of China, where it can only be a mortifying embarrassment to the CCP. Of course, in any case, we should avail ourselves of the opportunity presented to exit Asia while we still have some pride and a little, if not much, honor left.

    You know your analysis of a possible North Korea conflict has an assumption build into it.

    That the US and South Korea (and are they really on board with a shooting war) conduct an offensive attack on North Korea (and how that goes … well we’d have to see).

    Meanwhile China does nothing.

    See any possible things that might go wrong here? Even if North Korea isn’t their favorite client state in the whole world, they might have some interest in keeping the US from installing a new regime. Maybe.

    And as for what China could do to throw a wrench into this whole thing… well I can think of lots.

    What about you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    Sunbeam says:

    QUOTE You know your analysis of a possible North Korea conflict has an assumption build into it.

    That the US and South Korea (and are they really on board with a shooting war) conduct an offensive attack on North Korea (and how that goes … well we’d have to see).

    Meanwhile China does nothing.UNQUOTE

    Actually, Sunbeam, the assumption that I have built in is the one mentioned by you parenthetically. Namely, is the ROK on board with anything that I may suggest?

    In my view. the USA should apologize for the way that the USA President treated President Moon (of the ROK). The USA should completely follow the lead of the ROK. the only democratically elected government on the peninsula and the government that best represents all the Korean people at this time. Therefor, USA should follow and the ROK should lead in all this. If the ROK (Moon) wants the USA military to leave Korea, it should leave. If the ROK (Moon) wants the USA to bomb Pyongyang, the USAF should bomb Pyongyang. There should be no light showing between the policy of the USA and the policy of the ROK. As for the USA/Korea trade agreement, while I favor USA withdrawal from the WTO, at this time it would be wrong for the USA to suggest any changes in the ROK/USA trade agreement for at least three to five years.

    So I'm glad that you bring up this matter of built-in assumptions. It's a good point.
  26. North Korea has a large submarine fleet which never seems to get a mention, but which is obviously significant when you recall this..

    https://www.vox.com/world/2017/4/18/15345110/us-aircraft-carrier-north-korea-not

    Read More
  27. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Grandpa Charlie
    The Saker just about now (within the last less-than-a-day) posted a fine article examining the very question that we have been attempting to deal with here. Namely, of the various options for choosing the "best of all possible wars" - which would we choose.

    As for Korea, the Saker's comments are cryptic - really subminimal. Here it is:

    "Prevailing against Iran or the DPRK is clearly beyond the actual US military capabilities." -- The Saker

    Well, that answers that ... or does it?

    In any case, we really do need to insist on an answer to the question of what is the real relation between the PRC and the DPRK. Here in the American blogosphere we have fallen into the sloppy intellectual habit, probably acquired from MSM of all places - that the DPRK can be independent of Beijing, so that Beijing can calculate that it will not be exposed to any retaliation whatsoever regardles of what Pyongyang does, while at the same time we think somehow that any attack on the DPRK is, really, an attack on what amounts to a province of China. If you think about it, that is so insane or lame.

    Even if - or especially if - the North of Korea is already Chinese territory, then we should definitely take advantage of the ambiguity, we should absolutely not fail to get at Beijing by destroying some targets within the North of Korea. And if the Kim dynasty of the DPRK is really independent of the PRC, then we should do everyone the favor of removing the Kim-dynasty tragi-comedy from the border of China, where it can only be a mortifying embarrassment to the CCP. Of course, in any case, we should avail ourselves of the opportunity presented to exit Asia while we still have some pride and a little, if not much, honor left.

    Tough talk from someone who is living in their moms basement and has no skin in the game.

    What you are really saying is that the war with N Korea wouldn’t affect you.

    No worries about our soldiers who are in firing range, on land, and sea.

    The quick war scenario is a myth. N Korea saw what happened to Libya after Gadaffii fell. Their people are being sold as slaves now. Better to go in a blazing glory than be a slave.

    Read More
  28. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Superb, superlative, superphylum!

    Never have I read a more accurate, nor more predictive depiction of the state of world politics, economics, and social movement. This is Pulitzer-class work, if the Pulitzer were not merely a “mood-thing” tool of the NYC publishing industry.

    One thing, Fred … but I’ll let it go this time … violation of my copyright on “grrr-bowwow-woof”, held since 1968.

    Read More
  29. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Grandpa Charlie
    The Saker just about now (within the last less-than-a-day) posted a fine article examining the very question that we have been attempting to deal with here. Namely, of the various options for choosing the "best of all possible wars" - which would we choose.

    As for Korea, the Saker's comments are cryptic - really subminimal. Here it is:

    "Prevailing against Iran or the DPRK is clearly beyond the actual US military capabilities." -- The Saker

    Well, that answers that ... or does it?

    In any case, we really do need to insist on an answer to the question of what is the real relation between the PRC and the DPRK. Here in the American blogosphere we have fallen into the sloppy intellectual habit, probably acquired from MSM of all places - that the DPRK can be independent of Beijing, so that Beijing can calculate that it will not be exposed to any retaliation whatsoever regardles of what Pyongyang does, while at the same time we think somehow that any attack on the DPRK is, really, an attack on what amounts to a province of China. If you think about it, that is so insane or lame.

    Even if - or especially if - the North of Korea is already Chinese territory, then we should definitely take advantage of the ambiguity, we should absolutely not fail to get at Beijing by destroying some targets within the North of Korea. And if the Kim dynasty of the DPRK is really independent of the PRC, then we should do everyone the favor of removing the Kim-dynasty tragi-comedy from the border of China, where it can only be a mortifying embarrassment to the CCP. Of course, in any case, we should avail ourselves of the opportunity presented to exit Asia while we still have some pride and a little, if not much, honor left.

    the various options for choosing the “best of all possible wars”

    Best option — “None”.

    Priorities for the USA are as follows:

    1. Eliminate government corruption at Federal, State, and Local levels. Whether or not that can be accomplished without open violent rebellion is moot, but it is absolutely necessary to the future of the USA as democratic republic with Constitutionally-defined individual rights. If we accept oligarchy, that’s a choice, for sure. Regrets always come later.

    2. Systematic ejection of foreign nationals who established residence illegally, and all of their offspring. To the extent that is unworkable, denial of all citizenship rights, present and future, to individuals meeting that definition.

    3, Rebuild and re-structure the economy, beginning with renovation of infrastructure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    There are too many Anonymous posters to keep them all sorted out, but this is a reply to the Anonymous who gives us a short list of three "priorities" for the USA at this time. I respond, as follows:

    Pretty good list. I would add to it. seriously reforming the tax system, among other things.
  30. @Grandpa Charlie
    Here is the link to the Saker's overall excellent article:

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-end-of-the-wars-on-the-cheap-for-the-united-states/

    In my initial reply to your comment referencing the Saker article, I had not yet read the article.

    I simply commented on the absurdity of your ideas regarding North Korea.

    Now that I have read the Saker’s article, I don’t understand why you wrote those comments or even had those thoughts!

    The Saker makes clear that the modern method of war for America requires three things that absolutely have to be true: A demoralized enemy, air superiority, and the ability to have boots on the ground. Near the end of his article, the Saker created a handy table for all of the possible places that the US could engage or is enggated in.

    North Korea’s entry consists of: it is unknown if the enemy is demoralized (I would say it is clear that it is not), a Yes for air superiority, and a No for boots on the ground.

    Meaning that North Korea would be a loss for America if it were to attack it.

    This makes your reference to the Saker’s article, complete with a 2nd entry just to make sure that we know where the article is and read it, extremely confusing.

    The Saker has pointed out that it would be a loss to the United States to do what you advocate, just as Fred pointed out the same thing. Yet you have used both articles to make up your own scnenario?

    Why would you do such a thing? How could you read these great analysists and then come to the opposite and suicidally stupid conclusion?

    I believe that you are a prime example of the America people: gullible, sousciant, arrogant, full of hubris, and bone-headedly, stubbornly foolish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    Yes, "restless" - I understand what you are saying - that I am really dumb as is typical of all Americans, and I don't know anything because I have never been there, never been there, never seen a real Commie in my life ... etc. ... etc.

    Whereas you, restless, are really smart ... probably even smarter than Jong-Un ... until you actually go to North Korea and then you will discover that Jong-Un is not only smarter than you, he is smarter than everybody.

    Think about that and see if you can come up with anything.

    Meanwhile, I have better things to do than to respond to your comments here.
    , @animalogic
    An attack on NK would result in a host of direct costs on the US, in terms of lives, money etc.
    The indirect costs would also be ...profound. ANY attack on the North by the US WILL result in horrific South Korean casualties. This is a given. Regardless of whether Sth Korean government support was forth-coming, I find it hard to imagine just how nightmarish an attack on the North would be.
  31. @restless94110
    The first line of my reply should have read:

    I can't agree with you MORE on all points of your comment.

    I thought that’s what you might have meant. I’m old enough to have talked to guys who were in the first Korean War. They said the NORKs and Chicoms weren’t supermen, but they were pretty tough customers. None of those veterans would have had any enthusiasm for a sequel.

    Read More
  32. macilrae says:
    @Grandpa Charlie
    Too bad that it couldn't be done peacefully, as it was in the case of Germany. Yet and still, it would be, at long last, the conclusion to the defining Great War that began in 1914 and once Korea is reunified, ends approximately a century later.

    Courage to imagine is what is needed now. And forgeddabout war with Iran: let Israel take that on, if they want. And forgeddabout war with Venezuela: let the billionaires of Columbia take that on, if they want. And what else was contemplated by Fred? Oh, yeah, Syria and Ukraine. Aren't we all sick and tired of hearing about such "CNN wars"? Bloody expensive way to bring up viewership! So that leaves, oh yes, the SCS idea of a naval war, except that we never did take up Vietnam's offer to serve as home port for the US Navy. So we would need to start there, with an alliance with Vietnam. But, really, we already have with Korea what might be with Vietnam - should have been already, if treasonous neocons did not rule in DC - so that isn't a real option, the "SCS war" at this time. Maybe with an alliance with Vietnam, it coulda shoulda, but it didn't. And anyway an alliance with Vietnam would have forestalled it in the first place.

    That leaves what? The one option that makes sense: get rid of the corrupt and contemptible Kim-dynasty dictatorship of the DPRK.

    That leaves what? The one option that makes sense: get rid of the corrupt and contemptible Kim-dynasty dictatorship of the DPRK.

    However remember that our outlook on that country is largely based on the propaganda we have been fed: this has indeed lead us to believe that life there is none too hot. However the arrogance of successive US governments (with their “messages” and massive joint maneuvers preferred to actual dialogue) has had to make life far, far more miserable for the ordinary N. Koreans and has given their rulers at least some excuse for what they have done.

    Excellent piece from Fred here – complementary to Saker’s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    macilrae says to me to keep in mind that all we get here in the USA is propaganda, and so I guess it's just BS about so many Koreans fleeing from the North into China (if they can) and then elsewhere such as Seoul (if they can), exactly like happened in Germany before reunification ... So many millions of Germans fleeing from the East side ... I guess that's all BS. Also that young American who died after his slightly alive body was returned from Kim Jong Un's torture chambers ...and then he died ... oh well, probably all just propaganda by the USA propaganda machine. And I have not sense enough to sort it out, I must be a complete dolt who watches cable and Fox news and believes it all. ??????

    I don't have time to respond to all the insults with which I have been covered like rotten eggs thrown at a poor bastard in the stocks.

    I get it already. Here's what people are saying to me: "Kim Jong-Un speaks truth. Jong-un is a really nice guy, a hero of the people. DPRK good. USA bad, very bad. Americans very stupid. Kim Jong-Un very smart."

    Grandpa wasn't born yesterday, but thanks anyway for warning me that I shouldn't believe everything that I read ... and I have no TV, I watch no TV news ... I get what I get off the iNet and form my own conclusions.

    Yeah, I get it ... or better, I say "I get y'all."
  33. @Simplyamazed
    You assume that those left out just sit there and don't see an opportunity to take advantage of the situation. The kind of unexpected consequences Fred is warning about. Then things spiral out of control, like World War One, for instance.

    “You assume that those left out just sit there and don’t see an opportunity to take advantage of the situation.” — Simplyamazed

    “those left out” – Please be more specific. Are you making an oblique reference to China? Or to Iran? Are you saying that as soon as USA moves on Korea, Russia will move on Ukraine, Israel will move on Iran, and, Columbia will move on Venezuela (or vice versa) ???

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simplyamazed
    You should think about all of the possibilites when you analyze what can happen in complex situations like a war on DPRK.

    Any of what you set out could happen and quite a few possibilites that haven't occurred to either of us.

    Will some terrorist group manage to use the chaos to get nuclear weapons or enriched uranium or some chemical or biological weapons?
    Will trade in some precious commodities like rare earths be disrupted?
    Will someone disrupt the Global Positioning Satellite Network?
    What sort of malware might be set loose to bring down telecommunications or power networks?
    Will India try to reclaim borderlands disputed with China, leading to a nuclear exchange?

    There are many groups and organisations and countries who could be among "those left out" and their means and methods might benefit from the fog of war.
  34. @anonymous
    Please reflect on your habitual use of "we" in reference to the USG. People who self-identify with their rulers are essential for the warmongers. Isn't that why Americans are subjected to camouflage uniforms and "thank you for your service" spectacles at athletic events?

    Anonymous suggests to me “Please reflect on your habitual use of “we” in reference to the USG” I think that Anonymous means USA. Anyway, yes, I agree, it’s a sloppy habit and is done by myself just to save keystrokes and avoid repetition of “USA”. But okay, there’s an evil side to it – so I’ll try my best to avoid that usage in the future.

    BTW: I get that “thank you for your service” thing way too often, and I don’t like it. I try to straighten young people out, but I go back to the old days of the M1 Garand and the UMTS Act, and it would take forever to bring them up to date. The best I can come up with is, “I’ll say this: I have a lot of respect for George Washington, but it’s all been down hill from there.”

    Read More
  35. @JL
    This is a fantastic article that really distills the whole, seemingly mindless, mess that is US foreign policy into a distinct and understandable format. US relative decline is now on plain display for the entire world to see. While in possession of still considerable force, the US now faces a decision: save itself, or save the empire. It doesn't have the resource for both.

    ‘dearieme” addresses Sean about PRC stealing technology from the USA. And yes, that’s a problem, and it’s been going on a long time. People have been and are bribed, that’s what it is all about. So it’s very similar to the problem that the PRC has been using the neocons of the USA for a long time, and that is most probably all about bribery too. “Yet none dare call it treason.”

    To me, USA is analogous to the decline and fall of Old China, when every colonial power was invited in to buy what parts of China they wanted. Not even the UK had enough to make it the hegemon: there was no one hegemon. Ross Perot had a book that he wrote in opposition to the trend: Not for Sale at any Price and Wally Hickel, I think, had something similar published somewhat earlier.

    Germany grabbed most of what later became Japan’s Manchukuo — home of the Japanese “Kwantung” Imperial Army that ended democracy in Japan and brought in the rule of Tojo and, pretty much, led directly to WW II.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    Things got mixed up somehow and comment billed as reply to JL was really (as content shows) reply to "dierieme"

    Sorry.
  36. @Grandpa Charlie
    'dearieme" addresses Sean about PRC stealing technology from the USA. And yes, that's a problem, and it's been going on a long time. People have been and are bribed, that's what it is all about. So it's very similar to the problem that the PRC has been using the neocons of the USA for a long time, and that is most probably all about bribery too. "Yet none dare call it treason."

    To me, USA is analogous to the decline and fall of Old China, when every colonial power was invited in to buy what parts of China they wanted. Not even the UK had enough to make it the hegemon: there was no one hegemon. Ross Perot had a book that he wrote in opposition to the trend: Not for Sale at any Price and Wally Hickel, I think, had something similar published somewhat earlier.

    Germany grabbed most of what later became Japan's Manchukuo -- home of the Japanese "Kwantung" Imperial Army that ended democracy in Japan and brought in the rule of Tojo and, pretty much, led directly to WW II.

    Things got mixed up somehow and comment billed as reply to JL was really (as content shows) reply to “dierieme”

    Sorry.

    Read More
  37. @dearieme
    "A long tern view of national security would mandate cutting China of from access to the US’s technology " How? Have you visited any labs recently?

    ‘dearieme” addresses Sean about PRC stealing technology from the USA. And yes, that’s a problem, and it’s been going on a long time. People have been and are bribed, that’s what it is all about. So it’s very similar to the problem that the PRC has been using the neocons of the USA for a long time, and that is most probably all about bribery too. “Yet none dare call it treason.”

    To me, USA is analogous to the decline and fall of Old China, when every colonial power was invited in to buy what parts of China they wanted. Not even the UK had enough to make it the hegemon: there was no one hegemon. Ross Perot had a book that he wrote in opposition to the trend: Not for Sale at any Price and Wally Hickel, I think, had something similar published somewhat earlier.

    Germany grabbed most of what later became Japan’s Manchukuo — home of the Japanese “Kwantung” Imperial Army that ended democracy in Japan and brought in the rule of Tojo and, pretty much, led directly to WW II.

    Read More
    • Replies: @hyperbola
    NeoCons???? Use the correct term: ZionCons.

    Of course it is true that most of the US technology that ends up in China is not stolen by the Chinese, but rather by the ZionCons (Israel) who then sell it to the Chinese.

    Pretty much the same scenario as the sect did with nukes. Some of them stole the parts for Israeli bombs from us and others of them gave the technology to the Soviets (who at the time were run by the sect). Makes one wonder how much influence the sect already has in China and when they might cahnge horses.

  38. @macilrae

    That leaves what? The one option that makes sense: get rid of the corrupt and contemptible Kim-dynasty dictatorship of the DPRK.
     
    However remember that our outlook on that country is largely based on the propaganda we have been fed: this has indeed lead us to believe that life there is none too hot. However the arrogance of successive US governments (with their "messages" and massive joint maneuvers preferred to actual dialogue) has had to make life far, far more miserable for the ordinary N. Koreans and has given their rulers at least some excuse for what they have done.

    Excellent piece from Fred here - complementary to Saker's.

    macilrae says to me to keep in mind that all we get here in the USA is propaganda, and so I guess it’s just BS about so many Koreans fleeing from the North into China (if they can) and then elsewhere such as Seoul (if they can), exactly like happened in Germany before reunification … So many millions of Germans fleeing from the East side … I guess that’s all BS. Also that young American who died after his slightly alive body was returned from Kim Jong Un’s torture chambers …and then he died … oh well, probably all just propaganda by the USA propaganda machine. And I have not sense enough to sort it out, I must be a complete dolt who watches cable and Fox news and believes it all. ??????

    I don’t have time to respond to all the insults with which I have been covered like rotten eggs thrown at a poor bastard in the stocks.

    I get it already. Here’s what people are saying to me: “Kim Jong-Un speaks truth. Jong-un is a really nice guy, a hero of the people. DPRK good. USA bad, very bad. Americans very stupid. Kim Jong-Un very smart.”

    Grandpa wasn’t born yesterday, but thanks anyway for warning me that I shouldn’t believe everything that I read … and I have no TV, I watch no TV news … I get what I get off the iNet and form my own conclusions.

    Yeah, I get it … or better, I say “I get y’all.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    It doesn't matter a hill of beans what other sovereign nations do within their own borders.

    The sentiment here is that the great big fat corrupt plutocracy USA should mind their own business.

    But that's not gonna happen as long as the naive, Utopian nincompoops from your generation are still kickin'.
    , @Aaron Hilel
    Yes, NK is governed by a bloodthirsty and corrupt satrap.
    Yes, USA are a warmongering oligarchy governed by demented criminals.
    Does it mean that a war between those two profits to anyone else than a few degenerate banksters?

    Certainly not.

  39. @Anonymous

    the various options for choosing the “best of all possible wars”
     
    Best option -- "None".

    Priorities for the USA are as follows:

    1. Eliminate government corruption at Federal, State, and Local levels. Whether or not that can be accomplished without open violent rebellion is moot, but it is absolutely necessary to the future of the USA as democratic republic with Constitutionally-defined individual rights. If we accept oligarchy, that's a choice, for sure. Regrets always come later.

    2. Systematic ejection of foreign nationals who established residence illegally, and all of their offspring. To the extent that is unworkable, denial of all citizenship rights, present and future, to individuals meeting that definition.

    3, Rebuild and re-structure the economy, beginning with renovation of infrastructure.

    There are too many Anonymous posters to keep them all sorted out, but this is a reply to the Anonymous who gives us a short list of three “priorities” for the USA at this time. I respond, as follows:

    Pretty good list. I would add to it. seriously reforming the tax system, among other things.

    Read More
  40. @Grandpa Charlie
    "You assume that those left out just sit there and don’t see an opportunity to take advantage of the situation." -- Simplyamazed

    "those left out" - Please be more specific. Are you making an oblique reference to China? Or to Iran? Are you saying that as soon as USA moves on Korea, Russia will move on Ukraine, Israel will move on Iran, and, Columbia will move on Venezuela (or vice versa) ???

    You should think about all of the possibilites when you analyze what can happen in complex situations like a war on DPRK.

    Any of what you set out could happen and quite a few possibilites that haven’t occurred to either of us.

    Will some terrorist group manage to use the chaos to get nuclear weapons or enriched uranium or some chemical or biological weapons?
    Will trade in some precious commodities like rare earths be disrupted?
    Will someone disrupt the Global Positioning Satellite Network?
    What sort of malware might be set loose to bring down telecommunications or power networks?
    Will India try to reclaim borderlands disputed with China, leading to a nuclear exchange?

    There are many groups and organisations and countries who could be among “those left out” and their means and methods might benefit from the fog of war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    Simplyamazed,

    I guess you're right, at least in an ideal world ... one should always consider absolutely everything before suggesting any action. I'm sure that's what a genius like Kim Jong-Un, the smartest man in the world, does ???
  41. @restless94110
    In my initial reply to your comment referencing the Saker article, I had not yet read the article.

    I simply commented on the absurdity of your ideas regarding North Korea.

    Now that I have read the Saker's article, I don't understand why you wrote those comments or even had those thoughts!

    The Saker makes clear that the modern method of war for America requires three things that absolutely have to be true: A demoralized enemy, air superiority, and the ability to have boots on the ground. Near the end of his article, the Saker created a handy table for all of the possible places that the US could engage or is enggated in.

    North Korea's entry consists of: it is unknown if the enemy is demoralized (I would say it is clear that it is not), a Yes for air superiority, and a No for boots on the ground.

    Meaning that North Korea would be a loss for America if it were to attack it.

    This makes your reference to the Saker's article, complete with a 2nd entry just to make sure that we know where the article is and read it, extremely confusing.

    The Saker has pointed out that it would be a loss to the United States to do what you advocate, just as Fred pointed out the same thing. Yet you have used both articles to make up your own scnenario?

    Why would you do such a thing? How could you read these great analysists and then come to the opposite and suicidally stupid conclusion?

    I believe that you are a prime example of the America people: gullible, sousciant, arrogant, full of hubris, and bone-headedly, stubbornly foolish.

    Yes, “restless” – I understand what you are saying – that I am really dumb as is typical of all Americans, and I don’t know anything because I have never been there, never been there, never seen a real Commie in my life … etc. … etc.

    Whereas you, restless, are really smart … probably even smarter than Jong-Un … until you actually go to North Korea and then you will discover that Jong-Un is not only smarter than you, he is smarter than everybody.

    Think about that and see if you can come up with anything.

    Meanwhile, I have better things to do than to respond to your comments here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @restless94110
    You understand nothing of what I have said.

    Instead you are now name dropping now? Are you trying to prove you are a top North Korea expert or something?

    Grampa you really need help.

    I don't care if you were Jong-Un's third wife.

    That does not make your war monger comments relevant to either Fred Reed's or the Saker's articles, both of which analyze the situation and conclude the exact opposite of what you propose.

    Your ideas would lead to the destruction of the Unites States as we know it, you imbecile.

    You don't have time to respond to my comments? Why? Are you going on a date with Jong-Un?
    , @Anonymous

    Meanwhile, I have better things to do than to respond to your comments here.
     
    We understand, those diapers won't change themselves. Please get to it fast. The stink is overpowering.
  42. @Anonymous
    You sound like Douglas MacArthur circa 1950:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2014/12/15/a-christmas-far-from-home-an-epic-tale-of-courage-and-survival-during-the-korean-war/20260755/

    U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, drunk on public adulation from his service in World War II and his inspired amphibious invasion at Inchon earlier in 1950, bragged that the Korean War was over and that U.S. troops who had swept across most of North Korea would be home by that Christmas.
     

    MacArthur made a terrible mistake by charging up to the Yalu River in winter with token resistance from the NKoreans. All hell broke lose when the Chinese came pouring across that frozen river and wreaked havoc upon our troops who were not at all prepared either for the vicious Korean weather or the fanatic onslaught of the Chinese. MacArthur was directly responsible for the needless deaths of thousands of GIs that resulted from enemy fire, frozen to death or later died as POWs. Also guilty for not stopping MacArthur from his madness was President Truman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who had authority over him. Of course Truman later fired the general, unfortunately after all the damage was done. Reed pretty well sums it up in his column about the folly of wars like Korea when a misguided five-star is treated with adulation by Congress and the American people upon his return from Korea. In his speech before both Houses of Congress MacArthur made the statement, “Old soldiers never die, they just fade away.” He should have faded away quietly after WWII.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    MacArthur wasn't responsible for the deaths of those GIs. Truman gave the orders to invade the peninsula and Congress did nothing to stop him. Mac Arthur's troops had the N Koreans on the run until the Chicoms entered the war. Once the Chicoms stepped into it, the only way to win was to bomb the mainland, as MacArthur wanted. Truman's timidity prevented this and led to MacArthur's firing. The US and its allies still managed to drive the Reds out of S Korea and have kept those people free of the communists ever since. But had Truman acceded to MacArthur's wishes, the 3rd world Chinese would've been defeated, the Nationalists returned to power and the Soviets surrounded and defanged. Instead we were left to the long Cold War, the Chinese people murdered and tortured under the Reds, the N Korean people in virtual slavery and a now ascendant Chicom nation. It would've been much easier to defeat the Red Chinese in 1953. It's still possible, not as easy.
    , @Alden
    My father always claimed MacArthur wanted to run for president. That was why he was so aggressive at the beginning of the Korean war.

    He wanted to follow Grant and Eisenhower, general to president. A lot of people at the time agreed with my father.
  43. @JL
    This is a fantastic article that really distills the whole, seemingly mindless, mess that is US foreign policy into a distinct and understandable format. US relative decline is now on plain display for the entire world to see. While in possession of still considerable force, the US now faces a decision: save itself, or save the empire. It doesn't have the resource for both.

    Sorry that I got JL mixed up with dearieme. Anyway, here is something that JL said:

    “This is a fantastic article that really distills the whole, seemingly mindless, mess that is US foreign policy into a distinct and understandable format.”

    Here’s the format that I see whereby the mindless mess of US foreign policy becomes understandable. The neocons are corrupt. They take money from the PRC (or from the Standing Committee of the CCP) just as they take money from Israel. And they are able to control MSM in the USA and thus to control the perception that many people have of what the mindless mess really is or intends. That’s how I see it. You don’t believe it? Google on “Clinton bribery China” and you’ll get a look at it. Then think about this: maybe the corruption goes deeper (into the “deep state”) than the Clintons and the DNC. Maybe the corruption has been going on for a long time, maybe since the early ’70s. But while yes, of course, Slick Willy has obviously been on the take, you hesitate to believe that these professional diplomats – Kissinger, Nuland, etc. – they are professional “states persons” – above suspicion and …

    “None dare call it treason.”

    BTW: the American people say “Hell with the Empire, save ourselves.” The neocons say, “Hell with the American people, save the Empire.”

    Read More
  44. @Simplyamazed
    You should think about all of the possibilites when you analyze what can happen in complex situations like a war on DPRK.

    Any of what you set out could happen and quite a few possibilites that haven't occurred to either of us.

    Will some terrorist group manage to use the chaos to get nuclear weapons or enriched uranium or some chemical or biological weapons?
    Will trade in some precious commodities like rare earths be disrupted?
    Will someone disrupt the Global Positioning Satellite Network?
    What sort of malware might be set loose to bring down telecommunications or power networks?
    Will India try to reclaim borderlands disputed with China, leading to a nuclear exchange?

    There are many groups and organisations and countries who could be among "those left out" and their means and methods might benefit from the fog of war.

    Simplyamazed,

    I guess you’re right, at least in an ideal world … one should always consider absolutely everything before suggesting any action. I’m sure that’s what a genius like Kim Jong-Un, the smartest man in the world, does ???

    Read More
  45. @Sunbeam
    You know your analysis of a possible North Korea conflict has an assumption build into it.

    That the US and South Korea (and are they really on board with a shooting war) conduct an offensive attack on North Korea (and how that goes ... well we'd have to see).

    Meanwhile China does nothing.

    See any possible things that might go wrong here? Even if North Korea isn't their favorite client state in the whole world, they might have some interest in keeping the US from installing a new regime. Maybe.

    And as for what China could do to throw a wrench into this whole thing... well I can think of lots.

    What about you?

    Sunbeam says:

    QUOTE You know your analysis of a possible North Korea conflict has an assumption build into it.

    That the US and South Korea (and are they really on board with a shooting war) conduct an offensive attack on North Korea (and how that goes … well we’d have to see).

    Meanwhile China does nothing.UNQUOTE

    Actually, Sunbeam, the assumption that I have built in is the one mentioned by you parenthetically. Namely, is the ROK on board with anything that I may suggest?

    In my view. the USA should apologize for the way that the USA President treated President Moon (of the ROK). The USA should completely follow the lead of the ROK. the only democratically elected government on the peninsula and the government that best represents all the Korean people at this time. Therefor, USA should follow and the ROK should lead in all this. If the ROK (Moon) wants the USA military to leave Korea, it should leave. If the ROK (Moon) wants the USA to bomb Pyongyang, the USAF should bomb Pyongyang. There should be no light showing between the policy of the USA and the policy of the ROK. As for the USA/Korea trade agreement, while I favor USA withdrawal from the WTO, at this time it would be wrong for the USA to suggest any changes in the ROK/USA trade agreement for at least three to five years.

    So I’m glad that you bring up this matter of built-in assumptions. It’s a good point.

    Read More
  46. MarkinLA says:
    @Grandpa Charlie
    As long as the PRC continues to exploit the supposed independence of the DPRK, the USA has the moral ability to declare war on the DPRK and attack in mass, or just to attack based on that the DPRK has already declared war on the USA.

    Almost no one in the USA wants to call the spade a space in this business, so thank you, Sean.

    Meanwhile, getting back to Fred's article, of the various choices for wars to be prosecuted by the USA, war with the DPRK has easily the best chances for a quick ending and successful conclusion. Think of the possible benefits for Trump, for the USA, and for the Korean people. USA could "get the job done" and then exit the peninsula for ever. China would likely be pleased to no longer have to deal with the most corrupt and cruel ruling class anywhere in this corrupt and cruel world (the Kim dynasty). Of course, there would be (or will be) the risk of world nuclear war. As there is anyway - I mean, if USA continues to do nothing, when would it start? when major cities in Japan are destroyed?

    The commander of USAF in the Pacific has indicated that it's all ready to go. He didn't specify nukes or not, but probably not nukes. Anybody who knows the fighting spirit of the ROK military, knows that they could go north across the 38th, swiftly and effectively to occupy the North up to the border with the PRC. Not even the most clueless anti-USA journalist has ever claimed that ordinary Koreans of the North support the Kim dynasty. Yes, it's a choice that may go wrong. Or not. In any event, of the choices available, is this not the one with the least risk of annihilation and the greatest prospect of a benign conclusion?

    Don't know if you agree with my thinking based on a situation that you have brought out into the open, but in any case, THANK YOU for being willing to write realistically about it.

    So it is OK that the US starts a war that ends in the complete destruction of Seoul?

    Read More
  47. Fred says: “Washington must either start a war in Korea, or get faced down by the North”

    Guess what, Fred? The North says that the USA has already started a war in Korea! That’s from Kim Jong0-Un himself – the smartest man in the world.

    It’s a little confusing though, because the Korean War really has never ended. But apparently, the USA started it up all over again in 2013.

    But that’s the fault of the USA, because otherwise it would be the fault of Kim Jong-Un who is not only the smartest man in the world, he is also the kindest and best man in the world. So, obviously, it’s the fault of the USA.

    Be careful though, because otherwise the kindest and best man in the world may have you killed!

    Read More
  48. nsa says:
    @Grandpa Charlie
    As long as the PRC continues to exploit the supposed independence of the DPRK, the USA has the moral ability to declare war on the DPRK and attack in mass, or just to attack based on that the DPRK has already declared war on the USA.

    Almost no one in the USA wants to call the spade a space in this business, so thank you, Sean.

    Meanwhile, getting back to Fred's article, of the various choices for wars to be prosecuted by the USA, war with the DPRK has easily the best chances for a quick ending and successful conclusion. Think of the possible benefits for Trump, for the USA, and for the Korean people. USA could "get the job done" and then exit the peninsula for ever. China would likely be pleased to no longer have to deal with the most corrupt and cruel ruling class anywhere in this corrupt and cruel world (the Kim dynasty). Of course, there would be (or will be) the risk of world nuclear war. As there is anyway - I mean, if USA continues to do nothing, when would it start? when major cities in Japan are destroyed?

    The commander of USAF in the Pacific has indicated that it's all ready to go. He didn't specify nukes or not, but probably not nukes. Anybody who knows the fighting spirit of the ROK military, knows that they could go north across the 38th, swiftly and effectively to occupy the North up to the border with the PRC. Not even the most clueless anti-USA journalist has ever claimed that ordinary Koreans of the North support the Kim dynasty. Yes, it's a choice that may go wrong. Or not. In any event, of the choices available, is this not the one with the least risk of annihilation and the greatest prospect of a benign conclusion?

    Don't know if you agree with my thinking based on a situation that you have brought out into the open, but in any case, THANK YOU for being willing to write realistically about it.

    Hey GrandMa Charlene,
    You need to stop watching ZioVision and get out more. There is zero chance of an attack on either China or Korea for one obvious reason…..there’s nothing in it for the conniving jooies so why would they foolishly waste their useful idiot’s assets? Think about it…..

    Read More
  49. @Grandpa Charlie
    Yes, "restless" - I understand what you are saying - that I am really dumb as is typical of all Americans, and I don't know anything because I have never been there, never been there, never seen a real Commie in my life ... etc. ... etc.

    Whereas you, restless, are really smart ... probably even smarter than Jong-Un ... until you actually go to North Korea and then you will discover that Jong-Un is not only smarter than you, he is smarter than everybody.

    Think about that and see if you can come up with anything.

    Meanwhile, I have better things to do than to respond to your comments here.

    You understand nothing of what I have said.

    Instead you are now name dropping now? Are you trying to prove you are a top North Korea expert or something?

    Grampa you really need help.

    I don’t care if you were Jong-Un’s third wife.

    That does not make your war monger comments relevant to either Fred Reed’s or the Saker’s articles, both of which analyze the situation and conclude the exact opposite of what you propose.

    Your ideas would lead to the destruction of the Unites States as we know it, you imbecile.

    You don’t have time to respond to my comments? Why? Are you going on a date with Jong-Un?

    Read More
  50. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    A related point I made here (The World Just Got A Little More Dangerous): having an American Aegis destroyer taken out by a cargo ship recently can’t have raised China’s estimation of the U.S. Navy’s capabilities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    can’t have raised China’s estimation of the U.S. Navy’s capabilities.
     
    A classic navigation (maneuvering) collision, largely due to over-reliance on technology by means of complete "delegation" of watch officer duties to the machine. Happens with everybody once in a while. Plus add here this ever present radar-induced "hypnosis".
  51. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Grandpa Charlie
    Things got mixed up somehow and comment billed as reply to JL was really (as content shows) reply to "dierieme"

    Sorry.

    Dementia

    Read More
  52. hyperbola says:
    @Grandpa Charlie
    'dearieme" addresses Sean about PRC stealing technology from the USA. And yes, that's a problem, and it's been going on a long time. People have been and are bribed, that's what it is all about. So it's very similar to the problem that the PRC has been using the neocons of the USA for a long time, and that is most probably all about bribery too. "Yet none dare call it treason."

    To me, USA is analogous to the decline and fall of Old China, when every colonial power was invited in to buy what parts of China they wanted. Not even the UK had enough to make it the hegemon: there was no one hegemon. Ross Perot had a book that he wrote in opposition to the trend: Not for Sale at any Price and Wally Hickel, I think, had something similar published somewhat earlier.

    Germany grabbed most of what later became Japan's Manchukuo -- home of the Japanese "Kwantung" Imperial Army that ended democracy in Japan and brought in the rule of Tojo and, pretty much, led directly to WW II.

    NeoCons???? Use the correct term: ZionCons.

    Of course it is true that most of the US technology that ends up in China is not stolen by the Chinese, but rather by the ZionCons (Israel) who then sell it to the Chinese.

    Pretty much the same scenario as the sect did with nukes. Some of them stole the parts for Israeli bombs from us and others of them gave the technology to the Soviets (who at the time were run by the sect). Makes one wonder how much influence the sect already has in China and when they might cahnge horses.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Druid
    The Ziocons are the true warmongers. Look at the history of the tribe. They should be out of government , without dual citizenship, etc., etc
  53. @Dave Pinsen
    A related point I made here (The World Just Got A Little More Dangerous): having an American Aegis destroyer taken out by a cargo ship recently can't have raised China's estimation of the U.S. Navy's capabilities.

    can’t have raised China’s estimation of the U.S. Navy’s capabilities.

    A classic navigation (maneuvering) collision, largely due to over-reliance on technology by means of complete “delegation” of watch officer duties to the machine. Happens with everybody once in a while. Plus add here this ever present radar-induced “hypnosis”.

    Read More
  54. Thirdeye says:
    @Grandpa Charlie
    As long as the PRC continues to exploit the supposed independence of the DPRK, the USA has the moral ability to declare war on the DPRK and attack in mass, or just to attack based on that the DPRK has already declared war on the USA.

    Almost no one in the USA wants to call the spade a space in this business, so thank you, Sean.

    Meanwhile, getting back to Fred's article, of the various choices for wars to be prosecuted by the USA, war with the DPRK has easily the best chances for a quick ending and successful conclusion. Think of the possible benefits for Trump, for the USA, and for the Korean people. USA could "get the job done" and then exit the peninsula for ever. China would likely be pleased to no longer have to deal with the most corrupt and cruel ruling class anywhere in this corrupt and cruel world (the Kim dynasty). Of course, there would be (or will be) the risk of world nuclear war. As there is anyway - I mean, if USA continues to do nothing, when would it start? when major cities in Japan are destroyed?

    The commander of USAF in the Pacific has indicated that it's all ready to go. He didn't specify nukes or not, but probably not nukes. Anybody who knows the fighting spirit of the ROK military, knows that they could go north across the 38th, swiftly and effectively to occupy the North up to the border with the PRC. Not even the most clueless anti-USA journalist has ever claimed that ordinary Koreans of the North support the Kim dynasty. Yes, it's a choice that may go wrong. Or not. In any event, of the choices available, is this not the one with the least risk of annihilation and the greatest prospect of a benign conclusion?

    Don't know if you agree with my thinking based on a situation that you have brought out into the open, but in any case, THANK YOU for being willing to write realistically about it.

    Anybody who knows the fighting spirit of the ROK military, knows that they could go north across the 38th, swiftly and effectively to occupy the North up to the border with the PRC.

    You can’t be serious. The central Korean peninsula is ideal defensive terrain that channels attacking forces into narrow debouches that are ranged in by considerable firepower (that applies to the southern as well as the northern side). Whoever tries to move is just going to get blown up. That single fact is probably the most stabilizing aspect of the whole situation on the peninsula.

    Not even the most clueless anti-USA journalist has ever claimed that ordinary Koreans of the North support the Kim dynasty.

    The Kim Dynasty has engineered a quasi-religions Suche ideology that makes the most rabid Maoism of the Cultural Revolution look tame. Their national myth is that Kim Il-Sung, through supernatural powers, drove away the Japanese then fended off a US invasion with no outside help. There would be plenty of North Koreans convinced that they are fighting under divine providence, just like with ISIS. You might consider the Japanese defense of Peleliu with a few Mosuls and Raqqas thrown in as what might await in the caved hills and cities of North Korea.

    Read More
  55. Rich says:
    @Simply Simon
    MacArthur made a terrible mistake by charging up to the Yalu River in winter with token resistance from the NKoreans. All hell broke lose when the Chinese came pouring across that frozen river and wreaked havoc upon our troops who were not at all prepared either for the vicious Korean weather or the fanatic onslaught of the Chinese. MacArthur was directly responsible for the needless deaths of thousands of GIs that resulted from enemy fire, frozen to death or later died as POWs. Also guilty for not stopping MacArthur from his madness was President Truman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who had authority over him. Of course Truman later fired the general, unfortunately after all the damage was done. Reed pretty well sums it up in his column about the folly of wars like Korea when a misguided five-star is treated with adulation by Congress and the American people upon his return from Korea. In his speech before both Houses of Congress MacArthur made the statement, "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away." He should have faded away quietly after WWII.

    MacArthur wasn’t responsible for the deaths of those GIs. Truman gave the orders to invade the peninsula and Congress did nothing to stop him. Mac Arthur’s troops had the N Koreans on the run until the Chicoms entered the war. Once the Chicoms stepped into it, the only way to win was to bomb the mainland, as MacArthur wanted. Truman’s timidity prevented this and led to MacArthur’s firing. The US and its allies still managed to drive the Reds out of S Korea and have kept those people free of the communists ever since. But had Truman acceded to MacArthur’s wishes, the 3rd world Chinese would’ve been defeated, the Nationalists returned to power and the Soviets surrounded and defanged. Instead we were left to the long Cold War, the Chinese people murdered and tortured under the Reds, the N Korean people in virtual slavery and a now ascendant Chicom nation. It would’ve been much easier to defeat the Red Chinese in 1953. It’s still possible, not as easy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    The Yalu River advance that overextended US forces in winter conditions and led to disaster was 100% on MacArthur. He ignored intelligence warnings on movement of Chinese troops. He was a mediocre, self-promoting General who undermined the cohesiveness and focus of the US effort in WWII as well.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Where were you in this conversation?

    Dean Acheson: We should have stopped that egotistical old maniac. Now he's unleashed millions of Chinese swarming over the Yalu like Biblical locusts. Look's like we've got Hobson's Choice.

    President Truman: Well what choice would your friend Hobson make Mr Secretary?

    Miitary Adviser: Mr President our strength is in the air and on the sea. If we want to win we bomb and shell the shit out of them from Tianjin and Peking all the way to the Indo Chinese border.

    PT: And will that win our Korean campaign? China quits, right?

    DA: Mr President, State sees it as a problem of finding critical targets....

    MA: Not a problem Mr President. We found Hamburg; Kiel, Cologne and Berlin and Dresden all right and we pretty well leveled them!

    DA: Indeed General and do you remember how many years it took for those soft European Germans to give up after the first firestorms in Hamburg?

    MA: But now we've got nukes and look how soon Japan packed it in after we nuked just a couple of cities.

    DA: So if we assume China's Long Marchers have say four times less attachment to their cities than the Nazis and many times the hinterland of Japan as well as the Soviet Union providing arms when can we expect China to stop pouring troops over the North Korean border?

    MA: Well our best case is five major cities nuked and 20 million Chinese dead though some of your China people at State say "remember Hitler" - there isn't going to be a coup. Worst case is 75 million killed and almost no urban life.

    DA: And I think you ought to remind the President that that takes the Communists back to about 1931 in the caves of Yunnan as your reading of Edgar Snow would remind you. Except of course they won't be confined to Yunnan.

    PT: 75 million? And I suppose there's that thing called fall out. Well I suppose there is some attraction to the idea of history books having me up there ahead of Genghis Khan as I don't look like getting a Nobel Prize, but you know General, I think you have just brought out the wuss in me. Mr. Secretary you are right: first order of business is to ger that egotistical bastard back here where he's only got his f***ing toxic tongue as a weapon.
  56. Thirdeye says:
    @Rich
    MacArthur wasn't responsible for the deaths of those GIs. Truman gave the orders to invade the peninsula and Congress did nothing to stop him. Mac Arthur's troops had the N Koreans on the run until the Chicoms entered the war. Once the Chicoms stepped into it, the only way to win was to bomb the mainland, as MacArthur wanted. Truman's timidity prevented this and led to MacArthur's firing. The US and its allies still managed to drive the Reds out of S Korea and have kept those people free of the communists ever since. But had Truman acceded to MacArthur's wishes, the 3rd world Chinese would've been defeated, the Nationalists returned to power and the Soviets surrounded and defanged. Instead we were left to the long Cold War, the Chinese people murdered and tortured under the Reds, the N Korean people in virtual slavery and a now ascendant Chicom nation. It would've been much easier to defeat the Red Chinese in 1953. It's still possible, not as easy.

    The Yalu River advance that overextended US forces in winter conditions and led to disaster was 100% on MacArthur. He ignored intelligence warnings on movement of Chinese troops. He was a mediocre, self-promoting General who undermined the cohesiveness and focus of the US effort in WWII as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    I'm not sure I understand your point. The Reds were on the run, the UN forces were winning with little resistance and Chicom involvement was still not ensured. MacArthur had the approval of both Truman and Acheson to advance beyond the 38th parallel so wasn't in any way going rogue. Had the Chicoms been forced to pay a serious price for deciding to participate in the war, by bombing their mainland, those GIs captured and/or killed, would've been avenged. The Chicoms wouldn't have stood a chance against the US in 1950.
  57. Rich says:
    @Thirdeye
    The Yalu River advance that overextended US forces in winter conditions and led to disaster was 100% on MacArthur. He ignored intelligence warnings on movement of Chinese troops. He was a mediocre, self-promoting General who undermined the cohesiveness and focus of the US effort in WWII as well.

    I’m not sure I understand your point. The Reds were on the run, the UN forces were winning with little resistance and Chicom involvement was still not ensured. MacArthur had the approval of both Truman and Acheson to advance beyond the 38th parallel so wasn’t in any way going rogue. Had the Chicoms been forced to pay a serious price for deciding to participate in the war, by bombing their mainland, those GIs captured and/or killed, would’ve been avenged. The Chicoms wouldn’t have stood a chance against the US in 1950.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Pardon the interruption, but how old are you people using this thread to argue these points? My guess is that none of you was involved at the time, perhaps none even living. If I'm correct, then you must have spent substantial time researching this stuff and then arriving at a position firm enough to lead you to engage in this commentary that you have to know won't convince your adversary. Why?

    I find much more pertinent today the question whether Uncle Sam had any legitimate business in Korea to begin with. Does any of the military history buffs here have an opinion on that?

  58. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Rich
    I'm not sure I understand your point. The Reds were on the run, the UN forces were winning with little resistance and Chicom involvement was still not ensured. MacArthur had the approval of both Truman and Acheson to advance beyond the 38th parallel so wasn't in any way going rogue. Had the Chicoms been forced to pay a serious price for deciding to participate in the war, by bombing their mainland, those GIs captured and/or killed, would've been avenged. The Chicoms wouldn't have stood a chance against the US in 1950.

    Pardon the interruption, but how old are you people using this thread to argue these points? My guess is that none of you was involved at the time, perhaps none even living. If I’m correct, then you must have spent substantial time researching this stuff and then arriving at a position firm enough to lead you to engage in this commentary that you have to know won’t convince your adversary. Why?

    I find much more pertinent today the question whether Uncle Sam had any legitimate business in Korea to begin with. Does any of the military history buffs here have an opinion on that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    My father served in the Korean War and I was stationed there during my term in the service. Other than that, many of us have an interest in history in general, and military history in particular. I have, on occasion, been convinced of different viewpoints when arguing history, and I hope, I've been able to change some opinions based on my own readings of historical events. It's also interesting to argue different points and opinions on historical events. More interesting than watching a 4 hour baseball game anyway.

    As to your question about whether we should even have been in Korea defending the South from the Communist onslaught, there are very good arguments for both sides. In the end, I have to reluctantly come down on the side of those who wanted to stop the Communist advance. We would have ended up fighting them eventually, so I'd say our willingness to fight them in Korea, and then in Vietnam, slowed their advance and prevented many more people from having to suffer under communist totalitarianism. In many instances, however, I disagree with the way the wars were fought.

    , @Simply Simon
    Disclaimer: "How old are you people using this thread to argue these points?" I can assure you my 89th birthday was on July 27, 2017 and I was actively involved in the Korean War in 1952 as an F-80 fighter-bomber pilot with the 8th Fighter-Bomber Wing, 36th Squadron, K-13, Suwon, S.Korea. I believe MacArthur screwed up royally when he did not stop his march north from Wonsan at the capital of NKorea, Pyongyang. The N. Koreans were on the run but it was a terrible mistake to keep pursuing them to the Yalu River in winter. As I stated in my previous post the results were devastating as recorded in the history books. All he had to do was establish a defense perimeter just north of Pyongyang and wait out the winter, This would have given his army time to resupply and be ready for a spring offensive if necessary. More importantly, it may well have brought the defeated NKoreans to the peace table knowing they had little other alternative. For us to engage in a nuclear and/or land war with China as advocated by Rich would have been insane. For good reason the Korean War has been called the "Forgotten War'. The American public was sick of war having just gone through the traumatic experience of WWII and had no stomach for any kind of conflict with China.
    , @Thirdeye

    I find much more pertinent today the question whether Uncle Sam had any legitimate business in Korea to begin with. Does any of the military history buffs here have an opinion on that?
     
    IMO Uncle Sam blundered into a situation where intervention was necessary. There was no merit to propping up Syngman Rhee, but once the Kim forces attacked there was no choice for the US but to intervene militarily. My beef is not with the fact that the US intervened but the failures leading up to the war and the awful decisions that made the war much worse than it had to have been.

    Korea was on the margins of Soviet interest in 1945 when, by agreement with the US, they defeated the Japanese on the Korean peninsula then consented to a US-administered zone south of the 38th parallel. The situation was resolvable then, before the Cold War got into full swing, but two power princes that had no legitimate claim to rule of Korea, Kim Il-Sung and Syngman Rhee, manipulated the great powers for their own interests. A couple of years later, deterioration of relations between the Soviet Union and the west complicated the issue by making Korea a bargaining chip. The situation was nearly impossible to resolve at that point.
  59. Rich says:
    @anonymous
    Pardon the interruption, but how old are you people using this thread to argue these points? My guess is that none of you was involved at the time, perhaps none even living. If I'm correct, then you must have spent substantial time researching this stuff and then arriving at a position firm enough to lead you to engage in this commentary that you have to know won't convince your adversary. Why?

    I find much more pertinent today the question whether Uncle Sam had any legitimate business in Korea to begin with. Does any of the military history buffs here have an opinion on that?

    My father served in the Korean War and I was stationed there during my term in the service. Other than that, many of us have an interest in history in general, and military history in particular. I have, on occasion, been convinced of different viewpoints when arguing history, and I hope, I’ve been able to change some opinions based on my own readings of historical events. It’s also interesting to argue different points and opinions on historical events. More interesting than watching a 4 hour baseball game anyway.

    As to your question about whether we should even have been in Korea defending the South from the Communist onslaught, there are very good arguments for both sides. In the end, I have to reluctantly come down on the side of those who wanted to stop the Communist advance. We would have ended up fighting them eventually, so I’d say our willingness to fight them in Korea, and then in Vietnam, slowed their advance and prevented many more people from having to suffer under communist totalitarianism. In many instances, however, I disagree with the way the wars were fought.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Thank you for responding to my questions.
    , @Avery
    {We would have ended up fighting them eventually, so I’d say our willingness to fight them in Korea, and then in Vietnam, slowed their advance and prevented many more people from having to suffer under communist totalitarianism}

    Nonsense.

    Vietnamese communists won, and the ‘vaunted’ Domino Theory failed to materialize. Thailand didn’t go communist. Philippines didn’t go communist,….
    Today, US has a thriving trade relationship with communist Vietnam.
    Lots of ‘Made in Vietnam’ consumer goods and foodstuff here in California markets.
    Vietnam is even flirting with US for military cooperation as a counterweight to China.

    I understand men who sacrificed their lives or limbs in Vietnam want to feel it was for some noble purpose. But, isn’t it true that Johnson and McNamara knew Vietnam war was lost years before its end (by Nixon), yet Johnson didn’t want to be blamed for “losing Vietnam”, so kept feeding 1,000s and 1,000s of more young American men to the meatgrinder. Basically Johnson sacrificed 1,000s of young Americans for his personal vanity. Scum like that do not deserve the patriotism, sacrifice, and the blood of genuinely patriotic Americans.

    And as an American taxpayer, why do _you_ care if ‘…more people from having to suffer under communist totalitarianism’?
    How is your life as an American negatively affected by say the failure of socialist Venezuela.

    In fact, a reasonable case can be made that had NK overrun SK, Americans would be better off. SK consumer products, electronics, semiconductors, automobiles, etc have flooded US markets. No NK products in US for sure. American middle class has been eroded as a result of Globalist and multi-national corporations methodically destroying America’s industrial base by shipping high-paying jobs and industries overseas.
    Like to SK.

    One of the main tail-winds that propelled Trump into POTUS was the loss of meaningful jobs for the American middle class. Trump is trying to bring back some jobs by arm-twisting, but pretty hard to undo the decades long damage now.

  60. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Rich
    My father served in the Korean War and I was stationed there during my term in the service. Other than that, many of us have an interest in history in general, and military history in particular. I have, on occasion, been convinced of different viewpoints when arguing history, and I hope, I've been able to change some opinions based on my own readings of historical events. It's also interesting to argue different points and opinions on historical events. More interesting than watching a 4 hour baseball game anyway.

    As to your question about whether we should even have been in Korea defending the South from the Communist onslaught, there are very good arguments for both sides. In the end, I have to reluctantly come down on the side of those who wanted to stop the Communist advance. We would have ended up fighting them eventually, so I'd say our willingness to fight them in Korea, and then in Vietnam, slowed their advance and prevented many more people from having to suffer under communist totalitarianism. In many instances, however, I disagree with the way the wars were fought.

    Thank you for responding to my questions.

    Read More
  61. Avery says:
    @Rich
    My father served in the Korean War and I was stationed there during my term in the service. Other than that, many of us have an interest in history in general, and military history in particular. I have, on occasion, been convinced of different viewpoints when arguing history, and I hope, I've been able to change some opinions based on my own readings of historical events. It's also interesting to argue different points and opinions on historical events. More interesting than watching a 4 hour baseball game anyway.

    As to your question about whether we should even have been in Korea defending the South from the Communist onslaught, there are very good arguments for both sides. In the end, I have to reluctantly come down on the side of those who wanted to stop the Communist advance. We would have ended up fighting them eventually, so I'd say our willingness to fight them in Korea, and then in Vietnam, slowed their advance and prevented many more people from having to suffer under communist totalitarianism. In many instances, however, I disagree with the way the wars were fought.

    {We would have ended up fighting them eventually, so I’d say our willingness to fight them in Korea, and then in Vietnam, slowed their advance and prevented many more people from having to suffer under communist totalitarianism}

    Nonsense.

    Vietnamese communists won, and the ‘vaunted’ Domino Theory failed to materialize. Thailand didn’t go communist. Philippines didn’t go communist,….
    Today, US has a thriving trade relationship with communist Vietnam.
    Lots of ‘Made in Vietnam’ consumer goods and foodstuff here in California markets.
    Vietnam is even flirting with US for military cooperation as a counterweight to China.

    I understand men who sacrificed their lives or limbs in Vietnam want to feel it was for some noble purpose. But, isn’t it true that Johnson and McNamara knew Vietnam war was lost years before its end (by Nixon), yet Johnson didn’t want to be blamed for “losing Vietnam”, so kept feeding 1,000s and 1,000s of more young American men to the meatgrinder. Basically Johnson sacrificed 1,000s of young Americans for his personal vanity. Scum like that do not deserve the patriotism, sacrifice, and the blood of genuinely patriotic Americans.

    And as an American taxpayer, why do _you_ care if ‘…more people from having to suffer under communist totalitarianism’?
    How is your life as an American negatively affected by say the failure of socialist Venezuela.

    In fact, a reasonable case can be made that had NK overrun SK, Americans would be better off. SK consumer products, electronics, semiconductors, automobiles, etc have flooded US markets. No NK products in US for sure. American middle class has been eroded as a result of Globalist and multi-national corporations methodically destroying America’s industrial base by shipping high-paying jobs and industries overseas.
    Like to SK.

    One of the main tail-winds that propelled Trump into POTUS was the loss of meaningful jobs for the American middle class. Trump is trying to bring back some jobs by arm-twisting, but pretty hard to undo the decades long damage now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    After the US pulled out of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia fell to the Communists. There's your domino theory proven correct.
    As an American taxpayer I am concerned about foreign adventurism and I also lean toward avoiding foreign wars. But at the time, the Reds were on the march. If we hadn't fought them in Asia, we would've been fighting them in our hemisphere. The crazed Leftists in the US were also Marxists and many wanted to foment revolution even in our country. Had the Reds been given the chance, they would've fought us here, too.
    I think that if the US and its allies hadn't stopped the commies in Korea, they would've invaded Japan next and then spread throughout the rest of Asia, eventually turning to South and Central America. Because we fought for S Korea, we have a foothold there that allows us to project power and keep the Chicoms nervous. I've read the arguments for removing our boys and many of them are quite reasonable, but the strategy we've used since the end of WWII did work to stop the Reds, so it wasn't all bad.
    Had Mr Nixon not gone begging to the Red Chinese and had the Clintons not sold us out to them, we probably wouldn't have much to worry about from that front and there would be more manufacturing here even without a President Trump.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    See my reply to Rich's #63
  62. Rich says:
    @Avery
    {We would have ended up fighting them eventually, so I’d say our willingness to fight them in Korea, and then in Vietnam, slowed their advance and prevented many more people from having to suffer under communist totalitarianism}

    Nonsense.

    Vietnamese communists won, and the ‘vaunted’ Domino Theory failed to materialize. Thailand didn’t go communist. Philippines didn’t go communist,….
    Today, US has a thriving trade relationship with communist Vietnam.
    Lots of ‘Made in Vietnam’ consumer goods and foodstuff here in California markets.
    Vietnam is even flirting with US for military cooperation as a counterweight to China.

    I understand men who sacrificed their lives or limbs in Vietnam want to feel it was for some noble purpose. But, isn’t it true that Johnson and McNamara knew Vietnam war was lost years before its end (by Nixon), yet Johnson didn’t want to be blamed for “losing Vietnam”, so kept feeding 1,000s and 1,000s of more young American men to the meatgrinder. Basically Johnson sacrificed 1,000s of young Americans for his personal vanity. Scum like that do not deserve the patriotism, sacrifice, and the blood of genuinely patriotic Americans.

    And as an American taxpayer, why do _you_ care if ‘…more people from having to suffer under communist totalitarianism’?
    How is your life as an American negatively affected by say the failure of socialist Venezuela.

    In fact, a reasonable case can be made that had NK overrun SK, Americans would be better off. SK consumer products, electronics, semiconductors, automobiles, etc have flooded US markets. No NK products in US for sure. American middle class has been eroded as a result of Globalist and multi-national corporations methodically destroying America’s industrial base by shipping high-paying jobs and industries overseas.
    Like to SK.

    One of the main tail-winds that propelled Trump into POTUS was the loss of meaningful jobs for the American middle class. Trump is trying to bring back some jobs by arm-twisting, but pretty hard to undo the decades long damage now.

    After the US pulled out of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia fell to the Communists. There’s your domino theory proven correct.
    As an American taxpayer I am concerned about foreign adventurism and I also lean toward avoiding foreign wars. But at the time, the Reds were on the march. If we hadn’t fought them in Asia, we would’ve been fighting them in our hemisphere. The crazed Leftists in the US were also Marxists and many wanted to foment revolution even in our country. Had the Reds been given the chance, they would’ve fought us here, too.
    I think that if the US and its allies hadn’t stopped the commies in Korea, they would’ve invaded Japan next and then spread throughout the rest of Asia, eventually turning to South and Central America. Because we fought for S Korea, we have a foothold there that allows us to project power and keep the Chicoms nervous. I’ve read the arguments for removing our boys and many of them are quite reasonable, but the strategy we’ve used since the end of WWII did work to stop the Reds, so it wasn’t all bad.
    Had Mr Nixon not gone begging to the Red Chinese and had the Clintons not sold us out to them, we probably wouldn’t have much to worry about from that front and there would be more manufacturing here even without a President Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reactionary Utopian
    Laos and Cambodia. Sounds like two more places that aren't US territory, and thus the responsibility of their people to defend.

    And, ahhhh, we list Vietnam to them Reds, did we not? So I guess the Reds did come over here to revolutionaryize the US of A. Which, come to think of it, might go a long way toward explaining such things as our national infatuation with LBGTQXYZASAP and other antic confusions.
    , @Grandpa Charlie
    Rich,

    I agree with most of what you say, but not with what you say about Vietnam. I think Vietnam was a huge blunder by USA - at least since Golf of Tonkin fraud by President Johnson. Still, I am grateful for your comments, as I don't feel so "all alone" anymore. Commenters here and Americans in general have been deluded by the idea that the Chicom government is benign now that it has embraced a form of capitalism. They forget that the Nazis embraced the same kind of corrupt "state capitalism" and their "Third Reich" was an anti-democratic one-party dictatorship that committed cultural genocides just as much as the Chicoms have in Tibet and elsewhere (arguably in North Korea).

    Be that as it may, I comment on your statement about the big sell-out:

    "Had Mr Nixon not gone begging to the Red Chinese and had the Clintons not sold us out to them" -- Rich

    The Clintons, etc., did not originate the sell-out, although they continued it. The original sell-out to the Chicoms was by Kissinger in his 1971 or '73 (I forget) secret trip to Beijing. The important fact to note is that there was (and is) a thread running through both Republican and Democratic administrations' global/foreign policy. And that thread is the traitorous neocons, who do not put the interest of USA above their own narrow financial interests and who have been running USA's global/foreign policy for a long time.

    I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that USA as a global force ("Empire"), since the days of Kissinger and maybe earlier, has been run by what I would call "neocons" (of which Kissinger is the glorious godfather). And I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that these same "neocons" have been and are on the payroll of the Standing Committee of the CCP as well as on the payroll of the "Zionists." People here at UR emphasize the influence of Israeli Zionists here, but I see it like this: USA for some time now has become like imperial China from the middle of the 19th Century through 1950: everything is for sale. USA has been sold out by the neocons, who are on the payroll of the CCP as well as of the "Zionists," but it goes farther than that. They have sold USA out, and continue to sell USA out, time after time to all comers. Just like China when it was sold out not to one but to all the big players among European colonialist nations (first the Portuguese, and then the Brits, French, USA, Russia and - last but not least - Germany).

    "Yet none dare call it treason."
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Indeed you could have added strength to your good point about the dominos by noting that a postponement of Soviet backed Vietnam's Communist takeover by 12 years allowed all the ASEAN nations to consolidate their positions economically, militarily and in terms of domestic stability so that the dominos remained upright. That certainly was a prevalent opinion in SE Asia.
    , @Stonehands
    "After the US pulled out of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia fell to the Communists..."

    Pol Pot and the communist Khmer Rouge came to power on a wave of propaganda in response to the disasterous "secret bombing" of Cambodia. In fact the US dropped 2.7 MILLION tons of ordinance on Cambodia- more cumulatively than was dropped on Japan in WW2. Ironically it was the "communist" Vietnamese who eventually drove PP from power. Cambodia is now a constitutional monarchy.

    BTW... what exactly would you call this corrupt shithole we reside in; whose very reason for being is to propagate degenerate Frankfurt school values?

    PS: The US military now concerns itself with preparing and training for the eventuality of "male pregnancy"...
  63. @anonymous
    Pardon the interruption, but how old are you people using this thread to argue these points? My guess is that none of you was involved at the time, perhaps none even living. If I'm correct, then you must have spent substantial time researching this stuff and then arriving at a position firm enough to lead you to engage in this commentary that you have to know won't convince your adversary. Why?

    I find much more pertinent today the question whether Uncle Sam had any legitimate business in Korea to begin with. Does any of the military history buffs here have an opinion on that?

    Disclaimer: “How old are you people using this thread to argue these points?” I can assure you my 89th birthday was on July 27, 2017 and I was actively involved in the Korean War in 1952 as an F-80 fighter-bomber pilot with the 8th Fighter-Bomber Wing, 36th Squadron, K-13, Suwon, S.Korea. I believe MacArthur screwed up royally when he did not stop his march north from Wonsan at the capital of NKorea, Pyongyang. The N. Koreans were on the run but it was a terrible mistake to keep pursuing them to the Yalu River in winter. As I stated in my previous post the results were devastating as recorded in the history books. All he had to do was establish a defense perimeter just north of Pyongyang and wait out the winter, This would have given his army time to resupply and be ready for a spring offensive if necessary. More importantly, it may well have brought the defeated NKoreans to the peace table knowing they had little other alternative. For us to engage in a nuclear and/or land war with China as advocated by Rich would have been insane. For good reason the Korean War has been called the “Forgotten War’. The American public was sick of war having just gone through the traumatic experience of WWII and had no stomach for any kind of conflict with China.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Sounds abput right.
    , @Simply Simon
    We are now paying the price for our failure to contain the Norks which could have been done in the early 50s as I outline in my previous post. What really gets to me in my old age is that General MacArthur never had to pay a price, except for the light sentence of being fired, for his total screw-up in Korea. Thousands of GIs were needlessly slaughtered because of his strategic blunder. I wonder if that thought ever crossed his mind. Not likely, he would not be a general otherwise.
  64. @Rich
    After the US pulled out of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia fell to the Communists. There's your domino theory proven correct.
    As an American taxpayer I am concerned about foreign adventurism and I also lean toward avoiding foreign wars. But at the time, the Reds were on the march. If we hadn't fought them in Asia, we would've been fighting them in our hemisphere. The crazed Leftists in the US were also Marxists and many wanted to foment revolution even in our country. Had the Reds been given the chance, they would've fought us here, too.
    I think that if the US and its allies hadn't stopped the commies in Korea, they would've invaded Japan next and then spread throughout the rest of Asia, eventually turning to South and Central America. Because we fought for S Korea, we have a foothold there that allows us to project power and keep the Chicoms nervous. I've read the arguments for removing our boys and many of them are quite reasonable, but the strategy we've used since the end of WWII did work to stop the Reds, so it wasn't all bad.
    Had Mr Nixon not gone begging to the Red Chinese and had the Clintons not sold us out to them, we probably wouldn't have much to worry about from that front and there would be more manufacturing here even without a President Trump.

    Laos and Cambodia. Sounds like two more places that aren’t US territory, and thus the responsibility of their people to defend.

    And, ahhhh, we list Vietnam to them Reds, did we not? So I guess the Reds did come over here to revolutionaryize the US of A. Which, come to think of it, might go a long way toward explaining such things as our national infatuation with LBGTQXYZASAP and other antic confusions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    By fighting in Vietnam we showed the Reds we were willing to stand up to their attempts to spread communism throughout the world. There is an argument to be made that we shouldn't have sent our boys overseas, in the end, though, I have to come down on the side of those who decided to make them fight for every inch of land they sought to conquer. We won that fight, so I guess those fellows were right.
  65. Rich says:
    @Reactionary Utopian
    Laos and Cambodia. Sounds like two more places that aren't US territory, and thus the responsibility of their people to defend.

    And, ahhhh, we list Vietnam to them Reds, did we not? So I guess the Reds did come over here to revolutionaryize the US of A. Which, come to think of it, might go a long way toward explaining such things as our national infatuation with LBGTQXYZASAP and other antic confusions.

    By fighting in Vietnam we showed the Reds we were willing to stand up to their attempts to spread communism throughout the world. There is an argument to be made that we shouldn’t have sent our boys overseas, in the end, though, I have to come down on the side of those who decided to make them fight for every inch of land they sought to conquer. We won that fight, so I guess those fellows were right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    We won that fight,
     
    Those 58,307 men with names on that wall didn't win. The men who left body parts in a stinking Asian jungle didn't win. The wives, children, and parents of those men didn't win.
  66. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Whoa, now you’re losing me: “We won that fight, so I guess those fellows were right.”

    “We” is who exactly?
    Which “fight” is “that”?
    Which “fellows,” and how were they “right” about what, exactly?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    "We" being the US and it's anti-communist allies
    "Which fight " being the fight to slow and eventually stop the spread of totalitarian communism.
    "What fellows " are those men who were the leaders of the anti-communist movement in the West. The list is very long, but these leaders came up with the various plans of action, fighting where opportune, arming rebels, etc. that finally ended communist expansion.
  67. Rich says:
    @anonymous
    Whoa, now you're losing me: "We won that fight, so I guess those fellows were right."

    "We" is who exactly?
    Which "fight" is "that"?
    Which "fellows," and how were they "right" about what, exactly?

    “We” being the US and it’s anti-communist allies
    “Which fight ” being the fight to slow and eventually stop the spread of totalitarian communism.
    “What fellows ” are those men who were the leaders of the anti-communist movement in the West. The list is very long, but these leaders came up with the various plans of action, fighting where opportune, arming rebels, etc. that finally ended communist expansion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    Vietnam is a capitalist country run by a "Communist" party. They ended the Khmer Rouge reign of terror then kicked the butts of the Chinese in the 1979 war. Ironically, the US leaned towards the Khmer Rouge because of the alignment of Vietnam with the Soviet Union, which turned out to be short-lived. Recently, the US courted Vietnam for opposition to China over the South China Sea issue. It seems "Communist" rule in Vietnam is something the US, as well as the Nike Corporation, has decided it can live with.

    The conflicts in Indochina were driven by conditions specific to that area. Communism did not spread to Thailand, Burma, or Malaysia. The domino theory was never anything more than propaganda and has been discredited by the course of actual events, especially since the "dominos" of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia stood up again of their own accord.
    , @anonymous
    I remain skeptical about that narrative, but I wasn't around then, either. What should stick in every craw is the waging of these wars in violation of the Constitution, which men like Taft called out at the time to no avail. The cowardly Congress abdicated its authority to prevent the warmongering USEmpire.

    Again, thank you for the Unz-like discussion.
    , @The Alarmist
    More like the Reds petered out on their own from internal bankruptcy of ideas and lack of freedom rather than some grand containment strategy exhausting them. Do you really have so little regard for the American way of life in the 1950s and 1960s to think the Reds were ever a real threat?
  68. During the ‘hot’ part of the Korean war GIs made it clear that if the world ever needed an enema the tube would go into Korea.

    So where does that opinion leave us today? Suppose China/Russia etal could isolate N.Korea as solely responsible for any action they undertake. N.Korea successfully launches ‘something’ (EMP weapon or nuke) against the U.S. that causes large scale loss of life and more importantly destruction of infrastructure. The U.S. in a fit of hellish destructive rage turns N.Korea to ashes. And…who cares?

    We would be screwed. China,however, which has been back-filling its infrastructure, literally, with billions of cubic meters of concrete for the past 15 years building ghost cities (silly Chinese) at break neck speed would set a geopolitical and economic pace that we would never catch up with let alone overtake. Talk about fast transients.

    It would not be a clean transition though. With the U.S. suddenly off the world stage Israel would either have to make some fast friends or wind up throwing nuclear. Coin toss on that one. Russia might soil itself. But China with all of those intangible worthless debt instruments converted to tangible hard assets and solid brand new infrastructure would prevail.

    But that is just my opinion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    How would China convert those "intangible worthless debt instruments" to "tangible hard assets"?
  69. Thirdeye says:
    @anonymous
    Pardon the interruption, but how old are you people using this thread to argue these points? My guess is that none of you was involved at the time, perhaps none even living. If I'm correct, then you must have spent substantial time researching this stuff and then arriving at a position firm enough to lead you to engage in this commentary that you have to know won't convince your adversary. Why?

    I find much more pertinent today the question whether Uncle Sam had any legitimate business in Korea to begin with. Does any of the military history buffs here have an opinion on that?

    I find much more pertinent today the question whether Uncle Sam had any legitimate business in Korea to begin with. Does any of the military history buffs here have an opinion on that?

    IMO Uncle Sam blundered into a situation where intervention was necessary. There was no merit to propping up Syngman Rhee, but once the Kim forces attacked there was no choice for the US but to intervene militarily. My beef is not with the fact that the US intervened but the failures leading up to the war and the awful decisions that made the war much worse than it had to have been.

    Korea was on the margins of Soviet interest in 1945 when, by agreement with the US, they defeated the Japanese on the Korean peninsula then consented to a US-administered zone south of the 38th parallel. The situation was resolvable then, before the Cold War got into full swing, but two power princes that had no legitimate claim to rule of Korea, Kim Il-Sung and Syngman Rhee, manipulated the great powers for their own interests. A couple of years later, deterioration of relations between the Soviet Union and the west complicated the issue by making Korea a bargaining chip. The situation was nearly impossible to resolve at that point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Thank you.
    , @Wally
    "IMO Uncle Sam blundered into a situation where intervention was necessary"

    The US has never been very competent militarily. Big & blundering is about right.
    Our safe, unhindered manufacturing capabilities was about it.

    But hey, we did turn half of Europe over to the communists.
  70. Thirdeye says:
    @Rich
    "We" being the US and it's anti-communist allies
    "Which fight " being the fight to slow and eventually stop the spread of totalitarian communism.
    "What fellows " are those men who were the leaders of the anti-communist movement in the West. The list is very long, but these leaders came up with the various plans of action, fighting where opportune, arming rebels, etc. that finally ended communist expansion.

    Vietnam is a capitalist country run by a “Communist” party. They ended the Khmer Rouge reign of terror then kicked the butts of the Chinese in the 1979 war. Ironically, the US leaned towards the Khmer Rouge because of the alignment of Vietnam with the Soviet Union, which turned out to be short-lived. Recently, the US courted Vietnam for opposition to China over the South China Sea issue. It seems “Communist” rule in Vietnam is something the US, as well as the Nike Corporation, has decided it can live with.

    The conflicts in Indochina were driven by conditions specific to that area. Communism did not spread to Thailand, Burma, or Malaysia. The domino theory was never anything more than propaganda and has been discredited by the course of actual events, especially since the “dominos” of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia stood up again of their own accord.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    Big supporter of the thugs who've run Vietnam since the South Vietnamese government was defeated, eh? Difficult to say whether the Vietnamese actually"won" their war with the invading Chicoms. Historians disagree on which side was the true victor. I haven't been convinced by either side, yet. And, yes, I agree with you, and the Reds in Vietnam are proof, that communism as an ideology was a failure, a shame so many fell under its spell and that so many innocents had to suffer.

    I have to disagree with your opinion of the "Domino Theory", however. Because, like dominoes, both Cambodia and Laos fell after American withdrawal. I would argue that because of American steadfastness in defending the free Koreans and others, the commies were unable to continue their planned takeover of Thailand, Burma and Malaysia.
  71. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Thirdeye

    I find much more pertinent today the question whether Uncle Sam had any legitimate business in Korea to begin with. Does any of the military history buffs here have an opinion on that?
     
    IMO Uncle Sam blundered into a situation where intervention was necessary. There was no merit to propping up Syngman Rhee, but once the Kim forces attacked there was no choice for the US but to intervene militarily. My beef is not with the fact that the US intervened but the failures leading up to the war and the awful decisions that made the war much worse than it had to have been.

    Korea was on the margins of Soviet interest in 1945 when, by agreement with the US, they defeated the Japanese on the Korean peninsula then consented to a US-administered zone south of the 38th parallel. The situation was resolvable then, before the Cold War got into full swing, but two power princes that had no legitimate claim to rule of Korea, Kim Il-Sung and Syngman Rhee, manipulated the great powers for their own interests. A couple of years later, deterioration of relations between the Soviet Union and the west complicated the issue by making Korea a bargaining chip. The situation was nearly impossible to resolve at that point.

    Thank you.

    Read More
  72. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Rich
    "We" being the US and it's anti-communist allies
    "Which fight " being the fight to slow and eventually stop the spread of totalitarian communism.
    "What fellows " are those men who were the leaders of the anti-communist movement in the West. The list is very long, but these leaders came up with the various plans of action, fighting where opportune, arming rebels, etc. that finally ended communist expansion.

    I remain skeptical about that narrative, but I wasn’t around then, either. What should stick in every craw is the waging of these wars in violation of the Constitution, which men like Taft called out at the time to no avail. The cowardly Congress abdicated its authority to prevent the warmongering USEmpire.

    Again, thank you for the Unz-like discussion.

    Read More
  73. Rich says:
    @Thirdeye
    Vietnam is a capitalist country run by a "Communist" party. They ended the Khmer Rouge reign of terror then kicked the butts of the Chinese in the 1979 war. Ironically, the US leaned towards the Khmer Rouge because of the alignment of Vietnam with the Soviet Union, which turned out to be short-lived. Recently, the US courted Vietnam for opposition to China over the South China Sea issue. It seems "Communist" rule in Vietnam is something the US, as well as the Nike Corporation, has decided it can live with.

    The conflicts in Indochina were driven by conditions specific to that area. Communism did not spread to Thailand, Burma, or Malaysia. The domino theory was never anything more than propaganda and has been discredited by the course of actual events, especially since the "dominos" of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia stood up again of their own accord.

    Big supporter of the thugs who’ve run Vietnam since the South Vietnamese government was defeated, eh? Difficult to say whether the Vietnamese actually”won” their war with the invading Chicoms. Historians disagree on which side was the true victor. I haven’t been convinced by either side, yet. And, yes, I agree with you, and the Reds in Vietnam are proof, that communism as an ideology was a failure, a shame so many fell under its spell and that so many innocents had to suffer.

    I have to disagree with your opinion of the “Domino Theory”, however. Because, like dominoes, both Cambodia and Laos fell after American withdrawal. I would argue that because of American steadfastness in defending the free Koreans and others, the commies were unable to continue their planned takeover of Thailand, Burma and Malaysia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    Big supporter of the thugs who’ve run Vietnam since the South Vietnamese government was defeated, eh?
     
    Awww comon! I said no such thing. Objectivity towards former "enemies" is a good thing.

    Cambodia and Laos, like Vietnam, restored capitalism. The ascendance of the Communist Party in those countries was more happenstance than due to the strength of Communist movements. Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist who fought the Japanese, then the French attempt at recolonization. The "communism" of the Viet Minh was a political expedient for gaining the support of the Soviet Union and China. There was no depth to Vietnam's communist ideology, as events after the reunification of Vietnam demonstrated. The rise of the Khmer Rouge was a fluke driven by the ouster of Prince Sihanouk by the Lon Nol government, which had no legitimacy. The post-KR government in Cambodia moved away from communism as quickly as did the Vietnamese government. The one-party "Communist" capitalist rule is similar to the one-party rule by the PRI in Mexico through most of the Twentieth Century. The US had no objection to that.

    You might want to brush up on what actually happened under the South Korean regimes until the uprisings of 1980 before you refer to it as "free." South Koreans were brutally repressed and endured great privations while working in slave-like conditions. There was famine in the 1960s.

    Vietnam held off the Chinese invaders with frontier forces and reservists, who retreated to prepared defensive positions and inflicted disproportionate casualties. China failed to obtain their objective, to force a withdrawal of Vietnam from Cambodia, and their operation became too costly to sustain. That counts as losing in my book.
  74. CK says:

    A problem with the UNZ is that one only gets one troll indicator an hour.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    A problem with the UNZ is that one only gets one troll indicator an hour.

     

    You being the one for this hour.
  75. Thirdeye says:
    @Rich
    Big supporter of the thugs who've run Vietnam since the South Vietnamese government was defeated, eh? Difficult to say whether the Vietnamese actually"won" their war with the invading Chicoms. Historians disagree on which side was the true victor. I haven't been convinced by either side, yet. And, yes, I agree with you, and the Reds in Vietnam are proof, that communism as an ideology was a failure, a shame so many fell under its spell and that so many innocents had to suffer.

    I have to disagree with your opinion of the "Domino Theory", however. Because, like dominoes, both Cambodia and Laos fell after American withdrawal. I would argue that because of American steadfastness in defending the free Koreans and others, the commies were unable to continue their planned takeover of Thailand, Burma and Malaysia.

    Big supporter of the thugs who’ve run Vietnam since the South Vietnamese government was defeated, eh?

    Awww comon! I said no such thing. Objectivity towards former “enemies” is a good thing.

    Cambodia and Laos, like Vietnam, restored capitalism. The ascendance of the Communist Party in those countries was more happenstance than due to the strength of Communist movements. Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist who fought the Japanese, then the French attempt at recolonization. The “communism” of the Viet Minh was a political expedient for gaining the support of the Soviet Union and China. There was no depth to Vietnam’s communist ideology, as events after the reunification of Vietnam demonstrated. The rise of the Khmer Rouge was a fluke driven by the ouster of Prince Sihanouk by the Lon Nol government, which had no legitimacy. The post-KR government in Cambodia moved away from communism as quickly as did the Vietnamese government. The one-party “Communist” capitalist rule is similar to the one-party rule by the PRI in Mexico through most of the Twentieth Century. The US had no objection to that.

    You might want to brush up on what actually happened under the South Korean regimes until the uprisings of 1980 before you refer to it as “free.” South Koreans were brutally repressed and endured great privations while working in slave-like conditions. There was famine in the 1960s.

    Vietnam held off the Chinese invaders with frontier forces and reservists, who retreated to prepared defensive positions and inflicted disproportionate casualties. China failed to obtain their objective, to force a withdrawal of Vietnam from Cambodia, and their operation became too costly to sustain. That counts as losing in my book.

    Read More
    • Agree: Andrei Martyanov
    • Replies: @ASeeEyeSee
    I think you have been extremely objective in putting the puzzle pieces of history into a succinct and accurate picture. Well done.

    You present some truths that many are still loath to accept ergo the ad hominem.
  76. turtle says:

    > The problem is, first, that we have troops willing to put up with this

    Now I know why I did not join the U.S. military.
    Ich bin kein Sitzpinkler.

    Read More
  77. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @CK
    A problem with the UNZ is that one only gets one troll indicator an hour.

    A problem with the UNZ is that one only gets one troll indicator an hour.

    You being the one for this hour.

    Read More
  78. @Thirdeye

    Big supporter of the thugs who’ve run Vietnam since the South Vietnamese government was defeated, eh?
     
    Awww comon! I said no such thing. Objectivity towards former "enemies" is a good thing.

    Cambodia and Laos, like Vietnam, restored capitalism. The ascendance of the Communist Party in those countries was more happenstance than due to the strength of Communist movements. Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist who fought the Japanese, then the French attempt at recolonization. The "communism" of the Viet Minh was a political expedient for gaining the support of the Soviet Union and China. There was no depth to Vietnam's communist ideology, as events after the reunification of Vietnam demonstrated. The rise of the Khmer Rouge was a fluke driven by the ouster of Prince Sihanouk by the Lon Nol government, which had no legitimacy. The post-KR government in Cambodia moved away from communism as quickly as did the Vietnamese government. The one-party "Communist" capitalist rule is similar to the one-party rule by the PRI in Mexico through most of the Twentieth Century. The US had no objection to that.

    You might want to brush up on what actually happened under the South Korean regimes until the uprisings of 1980 before you refer to it as "free." South Koreans were brutally repressed and endured great privations while working in slave-like conditions. There was famine in the 1960s.

    Vietnam held off the Chinese invaders with frontier forces and reservists, who retreated to prepared defensive positions and inflicted disproportionate casualties. China failed to obtain their objective, to force a withdrawal of Vietnam from Cambodia, and their operation became too costly to sustain. That counts as losing in my book.

    I think you have been extremely objective in putting the puzzle pieces of history into a succinct and accurate picture. Well done.

    You present some truths that many are still loath to accept ergo the ad hominem.

    Read More
  79. @Rich
    After the US pulled out of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia fell to the Communists. There's your domino theory proven correct.
    As an American taxpayer I am concerned about foreign adventurism and I also lean toward avoiding foreign wars. But at the time, the Reds were on the march. If we hadn't fought them in Asia, we would've been fighting them in our hemisphere. The crazed Leftists in the US were also Marxists and many wanted to foment revolution even in our country. Had the Reds been given the chance, they would've fought us here, too.
    I think that if the US and its allies hadn't stopped the commies in Korea, they would've invaded Japan next and then spread throughout the rest of Asia, eventually turning to South and Central America. Because we fought for S Korea, we have a foothold there that allows us to project power and keep the Chicoms nervous. I've read the arguments for removing our boys and many of them are quite reasonable, but the strategy we've used since the end of WWII did work to stop the Reds, so it wasn't all bad.
    Had Mr Nixon not gone begging to the Red Chinese and had the Clintons not sold us out to them, we probably wouldn't have much to worry about from that front and there would be more manufacturing here even without a President Trump.

    Rich,

    I agree with most of what you say, but not with what you say about Vietnam. I think Vietnam was a huge blunder by USA – at least since Golf of Tonkin fraud by President Johnson. Still, I am grateful for your comments, as I don’t feel so “all alone” anymore. Commenters here and Americans in general have been deluded by the idea that the Chicom government is benign now that it has embraced a form of capitalism. They forget that the Nazis embraced the same kind of corrupt “state capitalism” and their “Third Reich” was an anti-democratic one-party dictatorship that committed cultural genocides just as much as the Chicoms have in Tibet and elsewhere (arguably in North Korea).

    Be that as it may, I comment on your statement about the big sell-out:

    “Had Mr Nixon not gone begging to the Red Chinese and had the Clintons not sold us out to them” — Rich

    The Clintons, etc., did not originate the sell-out, although they continued it. The original sell-out to the Chicoms was by Kissinger in his 1971 or ’73 (I forget) secret trip to Beijing. The important fact to note is that there was (and is) a thread running through both Republican and Democratic administrations’ global/foreign policy. And that thread is the traitorous neocons, who do not put the interest of USA above their own narrow financial interests and who have been running USA’s global/foreign policy for a long time.

    I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that USA as a global force (“Empire”), since the days of Kissinger and maybe earlier, has been run by what I would call “neocons” (of which Kissinger is the glorious godfather). And I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that these same “neocons” have been and are on the payroll of the Standing Committee of the CCP as well as on the payroll of the “Zionists.” People here at UR emphasize the influence of Israeli Zionists here, but I see it like this: USA for some time now has become like imperial China from the middle of the 19th Century through 1950: everything is for sale. USA has been sold out by the neocons, who are on the payroll of the CCP as well as of the “Zionists,” but it goes farther than that. They have sold USA out, and continue to sell USA out, time after time to all comers. Just like China when it was sold out not to one but to all the big players among European colonialist nations (first the Portuguese, and then the Brits, French, USA, Russia and – last but not least – Germany).

    “Yet none dare call it treason.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    What's CCP? Chinese communist party?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I read your first Comment and was attracted to read more when I discovered you off the rails as it seemed to me with your reference to traitorous neocons putting their own "selfish financial" interests above the national interest. Come again! "Financial"?

    In the course of following up your or another's reference to Kissinger as a neocon (in contrast to the realist image he seeks to present) I came across this unsympathetic piece on neocon doctrines:

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/10/why-im-not-a-neocon/

    Can you please help rescue "neocon" from the clutches of Humpty Dumpty?**

    **For those less learned than you I refer to Lewis Cartoll's "Alice in Wonderland" for the Humpty Dumpty reference.
  80. If the Pentagon destroyed the Three Gorges Dam, and killed several million people, China might go nuclear.

    if this happens, I have no doubt it will go nuclear.

    Read More
  81. Rod1963 says:

    A fight with NK is categorically insane on multiple grounds.

    Economically, politically and militarily.

    Economically SK would become a crippled state, Japan will be hammered as well. That’s bad for us and the stock market. What’s bad for the stock market is very bad for politicians and the people who have their 401K’s and IRA’s invested in stocks. Especially all those state pension funds that get wiped out? When people watch them implode when Seoul becomes rubble so will the political fortunes of everyone in D.C.

    Politically there is no upside. None. Once our casualties get into the many thousands and tens of thousands – people will go apeshit. It destroyed Bush and those casualties are small compared to what will happen in NK.

    Can you spell revolution? The people didn’t sign up for this insane war promoted by a bunch on unelected goons in D.C.

    Militarily we don’t have the resources.

    Read More
  82. I think that if the US and its allies hadn’t stopped the commies in Korea, they would’ve invaded Japan next …

    Attack Japan? With what? Neither the Chinese nor the Soviets had a naval presence in the Pacific that could even come close to matching American naval strength in the region, and neither had the experience and equipment for large scale amphibious operations. The Americans still had a far bigger nuclear arsenal than the Soviets and the Chinese had none at all, as well as the means to use them.

    In short, whatever happened in Korea, American air and naval strength in the western Pacific meant that any invasion of Japan would have been sheer madness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    Al Goldstein had a running gag on his Manhattan Cable show, which never disappointed in entertainment value, that the Chinese were going to conquer us by burying us in delivery-service menus. If you lived in NYC, you'd surely get the joke.

    Man, I miss that guy... would have made a great President.
    , @Rich
    I'm beginning to wonder about this loss of perspective as to the communists power after WWII. If the US hadn't defended the anti-communists in South Korea, the emboldened Reds would've kept expanding,until we finally stood up to them. I have a feeling that folks like you would've argued against defending the Nips from the commies, after all, they'd bombed Pearl Harbor. And then you would've said the Philippines was none of our business, and the Doles had mistreated Hawaiians. Where, and when, would you have been willing to make a stand? California? Nevada? Ohio? The original 13 colonies?
    , @anonguy

    Attack Japan? With what??
     
    A communist invasion of Japan was never credible but the rise of a red regime in Japan was considered a real threat as Japan rebuilt their society post WWII.

    The U.S. figured prosperity of the Japanese people was the best defense, hence we supported the rise of the Japanese economy even when after it became clear it was damaging our own.
  83. There was a period where the US conquered the world with things like Disney, Hollywood, Coca Cola (or Pepsi), and McDonalds (or KFC, which is halal and is popular with muzzies in Europe). The world spouted off occasional anti-Yank epithets, but they consumed this crap and sent us money. A lot of the “value” we offered was intellectual property, i.e. sir. Not a bad trade.

    Now it seems that as the old growth engine sputters,we’re ranging the world and raging, and our new growth engine is Boeing and Lockmart. Sure, they still send us money, but the problem is that these things are less endearing and more destructive and require expending actual resources.

    Why not have Disney open a theme park in NK and let’s hand out Cokes to everyone there? Better yet, airdrop ADM corn products to fatten the Norks up and make them less hungry for a fight.

    Is this any less ludicrous than the course we are currently on?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    which is halal and is popular with muzzies in Europe
     
    Ah, the obligatory Islamophobic dig, especially on a Reed article.

    Now, given the sheer evil the Christian Pagan Polytheist west has been perpetuating around the world, what should they be called? "Crizzies" sound good to you?

    I know, not very original, but, it sure sounds a lot closer to the term we are all aiming for, right?
  84. @The Plutonium Kid

    I think that if the US and its allies hadn’t stopped the commies in Korea, they would’ve invaded Japan next ...
     
    Attack Japan? With what? Neither the Chinese nor the Soviets had a naval presence in the Pacific that could even come close to matching American naval strength in the region, and neither had the experience and equipment for large scale amphibious operations. The Americans still had a far bigger nuclear arsenal than the Soviets and the Chinese had none at all, as well as the means to use them.

    In short, whatever happened in Korea, American air and naval strength in the western Pacific meant that any invasion of Japan would have been sheer madness.

    Al Goldstein had a running gag on his Manhattan Cable show, which never disappointed in entertainment value, that the Chinese were going to conquer us by burying us in delivery-service menus. If you lived in NYC, you’d surely get the joke.

    Man, I miss that guy… would have made a great President.

    Read More
  85. @Rich
    "We" being the US and it's anti-communist allies
    "Which fight " being the fight to slow and eventually stop the spread of totalitarian communism.
    "What fellows " are those men who were the leaders of the anti-communist movement in the West. The list is very long, but these leaders came up with the various plans of action, fighting where opportune, arming rebels, etc. that finally ended communist expansion.

    More like the Reds petered out on their own from internal bankruptcy of ideas and lack of freedom rather than some grand containment strategy exhausting them. Do you really have so little regard for the American way of life in the 1950s and 1960s to think the Reds were ever a real threat?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    Interesting opinion. You're aware that the Soviet Army occupied Eastern Europe, the Communists had defeated the Nationalists in China, communist movements in Western Europe and the 3rd world were on the move, right? I wonder if someone like you wasn't advising Herr Hitler in 1940, telling him the Reds were a bunch of pushovers and he would defeat them easily in the East.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    What's "way of life" got to do with it? To adapt a snappy saying "How many divisions does your way of life have?". (21sr century update "how many divisions does your lifestyle guru have?).
    , @anonguy

    More like the Reds petered out on their own from internal bankruptcy of ideas and lack of freedom rather than some grand containment strategy exhausting them.
     
    You are a victim of retconned history.

    Reagan's administration, which led to the defeat of Soviet communism, was exactly a grand containment strategy which included, among other things:

    1) Strategic Defense Initiative
    2) Forward Maritime Strategy
    3) Opposing communist insurgencies in Central America
    4) Supporting Afghani guerrillas against the Soviets
    5) Executing the deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe

    Those are just off the top of my head. And all of them were to the purpose of demonstrating to the Warsaw Pact that they were going to lose in a war. And not only that, the Forward Maritime Strategy demonstrated that we could rapidly destroy their second strike capability (submarine ballistic missiles), making them naked to a pre-emptive first strike.

    This was pretty demoralizing to the Soviet leadership.

    The Soviets only had force on their side and it had been working pretty well until the 1980s when things started going off the rails for them in, guess where, Central America, Afghanistan, and undersea warfare, among other things.

    This did convince (some of) them that they did maybe have a paucity of ideas about things other than force, leading to the last ditch perestroika/glasnost stuff, hoping for a Japanese miracle, but it was way too little, too late, the economic equivalent of throwing the Hitler Youth into the defense of Berlin.

    The end of European communism was not inevitable. As it was crumbling, the nearly universal assumption was that the Chinese would follow, especially after Tiananmen Square. This assumption was based upon your logic, it is all inevitable, they have no ideas, etc.

    But 27 years on, they managed to hang on. North Korea is also hanging in there, utterly unrepentant, with their paucity of ideas other than force, etc.

    The notion that the Soviets just sort of withered up and died on their own is revisionist history meant to discredit the accomplishment of the right wing in ridding the world of the scourge of European communism. It began shortly after the end of the Cold War and has continued unabated. That is because the left spent the entire 80s screeching about Reagan being a war-monger, Imagine songfests, etc. Then it all worked, and spectacularly so when one considers how little bloodshed it finally entailed.

    Right when it happened, there was a huge celebratory atmosphere nearly everywhere in the world except the remaining communist regimes. However, this was rapidly tamped down and forgotten. Too much remembering would bring up how lots of influential people then still around had invested 10 years of their lives railing against war-monger Reagan.

    Nowadays, the goodthink is that it just sort of happened for no particular directed reason. This is rather like how the buffalo going away for the Plains Indians is remembered, something that just happened, forgetting that the U.S. Army was slaughtering the herds, either directly or by enabling hunters, to deprive the Plains Indians of sustenance.

    George Bush, in 1992 State of the Union:

    "I will speak of those things. But let me tell you something I've been thinking these past few months. It's a kind of rollcall of honor. For the cold war didn't end; it was won. And I think of those who won it, in places like Korea and Vietnam. And some of them didn't come back. Back then they were heroes, but this year they were victors."

    He added:

    "But the biggest thing that has happened in the world in my life, in our lives, is this: By the grace of God, America won the cold war."

    That was the view in early 1992. Nobody was saying that they just slowly expired then.

  86. Rich says:
    @The Alarmist
    More like the Reds petered out on their own from internal bankruptcy of ideas and lack of freedom rather than some grand containment strategy exhausting them. Do you really have so little regard for the American way of life in the 1950s and 1960s to think the Reds were ever a real threat?

    Interesting opinion. You’re aware that the Soviet Army occupied Eastern Europe, the Communists had defeated the Nationalists in China, communist movements in Western Europe and the 3rd world were on the move, right? I wonder if someone like you wasn’t advising Herr Hitler in 1940, telling him the Reds were a bunch of pushovers and he would defeat them easily in the East.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marshall Lentini
    "I wonder if someone like you wasn’t advising Herr Hitler in 1940, telling him the Reds were a bunch of pushovers and he would defeat them easily in the East."

    That would be Himmler. After pushing out Rosenberg, the only one with experience of an eastern culture and who tried to apply the brakes, Himmler and Bormann were free to harangue the corporal about Russian strength being an illusion, etc., much like our comrade, above.

    But our friend won't see the correspondence; the Nazis were utterly above war-mongering, Hitler wasn't barking for conquest in the east, and no one in Hitler's cabinet was a bigot completely detached from reality on the ground.
  87. Rich says:
    @The Plutonium Kid

    I think that if the US and its allies hadn’t stopped the commies in Korea, they would’ve invaded Japan next ...
     
    Attack Japan? With what? Neither the Chinese nor the Soviets had a naval presence in the Pacific that could even come close to matching American naval strength in the region, and neither had the experience and equipment for large scale amphibious operations. The Americans still had a far bigger nuclear arsenal than the Soviets and the Chinese had none at all, as well as the means to use them.

    In short, whatever happened in Korea, American air and naval strength in the western Pacific meant that any invasion of Japan would have been sheer madness.

    I’m beginning to wonder about this loss of perspective as to the communists power after WWII. If the US hadn’t defended the anti-communists in South Korea, the emboldened Reds would’ve kept expanding,until we finally stood up to them. I have a feeling that folks like you would’ve argued against defending the Nips from the commies, after all, they’d bombed Pearl Harbor. And then you would’ve said the Philippines was none of our business, and the Doles had mistreated Hawaiians. Where, and when, would you have been willing to make a stand? California? Nevada? Ohio? The original 13 colonies?

    Read More
  88. Sounds jolly to me.

    As some lunatic said, there’s too much peace going around.

    I’d love to see people eyeing each other hungrily, fighting off phantom phone syndrome. I can now fast for four days comfortably: too lean to be eaten!

    Seriously though. I can’t be the only one who’d take any nightmare scenario over modern life — this slow, boring, hamster’s death.

    Read More
  89. Alden says:
    @Simply Simon
    MacArthur made a terrible mistake by charging up to the Yalu River in winter with token resistance from the NKoreans. All hell broke lose when the Chinese came pouring across that frozen river and wreaked havoc upon our troops who were not at all prepared either for the vicious Korean weather or the fanatic onslaught of the Chinese. MacArthur was directly responsible for the needless deaths of thousands of GIs that resulted from enemy fire, frozen to death or later died as POWs. Also guilty for not stopping MacArthur from his madness was President Truman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who had authority over him. Of course Truman later fired the general, unfortunately after all the damage was done. Reed pretty well sums it up in his column about the folly of wars like Korea when a misguided five-star is treated with adulation by Congress and the American people upon his return from Korea. In his speech before both Houses of Congress MacArthur made the statement, "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away." He should have faded away quietly after WWII.

    My father always claimed MacArthur wanted to run for president. That was why he was so aggressive at the beginning of the Korean war.

    He wanted to follow Grant and Eisenhower, general to president. A lot of people at the time agreed with my father.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    I also agree with your father. Only reason he didn't was because he got his ass handed to him.
  90. @Rich
    Interesting opinion. You're aware that the Soviet Army occupied Eastern Europe, the Communists had defeated the Nationalists in China, communist movements in Western Europe and the 3rd world were on the move, right? I wonder if someone like you wasn't advising Herr Hitler in 1940, telling him the Reds were a bunch of pushovers and he would defeat them easily in the East.

    “I wonder if someone like you wasn’t advising Herr Hitler in 1940, telling him the Reds were a bunch of pushovers and he would defeat them easily in the East.”

    That would be Himmler. After pushing out Rosenberg, the only one with experience of an eastern culture and who tried to apply the brakes, Himmler and Bormann were free to harangue the corporal about Russian strength being an illusion, etc., much like our comrade, above.

    But our friend won’t see the correspondence; the Nazis were utterly above war-mongering, Hitler wasn’t barking for conquest in the east, and no one in Hitler’s cabinet was a bigot completely detached from reality on the ground.

    Read More
  91. Alden says:
    @Grandpa Charlie
    Rich,

    I agree with most of what you say, but not with what you say about Vietnam. I think Vietnam was a huge blunder by USA - at least since Golf of Tonkin fraud by President Johnson. Still, I am grateful for your comments, as I don't feel so "all alone" anymore. Commenters here and Americans in general have been deluded by the idea that the Chicom government is benign now that it has embraced a form of capitalism. They forget that the Nazis embraced the same kind of corrupt "state capitalism" and their "Third Reich" was an anti-democratic one-party dictatorship that committed cultural genocides just as much as the Chicoms have in Tibet and elsewhere (arguably in North Korea).

    Be that as it may, I comment on your statement about the big sell-out:

    "Had Mr Nixon not gone begging to the Red Chinese and had the Clintons not sold us out to them" -- Rich

    The Clintons, etc., did not originate the sell-out, although they continued it. The original sell-out to the Chicoms was by Kissinger in his 1971 or '73 (I forget) secret trip to Beijing. The important fact to note is that there was (and is) a thread running through both Republican and Democratic administrations' global/foreign policy. And that thread is the traitorous neocons, who do not put the interest of USA above their own narrow financial interests and who have been running USA's global/foreign policy for a long time.

    I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that USA as a global force ("Empire"), since the days of Kissinger and maybe earlier, has been run by what I would call "neocons" (of which Kissinger is the glorious godfather). And I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that these same "neocons" have been and are on the payroll of the Standing Committee of the CCP as well as on the payroll of the "Zionists." People here at UR emphasize the influence of Israeli Zionists here, but I see it like this: USA for some time now has become like imperial China from the middle of the 19th Century through 1950: everything is for sale. USA has been sold out by the neocons, who are on the payroll of the CCP as well as of the "Zionists," but it goes farther than that. They have sold USA out, and continue to sell USA out, time after time to all comers. Just like China when it was sold out not to one but to all the big players among European colonialist nations (first the Portuguese, and then the Brits, French, USA, Russia and - last but not least - Germany).

    "Yet none dare call it treason."

    What’s CCP? Chinese communist party?

    Read More
  92. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Is there a pattern here?

    Yes, and it lies in Tel Aviv. The global pattern recognition is always difficult to materialise from Mexico, though.

    Read More
  93. @Grandpa Charlie
    Diversity Heretic,

    "so many opponents ... at once" ????

    Methinks, dear Heretic, that you have taken Fred's meaning off on a tangent? I assumed - and do assume - that the premise of Fred's article is that USA has several choices, among them being "DO NOTHING" and "DO ALL OF IT," but really the choices worth considering are to do which one of these? Because the "DO NOTHING" choice would probably end in disaster - for the American people, for the Korean people, for Russian people, for the world, and - oh yes - for the Donald, and even for those hollow greed machines that we call "neocons" supposing that they really are living beings and not the, you know, the man-size lizards.

    Do them ALL and do them all AT ONCE ????? Are you crazy?

    Do the one that has been utterly foisted on us, the one that is honorable, the one that has the best chance of success, in many respects but especially in regard to getting US out of Asia.

    No, don’t do NOTHING — do DIPLOMACY!

    Read More
  94. @Rich
    After the US pulled out of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia fell to the Communists. There's your domino theory proven correct.
    As an American taxpayer I am concerned about foreign adventurism and I also lean toward avoiding foreign wars. But at the time, the Reds were on the march. If we hadn't fought them in Asia, we would've been fighting them in our hemisphere. The crazed Leftists in the US were also Marxists and many wanted to foment revolution even in our country. Had the Reds been given the chance, they would've fought us here, too.
    I think that if the US and its allies hadn't stopped the commies in Korea, they would've invaded Japan next and then spread throughout the rest of Asia, eventually turning to South and Central America. Because we fought for S Korea, we have a foothold there that allows us to project power and keep the Chicoms nervous. I've read the arguments for removing our boys and many of them are quite reasonable, but the strategy we've used since the end of WWII did work to stop the Reds, so it wasn't all bad.
    Had Mr Nixon not gone begging to the Red Chinese and had the Clintons not sold us out to them, we probably wouldn't have much to worry about from that front and there would be more manufacturing here even without a President Trump.

    Indeed you could have added strength to your good point about the dominos by noting that a postponement of Soviet backed Vietnam’s Communist takeover by 12 years allowed all the ASEAN nations to consolidate their positions economically, militarily and in terms of domestic stability so that the dominos remained upright. That certainly was a prevalent opinion in SE Asia.

    Read More
  95. @Avery
    {We would have ended up fighting them eventually, so I’d say our willingness to fight them in Korea, and then in Vietnam, slowed their advance and prevented many more people from having to suffer under communist totalitarianism}

    Nonsense.

    Vietnamese communists won, and the ‘vaunted’ Domino Theory failed to materialize. Thailand didn’t go communist. Philippines didn’t go communist,….
    Today, US has a thriving trade relationship with communist Vietnam.
    Lots of ‘Made in Vietnam’ consumer goods and foodstuff here in California markets.
    Vietnam is even flirting with US for military cooperation as a counterweight to China.

    I understand men who sacrificed their lives or limbs in Vietnam want to feel it was for some noble purpose. But, isn’t it true that Johnson and McNamara knew Vietnam war was lost years before its end (by Nixon), yet Johnson didn’t want to be blamed for “losing Vietnam”, so kept feeding 1,000s and 1,000s of more young American men to the meatgrinder. Basically Johnson sacrificed 1,000s of young Americans for his personal vanity. Scum like that do not deserve the patriotism, sacrifice, and the blood of genuinely patriotic Americans.

    And as an American taxpayer, why do _you_ care if ‘…more people from having to suffer under communist totalitarianism’?
    How is your life as an American negatively affected by say the failure of socialist Venezuela.

    In fact, a reasonable case can be made that had NK overrun SK, Americans would be better off. SK consumer products, electronics, semiconductors, automobiles, etc have flooded US markets. No NK products in US for sure. American middle class has been eroded as a result of Globalist and multi-national corporations methodically destroying America’s industrial base by shipping high-paying jobs and industries overseas.
    Like to SK.

    One of the main tail-winds that propelled Trump into POTUS was the loss of meaningful jobs for the American middle class. Trump is trying to bring back some jobs by arm-twisting, but pretty hard to undo the decades long damage now.

    See my reply to Rich’s #63

    Read More
  96. @bossel

    Germans thought that World War I would be be a quick war of movement, over in a few weeks.
     
    Not really. That was more propaganda than anything else. The military leadership were IIRC well aware of what could happen. Attacking France with pretty much all they had & trying to finish it quickly, so that resources would be freed to deal with Russia. That was the plan, but they already expected a prolonged & bloody conflict if that failed.

    the Chinese, only a generation or so removed from living hard,
     
    If you think that Chinese millennials are any hardier than those in the US, you clearly haven't been in China for quite a long time.

    “If you think that Chinese millennials are any hardier than those in the US, you clearly haven’t been in China for quite a long time.”
    Sure, you are thinking about the kids of the newly urbanised middle classes. I’m sure they are no tougher than the “western”version. However, there are still 100′s of millions of Chinese young people who live relatively hard rural lives. They, I suspect, wont be “snowflakes”….

    Read More
  97. @Grandpa Charlie
    Rich,

    I agree with most of what you say, but not with what you say about Vietnam. I think Vietnam was a huge blunder by USA - at least since Golf of Tonkin fraud by President Johnson. Still, I am grateful for your comments, as I don't feel so "all alone" anymore. Commenters here and Americans in general have been deluded by the idea that the Chicom government is benign now that it has embraced a form of capitalism. They forget that the Nazis embraced the same kind of corrupt "state capitalism" and their "Third Reich" was an anti-democratic one-party dictatorship that committed cultural genocides just as much as the Chicoms have in Tibet and elsewhere (arguably in North Korea).

    Be that as it may, I comment on your statement about the big sell-out:

    "Had Mr Nixon not gone begging to the Red Chinese and had the Clintons not sold us out to them" -- Rich

    The Clintons, etc., did not originate the sell-out, although they continued it. The original sell-out to the Chicoms was by Kissinger in his 1971 or '73 (I forget) secret trip to Beijing. The important fact to note is that there was (and is) a thread running through both Republican and Democratic administrations' global/foreign policy. And that thread is the traitorous neocons, who do not put the interest of USA above their own narrow financial interests and who have been running USA's global/foreign policy for a long time.

    I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that USA as a global force ("Empire"), since the days of Kissinger and maybe earlier, has been run by what I would call "neocons" (of which Kissinger is the glorious godfather). And I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that these same "neocons" have been and are on the payroll of the Standing Committee of the CCP as well as on the payroll of the "Zionists." People here at UR emphasize the influence of Israeli Zionists here, but I see it like this: USA for some time now has become like imperial China from the middle of the 19th Century through 1950: everything is for sale. USA has been sold out by the neocons, who are on the payroll of the CCP as well as of the "Zionists," but it goes farther than that. They have sold USA out, and continue to sell USA out, time after time to all comers. Just like China when it was sold out not to one but to all the big players among European colonialist nations (first the Portuguese, and then the Brits, French, USA, Russia and - last but not least - Germany).

    "Yet none dare call it treason."

    I read your first Comment and was attracted to read more when I discovered you off the rails as it seemed to me with your reference to traitorous neocons putting their own “selfish financial” interests above the national interest. Come again! “Financial”?

    In the course of following up your or another’s reference to Kissinger as a neocon (in contrast to the realist image he seeks to present) I came across this unsympathetic piece on neocon doctrines:

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/10/why-im-not-a-neocon/

    Can you please help rescue “neocon” from the clutches of Humpty Dumpty?**

    **For those less learned than you I refer to Lewis Cartoll’s “Alice in Wonderland” for the Humpty Dumpty reference.

    Read More
  98. @The Alarmist
    More like the Reds petered out on their own from internal bankruptcy of ideas and lack of freedom rather than some grand containment strategy exhausting them. Do you really have so little regard for the American way of life in the 1950s and 1960s to think the Reds were ever a real threat?

    What’s “way of life” got to do with it? To adapt a snappy saying “How many divisions does your way of life have?”. (21sr century update “how many divisions does your lifestyle guru have?).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    What’s “way of life” got to do with it? To adapt a snappy saying “How many divisions does your way of life have?”. (21sr century update “how many divisions does your lifestyle guru have?).
     
    How many divisions do your Facebook Friends have?
  99. @restless94110
    In my initial reply to your comment referencing the Saker article, I had not yet read the article.

    I simply commented on the absurdity of your ideas regarding North Korea.

    Now that I have read the Saker's article, I don't understand why you wrote those comments or even had those thoughts!

    The Saker makes clear that the modern method of war for America requires three things that absolutely have to be true: A demoralized enemy, air superiority, and the ability to have boots on the ground. Near the end of his article, the Saker created a handy table for all of the possible places that the US could engage or is enggated in.

    North Korea's entry consists of: it is unknown if the enemy is demoralized (I would say it is clear that it is not), a Yes for air superiority, and a No for boots on the ground.

    Meaning that North Korea would be a loss for America if it were to attack it.

    This makes your reference to the Saker's article, complete with a 2nd entry just to make sure that we know where the article is and read it, extremely confusing.

    The Saker has pointed out that it would be a loss to the United States to do what you advocate, just as Fred pointed out the same thing. Yet you have used both articles to make up your own scnenario?

    Why would you do such a thing? How could you read these great analysists and then come to the opposite and suicidally stupid conclusion?

    I believe that you are a prime example of the America people: gullible, sousciant, arrogant, full of hubris, and bone-headedly, stubbornly foolish.

    An attack on NK would result in a host of direct costs on the US, in terms of lives, money etc.
    The indirect costs would also be …profound. ANY attack on the North by the US WILL result in horrific South Korean casualties. This is a given. Regardless of whether Sth Korean government support was forth-coming, I find it hard to imagine just how nightmarish an attack on the North would be.

    Read More
  100. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Grandpa Charlie
    Yes, "restless" - I understand what you are saying - that I am really dumb as is typical of all Americans, and I don't know anything because I have never been there, never been there, never seen a real Commie in my life ... etc. ... etc.

    Whereas you, restless, are really smart ... probably even smarter than Jong-Un ... until you actually go to North Korea and then you will discover that Jong-Un is not only smarter than you, he is smarter than everybody.

    Think about that and see if you can come up with anything.

    Meanwhile, I have better things to do than to respond to your comments here.

    Meanwhile, I have better things to do than to respond to your comments here.

    We understand, those diapers won’t change themselves. Please get to it fast. The stink is overpowering.

    Read More
  101. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @The Alarmist
    There was a period where the US conquered the world with things like Disney, Hollywood, Coca Cola (or Pepsi), and McDonalds (or KFC, which is halal and is popular with muzzies in Europe). The world spouted off occasional anti-Yank epithets, but they consumed this crap and sent us money. A lot of the "value" we offered was intellectual property, i.e. sir. Not a bad trade.

    Now it seems that as the old growth engine sputters,we're ranging the world and raging, and our new growth engine is Boeing and Lockmart. Sure, they still send us money, but the problem is that these things are less endearing and more destructive and require expending actual resources.

    Why not have Disney open a theme park in NK and let's hand out Cokes to everyone there? Better yet, airdrop ADM corn products to fatten the Norks up and make them less hungry for a fight.

    Is this any less ludicrous than the course we are currently on?

    which is halal and is popular with muzzies in Europe

    Ah, the obligatory Islamophobic dig, especially on a Reed article.

    Now, given the sheer evil the Christian Pagan Polytheist west has been perpetuating around the world, what should they be called? “Crizzies” sound good to you?

    I know, not very original, but, it sure sounds a lot closer to the term we are all aiming for, right?

    Read More
  102. @Rich
    MacArthur wasn't responsible for the deaths of those GIs. Truman gave the orders to invade the peninsula and Congress did nothing to stop him. Mac Arthur's troops had the N Koreans on the run until the Chicoms entered the war. Once the Chicoms stepped into it, the only way to win was to bomb the mainland, as MacArthur wanted. Truman's timidity prevented this and led to MacArthur's firing. The US and its allies still managed to drive the Reds out of S Korea and have kept those people free of the communists ever since. But had Truman acceded to MacArthur's wishes, the 3rd world Chinese would've been defeated, the Nationalists returned to power and the Soviets surrounded and defanged. Instead we were left to the long Cold War, the Chinese people murdered and tortured under the Reds, the N Korean people in virtual slavery and a now ascendant Chicom nation. It would've been much easier to defeat the Red Chinese in 1953. It's still possible, not as easy.

    Where were you in this conversation?

    Dean Acheson: We should have stopped that egotistical old maniac. Now he’s unleashed millions of Chinese swarming over the Yalu like Biblical locusts. Look’s like we’ve got Hobson’s Choice.

    President Truman: Well what choice would your friend Hobson make Mr Secretary?

    Miitary Adviser: Mr President our strength is in the air and on the sea. If we want to win we bomb and shell the shit out of them from Tianjin and Peking all the way to the Indo Chinese border.

    PT: And will that win our Korean campaign? China quits, right?

    DA: Mr President, State sees it as a problem of finding critical targets….

    MA: Not a problem Mr President. We found Hamburg; Kiel, Cologne and Berlin and Dresden all right and we pretty well leveled them!

    DA: Indeed General and do you remember how many years it took for those soft European Germans to give up after the first firestorms in Hamburg?

    MA: But now we’ve got nukes and look how soon Japan packed it in after we nuked just a couple of cities.

    DA: So if we assume China’s Long Marchers have say four times less attachment to their cities than the Nazis and many times the hinterland of Japan as well as the Soviet Union providing arms when can we expect China to stop pouring troops over the North Korean border?

    MA: Well our best case is five major cities nuked and 20 million Chinese dead though some of your China people at State say “remember Hitler” – there isn’t going to be a coup. Worst case is 75 million killed and almost no urban life.

    DA: And I think you ought to remind the President that that takes the Communists back to about 1931 in the caves of Yunnan as your reading of Edgar Snow would remind you. Except of course they won’t be confined to Yunnan.

    PT: 75 million? And I suppose there’s that thing called fall out. Well I suppose there is some attraction to the idea of history books having me up there ahead of Genghis Khan as I don’t look like getting a Nobel Prize, but you know General, I think you have just brought out the wuss in me. Mr. Secretary you are right: first order of business is to ger that egotistical bastard back here where he’s only got his f***ing toxic tongue as a weapon.

    Read More
  103. @Simply Simon
    Disclaimer: "How old are you people using this thread to argue these points?" I can assure you my 89th birthday was on July 27, 2017 and I was actively involved in the Korean War in 1952 as an F-80 fighter-bomber pilot with the 8th Fighter-Bomber Wing, 36th Squadron, K-13, Suwon, S.Korea. I believe MacArthur screwed up royally when he did not stop his march north from Wonsan at the capital of NKorea, Pyongyang. The N. Koreans were on the run but it was a terrible mistake to keep pursuing them to the Yalu River in winter. As I stated in my previous post the results were devastating as recorded in the history books. All he had to do was establish a defense perimeter just north of Pyongyang and wait out the winter, This would have given his army time to resupply and be ready for a spring offensive if necessary. More importantly, it may well have brought the defeated NKoreans to the peace table knowing they had little other alternative. For us to engage in a nuclear and/or land war with China as advocated by Rich would have been insane. For good reason the Korean War has been called the "Forgotten War'. The American public was sick of war having just gone through the traumatic experience of WWII and had no stomach for any kind of conflict with China.

    Sounds abput right.

    Read More
  104. If the men who fought in the Civil War could have seen in a crystal ball America 2017…they would have stopped shooting at each other in the cornfields at Antietam….The Union Troops would have turned to each other and said:”for the fucking niggers?….NO GOD DAM WAY…I’M OUT OF HERE…SHIP ‘EM ALL BACK TO AFRICA!!!

    I’m just stating one of those very obvious truths about the universe…that even Noam Chomsky knows to be true….and it’s the reason why Noam has a mansion on Cape Cade far away from the Negro and the MS-13 gangbanger

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rev. Pete
    - Yes, but close to the elites who own ALL of our sorry asses. 1960's Newark: you shoulda been there.
  105. @Grandpa Charlie
    As long as the PRC continues to exploit the supposed independence of the DPRK, the USA has the moral ability to declare war on the DPRK and attack in mass, or just to attack based on that the DPRK has already declared war on the USA.

    Almost no one in the USA wants to call the spade a space in this business, so thank you, Sean.

    Meanwhile, getting back to Fred's article, of the various choices for wars to be prosecuted by the USA, war with the DPRK has easily the best chances for a quick ending and successful conclusion. Think of the possible benefits for Trump, for the USA, and for the Korean people. USA could "get the job done" and then exit the peninsula for ever. China would likely be pleased to no longer have to deal with the most corrupt and cruel ruling class anywhere in this corrupt and cruel world (the Kim dynasty). Of course, there would be (or will be) the risk of world nuclear war. As there is anyway - I mean, if USA continues to do nothing, when would it start? when major cities in Japan are destroyed?

    The commander of USAF in the Pacific has indicated that it's all ready to go. He didn't specify nukes or not, but probably not nukes. Anybody who knows the fighting spirit of the ROK military, knows that they could go north across the 38th, swiftly and effectively to occupy the North up to the border with the PRC. Not even the most clueless anti-USA journalist has ever claimed that ordinary Koreans of the North support the Kim dynasty. Yes, it's a choice that may go wrong. Or not. In any event, of the choices available, is this not the one with the least risk of annihilation and the greatest prospect of a benign conclusion?

    Don't know if you agree with my thinking based on a situation that you have brought out into the open, but in any case, THANK YOU for being willing to write realistically about it.

    the most corrupt and cruel ruling class anywhere in this corrupt and cruel world (the Kim dynasty).

    Cruel? Maybe. But for corrupt the child molesters of DC have that title lock, stock and barrel.

    Anybody who knows the fighting spirit of the ROK military, knows that they could go north across the 38th, swiftly and effectively to occupy the North up to the border with the PRC.

    Better hope they can move faster than a NORK heavy artillery piece can be loaded and fired. Otherwise they will be coming back home to bombed out craters.

    Read More
  106. @Rich
    By fighting in Vietnam we showed the Reds we were willing to stand up to their attempts to spread communism throughout the world. There is an argument to be made that we shouldn't have sent our boys overseas, in the end, though, I have to come down on the side of those who decided to make them fight for every inch of land they sought to conquer. We won that fight, so I guess those fellows were right.

    We won that fight,

    Those 58,307 men with names on that wall didn’t win. The men who left body parts in a stinking Asian jungle didn’t win. The wives, children, and parents of those men didn’t win.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    Right.

    Well meaning (perhaps) people manufacturing fantastic, make-believe 'positive' scenarios to obscure the fact that those 58,307 men, sadly, were KIA for nothing.

    Not forgetting the millions of Vietnamese, Cambodian, etc civilians killed as a result of the war.

    People in America need to see the pictures of malformed Vietnamese children born after Vietnam was massively poisoned with Agent Orange before they gloat about winning anything.

    , @Rich
    Yes, men die in war. It's a terrible thing and, of course, I empathize with the families of those dead soldiers, Marines and sailors, but they didn't die for nothing. They died so that future generations wouldn't have to fight the Reds who were set on conquering the world. Although most died too young, they died for a noble cause and I, for one, salute, and honor, their sacrifice. Men live for a short time on this earth, those willing to sacrifice that short time for the betterment of mankind deserve our gratitude.
  107. Russia has irrevocably gotten the Crimea, is quietly absorbing part of the Ukraine,

    This is far from being the case. Russia is fouling its nest in both places and the population has already turned against the terrorist country that invaded them.

    The jury is still out in Syria, and will be for a very long time.

    Read More
  108. Avery says:
    @Chris Mallory

    We won that fight,
     
    Those 58,307 men with names on that wall didn't win. The men who left body parts in a stinking Asian jungle didn't win. The wives, children, and parents of those men didn't win.

    Right.

    Well meaning (perhaps) people manufacturing fantastic, make-believe ‘positive’ scenarios to obscure the fact that those 58,307 men, sadly, were KIA for nothing.

    Not forgetting the millions of Vietnamese, Cambodian, etc civilians killed as a result of the war.

    People in America need to see the pictures of malformed Vietnamese children born after Vietnam was massively poisoned with Agent Orange before they gloat about winning anything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    A well-said reminder, Avery, seems that so many one-post fools are posting here, not only on this thread right now.

    An aside that may give you a laugh, re. Fred's comments on trans, I saw a photo of a US inter-service meeting of tranny officers about five weeks ago, they didn't even bother trying to look good or feminine, let alone how they may serve. All MTF, I think, they all looked like deluded men with long hair or bad wigs. Sorry I did not save the link.
  109. nsa says:

    Yes, it gets repetitive but………..THERE IS ZERO CHANCE OF ANY ATTACK ON KOREA. There is nothing in it for the jooies. Why would the conniving jooies waste the assets of their most useful idiot in far away Asia?

    Read More
  110. Mr Reed, unwittingly, I suspect, reveals the enormous contradiction in the “Putin is winning argument”. “Russia has irrevocably gotten the Crimea, is quietly absorbing part of the Ukraine … Loss of control of the Mideast would be a strategic disaster for Washington. Continued control of Europe is absolutely vital… Washington cannot allow this”. He’s dead right. The US cannot allow Putin to continue to occupy parts of Ukraine precisely because that would cause it to lose control of the Middle East and thereby undermine Israel. For obvious geographical reasons, continued control of Europe is indeed vital to the maintenance of US global hegemony. Thus, whether Trump likes it or not, he has no choice but to get Putin out of Ukraine. One way or the other. Nothing is “irrevocable” in history!
    A small point of historical accuracy: all the Great Powers, not just Germany, thought that WWI would be a quick war of movement.

    Read More
  111. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    There are just no good wars left. Meanwhile, we await the raising of the debt ceiling where it will become crystal clear that there is actually no money to fight those wars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian

    There are just no good wars left.
     
    There are no easy wars left. But with no wars, NASDAQ and NYSE defense contractors' stock options drop. But there will be wars, just not easy wars. Even in wars you lose, there is profit for the bomb-makers. Hell, the harder the war, the more bombs you drop and the more profit is generated. Life is good for these folks, there will be no end to war. It's a proud tradition for 250 years. Any notion that any of this is noble is deee-lusional.
  112. Che Guava says:
    @restless94110
    You lead off your reply claiming that for the leader of North Korea it's all about money. I did not realize that you had some kind of personal knowledge of the mind and motives of the Kim dynasty. Do you have a weekly card game with the Leader?

    In other words, you don't know what you are talking about, Grandpa.

    So why are you talking? Is that a bad joke, or what?

    You are the veritable definition of "arm-chair warrior."

    You ask a rhetorical question: would Russia and China really object?

    Gramps, they are objecting right now. Are you saying, would they also really object if we bombed all of the NKorean people killing millions of them?

    Are you really saying that?

    Grampa, I do not know what kind of medications you are on. But you need different ones. If addled dilusional thinking are the side effects of your medication regimen, please see your doctor as soon as possible.

    In the meantime, why are you infecting a reasonable and serious assessment of the likely utter failure of any military action by the United States with your visions of mayhem and death?

    I don't understand why anyone would want that for anyone on Earth. There is no justification for that. It is a war crime. It is against international law.

    You are an idiot, and doubtless be vanisihing after your one stupid post.

    Read More
  113. TheYunker says:

    When Fred is on message (i.e..not in Mexico) he is beeyootiful.
    The piece can be summed up by three excerpts.
    “Not in the powerpoint presentation”
    “Is there a pattern here?”
    “Trans this and trans that”
    Allow me to expand on the last.
    Motif for the 21st century:
    Trans fat or transgender. One good the other bad.
    I just can’t remember which.

    Read More
  114. @Grandpa Charlie
    The Kim-dynasty billionaire rulers of the North, being boundlessly greedy and arrogantly reckless, as is the nature of all billionaires, are saying that they are willing to talk only when the ROK (the only democratically government on the peninsula) surrenders its sovereignty by allowing the billionaire-government of the North to veto whatever defense arrangements the South finds it necessary to make. Is that a bad joke, or what?

    Russia and China are cooperating these days, but would they really object. in the long run, if the USA blew up the North to leave it open to being welcomed into the ROK with all-Korea elections to follow? For one thing, the North is probably the most corrupt country in Asia ... and that corruption is certainly integrated into the corruption that plagues both China and Russia.

    The key to pulling it off would have to be that Trump would need to understand the benefits of USA withdrawal from the peninsula - really from Asia. China and Russia would understand that benign situation as well. And it would secure the Donald of a place among the great "states people" of history. And the American people would be grateful (1) to see that, for once, we see some usefulness coming out of the gargantuan investment made in USA's military power, and, (2) that we are finally out of Asia - honorably. Even Senator McCain - who has been upset for so long, really only because he wants at some point to be able to say that we left on a WIN - even Senator McCain would cheer.

    Let McCain lead the charge, then.

    Read More
  115. Che Guava says:
    @Avery
    Right.

    Well meaning (perhaps) people manufacturing fantastic, make-believe 'positive' scenarios to obscure the fact that those 58,307 men, sadly, were KIA for nothing.

    Not forgetting the millions of Vietnamese, Cambodian, etc civilians killed as a result of the war.

    People in America need to see the pictures of malformed Vietnamese children born after Vietnam was massively poisoned with Agent Orange before they gloat about winning anything.

    A well-said reminder, Avery, seems that so many one-post fools are posting here, not only on this thread right now.

    An aside that may give you a laugh, re. Fred’s comments on trans, I saw a photo of a US inter-service meeting of tranny officers about five weeks ago, they didn’t even bother trying to look good or feminine, let alone how they may serve. All MTF, I think, they all looked like deluded men with long hair or bad wigs. Sorry I did not save the link.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    A well-said reminder, Avery, seems that so many one-post fools are posting here, not only on this thread right now.
     
    LOLMAOAY. One post doth not a Guava sundae make.

    You self-absorbed jackass.
  116. Rev. Pete says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    If the men who fought in the Civil War could have seen in a crystal ball America 2017...they would have stopped shooting at each other in the cornfields at Antietam....The Union Troops would have turned to each other and said:"for the fucking niggers?....NO GOD DAM WAY...I'M OUT OF HERE...SHIP 'EM ALL BACK TO AFRICA!!!

    I'm just stating one of those very obvious truths about the universe...that even Noam Chomsky knows to be true....and it's the reason why Noam has a mansion on Cape Cade far away from the Negro and the MS-13 gangbanger

    - Yes, but close to the elites who own ALL of our sorry asses. 1960′s Newark: you shoulda been there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    True story Rev Pete


    A few years back...waiting for the subway in Newark....only two White Guys....War for Blair Mountain....and a 6'6" tall all grey-haired White Guy....both of us of Irish Ancestry....surrounding us POTUS 2020 Kamala Harris's Democratic Party Voting Bloc.....


    We both look at each other and began laughing and shaking our heads...War for Blair Mountain:"How you've been doing Gerry?"....Gerry Cooney:"I've been been doing good...." Then the two Irishman laughed again at the shithole surrounding us on the subway platform....


    There is actually a well known African Guitarist named shithole...Jonathan Shithole.....
  117. I am so cynical in my dotage that it’s difficult to read any news from DC, so take this post with a keg of salt. War, like everything else that originates with “our” government, enriches a the same handful of Americans (called the 1%, but probably more like 2 or 2.5%) at the expense of the rest of us. This seems to be true whether we win not not. With the possible exception of Gulf War I, we haven’t “won” one in 72 years, and yet they keep happening. The MIC that Ike warned of is now a permanent entity that funnels huge amounts of money from us wage slaves, who could really use it for better healthcare and roads, up to the movers and shakers whose one lunch tab buys a week of groceries for me.

    IOW I think that some sort of “limited” sabre-rattling will take place that benefits the same people as always, that nothing monumental will happen militarily, and that it will inevitably disappear from the front pages like all the rest. China doesn’t need to shooting war – they’ll be buying us outright sooner rather than later. Meanwhile Kim just likes to run his mouth for his people – the Pacific Rim’s DJT.

    Kind of glad I won’t see the end game, but I’ll explain to my grand kids my view of what happened.

    Read More
  118. @Rev. Pete
    - Yes, but close to the elites who own ALL of our sorry asses. 1960's Newark: you shoulda been there.

    True story Rev Pete

    A few years back…waiting for the subway in Newark….only two White Guys….War for Blair Mountain….and a 6’6″ tall all grey-haired White Guy….both of us of Irish Ancestry….surrounding us POTUS 2020 Kamala Harris’s Democratic Party Voting Bloc…..

    We both look at each other and began laughing and shaking our heads…War for Blair Mountain:”How you’ve been doing Gerry?”….Gerry Cooney:”I’ve been been doing good….” Then the two Irishman laughed again at the shithole surrounding us on the subway platform….

    There is actually a well known African Guitarist named shithole…Jonathan Shithole…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rev. Pete
    Missed point: 60's would have had your ass handed to you by white gang.
  119. @Grandpa Charlie
    macilrae says to me to keep in mind that all we get here in the USA is propaganda, and so I guess it's just BS about so many Koreans fleeing from the North into China (if they can) and then elsewhere such as Seoul (if they can), exactly like happened in Germany before reunification ... So many millions of Germans fleeing from the East side ... I guess that's all BS. Also that young American who died after his slightly alive body was returned from Kim Jong Un's torture chambers ...and then he died ... oh well, probably all just propaganda by the USA propaganda machine. And I have not sense enough to sort it out, I must be a complete dolt who watches cable and Fox news and believes it all. ??????

    I don't have time to respond to all the insults with which I have been covered like rotten eggs thrown at a poor bastard in the stocks.

    I get it already. Here's what people are saying to me: "Kim Jong-Un speaks truth. Jong-un is a really nice guy, a hero of the people. DPRK good. USA bad, very bad. Americans very stupid. Kim Jong-Un very smart."

    Grandpa wasn't born yesterday, but thanks anyway for warning me that I shouldn't believe everything that I read ... and I have no TV, I watch no TV news ... I get what I get off the iNet and form my own conclusions.

    Yeah, I get it ... or better, I say "I get y'all."

    It doesn’t matter a hill of beans what other sovereign nations do within their own borders.

    The sentiment here is that the great big fat corrupt plutocracy USA should mind their own business.

    But that’s not gonna happen as long as the naive, Utopian nincompoops from your generation are still kickin’.

    Read More
  120. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Wizard of Oz
    What's "way of life" got to do with it? To adapt a snappy saying "How many divisions does your way of life have?". (21sr century update "how many divisions does your lifestyle guru have?).

    What’s “way of life” got to do with it? To adapt a snappy saying “How many divisions does your way of life have?”. (21sr century update “how many divisions does your lifestyle guru have?).

    How many divisions do your Facebook Friends have?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Indeed, though I wonder if you have in mind

    http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-facebook-kicked-off-the-euromaidan-revolution-2015-7

    and, if so, what exact point you are making.
  121. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Che Guava
    A well-said reminder, Avery, seems that so many one-post fools are posting here, not only on this thread right now.

    An aside that may give you a laugh, re. Fred's comments on trans, I saw a photo of a US inter-service meeting of tranny officers about five weeks ago, they didn't even bother trying to look good or feminine, let alone how they may serve. All MTF, I think, they all looked like deluded men with long hair or bad wigs. Sorry I did not save the link.

    A well-said reminder, Avery, seems that so many one-post fools are posting here, not only on this thread right now.

    LOLMAOAY. One post doth not a Guava sundae make.

    You self-absorbed jackass.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Your are such a jerk that you don't even use a u-name. I am in no way self-absorbed.
  122. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @anonymous

    which is halal and is popular with muzzies in Europe
     
    Ah, the obligatory Islamophobic dig, especially on a Reed article.

    Now, given the sheer evil the Christian Pagan Polytheist west has been perpetuating around the world, what should they be called? "Crizzies" sound good to you?

    I know, not very original, but, it sure sounds a lot closer to the term we are all aiming for, right?

    “Christorrists”.

    Read More
  123. Sean says:
    @Grandpa Charlie
    As long as the PRC continues to exploit the supposed independence of the DPRK, the USA has the moral ability to declare war on the DPRK and attack in mass, or just to attack based on that the DPRK has already declared war on the USA.

    Almost no one in the USA wants to call the spade a space in this business, so thank you, Sean.

    Meanwhile, getting back to Fred's article, of the various choices for wars to be prosecuted by the USA, war with the DPRK has easily the best chances for a quick ending and successful conclusion. Think of the possible benefits for Trump, for the USA, and for the Korean people. USA could "get the job done" and then exit the peninsula for ever. China would likely be pleased to no longer have to deal with the most corrupt and cruel ruling class anywhere in this corrupt and cruel world (the Kim dynasty). Of course, there would be (or will be) the risk of world nuclear war. As there is anyway - I mean, if USA continues to do nothing, when would it start? when major cities in Japan are destroyed?

    The commander of USAF in the Pacific has indicated that it's all ready to go. He didn't specify nukes or not, but probably not nukes. Anybody who knows the fighting spirit of the ROK military, knows that they could go north across the 38th, swiftly and effectively to occupy the North up to the border with the PRC. Not even the most clueless anti-USA journalist has ever claimed that ordinary Koreans of the North support the Kim dynasty. Yes, it's a choice that may go wrong. Or not. In any event, of the choices available, is this not the one with the least risk of annihilation and the greatest prospect of a benign conclusion?

    Don't know if you agree with my thinking based on a situation that you have brought out into the open, but in any case, THANK YOU for being willing to write realistically about it.

    The recent accelerated progress of North Korea with nuke minuturisation and missile range make it obvious to me that China has given Kim requisite technical help, thereby enabling North Korea to be a threat to the US at just the time when the economic rapist Chinese need to be needed by the US as a wedge against Trumps threatened trade barriers.

    North Korea is a cat’s paw of China and being being used to get America to open its economy to China in return for (don’t laugh) help with North Korea. In the recent deal Trump gave the Chinese everything they wanted, and almost immediately afterward North Korean nuke capability took a great leap forward–no doubt in anticipation of the next round of China -US trade negotiation,

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    The recent accelerated progress of North Korea with nuke minuturisation
     
    Credible source?
    Not MSM BS....but written, PROPERLY SIGNED report/position paper/briefing from intelligence community?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    What was the recent deal in which Trump gave the Chinese everything they wanted? Did he do more than back pedal on some of his pre-election threats?
  124. peterAUS says:
    @Sean
    The recent accelerated progress of North Korea with nuke minuturisation and missile range make it obvious to me that China has given Kim requisite technical help, thereby enabling North Korea to be a threat to the US at just the time when the economic rapist Chinese need to be needed by the US as a wedge against Trumps threatened trade barriers.

    North Korea is a cat's paw of China and being being used to get America to open its economy to China in return for (don't laugh) help with North Korea. In the recent deal Trump gave the Chinese everything they wanted, and almost immediately afterward North Korean nuke capability took a great leap forward--no doubt in anticipation of the next round of China -US trade negotiation,

    The recent accelerated progress of North Korea with nuke minuturisation

    Credible source?
    Not MSM BS….but written, PROPERLY SIGNED report/position paper/briefing from intelligence community?

    Read More
  125. Druid says:
    @Grandpa Charlie
    As long as the PRC continues to exploit the supposed independence of the DPRK, the USA has the moral ability to declare war on the DPRK and attack in mass, or just to attack based on that the DPRK has already declared war on the USA.

    Almost no one in the USA wants to call the spade a space in this business, so thank you, Sean.

    Meanwhile, getting back to Fred's article, of the various choices for wars to be prosecuted by the USA, war with the DPRK has easily the best chances for a quick ending and successful conclusion. Think of the possible benefits for Trump, for the USA, and for the Korean people. USA could "get the job done" and then exit the peninsula for ever. China would likely be pleased to no longer have to deal with the most corrupt and cruel ruling class anywhere in this corrupt and cruel world (the Kim dynasty). Of course, there would be (or will be) the risk of world nuclear war. As there is anyway - I mean, if USA continues to do nothing, when would it start? when major cities in Japan are destroyed?

    The commander of USAF in the Pacific has indicated that it's all ready to go. He didn't specify nukes or not, but probably not nukes. Anybody who knows the fighting spirit of the ROK military, knows that they could go north across the 38th, swiftly and effectively to occupy the North up to the border with the PRC. Not even the most clueless anti-USA journalist has ever claimed that ordinary Koreans of the North support the Kim dynasty. Yes, it's a choice that may go wrong. Or not. In any event, of the choices available, is this not the one with the least risk of annihilation and the greatest prospect of a benign conclusion?

    Don't know if you agree with my thinking based on a situation that you have brought out into the open, but in any case, THANK YOU for being willing to write realistically about it.

    IDIOT!

    Read More
  126. @Anon
    There are just no good wars left. Meanwhile, we await the raising of the debt ceiling where it will become crystal clear that there is actually no money to fight those wars.

    There are just no good wars left.

    There are no easy wars left. But with no wars, NASDAQ and NYSE defense contractors’ stock options drop. But there will be wars, just not easy wars. Even in wars you lose, there is profit for the bomb-makers. Hell, the harder the war, the more bombs you drop and the more profit is generated. Life is good for these folks, there will be no end to war. It’s a proud tradition for 250 years. Any notion that any of this is noble is deee-lusional.

    Read More
  127. Druid says:
    @hyperbola
    NeoCons???? Use the correct term: ZionCons.

    Of course it is true that most of the US technology that ends up in China is not stolen by the Chinese, but rather by the ZionCons (Israel) who then sell it to the Chinese.

    Pretty much the same scenario as the sect did with nukes. Some of them stole the parts for Israeli bombs from us and others of them gave the technology to the Soviets (who at the time were run by the sect). Makes one wonder how much influence the sect already has in China and when they might cahnge horses.

    The Ziocons are the true warmongers. Look at the history of the tribe. They should be out of government , without dual citizenship, etc., etc

    Read More
  128. what kind of shape was he in? do you think he could still brawl?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    He had a left hook to the body like nobodies business...he'll be able to bang with that as long as he's living...
  129. Cortes says:

    On “surgical strikes”, I recall a case where minor surgery under general anaesthetic to correct a problem with a wrist injury led to the patient’s death. Not sure that many surgeons would think that any procedure is straightforward.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinPNW
    Then there's the case of the "minor surgery" for hemmorroids that led to the end of the Soviet Space program's moon landing program, allowing the US to take the first prize. The dynamic leader of their space program, who was able to get everyone in the space program part of their socialist quagmire to work together effectively to beat the US into space first with the sputnik satellite and then with manned space flight went in for his "procedure", and died on the operating table, resulting in their space program descending into personality feuds and lethargy, ending any chance of them getting to the moon before the US.
  130. @Anonymous

    What’s “way of life” got to do with it? To adapt a snappy saying “How many divisions does your way of life have?”. (21sr century update “how many divisions does your lifestyle guru have?).
     
    How many divisions do your Facebook Friends have?

    Indeed, though I wonder if you have in mind

    http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-facebook-kicked-off-the-euromaidan-revolution-2015-7

    and, if so, what exact point you are making.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    and, if so, what exact point you are making.

     

    Point? What point were you making with "how many divisions does your lifestyle guru have?"

    You can make coyly oblique jests, and I can't? What? Are you suggesting this website isn't an equal-opportunity sly-joke-a-thon? That we are not all entitled to what we believe is an adroit turn of phrase?
  131. Rich says:
    @Chris Mallory

    We won that fight,
     
    Those 58,307 men with names on that wall didn't win. The men who left body parts in a stinking Asian jungle didn't win. The wives, children, and parents of those men didn't win.

    Yes, men die in war. It’s a terrible thing and, of course, I empathize with the families of those dead soldiers, Marines and sailors, but they didn’t die for nothing. They died so that future generations wouldn’t have to fight the Reds who were set on conquering the world. Although most died too young, they died for a noble cause and I, for one, salute, and honor, their sacrifice. Men live for a short time on this earth, those willing to sacrifice that short time for the betterment of mankind deserve our gratitude.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    Viet Nam fell to the commies. Laos and Cambodia fell. Where was that next domino? How many Laotian troops hit the beaches of California in that commie invasion wave? None that I recall. The commies did try to take Central and South America, I don't remember losing tens of thousands of American troops keeping them out. Face it Rich, the war in SE Asia was a fool's errand top to bottom. The same could be said of every war of the 20th Century. Not one drop of American blood should have been shed in any of those wars. The dead of Viet Nam were sacrificed, not to freedom and the American way, but to keep the money flowing to the MIC and so a few government employees could manage to preform before Viagra was invented. The commies were never the threat that the US government is to the American people.
  132. @ASeeEyeSee
    During the 'hot' part of the Korean war GIs made it clear that if the world ever needed an enema the tube would go into Korea.

    So where does that opinion leave us today? Suppose China/Russia etal could isolate N.Korea as solely responsible for any action they undertake. N.Korea successfully launches 'something' (EMP weapon or nuke) against the U.S. that causes large scale loss of life and more importantly destruction of infrastructure. The U.S. in a fit of hellish destructive rage turns N.Korea to ashes. And...who cares?

    We would be screwed. China,however, which has been back-filling its infrastructure, literally, with billions of cubic meters of concrete for the past 15 years building ghost cities (silly Chinese) at break neck speed would set a geopolitical and economic pace that we would never catch up with let alone overtake. Talk about fast transients.

    It would not be a clean transition though. With the U.S. suddenly off the world stage Israel would either have to make some fast friends or wind up throwing nuclear. Coin toss on that one. Russia might soil itself. But China with all of those intangible worthless debt instruments converted to tangible hard assets and solid brand new infrastructure would prevail.

    But that is just my opinion.

    How would China convert those “intangible worthless debt instruments” to “tangible hard assets”?

    Read More
  133. @Sean
    The recent accelerated progress of North Korea with nuke minuturisation and missile range make it obvious to me that China has given Kim requisite technical help, thereby enabling North Korea to be a threat to the US at just the time when the economic rapist Chinese need to be needed by the US as a wedge against Trumps threatened trade barriers.

    North Korea is a cat's paw of China and being being used to get America to open its economy to China in return for (don't laugh) help with North Korea. In the recent deal Trump gave the Chinese everything they wanted, and almost immediately afterward North Korean nuke capability took a great leap forward--no doubt in anticipation of the next round of China -US trade negotiation,

    What was the recent deal in which Trump gave the Chinese everything they wanted? Did he do more than back pedal on some of his pre-election threats?

    Read More
  134. Wally says:
    @Thirdeye

    I find much more pertinent today the question whether Uncle Sam had any legitimate business in Korea to begin with. Does any of the military history buffs here have an opinion on that?
     
    IMO Uncle Sam blundered into a situation where intervention was necessary. There was no merit to propping up Syngman Rhee, but once the Kim forces attacked there was no choice for the US but to intervene militarily. My beef is not with the fact that the US intervened but the failures leading up to the war and the awful decisions that made the war much worse than it had to have been.

    Korea was on the margins of Soviet interest in 1945 when, by agreement with the US, they defeated the Japanese on the Korean peninsula then consented to a US-administered zone south of the 38th parallel. The situation was resolvable then, before the Cold War got into full swing, but two power princes that had no legitimate claim to rule of Korea, Kim Il-Sung and Syngman Rhee, manipulated the great powers for their own interests. A couple of years later, deterioration of relations between the Soviet Union and the west complicated the issue by making Korea a bargaining chip. The situation was nearly impossible to resolve at that point.

    “IMO Uncle Sam blundered into a situation where intervention was necessary”

    The US has never been very competent militarily. Big & blundering is about right.
    Our safe, unhindered manufacturing capabilities was about it.

    But hey, we did turn half of Europe over to the communists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I rather think that was Uncle Dolphy's mistake.
  135. MarkinPNW says:
    @Cortes
    On "surgical strikes", I recall a case where minor surgery under general anaesthetic to correct a problem with a wrist injury led to the patient's death. Not sure that many surgeons would think that any procedure is straightforward.

    Then there’s the case of the “minor surgery” for hemmorroids that led to the end of the Soviet Space program’s moon landing program, allowing the US to take the first prize. The dynamic leader of their space program, who was able to get everyone in the space program part of their socialist quagmire to work together effectively to beat the US into space first with the sputnik satellite and then with manned space flight went in for his “procedure”, and died on the operating table, resulting in their space program descending into personality feuds and lethargy, ending any chance of them getting to the moon before the US.

    Read More
  136. @Rich
    Yes, men die in war. It's a terrible thing and, of course, I empathize with the families of those dead soldiers, Marines and sailors, but they didn't die for nothing. They died so that future generations wouldn't have to fight the Reds who were set on conquering the world. Although most died too young, they died for a noble cause and I, for one, salute, and honor, their sacrifice. Men live for a short time on this earth, those willing to sacrifice that short time for the betterment of mankind deserve our gratitude.

    Viet Nam fell to the commies. Laos and Cambodia fell. Where was that next domino? How many Laotian troops hit the beaches of California in that commie invasion wave? None that I recall. The commies did try to take Central and South America, I don’t remember losing tens of thousands of American troops keeping them out. Face it Rich, the war in SE Asia was a fool’s errand top to bottom. The same could be said of every war of the 20th Century. Not one drop of American blood should have been shed in any of those wars. The dead of Viet Nam were sacrificed, not to freedom and the American way, but to keep the money flowing to the MIC and so a few government employees could manage to preform before Viagra was invented. The commies were never the threat that the US government is to the American people.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stonehands
    • Replies: @Rich
    The way dominoes work is that you knock one over, and then others fall in line after it. After Vietnam fell, Laos and Cambodia fell. It's not necessary for the entire world to become communist, or the entire set of dominoes to fall over, to show that the theory was correct.
  137. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Wizard of Oz
    Indeed, though I wonder if you have in mind

    http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-facebook-kicked-off-the-euromaidan-revolution-2015-7

    and, if so, what exact point you are making.

    and, if so, what exact point you are making.

    Point? What point were you making with “how many divisions does your lifestyle guru have?”

    You can make coyly oblique jests, and I can’t? What? Are you suggesting this website isn’t an equal-opportunity sly-joke-a-thon? That we are not all entitled to what we believe is an adroit turn of phrase?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Good, that's clear. Neither of us believe in making even the left-of-curve UR commenters understand by opening their heads with jackhammers and shouting till they get it (hard to say which would take longer for some). I suppose I was wondering if you were intending to indicate disagreement and if so how....
    , @Wizard of Oz
    And, come to think of it, I suppose I was playing a card which allowed me to pass for another round. (And if you like I'll invent the game where the rulescallow that).
    , @Wizard of Oz
    How about a moniker so I don't have to be polite (or careful) to every Anonymous in case its you.
  138. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    "IMO Uncle Sam blundered into a situation where intervention was necessary"

    The US has never been very competent militarily. Big & blundering is about right.
    Our safe, unhindered manufacturing capabilities was about it.

    But hey, we did turn half of Europe over to the communists.

    I rather think that was Uncle Dolphy’s mistake.

    Read More
  139. @Anonymous

    and, if so, what exact point you are making.

     

    Point? What point were you making with "how many divisions does your lifestyle guru have?"

    You can make coyly oblique jests, and I can't? What? Are you suggesting this website isn't an equal-opportunity sly-joke-a-thon? That we are not all entitled to what we believe is an adroit turn of phrase?

    Good, that’s clear. Neither of us believe in making even the left-of-curve UR commenters understand by opening their heads with jackhammers and shouting till they get it (hard to say which would take longer for some). I suppose I was wondering if you were intending to indicate disagreement and if so how….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Good, that’s clear. Neither of us believe in making even the left-of-curve UR commenters understand by opening their heads with jackhammers and shouting till they get it (hard to say which would take longer for some). I suppose I was wondering if you were intending to indicate disagreement and if so how….
     
    You godless bahstid. You've gone and shattered my every delusion. (In a very Judy Garlandesque affectation:) "I shan't! I truly shan't!"

    On that topic, it is more than merely depressing that there exists such a high percentage of commenters who are just plain abysmally stupid. It does, however, readily explain how the utter disembowelment of American Constitutional principles has been rendered into possibly the most corrupt government ever to exist, in conjunction with its equally corrupt supporting economic and political structure.

    All while the peasants nod agreeably, remaining so stupid and manipulated as to defy all reason.

    No, I was not going to disagree.
  140. @Anonymous

    and, if so, what exact point you are making.

     

    Point? What point were you making with "how many divisions does your lifestyle guru have?"

    You can make coyly oblique jests, and I can't? What? Are you suggesting this website isn't an equal-opportunity sly-joke-a-thon? That we are not all entitled to what we believe is an adroit turn of phrase?

    And, come to think of it, I suppose I was playing a card which allowed me to pass for another round. (And if you like I’ll invent the game where the rulescallow that).

    Read More
  141. @Anonymous

    and, if so, what exact point you are making.

     

    Point? What point were you making with "how many divisions does your lifestyle guru have?"

    You can make coyly oblique jests, and I can't? What? Are you suggesting this website isn't an equal-opportunity sly-joke-a-thon? That we are not all entitled to what we believe is an adroit turn of phrase?

    How about a moniker so I don’t have to be polite (or careful) to every Anonymous in case its you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Moniker Delinsky? Frank Baum?

    I don't know; I may not stay.
  142. anonguy says:
    @The Plutonium Kid

    I think that if the US and its allies hadn’t stopped the commies in Korea, they would’ve invaded Japan next ...
     
    Attack Japan? With what? Neither the Chinese nor the Soviets had a naval presence in the Pacific that could even come close to matching American naval strength in the region, and neither had the experience and equipment for large scale amphibious operations. The Americans still had a far bigger nuclear arsenal than the Soviets and the Chinese had none at all, as well as the means to use them.

    In short, whatever happened in Korea, American air and naval strength in the western Pacific meant that any invasion of Japan would have been sheer madness.

    Attack Japan? With what??

    A communist invasion of Japan was never credible but the rise of a red regime in Japan was considered a real threat as Japan rebuilt their society post WWII.

    The U.S. figured prosperity of the Japanese people was the best defense, hence we supported the rise of the Japanese economy even when after it became clear it was damaging our own.

    Read More
  143. anonguy says:
    @The Alarmist
    More like the Reds petered out on their own from internal bankruptcy of ideas and lack of freedom rather than some grand containment strategy exhausting them. Do you really have so little regard for the American way of life in the 1950s and 1960s to think the Reds were ever a real threat?

    More like the Reds petered out on their own from internal bankruptcy of ideas and lack of freedom rather than some grand containment strategy exhausting them.

    You are a victim of retconned history.

    Reagan’s administration, which led to the defeat of Soviet communism, was exactly a grand containment strategy which included, among other things:

    1) Strategic Defense Initiative
    2) Forward Maritime Strategy
    3) Opposing communist insurgencies in Central America
    4) Supporting Afghani guerrillas against the Soviets
    5) Executing the deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe

    Those are just off the top of my head. And all of them were to the purpose of demonstrating to the Warsaw Pact that they were going to lose in a war. And not only that, the Forward Maritime Strategy demonstrated that we could rapidly destroy their second strike capability (submarine ballistic missiles), making them naked to a pre-emptive first strike.

    This was pretty demoralizing to the Soviet leadership.

    The Soviets only had force on their side and it had been working pretty well until the 1980s when things started going off the rails for them in, guess where, Central America, Afghanistan, and undersea warfare, among other things.

    This did convince (some of) them that they did maybe have a paucity of ideas about things other than force, leading to the last ditch perestroika/glasnost stuff, hoping for a Japanese miracle, but it was way too little, too late, the economic equivalent of throwing the Hitler Youth into the defense of Berlin.

    The end of European communism was not inevitable. As it was crumbling, the nearly universal assumption was that the Chinese would follow, especially after Tiananmen Square. This assumption was based upon your logic, it is all inevitable, they have no ideas, etc.

    But 27 years on, they managed to hang on. North Korea is also hanging in there, utterly unrepentant, with their paucity of ideas other than force, etc.

    The notion that the Soviets just sort of withered up and died on their own is revisionist history meant to discredit the accomplishment of the right wing in ridding the world of the scourge of European communism. It began shortly after the end of the Cold War and has continued unabated. That is because the left spent the entire 80s screeching about Reagan being a war-monger, Imagine songfests, etc. Then it all worked, and spectacularly so when one considers how little bloodshed it finally entailed.

    Right when it happened, there was a huge celebratory atmosphere nearly everywhere in the world except the remaining communist regimes. However, this was rapidly tamped down and forgotten. Too much remembering would bring up how lots of influential people then still around had invested 10 years of their lives railing against war-monger Reagan.

    Nowadays, the goodthink is that it just sort of happened for no particular directed reason. This is rather like how the buffalo going away for the Plains Indians is remembered, something that just happened, forgetting that the U.S. Army was slaughtering the herds, either directly or by enabling hunters, to deprive the Plains Indians of sustenance.

    George Bush, in 1992 State of the Union:

    “I will speak of those things. But let me tell you something I’ve been thinking these past few months. It’s a kind of rollcall of honor. For the cold war didn’t end; it was won. And I think of those who won it, in places like Korea and Vietnam. And some of them didn’t come back. Back then they were heroes, but this year they were victors.”

    He added:

    “But the biggest thing that has happened in the world in my life, in our lives, is this: By the grace of God, America won the cold war.”

    That was the view in early 1992. Nobody was saying that they just slowly expired then.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    Wow, you made me stand up and salute in the direction of D.C. I forgot what I used to do and who I used to be.

    I trained a number of unsavory characters in Central America and Southwest Asia during the seventies and eighties to oppose the march of Communism; seemed like the right thing at the time, though in retrospect some of the blowback has been spectacular.

    My personal observation is that fax machines, television and movies did more to convince the relatively underfed, less fashionably clothed, and rather bored and oppressed peoples of the Soviet Bloc that a better way of life was possible, and Gorby and his henchmen knew the time for change was nigh.

    The Reagan buildup, in which I gladly participated, certainly sped up the Sov meltdown, but the collapse came from within. For a similar reason, when the VoPo's refused to fire in the crowds at Leipzig, Honecker knew the DDR's gig was up, and the wall fell. The Chicoms and Viets saw this and decided there had to be another way.

    Very little of this change had anything to do with American Warriors standing on the wall; it came from making the American way of life so apparent and attractive that it could not be denied. You people can't apparently handle that truth.

    I will say, however, that those Warriors standing on that wall did indeed help preserve the enviable American way of life, but somewhere along the way the American way of life became subordinate to the Military-Industrial-Security state, and that is a form of internal rot that is destroying us from within more surely than Communism had a hope of ever doing.
    , @ussr andy
    the reasons for the collapse were internal more than anything else.

    the CPSU had bred a nomenklatura class that wanted to own stuff instead of just managing it on behalf of an abstract "people." the "chief architect" of the perestroika and the eminence grise behind Gorby, Yakovlev, was an exchange student at Columbia, one of 4 sent there in the 50's. You can read his writings, it's the distilled essence of liberal POZ and Western cargo-cultism. Another became a prominent defector. The Liberman/Kossygin reforms in the 60's de-centralized the economy which made enterprises more efficient as individual units but greatly increased overall misplanning. then, of course, the re-orientation toward oil exports.
    so, Liberman/Kossygin reforms + oil + ideological subversion + greed.
    subverted (incl. by its own elites), not militarily defeated, that's what the USSR was.
    all that stuff you mention, SDI and whatnot, of course, did not help, but it wasn't decisive.

  144. @Rich
    After the US pulled out of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia fell to the Communists. There's your domino theory proven correct.
    As an American taxpayer I am concerned about foreign adventurism and I also lean toward avoiding foreign wars. But at the time, the Reds were on the march. If we hadn't fought them in Asia, we would've been fighting them in our hemisphere. The crazed Leftists in the US were also Marxists and many wanted to foment revolution even in our country. Had the Reds been given the chance, they would've fought us here, too.
    I think that if the US and its allies hadn't stopped the commies in Korea, they would've invaded Japan next and then spread throughout the rest of Asia, eventually turning to South and Central America. Because we fought for S Korea, we have a foothold there that allows us to project power and keep the Chicoms nervous. I've read the arguments for removing our boys and many of them are quite reasonable, but the strategy we've used since the end of WWII did work to stop the Reds, so it wasn't all bad.
    Had Mr Nixon not gone begging to the Red Chinese and had the Clintons not sold us out to them, we probably wouldn't have much to worry about from that front and there would be more manufacturing here even without a President Trump.

    “After the US pulled out of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia fell to the Communists…”

    Pol Pot and the communist Khmer Rouge came to power on a wave of propaganda in response to the disasterous “secret bombing” of Cambodia. In fact the US dropped 2.7 MILLION tons of ordinance on Cambodia- more cumulatively than was dropped on Japan in WW2. Ironically it was the “communist” Vietnamese who eventually drove PP from power. Cambodia is now a constitutional monarchy.

    BTW… what exactly would you call this corrupt shithole we reside in; whose very reason for being is to propagate degenerate Frankfurt school values?

    PS: The US military now concerns itself with preparing and training for the eventuality of “male pregnancy”…

    Read More
  145. Michelle says:

    I mostly agree with Fred except when he posts pics of cute Latinas, to bolster up Mexican immigration, who are very thin on the ground here in the SF Bay Area, but I have to totally agree with him on his current column.

    Read More
  146. @roofgoatagain
    what kind of shape was he in? do you think he could still brawl?

    He had a left hook to the body like nobodies business…he’ll be able to bang with that as long as he’s living…

    Read More
  147. @anonguy

    More like the Reds petered out on their own from internal bankruptcy of ideas and lack of freedom rather than some grand containment strategy exhausting them.
     
    You are a victim of retconned history.

    Reagan's administration, which led to the defeat of Soviet communism, was exactly a grand containment strategy which included, among other things:

    1) Strategic Defense Initiative
    2) Forward Maritime Strategy
    3) Opposing communist insurgencies in Central America
    4) Supporting Afghani guerrillas against the Soviets
    5) Executing the deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe

    Those are just off the top of my head. And all of them were to the purpose of demonstrating to the Warsaw Pact that they were going to lose in a war. And not only that, the Forward Maritime Strategy demonstrated that we could rapidly destroy their second strike capability (submarine ballistic missiles), making them naked to a pre-emptive first strike.

    This was pretty demoralizing to the Soviet leadership.

    The Soviets only had force on their side and it had been working pretty well until the 1980s when things started going off the rails for them in, guess where, Central America, Afghanistan, and undersea warfare, among other things.

    This did convince (some of) them that they did maybe have a paucity of ideas about things other than force, leading to the last ditch perestroika/glasnost stuff, hoping for a Japanese miracle, but it was way too little, too late, the economic equivalent of throwing the Hitler Youth into the defense of Berlin.

    The end of European communism was not inevitable. As it was crumbling, the nearly universal assumption was that the Chinese would follow, especially after Tiananmen Square. This assumption was based upon your logic, it is all inevitable, they have no ideas, etc.

    But 27 years on, they managed to hang on. North Korea is also hanging in there, utterly unrepentant, with their paucity of ideas other than force, etc.

    The notion that the Soviets just sort of withered up and died on their own is revisionist history meant to discredit the accomplishment of the right wing in ridding the world of the scourge of European communism. It began shortly after the end of the Cold War and has continued unabated. That is because the left spent the entire 80s screeching about Reagan being a war-monger, Imagine songfests, etc. Then it all worked, and spectacularly so when one considers how little bloodshed it finally entailed.

    Right when it happened, there was a huge celebratory atmosphere nearly everywhere in the world except the remaining communist regimes. However, this was rapidly tamped down and forgotten. Too much remembering would bring up how lots of influential people then still around had invested 10 years of their lives railing against war-monger Reagan.

    Nowadays, the goodthink is that it just sort of happened for no particular directed reason. This is rather like how the buffalo going away for the Plains Indians is remembered, something that just happened, forgetting that the U.S. Army was slaughtering the herds, either directly or by enabling hunters, to deprive the Plains Indians of sustenance.

    George Bush, in 1992 State of the Union:

    "I will speak of those things. But let me tell you something I've been thinking these past few months. It's a kind of rollcall of honor. For the cold war didn't end; it was won. And I think of those who won it, in places like Korea and Vietnam. And some of them didn't come back. Back then they were heroes, but this year they were victors."

    He added:

    "But the biggest thing that has happened in the world in my life, in our lives, is this: By the grace of God, America won the cold war."

    That was the view in early 1992. Nobody was saying that they just slowly expired then.

    Wow, you made me stand up and salute in the direction of D.C. I forgot what I used to do and who I used to be.

    I trained a number of unsavory characters in Central America and Southwest Asia during the seventies and eighties to oppose the march of Communism; seemed like the right thing at the time, though in retrospect some of the blowback has been spectacular.

    My personal observation is that fax machines, television and movies did more to convince the relatively underfed, less fashionably clothed, and rather bored and oppressed peoples of the Soviet Bloc that a better way of life was possible, and Gorby and his henchmen knew the time for change was nigh.

    The Reagan buildup, in which I gladly participated, certainly sped up the Sov meltdown, but the collapse came from within. For a similar reason, when the VoPo’s refused to fire in the crowds at Leipzig, Honecker knew the DDR’s gig was up, and the wall fell. The Chicoms and Viets saw this and decided there had to be another way.

    Very little of this change had anything to do with American Warriors standing on the wall; it came from making the American way of life so apparent and attractive that it could not be denied. You people can’t apparently handle that truth.

    I will say, however, that those Warriors standing on that wall did indeed help preserve the enviable American way of life, but somewhere along the way the American way of life became subordinate to the Military-Industrial-Security state, and that is a form of internal rot that is destroying us from within more surely than Communism had a hope of ever doing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonguy

    For a similar reason, when the VoPo’s refused to fire in the crowds at Leipzig, Honecker knew the DDR’s gig was up, and the wall fell.
     
    As far as I know, there was never any order to fire upon crowds in Leipzig in 1989 that was disobeyed by troops/police in the field in the way the Shah's forces eventually refused to fire on crowds in Iran because no such order to fire was ever issued in Leipzig. I may be wrong, but I'd sure like to see some citation on this.
  148. Rich says:
    @Chris Mallory
    Viet Nam fell to the commies. Laos and Cambodia fell. Where was that next domino? How many Laotian troops hit the beaches of California in that commie invasion wave? None that I recall. The commies did try to take Central and South America, I don't remember losing tens of thousands of American troops keeping them out. Face it Rich, the war in SE Asia was a fool's errand top to bottom. The same could be said of every war of the 20th Century. Not one drop of American blood should have been shed in any of those wars. The dead of Viet Nam were sacrificed, not to freedom and the American way, but to keep the money flowing to the MIC and so a few government employees could manage to preform before Viagra was invented. The commies were never the threat that the US government is to the American people.

    The way dominoes work is that you knock one over, and then others fall in line after it. After Vietnam fell, Laos and Cambodia fell. It’s not necessary for the entire world to become communist, or the entire set of dominoes to fall over, to show that the theory was correct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    Three insignificant nations becoming communist was not worth one drop of American blood. Nothing in the Eastern Hemisphere is worth one drop of American blood. If your string of dominoes is only 3 dominoes long, you don't have much of a show.


    Face it Rich, you are a sucker.
  149. anonguy says:

    Very little of this change had anything to do with American Warriors standing on the wall; it came from making the American way of life so apparent and attractive that it could not be denied. You people can’t apparently handle that truth.

    I wouldn’t contend it is an either/or situation, certainly more communication helped. OTOH, North Korea is doing fine in the Internet Age and all of China still resides behind a Great Wall.

    Also, it wasn’t the standing on the wall passively to which I was referring. Rather, aggressive/offensive stuff.

    For a similar reason, when the VoPo’s refused to fire in the crowds at Leipzig, Honecker knew the DDR’s gig was up, and the wall fell.

    This didn’t happen in a vacuum and didn’t happen in Prague, Budapest, Tienanmen Square, etc. It happened in Leipzig because the Warsaw Pact had lost its cultural confidence. The Soviets told Honecker they would not support a violent suppression. Incidentally, I used to have a brother-in-law who was a history professor at University of Leipzig and helped organize/agitate for the marches.

    A large part of the reason that the Soviet leadership lost cultural confidence, fish rots from the head down, was that they then knew that in the end they were defenseless against the west.

    Here is an example. Early in 1986 as we began execution of the Forward Maritime Strategy, we let it be known, even via published sources, to the Soviets that if they ever tried another Afghanistan, we would begin sinking their ballistic missile submarines immediately and be finished in short order.

    This sent huge shock waves throughout the Soviet defense and foreign policy apparatus. First, it was the first time that targeting nuclear forces in a non-nuclear encounter had been proposed, promised actually, in the Cold War.

    Second, the Soviets understood it was a very credible threat as the U.S. Navy had recently completely redeployed under Lehman’s Forward Maritime Strategy that had as it aim exactly that, the ability to sink all Soviet boomer subs on 15 minutes notice or something. And the intelligence/op reports that the Soviets were getting back from their naval commanders indicated that this was a credible threat.

    Third, and most importantly, if the U.S. could knock out all the Soviet boomers as a retaliatory thing in a non-nuclear conflict, they could also do so pre-emptively before launching a first strike against the Soviet Union, go for the whole enchilada.

    At that point, the Soviets knew it was game/match/set on all the decades of MAD calculations, arms races, etc. if they didn’t have a credible second strike threat. And the U.S. was announcing, somewhat obliquely that it no longer considered the Soviet second strike threat credible. Not surprisingly, glasnost/perestroika, then collapse soon followed. Kind of a last straw on that issue.

    This was not the only thing, there were all those VCRs and longing for Levis, etc, but it was a very significant event.

    There are a lot of similarities between the demise of the Soviet Union and the surrender of Imperial Japan in that there were many factors, some of which are not very well understood or acknowledged even by many serious students of the issue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Re-readable post.
    One of those worth swimming for through all the trash here.

    I read, ages ago, that the real wake up for the Soviets was the engagement in Beqaa Valley in '82.
    That is, the source said, when Soviet top brass realized their technological loss against West.

    Now, why Soviet regime couldn't keep up in technology is a another topic.
  150. ussr andy says:
    @anonguy

    More like the Reds petered out on their own from internal bankruptcy of ideas and lack of freedom rather than some grand containment strategy exhausting them.
     
    You are a victim of retconned history.

    Reagan's administration, which led to the defeat of Soviet communism, was exactly a grand containment strategy which included, among other things:

    1) Strategic Defense Initiative
    2) Forward Maritime Strategy
    3) Opposing communist insurgencies in Central America
    4) Supporting Afghani guerrillas against the Soviets
    5) Executing the deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe

    Those are just off the top of my head. And all of them were to the purpose of demonstrating to the Warsaw Pact that they were going to lose in a war. And not only that, the Forward Maritime Strategy demonstrated that we could rapidly destroy their second strike capability (submarine ballistic missiles), making them naked to a pre-emptive first strike.

    This was pretty demoralizing to the Soviet leadership.

    The Soviets only had force on their side and it had been working pretty well until the 1980s when things started going off the rails for them in, guess where, Central America, Afghanistan, and undersea warfare, among other things.

    This did convince (some of) them that they did maybe have a paucity of ideas about things other than force, leading to the last ditch perestroika/glasnost stuff, hoping for a Japanese miracle, but it was way too little, too late, the economic equivalent of throwing the Hitler Youth into the defense of Berlin.

    The end of European communism was not inevitable. As it was crumbling, the nearly universal assumption was that the Chinese would follow, especially after Tiananmen Square. This assumption was based upon your logic, it is all inevitable, they have no ideas, etc.

    But 27 years on, they managed to hang on. North Korea is also hanging in there, utterly unrepentant, with their paucity of ideas other than force, etc.

    The notion that the Soviets just sort of withered up and died on their own is revisionist history meant to discredit the accomplishment of the right wing in ridding the world of the scourge of European communism. It began shortly after the end of the Cold War and has continued unabated. That is because the left spent the entire 80s screeching about Reagan being a war-monger, Imagine songfests, etc. Then it all worked, and spectacularly so when one considers how little bloodshed it finally entailed.

    Right when it happened, there was a huge celebratory atmosphere nearly everywhere in the world except the remaining communist regimes. However, this was rapidly tamped down and forgotten. Too much remembering would bring up how lots of influential people then still around had invested 10 years of their lives railing against war-monger Reagan.

    Nowadays, the goodthink is that it just sort of happened for no particular directed reason. This is rather like how the buffalo going away for the Plains Indians is remembered, something that just happened, forgetting that the U.S. Army was slaughtering the herds, either directly or by enabling hunters, to deprive the Plains Indians of sustenance.

    George Bush, in 1992 State of the Union:

    "I will speak of those things. But let me tell you something I've been thinking these past few months. It's a kind of rollcall of honor. For the cold war didn't end; it was won. And I think of those who won it, in places like Korea and Vietnam. And some of them didn't come back. Back then they were heroes, but this year they were victors."

    He added:

    "But the biggest thing that has happened in the world in my life, in our lives, is this: By the grace of God, America won the cold war."

    That was the view in early 1992. Nobody was saying that they just slowly expired then.

    the reasons for the collapse were internal more than anything else.

    the CPSU had bred a nomenklatura class that wanted to own stuff instead of just managing it on behalf of an abstract “people.” the “chief architect” of the perestroika and the eminence grise behind Gorby, Yakovlev, was an exchange student at Columbia, one of 4 sent there in the 50′s. You can read his writings, it’s the distilled essence of liberal POZ and Western cargo-cultism. Another became a prominent defector. The Liberman/Kossygin reforms in the 60′s de-centralized the economy which made enterprises more efficient as individual units but greatly increased overall misplanning. then, of course, the re-orientation toward oil exports.
    so, Liberman/Kossygin reforms + oil + ideological subversion + greed.
    subverted (incl. by its own elites), not militarily defeated, that’s what the USSR was.
    all that stuff you mention, SDI and whatnot, of course, did not help, but it wasn’t decisive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonguy

    the reasons for the collapse were internal more than anything else.
     
    You state that as an assertion without evidence.

    And anyhow, any foe that is defeated ultimately collapses internally prior to defeat unless they are exterminated while still actively resisting.

    And there are long roots for every collapse/defeat. The Soviet tanks rolling through Berlin in 1945 just didn't magically appear there, they got there because of, well, all of history leading up to that point.

    This is the power of a narrative, cherry-picking what events to focus upon or ignore.

    Let's say the U.S. had collapsed in the 80s instead of the Soviet Union. Everyone now would be pointing to the chaos of the 60's and the malaise and economic stagnation of the 70s in the U.S. as precursors.

    It is pretty simple. Reagan came into office and in a marked departure from precedent, decided we could take down the Soviet Union and proceeded to act upon it with a military focus since the Soviets valued force above all.

    Then after application of this policy and shortly after the end of the Reagan administration, nine months or so, the Berlin Wall opened, effectively ending the Cold War and the monolith of European communism.

    What is it about cause and effect that isn't clear here? The nomenklatura, etc, existed in the 70s too, ya know.
  151. anonguy says:
    @ussr andy
    the reasons for the collapse were internal more than anything else.

    the CPSU had bred a nomenklatura class that wanted to own stuff instead of just managing it on behalf of an abstract "people." the "chief architect" of the perestroika and the eminence grise behind Gorby, Yakovlev, was an exchange student at Columbia, one of 4 sent there in the 50's. You can read his writings, it's the distilled essence of liberal POZ and Western cargo-cultism. Another became a prominent defector. The Liberman/Kossygin reforms in the 60's de-centralized the economy which made enterprises more efficient as individual units but greatly increased overall misplanning. then, of course, the re-orientation toward oil exports.
    so, Liberman/Kossygin reforms + oil + ideological subversion + greed.
    subverted (incl. by its own elites), not militarily defeated, that's what the USSR was.
    all that stuff you mention, SDI and whatnot, of course, did not help, but it wasn't decisive.

    the reasons for the collapse were internal more than anything else.

    You state that as an assertion without evidence.

    And anyhow, any foe that is defeated ultimately collapses internally prior to defeat unless they are exterminated while still actively resisting.

    And there are long roots for every collapse/defeat. The Soviet tanks rolling through Berlin in 1945 just didn’t magically appear there, they got there because of, well, all of history leading up to that point.

    This is the power of a narrative, cherry-picking what events to focus upon or ignore.

    Let’s say the U.S. had collapsed in the 80s instead of the Soviet Union. Everyone now would be pointing to the chaos of the 60′s and the malaise and economic stagnation of the 70s in the U.S. as precursors.

    It is pretty simple. Reagan came into office and in a marked departure from precedent, decided we could take down the Soviet Union and proceeded to act upon it with a military focus since the Soviets valued force above all.

    Then after application of this policy and shortly after the end of the Reagan administration, nine months or so, the Berlin Wall opened, effectively ending the Cold War and the monolith of European communism.

    What is it about cause and effect that isn’t clear here? The nomenklatura, etc, existed in the 70s too, ya know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ussr andy

    You state that as an assertion without evidence.
     
    I gave you four reasons. Needless to say (or ist it? apparently it is) everything I say is just my opinion. Just like everything you say is yours.

    It is pretty simple. Reagan came into office and in a marked departure from precedent, decided we could take down the Soviet Union
     

    Gorby and his boys took down the Soviet Union. Even absent Reagan, the destruction was built into the system. Most one can say is it would have taken longer without him.

    Quoth Yakovlev (translation Google+minor fixes by me) :

    After the XX Congress [1956 -u.a.] in the top circle of my closest friends and like-minded people, we often discussed the problems of democratization of the country and society. They chose a method of propaganda of the "ideas" of late Lenin, as simple as a sledgehammer. (...) A group of true, and not imaginary, reformers developed (orally, of course) the following plan: use Lenin's authority to strike a blow against Stalin and Stalinism. And then, if successful, use Plekhanov and Social-Democracy to hit Lenin, liberalism and "moral socialism" to hit "revolutionism" in general.


    the Soviets valued force above all.
     
    what does this even mean, when talking about a military confrontation?

    What is it about cause and effect that isn’t clear here?
     
    Exactly. Your argument is one huge post hoc ego propter hoc. What I'm saying the reasons go deeper and pre-date Reagan's policy in particular. You focus on Reagan, I focus on the destructive tendencies that were engineered on purpose and that btw were diagnosed even back in the day by the CPC and the WPK (correctly, given that China and North Korea still exist.)
    , @Sane Left Libertarian
    Actually there is plenty of evidence. Besides that which Andy gave you, a number of Westerners who observed the CCCP in the 70's and 80's wrote that while the Kremlin was talking proud, the proles were beleaguered and knew full well that P couldn't go on much longer as it was. There was of course Afghanistan, but the ratio of destitute to rich was just too great. RWR's kicking of the Kremlin's ass is much more legend than fact.
  152. anonguy says:
    @The Alarmist
    Wow, you made me stand up and salute in the direction of D.C. I forgot what I used to do and who I used to be.

    I trained a number of unsavory characters in Central America and Southwest Asia during the seventies and eighties to oppose the march of Communism; seemed like the right thing at the time, though in retrospect some of the blowback has been spectacular.

    My personal observation is that fax machines, television and movies did more to convince the relatively underfed, less fashionably clothed, and rather bored and oppressed peoples of the Soviet Bloc that a better way of life was possible, and Gorby and his henchmen knew the time for change was nigh.

    The Reagan buildup, in which I gladly participated, certainly sped up the Sov meltdown, but the collapse came from within. For a similar reason, when the VoPo's refused to fire in the crowds at Leipzig, Honecker knew the DDR's gig was up, and the wall fell. The Chicoms and Viets saw this and decided there had to be another way.

    Very little of this change had anything to do with American Warriors standing on the wall; it came from making the American way of life so apparent and attractive that it could not be denied. You people can't apparently handle that truth.

    I will say, however, that those Warriors standing on that wall did indeed help preserve the enviable American way of life, but somewhere along the way the American way of life became subordinate to the Military-Industrial-Security state, and that is a form of internal rot that is destroying us from within more surely than Communism had a hope of ever doing.

    For a similar reason, when the VoPo’s refused to fire in the crowds at Leipzig, Honecker knew the DDR’s gig was up, and the wall fell.

    As far as I know, there was never any order to fire upon crowds in Leipzig in 1989 that was disobeyed by troops/police in the field in the way the Shah’s forces eventually refused to fire on crowds in Iran because no such order to fire was ever issued in Leipzig. I may be wrong, but I’d sure like to see some citation on this.

    Read More
  153. Che Guava says:
    @Anonymous

    A well-said reminder, Avery, seems that so many one-post fools are posting here, not only on this thread right now.
     
    LOLMAOAY. One post doth not a Guava sundae make.

    You self-absorbed jackass.

    Your are such a jerk that you don’t even use a u-name. I am in no way self-absorbed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Your are such a jerk that you don’t even use a u-name. I am in no way self-absorbed.
     
    Okay, I was wrong to call you a self-absorbed jackass. You're not self-absorbed.
  154. ussr andy says:
    @anonguy

    the reasons for the collapse were internal more than anything else.
     
    You state that as an assertion without evidence.

    And anyhow, any foe that is defeated ultimately collapses internally prior to defeat unless they are exterminated while still actively resisting.

    And there are long roots for every collapse/defeat. The Soviet tanks rolling through Berlin in 1945 just didn't magically appear there, they got there because of, well, all of history leading up to that point.

    This is the power of a narrative, cherry-picking what events to focus upon or ignore.

    Let's say the U.S. had collapsed in the 80s instead of the Soviet Union. Everyone now would be pointing to the chaos of the 60's and the malaise and economic stagnation of the 70s in the U.S. as precursors.

    It is pretty simple. Reagan came into office and in a marked departure from precedent, decided we could take down the Soviet Union and proceeded to act upon it with a military focus since the Soviets valued force above all.

    Then after application of this policy and shortly after the end of the Reagan administration, nine months or so, the Berlin Wall opened, effectively ending the Cold War and the monolith of European communism.

    What is it about cause and effect that isn't clear here? The nomenklatura, etc, existed in the 70s too, ya know.

    You state that as an assertion without evidence.

    I gave you four reasons. Needless to say (or ist it? apparently it is) everything I say is just my opinion. Just like everything you say is yours.

    It is pretty simple. Reagan came into office and in a marked departure from precedent, decided we could take down the Soviet Union

    Gorby and his boys took down the Soviet Union. Even absent Reagan, the destruction was built into the system. Most one can say is it would have taken longer without him.

    Quoth Yakovlev (translation Google+minor fixes by me) :

    After the XX Congress [1956 -u.a.] in the top circle of my closest friends and like-minded people, we often discussed the problems of democratization of the country and society. They chose a method of propaganda of the “ideas” of late Lenin, as simple as a sledgehammer. (…) A group of true, and not imaginary, reformers developed (orally, of course) the following plan: use Lenin’s authority to strike a blow against Stalin and Stalinism. And then, if successful, use Plekhanov and Social-Democracy to hit Lenin, liberalism and “moral socialism” to hit “revolutionism” in general.

    the Soviets valued force above all.

    what does this even mean, when talking about a military confrontation?

    What is it about cause and effect that isn’t clear here?

    Exactly. Your argument is one huge post hoc ego propter hoc. What I’m saying the reasons go deeper and pre-date Reagan’s policy in particular. You focus on Reagan, I focus on the destructive tendencies that were engineered on purpose and that btw were diagnosed even back in the day by the CPC and the WPK (correctly, given that China and North Korea still exist.)

    Read More
  155. @Grandpa Charlie
    macilrae says to me to keep in mind that all we get here in the USA is propaganda, and so I guess it's just BS about so many Koreans fleeing from the North into China (if they can) and then elsewhere such as Seoul (if they can), exactly like happened in Germany before reunification ... So many millions of Germans fleeing from the East side ... I guess that's all BS. Also that young American who died after his slightly alive body was returned from Kim Jong Un's torture chambers ...and then he died ... oh well, probably all just propaganda by the USA propaganda machine. And I have not sense enough to sort it out, I must be a complete dolt who watches cable and Fox news and believes it all. ??????

    I don't have time to respond to all the insults with which I have been covered like rotten eggs thrown at a poor bastard in the stocks.

    I get it already. Here's what people are saying to me: "Kim Jong-Un speaks truth. Jong-un is a really nice guy, a hero of the people. DPRK good. USA bad, very bad. Americans very stupid. Kim Jong-Un very smart."

    Grandpa wasn't born yesterday, but thanks anyway for warning me that I shouldn't believe everything that I read ... and I have no TV, I watch no TV news ... I get what I get off the iNet and form my own conclusions.

    Yeah, I get it ... or better, I say "I get y'all."

    Yes, NK is governed by a bloodthirsty and corrupt satrap.
    Yes, USA are a warmongering oligarchy governed by demented criminals.
    Does it mean that a war between those two profits to anyone else than a few degenerate banksters?

    Certainly not.

    Read More
  156. anonguy says:

    What I’m saying the reasons go deeper and pre-date Reagan’s policy in particular. You focus on Reagan, I focus on the destructive tendencies that were engineered on purpose and that btw were diagnosed even back in the day by the CPC and the WPK (correctly, given that China and North Korea still exist.)

    I’d say that Reagan successfully took advantage of his enemy’s weaknesses and all enemies have them. Looking for remote causes from 30 years prior to the event while giving no credit to the immediate proximate cause seems a curious weighting. Might as well trace back to Peter the Great or Ivan the Terrible. I’m sure there are currents from that in Russian society that contributed to failure in the Soviet standoff with the West.

    Those Communist analysts were also predicting the inevitable collapse of the capitalist system due to internal contradictions as well, how did that work out?

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    It was a blast serving under Reagan, much better than the days after Vietnam and under Carter.

    How's the decline of capitalism going? Look around you, dude; it started gasping for air in earnest more than a decade ago.
  157. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Wizard of Oz
    Good, that's clear. Neither of us believe in making even the left-of-curve UR commenters understand by opening their heads with jackhammers and shouting till they get it (hard to say which would take longer for some). I suppose I was wondering if you were intending to indicate disagreement and if so how....

    Good, that’s clear. Neither of us believe in making even the left-of-curve UR commenters understand by opening their heads with jackhammers and shouting till they get it (hard to say which would take longer for some). I suppose I was wondering if you were intending to indicate disagreement and if so how….

    You godless bahstid. You’ve gone and shattered my every delusion. (In a very Judy Garlandesque affectation:) “I shan’t! I truly shan’t!”

    On that topic, it is more than merely depressing that there exists such a high percentage of commenters who are just plain abysmally stupid. It does, however, readily explain how the utter disembowelment of American Constitutional principles has been rendered into possibly the most corrupt government ever to exist, in conjunction with its equally corrupt supporting economic and political structure.

    All while the peasants nod agreeably, remaining so stupid and manipulated as to defy all reason.

    No, I was not going to disagree.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    In Boston in 2000 as I contemplated just the beginnings of Australia's bonanza from America's facilitating the growth of China's economy I prepared for a discussion club "I thank God for America saving the world from democracy".

    I had in mind that if the US was a democracy like Australia where 85 to 90+ per cent vote and the Labor Party was still a union based party it coudn't have happened. I often repeat in wonder that I could have seen it so clearly way back then my formulaic description that "the United States is plutocracy tempered by meritocracy within a framework of law, and flavoured by the rhetoric of democracy".

    Now I don't cheer that st all or even find the joke amusing. America's corruption and decay is bad for the world.
  158. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Che Guava
    Your are such a jerk that you don't even use a u-name. I am in no way self-absorbed.

    Your are such a jerk that you don’t even use a u-name. I am in no way self-absorbed.

    Okay, I was wrong to call you a self-absorbed jackass. You’re not self-absorbed.

    Read More
  159. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Wizard of Oz
    How about a moniker so I don't have to be polite (or careful) to every Anonymous in case its you.

    Moniker Delinsky? Frank Baum?

    I don’t know; I may not stay.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks for leading me to Frsnk Baum (and his suffragist mother-in-law) despite my moniker being adopted after a nano second's deep consideration which had nothing to do with the Judy Garland film.

    I have been interested in the distinction that a 1950s Pelican book on psychology made between Convergent snd Divergent thinking. Roughly, as I recall it, your convergent thinking did an IQ test and your divergent thinking produced a whole lot of words which quickly came to mind when you were asked to say what words you could think of connected with X. I asked James Thompson for an update on it on UR and I think he may have given a link which I haven't followed up. My particular interest is whether divergent thinking, however potentially valuable, might run interference against one's otherwise rapid and effective convergent thinking. In my case I early noted that my convergent thinking was probably what gave me very high scores for speed and comprehension when I did a concentrated rapid reading course, but that my undoubted tendency to divergent thinking (lateral thinking if you like) meant that my reading continued normally to be held up by the number of thoughts prompted within a short space - such as "but does he really mean 'but' ", "is that consistent with what was said in the last paragraph", "isn't that a curious word to use in this context", "does he really mean Woodrow Wilson", "that spelling is wrong", "he obviously doesn't understand the French/Latin/German word he has used", "does that apparently bad grammar mean something nuanced". I think you may believe I can still diverge. (My mother could start five different lines of conversation and bring them all to their dénouements. Except that in her late 80s it came back to three. Or am I remembering teasing her that she used to be able to manage five inconsistent excuses for whatever her minor omission had been but could now only manage three? My father's disciplined brain was a nice contrast to her, to coin a usage, divergency).

    I detect a divergent streak in you, n'est-ce pas?

    I think divergent and creative thinking may almost be the same thing and both combined with discipline, whether in a scientist or a creative tax lawyer, potentially formidable. What is more I suspect that the power of the divergent mind can be multiplied by years of systematic as well as unsystematic stocking of the mind which may or may not appear to be hard work???,

    A stray observation that I added to my thoughts on interference patterns in one's cerebration occurred to me while listening to a guide at Dumfries House who had a strong Scottish accent. I found him difficult to underatand ("but what is it all of them laughed at?"). It was a problem I was used to with non standard accents. Could it be, I wondered, that my divergent mind will consider too many possible versions of what I may be hearing, very quickly but not quickly enough for fluent comprehension? Then I recalled too how my favourite companion who is observant and has a brilliant visual memory for furnishings or art or craft work but has very poor eyesight will point to trees and tell me to look at the bird there and I will often miss it completely. Could it be that my messy divergent brain is trying to take in too much detail as I look up into the trees and my observing brain is slowed by the overload? I now remember my father, a very good golfer, also seeing where my ball went when I did not!

    Any thoughts on my theorising?
  160. @Alden
    My father always claimed MacArthur wanted to run for president. That was why he was so aggressive at the beginning of the Korean war.

    He wanted to follow Grant and Eisenhower, general to president. A lot of people at the time agreed with my father.

    I also agree with your father. Only reason he didn’t was because he got his ass handed to him.

    Read More
  161. Rev. Pete says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    True story Rev Pete


    A few years back...waiting for the subway in Newark....only two White Guys....War for Blair Mountain....and a 6'6" tall all grey-haired White Guy....both of us of Irish Ancestry....surrounding us POTUS 2020 Kamala Harris's Democratic Party Voting Bloc.....


    We both look at each other and began laughing and shaking our heads...War for Blair Mountain:"How you've been doing Gerry?"....Gerry Cooney:"I've been been doing good...." Then the two Irishman laughed again at the shithole surrounding us on the subway platform....


    There is actually a well known African Guitarist named shithole...Jonathan Shithole.....

    Missed point: 60′s would have had your ass handed to you by white gang.

    Read More
  162. peterAUS says:
    @anonguy

    Very little of this change had anything to do with American Warriors standing on the wall; it came from making the American way of life so apparent and attractive that it could not be denied. You people can’t apparently handle that truth.
     
    I wouldn't contend it is an either/or situation, certainly more communication helped. OTOH, North Korea is doing fine in the Internet Age and all of China still resides behind a Great Wall.

    Also, it wasn't the standing on the wall passively to which I was referring. Rather, aggressive/offensive stuff.

    For a similar reason, when the VoPo’s refused to fire in the crowds at Leipzig, Honecker knew the DDR’s gig was up, and the wall fell.
     

    This didn't happen in a vacuum and didn't happen in Prague, Budapest, Tienanmen Square, etc. It happened in Leipzig because the Warsaw Pact had lost its cultural confidence. The Soviets told Honecker they would not support a violent suppression. Incidentally, I used to have a brother-in-law who was a history professor at University of Leipzig and helped organize/agitate for the marches.

    A large part of the reason that the Soviet leadership lost cultural confidence, fish rots from the head down, was that they then knew that in the end they were defenseless against the west.

    Here is an example. Early in 1986 as we began execution of the Forward Maritime Strategy, we let it be known, even via published sources, to the Soviets that if they ever tried another Afghanistan, we would begin sinking their ballistic missile submarines immediately and be finished in short order.

    This sent huge shock waves throughout the Soviet defense and foreign policy apparatus. First, it was the first time that targeting nuclear forces in a non-nuclear encounter had been proposed, promised actually, in the Cold War.

    Second, the Soviets understood it was a very credible threat as the U.S. Navy had recently completely redeployed under Lehman's Forward Maritime Strategy that had as it aim exactly that, the ability to sink all Soviet boomer subs on 15 minutes notice or something. And the intelligence/op reports that the Soviets were getting back from their naval commanders indicated that this was a credible threat.

    Third, and most importantly, if the U.S. could knock out all the Soviet boomers as a retaliatory thing in a non-nuclear conflict, they could also do so pre-emptively before launching a first strike against the Soviet Union, go for the whole enchilada.

    At that point, the Soviets knew it was game/match/set on all the decades of MAD calculations, arms races, etc. if they didn't have a credible second strike threat. And the U.S. was announcing, somewhat obliquely that it no longer considered the Soviet second strike threat credible. Not surprisingly, glasnost/perestroika, then collapse soon followed. Kind of a last straw on that issue.

    This was not the only thing, there were all those VCRs and longing for Levis, etc, but it was a very significant event.

    There are a lot of similarities between the demise of the Soviet Union and the surrender of Imperial Japan in that there were many factors, some of which are not very well understood or acknowledged even by many serious students of the issue.

    Re-readable post.
    One of those worth swimming for through all the trash here.

    I read, ages ago, that the real wake up for the Soviets was the engagement in Beqaa Valley in ’82.
    That is, the source said, when Soviet top brass realized their technological loss against West.

    Now, why Soviet regime couldn’t keep up in technology is a another topic.

    Read More
  163. @Simply Simon
    Disclaimer: "How old are you people using this thread to argue these points?" I can assure you my 89th birthday was on July 27, 2017 and I was actively involved in the Korean War in 1952 as an F-80 fighter-bomber pilot with the 8th Fighter-Bomber Wing, 36th Squadron, K-13, Suwon, S.Korea. I believe MacArthur screwed up royally when he did not stop his march north from Wonsan at the capital of NKorea, Pyongyang. The N. Koreans were on the run but it was a terrible mistake to keep pursuing them to the Yalu River in winter. As I stated in my previous post the results were devastating as recorded in the history books. All he had to do was establish a defense perimeter just north of Pyongyang and wait out the winter, This would have given his army time to resupply and be ready for a spring offensive if necessary. More importantly, it may well have brought the defeated NKoreans to the peace table knowing they had little other alternative. For us to engage in a nuclear and/or land war with China as advocated by Rich would have been insane. For good reason the Korean War has been called the "Forgotten War'. The American public was sick of war having just gone through the traumatic experience of WWII and had no stomach for any kind of conflict with China.

    We are now paying the price for our failure to contain the Norks which could have been done in the early 50s as I outline in my previous post. What really gets to me in my old age is that General MacArthur never had to pay a price, except for the light sentence of being fired, for his total screw-up in Korea. Thousands of GIs were needlessly slaughtered because of his strategic blunder. I wonder if that thought ever crossed his mind. Not likely, he would not be a general otherwise.

    Read More
  164. @anonguy

    the reasons for the collapse were internal more than anything else.
     
    You state that as an assertion without evidence.

    And anyhow, any foe that is defeated ultimately collapses internally prior to defeat unless they are exterminated while still actively resisting.

    And there are long roots for every collapse/defeat. The Soviet tanks rolling through Berlin in 1945 just didn't magically appear there, they got there because of, well, all of history leading up to that point.

    This is the power of a narrative, cherry-picking what events to focus upon or ignore.

    Let's say the U.S. had collapsed in the 80s instead of the Soviet Union. Everyone now would be pointing to the chaos of the 60's and the malaise and economic stagnation of the 70s in the U.S. as precursors.

    It is pretty simple. Reagan came into office and in a marked departure from precedent, decided we could take down the Soviet Union and proceeded to act upon it with a military focus since the Soviets valued force above all.

    Then after application of this policy and shortly after the end of the Reagan administration, nine months or so, the Berlin Wall opened, effectively ending the Cold War and the monolith of European communism.

    What is it about cause and effect that isn't clear here? The nomenklatura, etc, existed in the 70s too, ya know.

    Actually there is plenty of evidence. Besides that which Andy gave you, a number of Westerners who observed the CCCP in the 70′s and 80′s wrote that while the Kremlin was talking proud, the proles were beleaguered and knew full well that P couldn’t go on much longer as it was. There was of course Afghanistan, but the ratio of destitute to rich was just too great. RWR’s kicking of the Kremlin’s ass is much more legend than fact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonguy

    Actually there is plenty of evidence. Besides that which Andy gave you, a number of Westerners who observed the CCCP in the 70′s and 80′s wrote that while the Kremlin was talking proud, the proles were beleaguered and knew full well that P couldn’t go on much longer as it was. There was of course Afghanistan, but the ratio of destitute to rich was just too great. RWR’s kicking of the Kremlin’s ass is much more legend than fact.
     
    One vexation in life is that it is unfortunately actually true if a lie is repeated enough, it becomes the reality.
  165. @anonguy

    What I’m saying the reasons go deeper and pre-date Reagan’s policy in particular. You focus on Reagan, I focus on the destructive tendencies that were engineered on purpose and that btw were diagnosed even back in the day by the CPC and the WPK (correctly, given that China and North Korea still exist.)
     
    I'd say that Reagan successfully took advantage of his enemy's weaknesses and all enemies have them. Looking for remote causes from 30 years prior to the event while giving no credit to the immediate proximate cause seems a curious weighting. Might as well trace back to Peter the Great or Ivan the Terrible. I'm sure there are currents from that in Russian society that contributed to failure in the Soviet standoff with the West.

    Those Communist analysts were also predicting the inevitable collapse of the capitalist system due to internal contradictions as well, how did that work out?

    It was a blast serving under Reagan, much better than the days after Vietnam and under Carter.

    How’s the decline of capitalism going? Look around you, dude; it started gasping for air in earnest more than a decade ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonguy

    How’s the decline of capitalism going? Look around you, dude; it started gasping for air in earnest more than a decade ago.
     
    I agree with you 100% (on this point).

    We are living in the most interesting times since 1989.
  166. @Rich
    The way dominoes work is that you knock one over, and then others fall in line after it. After Vietnam fell, Laos and Cambodia fell. It's not necessary for the entire world to become communist, or the entire set of dominoes to fall over, to show that the theory was correct.

    Three insignificant nations becoming communist was not worth one drop of American blood. Nothing in the Eastern Hemisphere is worth one drop of American blood. If your string of dominoes is only 3 dominoes long, you don’t have much of a show.

    Face it Rich, you are a sucker.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    As insignificant as you consider these nations, as much of a "sucker" you may consider me, will you at least admit the facts of history? Or are you too stubborn to even do that? There are many legitimate reasons to have opposed the Vietnam War, but the facts of what was called the "Domino Theory" were proven correct. You can stamp your feet as much as you want, but after the US withdrew from Vietnam, 3 nations, one after the other, fell to the Reds. This is what was predicted, and this is what happened. Whether you like it or not.
  167. Che Guava says:
    @Anonymous

    Your are such a jerk that you don’t even use a u-name. I am in no way self-absorbed.
     
    Okay, I was wrong to call you a self-absorbed jackass. You're not self-absorbed.

    Not a jackass, either.

    Read More
  168. Rich says:
    @Chris Mallory
    Three insignificant nations becoming communist was not worth one drop of American blood. Nothing in the Eastern Hemisphere is worth one drop of American blood. If your string of dominoes is only 3 dominoes long, you don't have much of a show.


    Face it Rich, you are a sucker.

    As insignificant as you consider these nations, as much of a “sucker” you may consider me, will you at least admit the facts of history? Or are you too stubborn to even do that? There are many legitimate reasons to have opposed the Vietnam War, but the facts of what was called the “Domino Theory” were proven correct. You can stamp your feet as much as you want, but after the US withdrew from Vietnam, 3 nations, one after the other, fell to the Reds. This is what was predicted, and this is what happened. Whether you like it or not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    And none of those nations were any responsibility of the American people. The "domino theory" was just a scare tactic to sucker in fools. It just did not matter. Foreign entanglements have always been bad for the American people. PERIOD. We can only hope that the fools, starting with the first idiot Roosevelt cousin who wanted empire are burning in hell today for the destruction they have visited upon the American people.
  169. @Anonymous

    Good, that’s clear. Neither of us believe in making even the left-of-curve UR commenters understand by opening their heads with jackhammers and shouting till they get it (hard to say which would take longer for some). I suppose I was wondering if you were intending to indicate disagreement and if so how….
     
    You godless bahstid. You've gone and shattered my every delusion. (In a very Judy Garlandesque affectation:) "I shan't! I truly shan't!"

    On that topic, it is more than merely depressing that there exists such a high percentage of commenters who are just plain abysmally stupid. It does, however, readily explain how the utter disembowelment of American Constitutional principles has been rendered into possibly the most corrupt government ever to exist, in conjunction with its equally corrupt supporting economic and political structure.

    All while the peasants nod agreeably, remaining so stupid and manipulated as to defy all reason.

    No, I was not going to disagree.

    In Boston in 2000 as I contemplated just the beginnings of Australia’s bonanza from America’s facilitating the growth of China’s economy I prepared for a discussion club “I thank God for America saving the world from democracy”.

    I had in mind that if the US was a democracy like Australia where 85 to 90+ per cent vote and the Labor Party was still a union based party it coudn’t have happened. I often repeat in wonder that I could have seen it so clearly way back then my formulaic description that “the United States is plutocracy tempered by meritocracy within a framework of law, and flavoured by the rhetoric of democracy”.

    Now I don’t cheer that st all or even find the joke amusing. America’s corruption and decay is bad for the world.

    Read More
  170. @Rich
    As insignificant as you consider these nations, as much of a "sucker" you may consider me, will you at least admit the facts of history? Or are you too stubborn to even do that? There are many legitimate reasons to have opposed the Vietnam War, but the facts of what was called the "Domino Theory" were proven correct. You can stamp your feet as much as you want, but after the US withdrew from Vietnam, 3 nations, one after the other, fell to the Reds. This is what was predicted, and this is what happened. Whether you like it or not.

    And none of those nations were any responsibility of the American people. The “domino theory” was just a scare tactic to sucker in fools. It just did not matter. Foreign entanglements have always been bad for the American people. PERIOD. We can only hope that the fools, starting with the first idiot Roosevelt cousin who wanted empire are burning in hell today for the destruction they have visited upon the American people.

    Read More
  171. anonguy says:
    @The Alarmist
    It was a blast serving under Reagan, much better than the days after Vietnam and under Carter.

    How's the decline of capitalism going? Look around you, dude; it started gasping for air in earnest more than a decade ago.

    How’s the decline of capitalism going? Look around you, dude; it started gasping for air in earnest more than a decade ago.

    I agree with you 100% (on this point).

    We are living in the most interesting times since 1989.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    But what is this "capitalism" that looks to be shaky or worse? I still see capitalism as the economic system that arose in fairly free conditions from the Renaissance onward as the accumulation of investable capital combined with accelerating inventiveness and enterprise to make economies grow. I don't see why I shouldn't think of China's and India's rapid growth and growing prosperity as capitalism in action - successfully.
  172. anonguy says:
    @Sane Left Libertarian
    Actually there is plenty of evidence. Besides that which Andy gave you, a number of Westerners who observed the CCCP in the 70's and 80's wrote that while the Kremlin was talking proud, the proles were beleaguered and knew full well that P couldn't go on much longer as it was. There was of course Afghanistan, but the ratio of destitute to rich was just too great. RWR's kicking of the Kremlin's ass is much more legend than fact.

    Actually there is plenty of evidence. Besides that which Andy gave you, a number of Westerners who observed the CCCP in the 70′s and 80′s wrote that while the Kremlin was talking proud, the proles were beleaguered and knew full well that P couldn’t go on much longer as it was. There was of course Afghanistan, but the ratio of destitute to rich was just too great. RWR’s kicking of the Kremlin’s ass is much more legend than fact.

    One vexation in life is that it is unfortunately actually true if a lie is repeated enough, it becomes the reality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    It's called "perception management" now.
    Before it was "brainwashing".

    Maybe that's the reason why we still have open discussions and debates on Internet.

    People with agenda will always be able to deliver more "output" then people without agenda.
    And an average reader will always be influenced by it.

    So...agendas always win.
    It just, really, boils down to which one wins.
    Or, better, which one is able to deliver more output.
  173. Ben Frank says:

    The fight-the-Norks idiots are like paper dolls who play with matches.

    Read More
  174. @Anonymous
    Moniker Delinsky? Frank Baum?

    I don't know; I may not stay.

    Thanks for leading me to Frsnk Baum (and his suffragist mother-in-law) despite my moniker being adopted after a nano second’s deep consideration which had nothing to do with the Judy Garland film.

    I have been interested in the distinction that a 1950s Pelican book on psychology made between Convergent snd Divergent thinking. Roughly, as I recall it, your convergent thinking did an IQ test and your divergent thinking produced a whole lot of words which quickly came to mind when you were asked to say what words you could think of connected with X. I asked James Thompson for an update on it on UR and I think he may have given a link which I haven’t followed up. My particular interest is whether divergent thinking, however potentially valuable, might run interference against one’s otherwise rapid and effective convergent thinking. In my case I early noted that my convergent thinking was probably what gave me very high scores for speed and comprehension when I did a concentrated rapid reading course, but that my undoubted tendency to divergent thinking (lateral thinking if you like) meant that my reading continued normally to be held up by the number of thoughts prompted within a short space – such as “but does he really mean ‘but’ “, “is that consistent with what was said in the last paragraph”, “isn’t that a curious word to use in this context”, “does he really mean Woodrow Wilson”, “that spelling is wrong”, “he obviously doesn’t understand the French/Latin/German word he has used”, “does that apparently bad grammar mean something nuanced”. I think you may believe I can still diverge. (My mother could start five different lines of conversation and bring them all to their dénouements. Except that in her late 80s it came back to three. Or am I remembering teasing her that she used to be able to manage five inconsistent excuses for whatever her minor omission had been but could now only manage three? My father’s disciplined brain was a nice contrast to her, to coin a usage, divergency).

    I detect a divergent streak in you, n’est-ce pas?

    I think divergent and creative thinking may almost be the same thing and both combined with discipline, whether in a scientist or a creative tax lawyer, potentially formidable. What is more I suspect that the power of the divergent mind can be multiplied by years of systematic as well as unsystematic stocking of the mind which may or may not appear to be hard work???,

    A stray observation that I added to my thoughts on interference patterns in one’s cerebration occurred to me while listening to a guide at Dumfries House who had a strong Scottish accent. I found him difficult to underatand (“but what is it all of them laughed at?”). It was a problem I was used to with non standard accents. Could it be, I wondered, that my divergent mind will consider too many possible versions of what I may be hearing, very quickly but not quickly enough for fluent comprehension? Then I recalled too how my favourite companion who is observant and has a brilliant visual memory for furnishings or art or craft work but has very poor eyesight will point to trees and tell me to look at the bird there and I will often miss it completely. Could it be that my messy divergent brain is trying to take in too much detail as I look up into the trees and my observing brain is slowed by the overload? I now remember my father, a very good golfer, also seeing where my ball went when I did not!

    Any thoughts on my theorising?

    Read More
  175. @anonguy

    How’s the decline of capitalism going? Look around you, dude; it started gasping for air in earnest more than a decade ago.
     
    I agree with you 100% (on this point).

    We are living in the most interesting times since 1989.

    But what is this “capitalism” that looks to be shaky or worse? I still see capitalism as the economic system that arose in fairly free conditions from the Renaissance onward as the accumulation of investable capital combined with accelerating inventiveness and enterprise to make economies grow. I don’t see why I shouldn’t think of China’s and India’s rapid growth and growing prosperity as capitalism in action – successfully.

    Read More
  176. peterAUS says:
    @anonguy

    Actually there is plenty of evidence. Besides that which Andy gave you, a number of Westerners who observed the CCCP in the 70′s and 80′s wrote that while the Kremlin was talking proud, the proles were beleaguered and knew full well that P couldn’t go on much longer as it was. There was of course Afghanistan, but the ratio of destitute to rich was just too great. RWR’s kicking of the Kremlin’s ass is much more legend than fact.
     
    One vexation in life is that it is unfortunately actually true if a lie is repeated enough, it becomes the reality.

    It’s called “perception management” now.
    Before it was “brainwashing”.

    Maybe that’s the reason why we still have open discussions and debates on Internet.

    People with agenda will always be able to deliver more “output” then people without agenda.
    And an average reader will always be influenced by it.

    So…agendas always win.
    It just, really, boils down to which one wins.
    Or, better, which one is able to deliver more output.

    Read More
  177. Erebus says:

    Nicely put.

    So…agendas always win. It just, really, boils down to which one wins.

    A seemingly minor, but I think critical nuance can be added. To whit, as agendas encounter repeated failures, their “output” increases along with the distance between the message and any sort of perceptible reality. As they morph into a caricature of themselves, the increasingly shrill output creates a cognitive dissonance that eventually opens the door to lower output alternatives.

    I think this is what we’re watching play itself out today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    A seemingly minor, but I think critical nuance can be added. To whit, as agendas encounter repeated failures, their “output” increases along with the distance between the message and any sort of perceptible reality. As they morph into a caricature of themselves, the increasingly shrill output creates a cognitive dissonance that eventually opens the door to lower output alternatives.

    I think this is what we’re watching play itself out today.
     

    A good example would be the old Soviet Union where their central planning agenda encountered repeated failures with government propaganda "output" increasing along with the distance between the message and any sort of perceptible reality.

    The result in the US (as in the USSR) is/was a Politically Correct Nomenklatura with their own closed and privileged world covering government, the media, education, administration, commerce etc.


    As they morph into a caricature of themselves, the increasingly shrill output creates a cognitive dissonance that eventually opens the door to lower output alternatives.
     
    Example - the MSM hysteria with regard to Trump's election and their now obvious Agenda being increasingly rejected.
  178. Miro23 says:
    @Erebus
    Nicely put.

    So…agendas always win. It just, really, boils down to which one wins.
     
    A seemingly minor, but I think critical nuance can be added. To whit, as agendas encounter repeated failures, their "output" increases along with the distance between the message and any sort of perceptible reality. As they morph into a caricature of themselves, the increasingly shrill output creates a cognitive dissonance that eventually opens the door to lower output alternatives.

    I think this is what we're watching play itself out today.

    A seemingly minor, but I think critical nuance can be added. To whit, as agendas encounter repeated failures, their “output” increases along with the distance between the message and any sort of perceptible reality. As they morph into a caricature of themselves, the increasingly shrill output creates a cognitive dissonance that eventually opens the door to lower output alternatives.

    I think this is what we’re watching play itself out today.

    A good example would be the old Soviet Union where their central planning agenda encountered repeated failures with government propaganda “output” increasing along with the distance between the message and any sort of perceptible reality.

    The result in the US (as in the USSR) is/was a Politically Correct Nomenklatura with their own closed and privileged world covering government, the media, education, administration, commerce etc.

    As they morph into a caricature of themselves, the increasingly shrill output creates a cognitive dissonance that eventually opens the door to lower output alternatives.

    Example – the MSM hysteria with regard to Trump’s election and their now obvious Agenda being increasingly rejected.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23
    In the Soviet Union it was understood that you needed to be a Party Member to get ahead and it came through the invitation of your local party organization. They would check you out ideologically before you got your membership, and even if it was something of a joke, it was still an initiation rite, and Nomenklatura members were required to stay loyal and repeat the dogma during their lifetime in the Party.

    The US PC Nomenklatura is no different. If you want to get ahead in the US you need to be similarly ideologically sound on PC issues as defined by the MSM, or at least pretend to be.
  179. Miro23 says:
    @Miro23

    A seemingly minor, but I think critical nuance can be added. To whit, as agendas encounter repeated failures, their “output” increases along with the distance between the message and any sort of perceptible reality. As they morph into a caricature of themselves, the increasingly shrill output creates a cognitive dissonance that eventually opens the door to lower output alternatives.

    I think this is what we’re watching play itself out today.
     

    A good example would be the old Soviet Union where their central planning agenda encountered repeated failures with government propaganda "output" increasing along with the distance between the message and any sort of perceptible reality.

    The result in the US (as in the USSR) is/was a Politically Correct Nomenklatura with their own closed and privileged world covering government, the media, education, administration, commerce etc.


    As they morph into a caricature of themselves, the increasingly shrill output creates a cognitive dissonance that eventually opens the door to lower output alternatives.
     
    Example - the MSM hysteria with regard to Trump's election and their now obvious Agenda being increasingly rejected.

    In the Soviet Union it was understood that you needed to be a Party Member to get ahead and it came through the invitation of your local party organization. They would check you out ideologically before you got your membership, and even if it was something of a joke, it was still an initiation rite, and Nomenklatura members were required to stay loyal and repeat the dogma during their lifetime in the Party.

    The US PC Nomenklatura is no different. If you want to get ahead in the US you need to be similarly ideologically sound on PC issues as defined by the MSM, or at least pretend to be.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave