It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In an escalating war of words with the United States, North Korea warned Thursday of a "super-mighty preemptive strike" against the United States that would reduce "to ashes" American military forces in South Korea and the U.S., according to The Rodong Sinmun, official newspaper of North Korea's Workers' Party.
In South Korea, War Hysteria Is Seen as an American Problem
So far, however, my stay here has overlapped with the greatest contrast of all: the sharp difference between American and South Korean coverage of North Korea’s nuclear and missile program and the huge perception gap about the situation by US and South Korean citizens.
Shortly before I flew from Washington, DC, to Seoul, a US Navy aircraft-carrier group led by the USS Carl Vinson was ordered to move toward Korean waters. Immediately, the US media started broadcasting dire reports about the possibility of US pre-emptive strikes from these ships on the North’s military facilities. With CNN available on most cable systems here, the alarming news spread far and wide.
The reports were fueled by a steady flow of threatening tweets from President Trump and dire predictions and warnings from his cabinet (led by the oafish secretary of state, Rex Tillerson). Their pronouncements were reinforced by the hawkish and frequently unhinged Korea “experts” who dominate cable television.
For the most part, the US media have been split between lurid speculation about what such a war might look like and gleeful guesswork about whether Trump will send SEAL Team 6 assassination squads to take out Kim Jong-un, the North’s boyish, 33-year-old dictator.
Observers with deep understanding of Korean affairs, such as John Delury, a professor at Seoul’s Yonsei University who recently mapped out a sensible plan for diplomacy with the North in The New York Times, are rarely consulted. And, as is usual with coverage of North Korea, most American reporting lacks any historical context, includes virtually no Korean voices, and is almost universally in favor of the confrontational approach adopted by both Trump and his predecessor, Barack Obama.
As the historian Bruce Cumings pointed out in The Nation last month, the American press assiduously avoids any mention of the horror inflicted on the North by US warplanes during the Korean War, as well as the long history of US military provocations on the peninsula. (His article should be required reading for anybody seeking to understand Kim’s motives; perhaps Chris Hayes, a Nation editor at large, would consider inviting Cumings on his MSNBC show, All In with Chris Hayes, to counter the inflammatory, one-sided discussions on his network.)
Sadly, though, NBC has been the source for the most abysmal stories. On April 13, the network, citing “multiple senior US intelligence officials,” proclaimed that Trump was “prepared to launch a preemptive strike with conventional weapons against North Korea should officials become convinced that North Korea is about to follow through with a nuclear weapons test.”
But the story was widely rebuked as reckless and without foundation. According to South Korea’s Hankyoreh, “reporters covering the South Korean Ministry of National Defense for other US news outlets unanimously dismissed the report as false. South Korean foreign affairs sources bluntly called the report ‘a canard.’” The story was so outlandish that the Trump administration itself was forced to repudiate it, with a National Security Council spokesperson telling ABC the story was “way wrong.”
1. pacify or placate (someone) by acceding to their demands.
2. relieve or satisfy (a demand or a feeling).
antonyms: provoke, inflame
originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
The sky is falling!
The sky os falling!
At least chicken little was original at one time.
It said North Korea was ready to respond to what it called US hostility with nuclear weapons. The announcement is likely to raise tensions significantly.
In response to the comments, Ms Bishop said Pyongyang's threat "underlines the need for the regime to abandon its illegal nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs".
"These present a grave threat to its neighbours, and if left unchecked, to the broader region including Australia," she said.
The High Costs of a Deal
Any agreement that North Korea would be likely to consider minimally acceptable would come at huge cost to the United States and its allies. North Korea would be likely to require:
■ A tacit acknowledgment of the country’s right to retain its existing programs.
■ A declaration that the United States considered the North Korean government legitimate and would not seek to topple it.
■ The lifting of sanctions.
■ The withdrawal or reduction of the American military commitment to South Korea.
Any partial or full American withdrawal would risk sending the American relationship with South Korea and Japan into crisis, empowering North Korea and weakening American influence in Asia.
If the standoff in North Korea becomes something much worse, Trump won't be able to say he wasn’t warned. As the Obama administration handed the White House keys over to the Trump team, the president told his successor that North Korea would be America’s top national security threat. And as predicted, things are headed south, with both Washington and Pyongyang now threatening “preemptive” strikes.
From drug traf cking to counterfeiting, from money laundering to cigarette smuggling, North Korea’s Central Committee Bureau 39 is an active participant in the criminal economy of the region with tentacles extending well beyond Asia. The authors discuss how these activities have negative strategic consequences for a number of stakeholders and nations throughout the region while describing how such activities provide critical funding streams for military programs and regime supporters.
As a result, North Korea is not just a “rogue state,” but practices what is essentially criminal sovereignty whereby it organizes its illegitimate activities behind the shield of non-intervention while using the tools of the state to perpetrate these schemes abroad. The authors argue that this arrangement has important links to succession issues within the regime. They also argue that policy makers who are concerned with the development of future policies and strategies aimed toward North Korea must view those new policies from a different perspective than that used in the past.
Hear me, fellow outsiders / purveyors of sanity, the battle to take down the Two Party System must begin now. We have a few years until the next election. If you think waiting until the last year, and then complaining about how the "third" parties have no chance, then they wont. And this isn't about what we're told is "conservatism", or "liberalism", it's about cutting out all the insanity. We all know what it all looks like, from both sides now. We seen it all after 8 years of Bush, and 8 years of Obama.
The stakes have never been higher. Over the next couple decades the very survival of our species is at stake, and the Two party System its as if its hell bent on ensuring our total destruction. We're in the brave new world now, and its time to step up against these psychopathic dinosaurs of tyranny.