Trump’s dangerous militarism on Korea, Afghanistan


This video from the USA says about itself:

Forget Russia. Is Provoking a Nuclear War with North Korea Grounds for Impeachment?

9 August 2017

Tension between the U.S. and North Korea escalated sharply Tuesday after President Trump suggested he was prepared to start a nuclear war, threatening to unleash “fire and fury” against North Korea. Hours later, North Korea threatened to strike the U.S. territory of Guam in the western Pacific. Guam is home to 163,000 people as well as major U.S. military bases. For more, we speak with longtime investigative journalist Allan Nairn.

A transcript of this video is here.

This video from the USA says about itself:

Why Is U.S. Threatening War with North Korea Instead of Pushing for Negotiations?

10 August 2017

The war of words between the U.S. and North Korea continues to intensify, with North Korea threatening to strike the U.S. territory of Guam, while Defense Secretary General Mattis warned North Korea’s actions could result in the “destruction of its people.” This came after Trump vowed to strike at North Korea with “fire and fury.” … We speak with journalist Tim Shorrock, who recently returned from South Korea.

See also here.

We Need a Mass Movement to Prevent Nuclear Conflict in the Korean Peninsula: here.

TRUMP DOUBLES DOWN ON NORTH KOREA THREATS President Donald Trump argued Thursday that his “fire and fury” comments may have not been tough enough. Over 60 members of Congress have condemned the president’s statements in a letter sent to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

In the midst of high tensions on the Korean Peninsula, the US is provocatively proceeding with joint military exercises with South Korea, involving tens of thousands of troops and aimed at training and preparing for war with North Korea: here.

Blackwater Founder Erik Prince Urges Trump to Privatize Afghan War and Install Viceroy to Run Nation: here.

The US Military’s Bloody “Successes”: Training Foreign Militaries to Start Coups: here.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Trump’s dangerous militarism on Korea, Afghanistan

  1. Pingback: Donald Trump’s military invasion of Venezuela? | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  2. Pingback: Guam poet against Trump’s nuclear warmongering | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  3. Tuesday 15th August 2017

    posted by Morning Star in Features

    Most coverage on North Korea ignores the savagery directed at its people by US forces during the Korean war

    SINCE the genocide inflicted on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 (an indescribably evil message to Japan, the world and very specifically to the Soviet Union that US military power should not be messed with), the risk that nuclear weapons may be reemployed has not gone away.

    Might they be used to make a wasteland of North Korea, a country with a population of 25 million, yet possessing the third largest army in the world (1.3m, not much smaller than that of the US), and a country which has been refused recognition by Washington since 1948 and the subject of sanctions since 1950?

    US President Donald Trump’s belligerent message on August 8 to the Pyongyang government of Kim Jong Un that “any more threats” to the US will be met by “fire and fury like the world has never seen” must make us hugely conscious of the risk of nuclear catastrophe.

    It could engulf the planet, if we take into account that China (itself a rival to US dominance) is an ally of North Korea and may stand behind it when the chips are down.

    There is, according to our TV channels and both popular and pompous mainstream newspapers, only one side to the argument.

    “The president,” said the Sun last Thursday, “is reacting only to (the real villain) Kim Jong Un’s menacing missile tests and deranged threats to nuke [the US].”

    But is there a real possibility that the North Korean regime would do just that? Even the Sun’s little editorial goes on to say it strongly doubts that Kim would use his nukes. “Attacking [the United States] is suicide.”

    The risk of a pre-emptive nuclear strike on another country by North Korea has been weighed many times in the West over the last 25 years.

    In an honest, if careless, moment, former US president Bill Clinton declared in July 1993: “It is pointless for [North Korea] to develop nuclear weapons. Because if they ever use them it would be the end of their country.”

    But the aggressor could be the US. Cheerleader for Western imperialism, war and Trump, the historian of a sort Niall Ferguson wrote in the Sunday Times on July 9: “Military action is always risky… The right question is whether or not the risk of inaction would be greater. Three presidents in succession decided that it would not be — and here we are. Is Donald Trump capable of breaking the sequence? I’d say so.”

    In the standard media presentation, the real history is not just distorted: it is a blank sheet of paper. North Korea is a communist prison of a state led by a mad dictator and that is all you need to know.

    The undeniable fact that the country was completely devastated from the air by US military force in the war between June 1950 and 1953 — the destruction in Britain’s war-time Blitz was minimal in comparison — does not merit a mention.

    Passing over the detail of how the UN security council made the Korean War UN-sponsored through the absence of the Soviet Union from the debate, the US was always the driver in the conflict (in which British troops participated).

    Before the end of the first year, as historian Gabriel Kolko informs us in his book Century of War, there were few military targets left, but that did not stop the bombing of civilians — or the wholesale use of napalm, which incinerated whole villages at a stroke. Much of the surviving population lived underground.

    In June 1952 more than 90 per cent of the country’s electric power was taken out, and on May 13 1953 attacks against dams and dykes protecting the rice fields began.

    The war became an attack on the staple food of the population of which vast quantities were lost through the water weapon. Confirmation was thus given, as Kolko wrote, that the US was capable of any war crime. A ceasefire agreement was signed on July 27. No peace treaty followed.

    The fuller history should not be overlooked. Historian William Blum’s Killing Hope carries a full summary and the books of US professor Bruce Cumings — whose London Review of Books article in May this year informs this article — are a valuable source.

    Korea as a whole was occupied by militarist, expansionist Japan from 1910 until 1945. Japan was not faced with armed revolutionary nationalist resistance from the Korean people until 1932 (when Japan established Chinese Manchuria next door as a puppet state), but armed resistance continued for the next 13 years. One of its leaders was Kim Il Sung, grandfather of Kim Jong Un. The Japanese occupiers, for their part, relied heavily on Korean quislings.

    In the summer of 1945 Soviet soldiers entered the northern part of the peninsula.

    On August 10 US secretary of state Dean Rusk and a colleague decided to split Korea into north/south zones, choosing the 38th parallel, and three weeks later 25,000 US soldiers entered the south.

    A military government was set up in the south, relying on those who had been officers in the Japanese army of occupation. Japan, of course, swiftly became a US ally.

    The US-backed military government in South Korea lasted until 1948. During those years, and until 1950 and beyond, in the South hundreds of thousands of leftists or suspected leftists were eliminated.

    The received version is that the North attacked South Korea on June 25 1950. That is true, but this followed a series of border incursions from the South and repeated threats of invasion of the North.

    The war soon became a war against China too after its border territory was bombed and its air space violated.

    Given that the Korean war has never been formally concluded, save by armistice, and that the US has maintained a stance of angry hostility towards North Korea ever since, is it so surprising that the country’s government has a siege mentality, and a good deal of internal support?

    But its “extreme defence” strategy, which is based on repeatedly demonstrating and improving its ability to retaliate offensively against enemy attack, is potentially enormously dangerous.

    Though its current ability to fire nuclear-armed missiles is in doubt, it is not short of solid-fuel-using mediumrange missiles with a range that includes South Korea, Japan, and the US bases in Okinawa and Guam.

    Suppose a single “testing” missile went astray, hitting any of these targets?

    Agreed it must be that North Korea’s first and second tests of an intercontinental ballistic missile over the past few weeks should trouble all of us, as should its many missile tests over the past six years.

    But that does not mean that North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons is in itself more inherently dangerous than that of the United States, with its long history of unilateral aggression against other countries it regards as challenging its entitlement to access markets and world military dominance.

    In the Guardian on August 10 the South Korean managing editor of Korea Exposé Kang Hae Ryun explained that information available in the South about the North is limited, and expressing sympathy with the North can result in imprisonment.

    She also wrote that most South Koreans still want unification, and that she and many others wept when teams from both sides walked hand-in-hand in the opening ceremony of the Sydney Olympics in 2000.

    The US pioneered siting nuclear missiles in the South as far back as 1958 and currently has 28,000 troops based there.

    A peaceful solution is not only possible but vital.

    Following the first ICBM test in early July, a joint statement from Russia and China rationally called for de-escalation: for the North to suspend its missile programme and for the US and South Korea to suspend military exercises, clearing the way for serious talks.

    The US mission to conquer the world’s markets through bombs and bullets (and nuclear weapons if necessary), which includes predatory hostility to the North Korean regime, however unideal are its internal policies, must be halted.

    These are fearful times.

    http://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-f3f0-This-nuclear-has-roots-in-the-US#.WZMIj1FpwdU

  4. Pingback: British Theresa May Trump’s poodle, even after Charlottesville | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  5. Pingback: Donald Trump’s defense of racists, reactions to it, Bannon out | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  6. Wanna do something interesting? Pick up a newspaper from two weeks ago, and read it. Just two weeks later, it’s long enough to see who was ennobled by events, and who was beclowned.

    When North Korea sprung into the news, we saw, once again, that President Trump always takes the bait. The rulers of North Korea wanted Trump to threaten fire and brimstone, because that would help them to rationalize their nuclear weapons program. And Trump fell for it — as Alan Grayson observed, at the time, on national TV:

    ED SCHULTZ: Anti-war activists gathered in front of the White House today to protest President Trump’s increasingly belligerent rhetoric towards North Korea, and urged for negotiation instead of escalating tensions and risking nuclear confrontation. For more on this we are joined tonight by former Florida Congressman Alan Grayson. Alan, it’s nice to have you with us tonight. Let’s consider the fact of what the President has said, and does he really does mean it? Let’s take him at his word. Does the President have to go get congressional authority to do a hit on North Korea? No one seems to be talking about that. Does he have the authority to do this?

    ALAN GRAYSON: No. He’s the Commander-in-Chief, but Congress has the authority to declare war. In his case he doesn’t seem to understand the basic principles of the Constitution. There is a madman on the loose with nuclear weapons, and in addition to that, Kim Jong-Un has them. That madman is our President. I don’t think the President would think twice about using nuclear weapons against North Korea for the sake of denuclearizing or trying to denuclearize North Korea. But what he doesn’t seem to understand is that he’s playing with other people’s lives. What we should be talking about is the possibility that an attack — probably a chemical warfare attack — from North Korea would kill between 3 and 5 million South Koreans in the course of less than a day. Now, that’s the case. What are we going to do to try to prevent that? The question is [not only] whether they’re going to lob missiles that are going to miss Guam. The question is if we attack North Korea, what will they do in response? And that [question]‘s something that seems absent from our so-called diplomacy and from our so-called saber-rattling “rational” thoughts.

    ED SCHULTZ: So North Korea now says tonight, “no more talking.” They don’t believe that they can negotiate with Donald Trump. So how do we defuse this? How does the world community defuse this?

    ALAN GRAYSON: Well, I’ll tell you, you don’t defuse it by putting out a statement that could have been written by North Korea. [Trump]s such a patsy; he’s such a fool. North Korea literally could have written the statement that Donald Trump made, and it wouldn’t have been any different. They want us to be saber-rattling against them. That is their raison d’être. That is their only raison d’être for the past 50 years: the idea that the United States is going to attack and occupy North Korea. And he got suckered right into it.

    ED SCHULTZ: All right, I guess I’m maybe too much of a purist here when it comes to negotiation, but I’m a little miffed at congressional reaction. Why are they so passive? Why? Why are there no press conferences? Why are congressional leaders not speaking up right now, I mean? And I’ll harken back to the days of Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone. If they were still in the well of the Senate they’d be on the Senate floor tonight, calling for rhyme and reason as to what the heck this President is saying and just how [counterproductive] threatening North Korea is. But the chamber is silent. What’s your take on that?

    ALAN GRAYSON: Well, they’re out of session, so therefore they’re bored and detached and not doing anything useful. That’s what happens when Congress is out of session. But the fact is that this is a problem without any easy solutions. This one requires active thought, and therefore Congressmen shy away from it. [What’s] more important: that [there is] the possibility of nuclear war, [or] Senators having a vacation or holding a town hall [meeting]? I mean, it would seem to me that there [ought to] be a sense of urgency amongst our lawmakers to get back into Washington and figure out what the next step is going to be, or [at least] to be reassured that there’s not going to be mutual destruction here. But no. There’s been a conspiracy involving both parties that goes back generations of this country to relinquish the hard decisions to the President, including decisions of war and peace. It’s unfortunate, [because] it’s not what the Constitution anticipated at all. It’s not the way a rational country runs itself — not with one man with his finger on The Button, playing with it.

    ED SCHULTZ: Alan Grayson, always a pleasure. It’s good to have you with us tonight. Thank you, thank you, for your candid opinion.

    What did the North Korea crisis teach us? It’s simple: Hey, hey, ho, ho, Donald Trump has got to go.

    Please contribute here to our continuing campaign for justice, equality and peace >>

    Courage,

    Alan Grayson

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s