Why must we constantly antagonize North Korea?

[Hugabear]

It seems to be a constant pattern. The US and South Korea conduct military drills that piss off North Korea, they react angrily, we conduct more drills, and so on.

We'd be pretty pissed off as well if Russia or China had thousands of troops based in Mexico, and were constantly conducting large-scale war games near the border and right off the California coast. We'd be even more pissed off if Russia few nuclear bombers right off our coast.

Not only that, but NK has repeatedly asked for a peace treaty, which we refuse to do. They've also asked for unilateral talks with the US, which Bush refused and Obama seems to be continuing that refusal.

Doesn't really excuse the temper tantrums and threats coming from NK, but it's not exactly as if we're not doing anything that might provoke such angry reactions. The real problem is that our continuing military drills may wind up pushing an untested Kim Jong-Un into a corner, where he feels that he has to take some sort of military action just to save face with his military. This time around, there's a very good chance of retaliation by South Korea, which could quickly escalate out of control.

Instead of backing away from the situation and letting things cool off, it just seems like we're ratcheting up the pressure. Why?

[DJ13]

1. Why?

The MIC needs a threat to continue sucking on the public tit.

[demosincebirth]

2. Whats new? it's been tit for tat for 60 years.

[randome]

3. I agree. Let's swallow our pride and negotiate with them.

It's the best thing for the North Korean people.

[TwilightGardener]

14. The best thing for us is if they stop developing things for orbit that have the potential

to end us--which they have declared as their intent. Or selling/sharing nuke parts and technology to places like Iran.

[mainer]

24. 'cause we already have those goodies and we don't want anyone else to have them

so we can nuke them first.

[southernyankeebelle]

57. It would be nice to sit down and have a conversation if they only would come to the table.

Goodness you have to want to agree. These exercises go on all over the world. It's not that they are hiding them behind NK's back.

[kestrel91316]

4. NK doesn't want to play nice with ANYBODY. They have been

hostile and aggressive for decades. THEY started the Korean War.

I have exactly ZERO sympathy for them. It's time to end that war by kicking their nasty little megalomaniac asses clear into next week.

[talkingmime]

54. Exactly. And think about it. N. Korea has even pissed off China - THEIR ONLY ALLY!

[datasuspect]

5. it's like the captain of the high school football team

antagonizing a developmentally disabled student in a wheelchair.

[napoleon_in_rags]

6. I think theres a lot of MIC people who just live in an alternative reality.

Their big objectives have nothing to do with the actual threats of moderns times: conflicts caused by resource depletion, economic woes creating displacement, marginalisation, and radicalisation, etc... All with real world brick and mortar problems. They think they are in an epic war against communism, as if NK is about to take over the world. Its deeply out of touch, lost in the 1960's. I think the idea to facilitate military overspending in NK to crash their economy, with too little attention paid to our own.

Not all are like this. I was impressed by seeing Lockheed Martin's new patent, for super cheap ocean water desalination:
http://www.earthtechling.com/2013/03/lockheed-patents-graphene-water-desalination-filter/
It means they have their eyes on the real 21st century issues, like clean drinking water, not defeating 20th century issues. Of course people will fight if they can't drink. Might a solution be winning hearts and minds with $0.10 a gallon clean drinking water, rather than shooting million dollar missiles at them?

Its rare to be up to date with the times though.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Excuse me...NK is just the innocent

Never done a thing, poor victim here...

Like they did not sink a SK naval vessel, try to kill the PM or use a civilian location for artillery practice.

For that matter, we told them to test missiles and nukes.

[alphafemale]

11. nooooo. We need to send them cookies. Then they won't be so angry.

Where do people come up with this shit?

It is almost like listening to a battered spouse.

It's my fault. I know what makes him angry.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. It's the US is at the heart of all problems in the world.

Mirror image of the US can do no wrong school of though.

Both are fantasies.

[alphafemale]

27. Doesn't matter what you do. Some people/regimes will still want to kill you.

Some people don't seem to grasp that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Yup

Nor can they accept that as much as I would prefer full disarmament, this is Pollyanna thinking.

[randome]

19. Have we ever tried the cookie option?

NK is pathetic.

[mainer]

23. Nope. It's all been pretty much the Cuba option.

Starve them and wait until they see the light and love us.

[alphafemale]

32. We're starving them? They seem to be able to afford lots military toys.

Entire country is like a cult. Actually believing things like Dear Leader hits 18 holes in one the first time he plays golf, breaks world swimming record and pisses rainbows.

[alphafemale]

36. They wouldn't know what to do with a cookie.

Yes they are starving....well not Kim...obviously.

But that is the fault of the leadership. Not ours.

[Starry Messenger]

8. What (arguably) socialist country have we *not* antagonized ever?

If NK were a capitalist country, there'd be summits and hand-holding.

[pnwmom]

9. Do you remember how the Korean war started?

And the new leader seems at least as bad as the old one. How do you have rational negotiations with someone who's unhinged?

[mainer]

10. Kim Jong Un has only been in office a little over a year

He is trying to project leadership and strength to his country. If we push him into a corner and humiliate him, he has only one way to respond, and that's to be MORE belligerent. This escalates everything.

Why can't we use a little psychology here? Don't push the kid into a corner. Don't try to humiliate him. Give him a route to saving face and allow him the option of de-escalating tensions?

For decades, we've been doing the same damn thing, and it's worked as well as it did with Castro in Cuba.

[Scuba]

25. +1

[TwilightGardener]

13. Idiotic. We're not going to stop our business of annual training with S Korea

because NK tells us to--we're there to DEFEND South Korea, as we have been for half a century (and also for strategic position RE China, of course). That's not "antagonism", they are the aggressors. We're also not going to ignore them when they test nuclear weapons and then tell us they mean to annihilate us. We do need to warn them that they'd better not pull any stunts with their new kid--that's what we're doing. They have needed ZERO provocation in the past to strike. They'll get a peace treaty when they stop being nucking futz and join the world.

[mainer]

15. WE'RE now bringing nuclear-capable B-2 bombers to their arena

According to this site, NK is reacting to our unprecedented injection of nuclear arms into the game.

"North Korea’s leader said Friday that his rocket forces are ready “to settle accounts with the U.S.,” an escalation of the country’s bellicose rhetoric and a direct response to the unprecedented announcement that U.S. nuclear-capable B-2 bombers had joined military drills with South Korea."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/28/war-games-north-korea-orders-rocket-prep-after-u-s-deploys-b-2-stealth-bombers-over-south-korea/

Think about it. Nuclear bombs coming within striking distance of Miami. Wouldn't we freak out as well?

[TwilightGardener]

16. I think many of our planes are nuke-capable. But then, NK is nuke-capable.

They might not have an ICBM that can hit CONUS...yet...but they're getting close. It's hilarious to act like we're threatening nukes when...they have vowed to nuke us. They might actually be able to hit closer targets. The threat is real, no one here seems to believe that. We are responding--in fact, we're sending a warning with those B-52's and B-2's, along with the flights just being a part of training in SK. They'd better heed that warning, and so must China. There's also the fact that there might be intelligence that the US is concerned about. All I know is, we're not playing games and fucking around. This is serious.

[mainer]

22. Are they flying their jets off Florida?

Are they?

We are flying nuclear-capable jets within sight of their borders. That's going to freak out any country.

[TwilightGardener]

26. I assume we've been flying fighters and bombers over SK since the 50's cease-fire.

Haven't used them yet, that I know of. We are on patrol for SK, in case NK starts the war up again--why we've been there all these years. We give them food aid and money. If we had really wanted to take them out, we would have done it, and they know it. We didn't suddenly show up on their doorstep last week. All we did was reveal our flights (AFTER the fact, of course) to let them know we hear their threats. They know the annual exercises are their time to raise their little fists in the air. But provocation, I think, would be something like flying into their airspace, or moving our missiles or ships or whatever around in new offensive, threatening ways (like sailing into their waters). Showing our assets and capabilities, in an exercise, is how countries try to DETER war, not start it.

[mainer]

30. So it's OK to be a bully in their airspace

because we've always been a bully in their airspace, and that's our justification.

[TwilightGardener]

31. We're not in their airspace. Why are you getting that idea?

[mainer]

35. Have you looked at how close NK is to SK?

And how many minutes it would take for us to be in their airspace?

Just imagine a NK jet that close to our airspace. Does that seem, oh, I don't know ...

a little threatening?

[TwilightGardener]

38. ?? If you're saying we can't even fly our planes over SK--who allows us to, and who we are

obligated by treaty to help defend...then what should we do there? March in parades?

[alphafemale]

41. We must withdraw all our protection from SK...obviously.

It is making an unstable, untested leader feel....owiiie.

Oh...the poor insane thing.

[alphafemale]

39. omg

Yeah. I think we sorta kinda know a bit of geography and history.

Did you really just type that?

Is NC also really close to SC?

Was East Berlin close to West Berlin?

Please. We beg of you from your wisdom to know.

[mainer]

40. I was being sarcastic about NK/SK

because it appears some people here think that our nuclear-capable jets flying over SK are, oh, nowhere near NK.

But sarcasm seems to be lost on some people.

[TwilightGardener]

43. The whole point of flying the planes there is so NK doesn't start shit.

You don't seem to understand this.

[mainer]

44. But our flying planes there is turning into a pretext for THEIR hostility

Don't you see this is a downward spiral that must be broken?

[TwilightGardener]

49. No--they expect us to fly our planes there. Because we have troops there. And fighter jets there.

And we've certainly flown bombers there before. Probably every year. We have B-52's in the Pacific, fairly close at hand. NK doesn't need a pretext for hostility--they have gotten far more leniency than they deserve from the world community.

[alphafemale]

45. We are pledged to defend SK. They want us there. Vapor trailing all over their airspace.

They are free awesome people. They deserve our protection.

[mainer]

48. We will defend SK. But why do we have to rattle NK's cage

and provoke them?

what happened to speak softly and carry a big stick? We've forgotten the "Speak softly" part of it.

[TwilightGardener]

51. If responding to NK's threats against us and SK is "rattling their cage" (by conducting our

annual exercises--which they FULL WELL EXPECT--and publicizing some flights), then we've got no way to warn them not to fuck with us or SK. Speak softly and carry a big stick--did that prevent them from sinking a SK ship? Firing on an island? They know we have big sticks. It hasn't stopped them in the past. We really don't want war--we are kindly trying to let them know not to try anything ever again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Who exactly threatened to nuke who?

[treestar]

47. We did.

The Cuban Missile Crisis. We did freak out, I believe.

And now the world is smaller, and a small country with nukes run by a crazy, full of crazies who think in a paranoid way we are after them - they could hit us from there, that's the whole point.

[babylonsister]

33. Thank you. Nucking futz is right. nt

[malaise]

17. Because that is what imperial bullies do

and then blame the person under threat

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. In this case the US and SK have had plenty of opportunities to resume

Hostilities over the decades. The most recent was the sinking of a SK navy ship and the artillery bombardment of civilians in 2010. They did not.

The tension was very high, this time around it is even higher. So no, this time I will not take the US is rushing to war...because this time the US is not.

[malaise]

56. I didn't suggest that the US is heading for war

That will not happen

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. The problem is blaming the US and imperialism

There is china and imperialism, and Russia and imperialism.

Truly no knights in shining armor here.

I am betting the Beijing Pyongyang telephone line is flying right now.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. While I agree with chilling a bit, I believe your analysis is flawed

The military provocation is mostly from the NK side. They sunk a ship and shelled an occupied island.

NK refuses talks with SK, who should be first at the table, not the US. The US is correct to reject direct talks for that reason alone.

The reality is there is a well armed state that is angry due to its own failures and whose people are starving. That is a bad thing. The new leadership is insecure and needs to make its mark. That makes it worse. Nobody is giving it much in aid these days, including its former patrons. Add it all together and its deadly situation waiting to happen.

NK will implode soon enough. The question is will they attack others in the process. For that reason I would favor giving them some ill deserved slack, but little more.

[Marrah_G]

28. The leader of North Korea is not the victim here

He is a monster.

I understand what you are saying to a point, but Kim Jung Un doesn't need any pushing to prove he is nuts.

[tech3149]

34. For the same reason we antagonize Cuba, Venezuela and Iran

They all went against the financial interest of companies that were based in this country. You could include Haiti, most of South America, Mexico, Philippines, and on and on.
ANYONE who opposes the imperial interest of whatever the current powers that be will be taken to task and have a boot on their neck.
Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran are no threat to this nation on any level but financially. Even that aspect is questionable because they do not present an existential harm, but a harm to certain financial interests of those who wish to profit from their resources.

Look back at the history of Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran. We've had extremely difficult relationships with all and we NEVER, EVER since the beginning of those disputes did anything to restore diplomatic relations. We have done everything to isolate them and cripple their economies without regard to the harm done to the average citizen or their economy. That is collective retribution. It affects all associated even when they have no control over decisions made by their "leadership". Oh, and by the way , it's against UN agreements which put us not very far behind Israel in not adhering to UN sanctions or regulations.

I could go on for a few hours, but think you get the message.

[Cleita]

37. I don't know. I was in shock when Shrubby provoked them, especially after the Clinton

administration through a lot of diplomacy got them to stand down and stop producing the means of making nukes. I don't know why this administration isn't doing the same.

[treestar]

42. They want a peace treaty?

If they do, it's with conditions that we could never agree to. They are the isolated crazies who starve their people. They are the ones with grandiose dreams, tons of propaganda, and an imaginary world in which their Dear Leader is the greatest thing to walk the earth.

The US may be big and bad, but we have a right to side with SK and SK has a right to defend itself, with allies for help.

[mainer]

46. Of course we will defend SK. But we have to chill things down

by not giving NK any reasons to feel we are threatening their sovereignty.

[Generic Brad]

64. They will feel threatened regardless of what we do

I am confused as to why you are defending NK. Shouldn't they be making an effort to play nice in the sandbox to or is that only the responsibility of the USA and SK?

Just because the whole country of NK is delusional does not mean the rest of the world has to give them a free pass on their aggression. If they attack anyone, the world needs to respond in no uncertain terms in a way that demonstrates such bad behavior will not be tolerated on the world stage. They can keep their delusions. They just need to curb their aggression.

[Demo_Chris]

50. Respectfully, you clearly do not understand the situation n/t

[Historic NY]

52. Exactly , the war never ended its been a ceasefire.......

if the North wanted to settle this they would have come to the table long ago. They have totally isolated their people and pump all their resources into the procreation of military related industries. Their people starve, while the army is reasonably fed. Un is flexing his muscle but he could also be risking it all because of his stupidity. It a game of cat and mouse but NK stands to be the biggest loser.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/26/world/asia/north-korea-threats-timeline

[Demo_Chris]

58. That, and you really have to understand how the people live and what they believe n/t

[rightsideout]

53. NK seems to be the one doing the saber rattling lately

I think the new guy is just feeling things out to see how close he can get to the line and see what response he gets.

[cbrer]

55. "We're" not antagonizing anybody

Our "leaders", bought and paid for by the MIC, are pushing this Imperialistic agenda.

[99Forever]

59. Gotsta feed them Warpigs.

~~~~Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh lord yeah!~~~

BLACK SABBATH - WAR PIGS

[PDJane]

61. The US is planning to be the last man standing.

Whether that will do them any good or not after they've polluted the whole planet and collapsed the government is another story.

[ZRT2209]

62. Are you speaking of Dennis Rodman?

[Zax2me]

63. President Obama knows what he's doing.

He's got this.

[TimberValley]

65. If you think we're the ones doing the antagonizing,

then I don't think you really know modern Korean or East Asian history.