Comments by "Awesome Avenger" (@awesomeavenger2810) on "BBC News"
channel.
-
250
-
161
-
151
-
109
-
106
-
103
-
84
-
78
-
74
-
62
-
57
-
56
-
51
-
51
-
48
-
47
-
42
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
35
-
35
-
33
-
33
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
North Korea regularly attacks and threatens its neighbours. This includes sinking south Korean warships, shelling inside South Korea, firing missiles into Japanese airspace, kidnapping foreign citizens, all while threatening nuclear obliteration at least once every 4 months. So where does this strange idea that North Korea fears for its survival come from?
It is more likely that North Korea wants everyone to believe that it fears being attacked. After all, it regularly holds military war games of its own. And if the South demanded it stop, would regard that as an unacceptable attack on its national sovereignty. It wants nukes and the ability to threaten, blackmail, and intimidate its neighbours, because it wants aid and credit. And that's the only way it can get it.
So the very last thing the North Korean regime wants is to be left alone to mind its own business. Because it wouldn't survive. It needs aid from the South, Japan, the US, China, and the rest of the world. And the only way to get that is through blackmail.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Before the western invasion of Afghanistan, the Red Cross predicted hundreds of thousands of Afghan's would flee the country. In reality, once the Taliban were removed from power, hundreds of thousands of Afghans actually returned to Afghanistan.
'After the removal of the Taliban regime in late 2001, over 5 million Afghans were repatriated through the UNHCR from Pakistan and Iran to Afghanistan. Hundreds of thousands of Afghans began returning to Afghanistan in recent years. According to the United Nations, by the end of 2016 about 600,000 documented and undocumented Afghans were repatriated from Pakistan. According to the IOM, the return of undocumented Afghan refugees from Pakistan in 2016 were more than twice the number of 2015, increased by 108 per cent from 2015 (around 248,054 versus 119,279). The remaining registered Afghan refugees in Pakistan numbers around 1.3 million. In the same year, UNHCR reported that 951,142 Afghans were living in Iran. Most of them were born and raised in Pakistan and Iran in the last three and a half decades but are still considered citizens of Afghanistan' - Wiki
Cynicism about western involvement might be popular amongst some in the west, but the Afghans are voting with their feet!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
She has no intention of fixing the world. She would run a mile if anyone came up to her and said ''Ok, Jennifer, we have a slight problem with North Korea, any ideas?'' Because it's always easier to make vacuous statements about shit you know fuk all about when you're not the one who takes the blame if it all goes wrong.
Let's all not pay taxes when the person we voted for doesn't get elected! (hysterical screech of agreement from loud harpy in audience). Let's work with the vastly wealthy Hollywood elites, basking in their fame in the hope some of it might rub off on us, then when someone is finally brave enough to blow the whistle on them, let's all get up and scramble over to the opposite side of the room and act like we had absolutely nothing to do with the accused! And let's be as loud and self-righteous about it as we possibly can, pretend like we have always led the charge, and hope no one will notice our vast hypocrisy!
Let's swan in and take the kudos of being honorary ambassador for a large charity. Then, when it's made public that some of its workers may have abused their position, lets drop it like a ton of hot lead! Fuk all the good its done and can still do! Can't have that effecting my public image! (Let's hope the poor saps that actually do all the charity work don't all walk out too tho, cos that would be a real fukin disaster!).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
agitbeats I think we all know that Russian second world war history is different to everyone else's. It has to be. Otherwise Russia comes across as no better than Nazi Germany. Which is true.
The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact divided Poland between Russia and Nazi Germany. That is a historical fact. Stalin and Hitler agreed in advance which part of Poland would be Russian, and which parts German.
The Polish border forces in the east put up a defence against the Russian invasion. But as most of the Polish army were fighting in the west against the Germans, it was a case of little more than 20,000 Polish fighting a Russian invasion force made up of 7 armies (anything over half a million men). The day after the Soviet invasion started, the Polish government crossed into Romania.
By Russia's own accounts, they suffered 737 deaths and 1,862 casualties during the joint invasion of Poland. On the Polish side, 3,000–7,000 soldiers died fighting the Red Army, with 230,000–450,000 taken prisoner. That last figure is important, because if this was not a Russian invasion, why did the Russians take prisoners of war?
And as we know, the Russians killed tens of thousands of Polish prisoners of war. On 24 September, the Soviets killed 42 staff and patients of a Polish military hospital in the village of Grabowiec, near Zamosc. The Russians also executed all the Polish officers they captured after the Battle of Szack, on 28 September 1939. And, of course, over 20,000 Polish military personnel and civilians were murdered by the Russians in the Katyn massacre.
In fact, so brutal and savage were the Russian NKVD, that even the Gestapo were shocked. And many Polish, including Jews, fled into German occupied Poland to escape the Russians. During the two years following the annexation, the Russians arrested approximately 100,000 Polish citizens. And the number of Polish deported to Siberia amounted to (Russia's own figures) anything from 320,000 to 1 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD_prisoner_massacres
By the way, Russia wasn't expelled from the League of Nations over its invasion of Poland, because it wasn't a member. It had already been expelled from the League due to its invasion of Finland. And while it is true that the Polish Government did not declare war on the invading Russians (how could they, as the Polish government ceased to exist a day after the Russian invasion?), the Russians didn't declare war on Poland either. Yet they still invaded Poland.
3
-
Britain and France didn't annex half of Czechoslovakia though, did they? They attempted to avoid war. While Russia allied with the nazis and annexed half of Poland. A large part of Finland. And the Baltics.
And yes, you are correct. Russia didn't go to war against the tyrant Saddam Hussein. It didn't support getting rid of the tyrant Gaddafi. And it doesn't support getting rid of the mass murdering tyrant Assad.
Instead, it supports the mass murdering tyrant Assad. And illegally invades and annexes territory from its democratic neighbours Georgia and Ukraine.
In fact, Russia has always been an enemy of democracy. Which is why Russia doesn't have one single democratic ally in the whole of the western world. Instead, its forced to hang out with Iran, Assad, North Korea, and, when Beijing cares to notice it, China.
You'd think Russians of all people would learn from history. But apparently not.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Russia is intent on destroying Ukraine. Not the west. Russia has already annexed Ukrainian territory, and is waging a small war in the east of that country. It is Russians killing Ukrainians on Ukrainian soil. Not the west.
We know this, because in their report on the shooting down of flight MH17, the JIT (Joint Investigation Team - made up of the Netherlands, Belgium, Ukraine, Australia, and Malaysia) found Russia guilty of supplying and operating the very same BUK missile that shot the plane down (since then, Russia has vetoed a UN tribunal to prosecute those responsible).
Figures for Ukrainian refuges fleeing into Russia are given by the Russian government. The same Russian government that continues to lie about its actions in eastern Ukraine (and the same regime that attempted to assassinate Yushchenko). So like everything that comes out of the kremlin, those figures are worthless.
Putin gave Ukraine a choice. Either the west. Or Moscow. Unfortunately for Putin, they chose the west. After all, who in their right mind would want to end up like Russia?.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
''On 28 September 2016, the Dutch led JIT (Joint Investigation Team) gave a press conference in which it confirmed that the aircraft was shot down with a 9M38 Buk missile which it concluded had been fired from a rebel-controlled field near Pervomaisky, a town 6 km (3.7 mi) south of Snizhne.''
''It also found the Buk missile system used had been transported from Russia into Ukraine on the day of the crash, and then back into Russia after the crash, with one missile less than it arrived with. The JIT said they had identified 100 people, witnesses as well as suspects, who were involved in the movement of the Buk launcher, though they had not yet identified a clear chain of command to assess culpability, which was a matter for ongoing investigation.''
''The Dutch chief prosecutor said "the evidence must stand before a court" which would render final judgement. During the investigation, the JIT interviewed 200 witnesses, collected half a million photos and videos and analysed 150,000 intercepted phone calls''
-This is basically a copy paste from Wikipedia. But it has plenty of references.
I might just point out that MH17 was flying high enough to be safe from all but the most sophisticated anti-aircraft systems. But as Russian had, and still does, continually lie about its arming and supplying of separatists in the area, no one was to know the danger.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Tiger Eye Are you seriously telling me that dialogue with terrorists involves being their friends, honouring their sacrifice, holding respectful silences in memory of dead terrorists, attending their meetings, celebrating their victories, and receiving awards from them in return for your support?
If that is the case, if you are going to stretch plausible deniability to that degree, then how will you ever be able to condemn others who support political violence and murder? Or those who support far less? How about the BMP? Or the EDL? Are we to take their denials of racism as seriously? What about Tommy Robinson? Can you now judge him?
No. Of course you can't. Not now. The Left's hypocrisy and double standards are a fuckin disgrace. Perhaps you might want to educate yourself on Corbyn's past? Perhaps you might like to take a look at the type of filth he mixes with in the 'Stop the War Coalition'? And then see if you can find anyone in the BNP or the EDL or England First (or whatever the fuck they're called) that comes anywhere near the level of viciousness and bigotry of those Corbyn supports. Let alone anyone in Ukip or the tories.
If political violence is acceptable for one, then it is acceptable for all. And you have no argument against that. Because every lie you've ignored, and every time you've wilfully turned a blind eye to reality, will be mirrored by your opponents. You won't be able to shame them, because you yourself are as guilty.
As for your other question, I have repeatedly told you I have nothing against Khan. But as for his family links to Islamic extremism, go look it up.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
***** Stalin killed more Russians before the war than Hitler did during it. The estimate is around 20 million. Although it could easily be double that.
The gulags were nothing like normal prisons. They were a feature of Tsarist Russia, but were massively expanded by Stalin. As well as holding political prisoners, the gulag concentration camps were home to whole sections of society that were considered enemies of the state. Such as the Kulak peasant class who had most to lose from communist collectivisation. And whole ethnic populations were deported on mass to gulag concentration camps from the Balkans and other 'liberated' countries after the war. Never to be seen again. About 14 million people were in Russia's concentration camp system from 1929 to 1953.
As for your list, I notice you have included such places as France (1941-1945). Along with other European nations the US helped liberate from nazi Germany. It seems you have done the same as regards to the first world war. So clearly your list does not take into account the historical context of any of the countries mentioned.
I wonder how large Russia's list would be using the same criteria? You would most certainly have to include any country Russia fought against during world war one and two as you have in your US list. But of course, unlike the US, the Russians never liberated anyone after the war. They simply added Russian occupied Europe to their Soviet Empire.
And as has been already pointed out, Russia has a far longer history than the US. So any list of countries invaded and occupied by Russia would be vastly larger. And would naturally include any country Russia has ever gone to war with. Along with modern day Syria, Ukraine, Germany, Georgia, and many others. As well as any other country where slightly more than a handful of Russian solders happen to be stationed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Elis D Do I think Russia's involvement in the Spanish civil war is the same as the US and UK's involvement in the Russian civil war? Well, no. In Russia, the US and UK were fighting Lenin and the spread of a genocidal ideology. In Spain, Stalin (a genocidal tyrant) was fighting another tyrant (Franco). And when all is said and done, Stalin was far worse than any fascist in Spain.
So, yeah. It was different. But then that still doesn't answer my question. What right did Russia have to involve itself in Spain?
And clearly you don't know much about the Russian revolution. By their own words, the Bolsheviks were revolutionaries. Therefore, by your definition of the Whites, the Bolsheviks weren't the legal government in Russia.
And your accusation was that the west helped the nazis. But as we know, France and Britain declared war on nazi Germany. And the Battle of Britain was going on while Russian was still allied to nazi Germany. Part of the Hitler/Stalin pact was that Russia would provide Germany with war materials. Which they did. Right up until the German invasion of Russia! In fact, the German's actually found whole train carriages of materials waiting to be sent to Germany when they crossed the border!
So we have Russia helping Germany to avoid the restrictions placed on them by the Treaty of Versailles. Helping the German's to rearm. The Hitler/Stalin alliance against Poland. The Dividing up of Eastern Europe between nazi Germany and Russia. The supply of war materials to nazi Germany from Russia. And, of course, some 1,400 German scientists and engineers sent off to Russia to assist in the organization of Russian missile production and design (rising to 3,500 including their families).
And again, you clearly don't know your Russian History if you believe that the soviets 'never acted like the nazis'. In occupied Poland, for example, the Russians impressed even the gestapo with their brutality. And just ask anyone from the Baltics about the savagery of the Russian occupiers. They will be more than happy to tell you all about it. As I believe its is part of their school curriculum. And I'm pretty sure you have heard of Stalin's genocides in countries like Ukraine (they certainly remember it, even if Russia has forgotten).
And France, Britain, and the US had no such military alliance with Germany. Certainly nothing like the Soviet/Nazi pact. So I have no idea what you are talking about there. But blaming the west for Russia's alliance with Hitler is just so typical of the pathetic bullcrap Russia makes up in order to absolve itself from it own actions. Like allying with nazi Germany was the next logical step to take if Russia couldn't ally with the west!
''...About Finland, they supported Hitler and had german bases on its territory long before ww2 started.'' Rather like Russia then? And seeing as Germany hadn't yet attacked Russia, and that Russia in any case went on to ally with Nazi Germany, what excuse was there for Russia to invade Finland? Your logic is confused and makes no sense.
''...As we saw, soviets were right, finnish government were nazi collaborators'' Rather like the Russian government. Who, as we know, willingly allied with the nazis. Russia collaborated with the nazis. Out of choice. The Finish allied with the nazis, because they wanted the land back that Russia had annexed.
Everything you have said about Russia's ww2 history matches exactly what every Russian is taught. From the blaming of the west for Russia's alliance with Nazi Germany, to the denial of the vast genocides carried out under Stalin. All bullshit lies. Because if there are no second world war heroes in Germany, then there are none in Russia either.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Again, you are simply repeating old soviet propaganda designed to avoid the truth of Russia's war guilt. Russia didn't need to invade Poland to defend itself against Germany. That's just ridiculous.
The US didn't supply Iraqi with chemical weapons. In fact, as the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute study shows, the Soviet Union and her satellites were the main suppliers of arms to Iraq. It's the reason why Saddam's forces drove T72 tanks, flew Mig aircraft, and fired off Russian made Scud missiles into Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRI_Arms_Transfers_Database,_Iraq_1973%E2%80%931990
The Gaddafi regime had appalling human rights. And to be honest, plenty of countries have a higher standard of living than Russia. Including, now that they are free from Russian influence, much of eastern Europe. And many people attempted to convince Gaddafi to step down. But he ignored them and war followed. Luckily, unlike in Syria (where Russia still props up its puppet Assad), Libya missed out on six years of all out war.
And let me guess, Russia never invaded Ukraine and Georgia, just like it never invaded Poland, right?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Before Russia's invasion of Ukraine, there were no NATO bases in the Baltic countries. None. The US was winding down in Europe. The fact is, those unfortunate enough to share a border with Russia want NATO membership. And Russia's aggression towards Ukraine, and before that Georgia, and before that Moldova prove the wisdom of NATO membership for countries like Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.
Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, there are now NATO bases in the Baltics. Because their governments have requested them. Putin's own actions have strengthened NATO and isolated Russia.
Ukraine is a sovereign country. It is not a buffer state. Like Russia, it can join any alliance it likes. It can join NATO or the EU depending on whether those organisations accept it as a member. Even Putin himself considered joining NATO. But did China invade Russia? Did Ukraine invade Russia?
Take a look at Russia's isolation. It's closest allies are Belarus, Assad in Syria, and Iran. What does that tell you?
Your 'analysis' that the US, EU, and Russia are all equally to blame is a copout. It says nothing about Ukraine. Or about what Ukrainians want. It simply plays it safe. I'm sure you will get good marks.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@steele_heart77 He released information stolen from the US that put those working alongside US forces in Afghanistan at risk. When asked by the Guardian about this, he replied ''If they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."
He also handed stolen US diplomatic cables about Belarusian dissidents over to one of his colleagues, a guy called Israel Shamir. Who then handed the information over to Alexander Lukashenko's (president of Belarus) chief of staff, Vladimir Makei. And as I'm sure you know, Belarus has an appalling human rights record.
Assange has a very odd view of the world. Meaning that he is more than willing to play useful idiot to any regime that is basically anti-western - No matter the cost to genuine human rights campaigners around the world.
He likes to claim that US and western aid to such people is somehow tainted, simply because it comes from the west (while at the same time he himself has no problems working for Putin's propaganda channel RT). In other words, he is making out that western aid in the promotion of liberal democracy, free speech, and human rights is worthless and of no value - Something that real human rights campaigners in countries like Afghanistan and Belarus would strongly disagree with.
You can't be a campaigner for free speech and the promotion of human rights while remaining neutral on such things. And yes, there are some things that western governments do need to keep secret.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It must be remembered that it wasn't South Korea or the US that started the Korean war. That would be down to the North Korean regime put in place by Stalin. The war was itself instigated by Stalin. And remember, South Korea is a successful democracy. Whereas North Korea is a third-world communist shithole. So clearly, it would have been in the interests of the unfortunate North Koreans for the Americans and their UN allies to have won the war the North Korean leadership started, and to have driven the Chinese out of Korea completely. Sadly for North Koreans, that did not happen.
The North Korean's have never been interested in normalising relations with the US or South Korea. To do so would fatally undermine the North Korean regime. As the threat of US invasion is vital to the regime's hold on power. While in reality 30,000 US troops based in the South are no threat at all.
Funnily enough, the biggest threat to the North Korean regime comes not for the US, but from China. Pyongyang fears regime change from Beijing far more than from Washington. And if there is a coup in Pyongyang, it will be down to the Chinese. And they will have to act, if the Kim regime becomes too much of a liability.
Korea is unfortunate in that it has China as a neighbour. The North Korean regime exists because it is not in the interests of the Chinese and Russians to have a unified and democratic Korea. The Chinese regime has little interests in the rights and freedoms of its own people, so is unlikely to care too much for the rights and freedoms of the Korean people.
North Korea wants nuclear weapons because the survival of the regime depends on it. They themselves withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty they had signed up to. Because the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) required North Korea to allow inspections of its nuclear research facilities. As the US was paying North Korea in aid as part of that agreement, the North Korean regime was breaking the terms of the agreement. Not the US.
In other words, it was the North Korean regime that refused to KEEP IT'S PROMISES.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
''London Labour MP has sparked outrage by saying IRA terrorists should be "honoured" for taking part in their "armed struggle".
John McDonnell, member for Hayes and Harlington, made his remarks at a gathering in London to commemorate the IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands, according to the Sun.
The MP praised the "bravery" of the IRA, whose "bombs and bullets" had resulted, he said, in the peace process in Northern Ireland. His remarks have been condemned by politicians and the family of one of the IRA's victims. Mr McDonnell told the meeting: "It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle.''
"It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table." Bobby Sands, 29, starved himself to death in prison more than 20 years ago.
Mr McDonnell told the Sun the deaths of innocent civilians was a "tragedy" but it was "as a result of British occupation in Ireland".
Following the reported comments Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble said Mr McDonnell's remarks were worse than anything the suspended Labour MP George Galloway had said about Iraq.
"Mr McDonnell's remarks about the IRA, apart from being completely wrong, are crass, insensitive and an insult to the thousands of British people, police and servicemen who have been murdered, maimed or bereaved by the actions of these terrorists," he said.
The Upper Bann MP added: "He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately."
'Grossly insulting' Democratic Unionist MP Nigel Dodds and Ulster Unionist MP Jeffrey Donaldson also condemned the MP's comments. The father of one of the IRA's victims said his views were "grossly insulting".
Colin Parry's son Tim was killed at the age of 13 in the 1993 Warrington bomb which also killed a three-year-old boy. "I find them (the comments) incredible. On a personal level, they were grossly insulting and insensitive", he told BBC Radio Merseyside. "His political point is utter nonsense. The man is crass beyond belief. 'Praising murderers' "For him to think my son's death was justified in political terms is about the greatest disservice he could do to my son and my family."
A Labour Party spokesman said Mr McDonnell's views did not represent the party's views. "The Labour Party unreservedly condemns all atrocities perpetrated by the IRA and other paramilitaries." Shadow Northern Ireland secretary Quentin Davies said: "It's almost unbelievable that an MP should heap praise on those who have murdered our fellow citizens."
Mr McDonnell's constituency includes Heathrow Airport, which was the target of IRA mortar attacks nine years ago. He is also the chairman of the socialist Campaign Group of MPs and a member of the all-party Irish in Britain group in Parliament.''
-BBC 30th May 2003
I will provide the link below...
1
-
1
-
1
-
+schumiisking Did I say McDonnell supports terrorism in general? I don't know if he supported Unionist terror groups as well, but he did support the IRA. He supported their brave 'sacrifice'.
And Bobby Sands was not an activist. He was a terrorist.
''Upon his release, he [Bobby Sands] returned to his family home in West Belfast, and resumed his active role in the Provisional IRA. Sands and Joe McDonnell planned the October 1976 bombing of the Balmoral Furniture Company in Dunmurry. The showroom was destroyed but as the IRA men left the scene there was a gun battle with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Leaving behind two wounded, Seamus Martin and Gabriel Corbett, the remaining four (Sands, McDonnell, Seamus Finucane, and Sean Lavery) tried to escape by car, but were arrested. One of the revolvers used in the attack was found in the car. In 1977 the four were sentenced to 14 years for possession of the revolver. They were not charged with explosive offences.''
-Wikipedia
Bobby Sands the 'activist'? That's 'activism' is it? Let's just hope others don't follow the lead.
As to your desperately laughable question, 'where is the proof that he supports terrorism?' You read it there.
“It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA.”
The IRA are to be honoured for stopping their terrorist attacks. The fact that anyone would ask such a question says everything you need to know about the Labour party under Corbyn.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rspsand07 Firstly, the official language of Ukraine is and has always been, of course, Ukrainian. Just as the official language in France is French. In Germany its German. And so on. What do you expect the official language of Ukraine to be? Samoan?
Secondly, Ukraine has never had a law on the official status of the Russian language Ukraine recognizes 18 minority languages as “regional” languages: Russian, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Armenian, Gagauzian, Yiddish, Crimean Tatar, Moldovan, German, Greek, Polish, Romani, Romanian, Slovak, Hungarian, Ruthenian, Karaite, and Krymchak. And none of that has changed.
I can understand a civil war breaking out because of the murderous actions of a brutal dictatorship like, say, the Assad regime in Syria. But a civil war over a ban that never happened of a law that never existed?
Obviously the 'civil war' in Ukraine is nothing but yet more Kremlin lies and propaganda. Which is why the Ukrainians keep capturing Russian soldiers. Which is why we all see those prisoner exchanges between Ukraine and Moscow!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Much like a German neo-nazi would deny the crimes of nazi Germany, I would expect nothing more from a Russian nationalist Putin supporter than to deny the crimes of soviet Russia. And Russia has indeed invaded modern day Georgia and Ukraine. Once again, only nationalist Russians continue to deny this truth.
I included Germany in my very short list for the very same reasons you included it in your list. Or did you just cut and paste without reading it? I included modern day Syria for the same reasons you include Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
''...Not even to mention that Russia has never practiced Western style of taking other countries as "colonies" to suck dry their wealth policy,''
It most certainly has. During the Tsarist Empire, Russia expanded east and south into the Caucasus at the expense of the Persian Empire. In Crimea, for example, the Russians deported pretty much the entire ethnic Crimean Tatar population. Don't you know Russian history?
''...in fact Russia has always heavily invested in the territories it has gained trough conflicts that were usually started by the West AGAINST Russia.''
I guess you should try convincing the entirety of Eastern Europe of that. As many countries are yet to recover from Russian soviet occupation.
''...Oh and Russians never liberated anyone? Not even from Ottoman rule? Or even from under Nazi occupation? You must have something wrong in your head then.''
No. The Russians never liberated anyone in Eastern Europe after the war. They simply carried on doing what they did before the war. They annexed whole countries to their soviet empire. It was basically just one genocidal tyrant taking over from another.
''...meanwhile USA has only increased its colonial hold on Eastern Europe trough NATO''
Eastern Europe is now part of the democratic world. They are members of NATO by choice. The only way you can claim they are 'colonised' by the US is to deny that they are democratic. Which is seen as an insult by a great many Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, etc.
Up until recently, there were very few US troops based in Eastern Europe. Just a couple of training bases in Bulgaria and Rumania. This has changed since Russia's invasion and occupation of Ukraine. And a force of some 4,000 NATO troops are to be sent to Poland. This is hardly surprising given Poland's history with Russia.
As for 'Russophobia'. This comment thread started off about Putin and his fake elections. But as always, Russian's have to turn everything into a rant against the US. You all seem completely obsessed by the US. Just like the North Koreans. And we all know what North Korea is like, don't we?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trident is a submarine based weapons system. There is always at least 1 sub somewhere under the sea. The very minimum required is a fleet of three vessels. This is so that if one or two is in need of repair, there is always one out on patrol.
There always needs to be at least one out on patrol. Because in the event of a nuclear attack it would be too late to launch a sub. Not only that, but if during heightened tensions with a possible enemy it were known that nuclear armed subs were being sent out, it would heighten tensions all the more.
The subs constantly monitor news and current events so they know what's going on. There is a set of procedures that the crew will go through in the event that the UK has been hit. One, I believe, is to check if BBC Radio 4 is still broadcasting. But its obviously far more than just that.
In the event of a nuclear attack on the UK, the subs captain goes to a safe in his cabin. Opening the safe he will find the launch codes and a letter written by the prime minister. When a new prime minister is elected, this is one of the very first things he or she must do.
What the letter says is never divulged. Only the prime minister knows what is says. And when a prime minister leaves office, it is destroyed without being read. The letter will be the prime ministers last instructions on what to do in the event of a nuclear attack on the UK.
It might say launch a retaliatory attack. It might say don't launch a retaliatory attack. Or it might say go to the nearest friendly port and put your vessel under the command of an allied power. Pretty sobering stuff.
But then the defence of 60 million people isn't to be taken lightly in a world were less friendly nations are also armed with nuclear weapons. The idea of a nuclear deterrent is not to be used. But to deter. If an enemy nation thinks that there is a good chance that if they launch a nuclear attack on the UK, then the UK will respond with a nuclear attack of its own (regardless of the UK no longer existing), it makes a nuclear attack on the UK far less likely. So trident does it's job just by being there.
Obviously, if the UK didn't strike back, then the rest of the world would be faced with how best to deal with an aggressor nation that launched a first strike and got away with it. Having already launched a first strike, it would be likely that those countries closest to it would very quickly capitulate.
What other nuclear armed countries like the US or France would do is anyone's guess. But if the UK failed to act in its own defence it might possibly be the case that no one else would act in the UK's defence either. If they did launch a retaliatory attack in defence of the UK, well, then most likely they too would be targeted. So you have three nuclear attacks instead of two. What the world would look like after that idk.
If you are prime minister, these are things you actually have to think about. Like I said, one of the very first things a new prime minister does is to sit down and write that letter. So those questions are important. But the only use of a nuclear deterrent is that it deters. It doesn't deter if you tell everyone you would never use it. So, in the event you know for sure you would never use it. And you put that in writing to the captain. What is stopping you from lying and saying you would?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Once Russia has managed to crawl its way out of the eighteenth century. And has free media, open and fair elections, basic human rights, freedom of speech, and an independent judiciary, then it might have something to say worth hearing.
I can think of no open free democracy that see's Russia as a friend or ally. And Russia most certainly has nothing to offer when it comes to advice on the middle east. Its disastrous war in Afghanistan destabilised the region for decades. And if the only answer to the problems of the Arab spring is more blood drenched Assad dictatorship, then that clearly hasn't worked. As Russia's war in Syria has gone on for six years, and despite continued promises from Putin, carries on.
Sputnik and RT are spreading false information and lies. That's what the kremlin set them up to do. The exact same people (the KGB) who kept Russian's on their knees behind their iron curtain are telling them the exact same lies as they did before. And you call the west brainwashed?
We can criticizes our governments. We can vote them out of power. Its the reason why the EU, and the west in general, has absolutely nothing like the vast level of corruption as there is in Russia. Tell me who will win Russia's upcoming elections? I think we both know, don't we? And yeah, you'll tell me about Putin's popularity ratings, but isn't 90% popularity the mark of any self respecting tyrant? After all, everyone loved Gaddafi, didn't they? And Kim Jong-un has very high popularity ratings too. And Stalin was loved by all.
I guess its all down to a free media. And what the people get to hear about what those in power get up to. Which is why Russian media is a joke. A bad joke. Macron was 100% correct. Sputnik and RT are nothing but worthless kremlin propaganda peddling lies and conspiracies.
1
-
Foujiz It worked in Tunisia. But what is your alternative? For Putin to cling on to his puppet in Syria, and for the war to go on for another six years? Your dictatorship hasn't worked, has it? The instability you are so afraid of happens anyway. Because dictatorships are inherently unstable. Because if people can't peacefully remove unpopular governments, then they have no alternative but violence.
You judge everyone else by the failures of Russia. The USSR might have fallen only 26 years ago, but eastern Europe, who suffered under soviet Russian occupation for just as long manages to make democracy work. Why can't Russia? Are the Russian people somehow incapable of deciding who should govern them? In which case, what possible interest should the west have in listening to their advice?
And if I don't think the BBC or the Times is truthful, or I think they are too left wing or too right wing, I can watch Sky, Fox, CNN, or read the Guardian. What can you do in Russia if you don't like the bias? Who dares criticize the KGB guy in the kremlin? Sputnik? RT? And did the BBC or the Times or CNN or Sky spread lies and conspiracies about Macron? The worth of any free media is that it can criticize those in power. And that is not something that the west needs a lesson in from Putin or the kremlin!
Western leaders are as corrupt as Putin? If that were true then we would be no better off than Russia. You judge everyone by the low standards of the kremlin. But what did the kremlin tell you about US elections? That Clinton (the 'establishment') would win. Because the US isn't really a democracy and the 'establishment' always win? But she didn't win, did she? Can the Russian's get rid of their establishment?
One of the reasons why dictators like Putin have to lie about democracies, is because they don't want their people to think that there is any such thing a real democracy. Its all a sham! Its all fake! And Putin does that because if there's no such thing as democracy, there's no point in people demanding it!
So the dictator (Putin) sells a lie to his own people. And gets to stay in power for as long as he likes. And he steals from the Russian people and RT and Sputnik cover for him. Russia now exports only gas and cynicism. Same shit the KGB drummed into their people during the soviet days. And they continue to believe it! And you call westerners brainwashed?!
As for your stronkman Putin, you say he doesn't let others tell him what to do. That is true. The Russian people least of all can tell him what to do. But after all the chest thumping and strutting about the world stage, where has that got Russia?
Thanks to Putin, Russia is now despised by its closest neighbours. Take a look at Ukraine. If you know anything about Russian/Ukrainian history, you will know how close they were. And yet Putin's invasion of Ukraine has turned the Ukrainians into bitter enemies. Ukraine is now banning Russian media, because, just like in the west, Putin is spreading his filth and lies against them.
You only have to take look at the comments on any news item on Ukraine to see the hatred that the kremlin has unleashed on the Ukrainians. Putin did that. Everyone can see it. And the result is that Ukraine has completely turned its back on Russia. All because Putin believed that, like the Syrians, the Ukrainians should only have what Russia has. A vastly corrupt and brutal dictatorship.
And the result is that Putin has isolated Russia even more. Revitalised NATO. And brought sanctions onto Russia. By the standards of any normal country, that would be classed as a massive failure of foreign policy. But because Russia is different, because it has lower standards, its seen as a success.
So perhaps Russian's shouldn't be quite so quick to give advice to the west after all?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Once again, that is not what racism is at all. Racism is and has always been part of the human condition. It is based on the fear of the 'other'. It is a way of thinking that is common to all peoples. And not some Marxist bullshit conspiracy theory dreamt up in order to make political capital out of a negative trait.
What research would you suggest I do? Take a course in the humanities, perhaps? Fear of the unknown is a survival mechanism, that has largely been made redundant in the western world. But it still persists. For your crackpot political theory (and it is a political theory) to make any sense, you would have to ignore the fact that privilege exists in all cultures, even in the most homogenous of cultures, and always has and always will, without the need for Marxist oppression politics. Racism also exists in the most homogenous of societies. Therefore, neither of these are particular to white cultures.
Furthermore, racist views are held by individuals, not power structures. Individuals are responsible for their actions and words, not the system, or the 'privileged'. Essentially, your theory abdicates personal responsibility for an individuals thoughts and behaviour onto others. And because this is a Marxist-driven theory, that responsibility is laid at the feet of the more successful in society.
Your theory is basically scapegoating. You know what scapegoating is, yes? It's an old Jewish ritual where the sins of a community were cast out onto a goat. And that goat was then sent off into the wilderness. Basically, an act of abdicating responsibility for your sins onto something (or someone) else.
So best rethink your worthless parroted theory. Because it might sound pretty cool in an echo chamber, but anyone with half a brain can see it for what it is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Obviously we accept that, as a fan of the lunatic Icke, you naturally believe you have special knowledge that the vast majority of humanity hasn't yet woken up to. You can connect the dots where everyone else is blind. You were brave enough to take the 'red pill'. While most prefer to just sit and watch x factor.
All this gives you a sense of (unearned) superiority. Of being 'special'. It gives you a sense of self worth. Something you would no doubt otherwise lack. Like Icke, evidence or actual knowledge of any particular subject isn't necessary. You can just make shit up to suit whatever particular prejudice you have. In fact, as you practically said yourself, knowledge itself is to be considered suspect. And those that are prepared to work for it, really only have nothing at all.
But that special consciousness comes at a price for you. Everywhere you see death, conspiracy and corruption, and the wilful stupidity of those around you. That special knowledge is a burden that you carry for the good of others. Although the fact that your martyrdom goes unrecognised makes you angry, bitter, and cynical.
The upside of this is that you get to blame 'them' for all your failures. If you are not a success, it is because of a vast worldwide conspiracy that keeps people such as yourself at the bottom of the pile. One that goes back hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years. And involves all-powerful forces. Against that, you have no chance. Which is very convenient for you. As it allows you to see yourself not as you are, but as a rebel. Like Neo in the Matrix. With his red pill.
I applaud your bravery. The future of humanity rests upon your shoulders. And despite the mockery and ridicule you receive, you're figuratively up there on that cross suffering for all of us. Bravo!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
''Because international observers and even America agreed that North Korea was keeping their end of the treaty they signed with America.''
Once again, the North Korean regime broke the non proliferation treaty way back in 1993 by its refusal to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to verify North Korean claims that it was sticking to the treaty. Who these 'international observers' you refer to are, I don't know. But are you saying that they claimed the IAEA was lying when it said North Korea was refusing entry into North Korean nuclear facilities?
The 1994 Agreed Framework between the US and North Korea was signed in, not surprisingly, 1994. The continued references you make in regard to a 1998 hearing are in relation to the 1994 Agreed Framework agreement, NOT North Korea's breaking of the nuclear non proliferation treaty in 1993.
''Sure in 1993 they broke a treaty but they DID stick to the treaties that followed.'' No they didn't. As I told you, the 1994 Agreed Framework eventually collapsed when it was discovered that North Korea had, in violation of the agreement, developed an undisclosed uranium-enrichment program with the aid of Pakistan.
North Korea break the treaties, because it is in their interests to do so. They can and have worked on nuclear development while blackmailing aid from other states.
Sure, the US has supported brutal regimes in the past. The Soviet Union was a good example. But it did so in order to defeat what was considered to be a worse threat: Nazi Germany. Likewise, the US and the west in general supported some very brutal regimes during the cold war, against what was considered then the greater threat: The Soviet Union.
If you think foreign policy will ever be anything other than hypocritical in a world filled with regimes like Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China, Pakistan, etc, you are very naive. But to use that as an excuse to claim that somehow the North Korean regime is being unfairly treated by the US is not just naive, but nihilistic to the point of being suicidal.
If all you said was true, and the US was treating the Kim regime unfairly, I would still support the US. Because the North Korean regime is every bit as bad as they say. You might not like the idea of the Saddam regime, or the Gaddafi regime, or the Assad regime being toppled from power, but I do. And I hope one day the same will happen to the Kim regime.
1
-
Nonofya Bidnez Unfortunately for your argument, it was you who claimed 'This could have all been avoided by actually KEEPING YOUR PROMISES.'
So now that we have seen that it was North Korea and not the US that failed to keep their promises, that is suddenly not the case?
No doubt if Japan was regularly threatening nuclear obliteration against the US and its allies, as North Korea does, the US would still see Japan as an enemy. South Korea is a successful democratic state that really doesn't deserve the continued threats of the Kim regime against it. Not after that same Kim regime unleashed the horrors of the Korean war against it.
The one article you are obsessing over is simply an opinion piece. It focuses on a 1998 hearing into the 1994 Agreed Framework between the US and North Korea. But the agreement didn't fall apart until 2002. Tell me, do you expect a 1998 hearing to hear evidence from four years into the future?
In fact, that piece completely fails to mention that North Korea was, in its illicit uranium-enrichment program, breaking the terms of the agreement. Which is why the agreement collapsed. The hearing was in 1998. North Korea's uranium-enrichment program wasn't known about until sometime in 2007.
As for the Clinton administration 'unhelpfully persisting' in labelling North Korea a rogue state (as the piece complains), that is exactly what North Korea was and is. They refuse to recognise South Korea's right to exist, or its right to self defence. Which is why, obviously, they kick up such a stink over South Korean military exercises, but see their own military exercises as a sovereign right not up for negotiation.
As for your claim that ''if they [the US] had spent a few million dollars per year(20-30 I read) they could have most likely prevented North Korea from developing nuclear capabilities'', you might like to know that between 1995 and 2008 (which neatly covers the time period in question), the United States provided North Korea with over $1.3 billion in assistance: slightly more than 50% for food aid and about 40% for energy assistance.
fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40095.pdf
1
-
1
-
''...In the 1998 hearing they talked about how the oil shipments were constantly late and how this was an issue. They talked about how they weren't doing anything about the 2 light water reactors that should be completed by 2003. So it was VERY clear that the US had no intent on keeping up their end''
The 1994 Agreed Framework included the construction of two light-water nuclear reactors and the provision of 500,000 metric tons of heavy fuel oil annually while the reactors were being built. The shipments of fuel oil were to happen on an action for action basis, as North Korea made progress on denuclearization.
The fuel shipments were delivered in a start-and-stop manner, slowed primarily by disagreements between Pyongyang and Washington over how and whether to verify North Korea’s nuclear disablement, and over whether the United States would remove North Korea from its State Sponsors of Terrorism list.
In October 2002, KEDO board members decided to halt fuel oil shipments following a dispute over North Korea’s secret uranium enrichment program. In December, North Korea expelled inspectors from its Yongbyon nuclear site, withdrew from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), and resumed operations at Yongbyon. Clearly then, the agreement did indeed collapse because of North Korea's secret uranium enrichment program.
But between 1995 and 2003, the United States had delivered over $400 million in heavy fuel oil. Hardly evidence that the US had no intention of honouring its commitments.
''...Conveniently forgetting that America has war time control over the South Korean army. What about countries that don't recognize Israel or Palestine or any other country for that matter? Are they also all rogue states?''
Why is it relevant that the US would have wartime control over the South Korean army? Are you claiming that is a legitimate reason for North Korea's continued aggression towards South Korea? Should North Korea have a say in South Korea's defence policy in the event of North Korea invading South Korea again?
And surely, if North Korea wants normalised relations with South Korea and a peace treaty, wouldn't recognising South Korea's right to exist be vital in order for that to happen? After all, you can't have normal relations with a country you don't acknowledge exists, can you?
"The Agreed Framework requires North Korea to accept full IAEA safeguards when “a significant portion of the LWR project is completed”—a milestone that is approximately three years away. Under those safeguards, Pyongyang must declare the existence of any nuclear facilities and allow the IAEA to inspect them."
This is the reason why the 1994 Agreed Framework collapsed. Because North Korea had failed to declare the existence of its secret uranium enrichment program. As your own link details ''...North Korean First Vice Foreign Minister Kang Suk Ju admitted that Pyongyang has a uranium-enrichment program during October 3-5 meetings with a U.S. delegation''
"A North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said October 25 that past U.S. actions had already invalidated the Agreed Framework, citing reactor construction delays, U.S. economic sanctions, and U.S. threats of pre-emptive attack against North Korea, according to the state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA)."
In other words, North Korea had been found out and in a piss poor attempt at damage control, they claimed the US had already invalidated the agreement. Only apparently North Korea hadn't told anyone that, and were of course still signed up to the agreement. And still accepting US aid in accordance with the agreement they said was invalid.
''So under the agreed upon framework NK actually only had to let IAEA inspect stuff when the light water reactors were well on their way.''
No. The agreement was that North Korea had to dismantle its nuclear facilities once the two light-water nuclear reactors were completed. Until then, North Korea had to abide by the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Which meant full discloser of all nuclear programs and access for IAEA inspection teams.
But they broke the agreement they signed up to. If only they had KEPT THEIR PROMISES!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1) So, if Putin just slaps a few weak sanctions onto Turkey after they just downed a plane that, remember, according to Putin, wasn't even flying in Turkish airspace, what makes you think he will start world war 3 over Trump striking at Assad's chemical weapons airbases again? He didn't last time.
2) Libya is fractured and chaotic. But compared to the disaster that is Syria, it is in a far better position. As we know, there has been over six years of all out war in Syria, with large areas under the control of ISIS. Think that is better?
3) Why would Russia investigate an attempted assassination in the UK? It has no legal authority to do so. Just as the UK has no legal authority to investigate similar murders in Russia (and there have been many).
We know that Assad has launched numerous chemical attacks against enemy held areas. We know that Russia has backed and supported him in this. We know Russia covers it up in the UN. And we know that each time the excuse has been the same: 'Why would Assad do this if he is winning?' That same excuse has been repeated for years. And as we know, Russia is not only prepared to support Assad's use of chemical weapons in Syria, but it's also prepared to use them in the west. As the Skripal case shows.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Percentage wise, Russia has a much larger Muslim population than the EU and the US. If you're worried about muslims that much (because you watch kremlin funded fake news like RT, Sputnik, Southern Front, etc) what is KGB colonel Putin doing about that?
And if your answer to 'liberalism' in the west is to side with an enemy dictator that during his invasion of a neighbouring country (Ukraine) put his nuclear arsenal on standby (aimed at guess who!), who funds both the far right and the far left in Europe, funds and supports separatism in not only the UK (they were all over the Scottish ref) but in Spain, the US, and other western countries, and regularly sends his nuclear bombers to buzz our airspace (as well as launching cyber attacks against us), then that makes you a traitor. And not a patriot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I would disagree. The North Korean regime invests a lot of effort into appearing to be irrational and therefore unpredictable. Because no one wants to have to deal with such a country. But they are anything but. They have whole departments working long term on foreign policy, in ways that no western democracy ever could.
The regime's stated aim is to bring about a united Korea under North Korean leadership. Whether the majority of the elite believe this is actually possible is unlikely. But the first step towards that goal is to drive the US out of South Korea. And to undermine South Korean sovereignty in regards to its defence. Which is why they complain so bitterly whenever the South carry out military manoeuvres (it stands to reason that North Korea sees its own war games as not up for discussion).
What North Korea wants is the US out. And a compliant and defenceless South too cowed into submission even to dare mobilise its forces on its own territory. The continued threats and attacks against the south (North Korea has shelled the South and sunk its warships in the past) are all part of the effort to wear down its opponents.
But if you look at what they are doing, they have gone no further than every other time they have threatened nuclear obliteration. And they have done many times before. The fact that so many people seem able to forget what happened only a few years back is pretty incredible. Do they all have goldfish memories?
If the North Korean regime fails in these aims, then at least they can expect to blackmail concessions in the form of more aid from China, the US, and the South. But they have no interest in a war they know they have no hope of winning. The North Korean elite are not insane. Their only problem is how to make their latest threat of nuclear obliteration sound more plausible than every other such threat that preceded it.
The answer to the problem, in my opinion, is China. China sees North Korea as a vital buffer state between it and the western friendly democratic South. But if North Korea were to become a nuclear state, then how long before the South follows? And what about Japan? A nuclear armed South Korea and Japan would be a catastrophe for China. As, just as the US (a superpower) fears a nuclear armed North Korea, China (also a superpower) fears the same about Japan and the South.
So how far are the Chinese willing to go to keep their buffer state? And does it matter to China who leads it? I would say the Kim regime is only useful to them up until he becomes a liability. And I think Kim is aware of this. Not so long ago he executed his uncle and mentor for perhaps being too close to the Chinese? So it's very likely he fears regime change coming from China, far more than he does from the US.
1
-
Absolutely China would have no problems with devastating North Korea if it achieved their aims. After all, they support the Kim regime, and short of full scale war and the devastation that would follow, you can't get much worse than that in relation to North Korea.
However, if there were conflict in Korea, the North would lose. Unless, of course, China stepped in again, as they did during the Korean war. Which would be counterproductive to playing North Korea off against the US. If that is China's aim. In other words, they would lose their buffer state. And have the US right on their borders. And the only way for them to stop that from happening would be for China to go to war.
As for China's economy surpassing the US, that is wildly overhyped. China has huge problems ahead of it. Their economic reforms have lifted many of their people out of poverty, but they have a rapidly aging population and they are heading for a massive pension crises.
That's not to say China isn't a threat. But there has been a cost to China in building artificial islands. And that is in its relations with its near neighbours. With even the Vietnamese moving closer to the US as a result. And like I said, if North Korea armed itself with the bomb, then could China be sure the South and Japan wouldn't soon follow? What good would their artificial Islands be then?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1