Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Trump and North Korea


Recommended Posts

you trump haters are scared that trump will meet the NK threat head on...and solve it!

 

proving that all this bs about diplomacy from the democrats since the vietnam era was just a cowardly lack of resolve and basic human courage.

 

I bet most of who you refer to as "trump-haters" don't really hate Trump at all. They simply realize that he's not a good man to have in charge with a situation like this and this shouldn't be hard to understand by .... anybody.

 

Personal anathema for any one person is much less important than being alive and hopefully staying that way.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a difference between "standing up to a bully" and using deliberately inflammatory, nuclear holocaust implying rhetoric that could backfire at the expense of millions of lives in South Korea, Guam and Japan, not to mention those living in North Korea.

 

It's easy for you to be sick of "end of the world" HS. Your life in not on the line now when diplomacy is the answer to avoid lives being potentially unnecessarily lost by a t i t for tat exchange of macho rhetoric which appeals to Trump's base.

Ah, but those millions of lives in South Korea, Guam and Japan are mostly non-white lives.  (And from the news coverage I've seen, particularly the charts and the graphs in the Boston Globe, NK still doesn't really have the ability to strike the U.S.) What are those lives when compared to U.S.'s place as the greatest military power in the world?  As Robert Conway remarked sadly in Lost Horizon after being congratulated for saving the lives of 90 British and U.S. citizens (and before sedating himself with a few whiskey and sodas), "Hooray for us. Ha-ha. Did you say that we left ten thousand natives down there to be annihilated? No. No, you wouldn't say that."  The High Lama's predictions for the future of our world seem sadly prophetic at this point: "What madness there is! What blindness! What unintelligent leadership! A scurrying mass of bewildered humanity, crashing headlong against each other, propelled by an **** of greed and brutality."  

 

My gosh -- TCM blanked out the word ****!  Well, the behavior of our commander-in-chief is a form of obscenity.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

That reality will be increasingly accepted, I suspect, including by the U.S. government.

 

Of course the idea of NK's joining the nuclear club of nations will eventually to be an accepted fact within Washington, and despite all of Trump's tough talk.

 

The American man-child is just doing what he always does...play acting as the "tough talker" so that his sheep, ahem, I mean followers and supporters can claim that he's "a great leader".

 

Just wait and see.

 

(...that even MORE juvenile than Trump little Korean idiot will eventually get his little arsenal of nukes, and the official American position will revert to the stance of that he just better not ever use them...and which WOULD turn out to be the very SAME stance the U.S. would have taken even IF some "weak-willed little wimpy liberal" as the Nipster would say, would have been elected Commander-in-Chief...COUNT ON IT!!!)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the idea of NK's joining the nuclear club of nations will eventually to be an accepted fact within Washington, and despite all of Trump's tough talk.

 

The American man-child is just doing what he always does...play acting as the "tough talker" so that his sheep, ahem, I mean followers and supporters can claim that he's "a great leader".

 

Just wait and see.

 

(...that even MORE juvenile than Trump little Korean idiot will eventually get his little arsenal of nukes, and the official American position will revert to the stance of that he just better not ever use them...and which WOULD turn out to be the very SAME stance the U.S. would have taken even IF some "weak-willed little wimpy liberal" as the Nipster would say, would have been elected Commander-in-Chief...COUNT ON IT!!!)

 

So you're saying that US foreign policy towards N.K. for the last 20 plus years has been BS;  I.e. that all the prior admins didn't really care that N.K. would finally get nukes but just pretended to and lied to the American people as well as the U.N.? 

 

E.g.  If the Obama admin was willing to accept N.K. having nukes (which appears to be their position NOW,  based on Susan Rice's comment):   Why did they push to impose tougher and tougher sanctions?      

 

Hey,  I'm willing NOW,  to accept that N.K. can have nukes (since the cost of regime change is too costly NOW),   and to supply South Korea and Japan with nukes,  but only because of the dismal failures by the past 3 administrations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying that US foreign policy towards N.K. for the last 20 plus years has been BS; I.e. that all the prior admins didn't really care that N.K. would finally get nukes but just pretended to and lied to the American people as well as the U.N.?

 

E.g. If the Obama admin was willing to accept N.K. having nukes (which appears to be their position NOW, based on Susan Rice's comment): Why did they push to impose tougher and tougher sanctions?

 

Hey, I'm willing NOW, to accept that N.K. can have nukes (since the cost of regime change is too costly NOW), and to supply South Korea and Japan with nukes, but only because of the dismal failures by the past 3 administrations.

So what--it wouldn't be the first time in Asia that the United States has had dismal failures over numerous Administrations.

 

If I recall properly the Domino Theory in Southeast Asia starts with President Eisenhower through Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. As far as I can remember the whole Vietnam War was fought over this Theory. When that many people died over a failure in foreign policy, then maybe that's the time to really use the word dismal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying that US foreign policy towards N.K. for the last 20 plus years has been BS;  I.e. that all the prior admins didn't really care that N.K. would finally get nukes but just pretended to and lied to the American people as well as the U.N.? 

 

E.g.  If the Obama admin was willing to accept N.K. having nukes (which appears to be their position NOW,  based on Susan Rice's comment):   Why did they push to impose tougher and tougher sanctions?      

 

Hey,  I'm willing NOW,  to accept that N.K. can have nukes (since the cost of regime change is too costly NOW),   and to supply South Korea and Japan with nukes,  but only because of the dismal failures by the past 3 administrations.

 

Yep, pretty much I suppose that's what I'm saying, James...in so much as previous administrations headed by men and not a man-child had to know that without instituting some covert and successful plan at a regime change within NK, that country's development of a nuclear capability would be an eventual fact.

 

(...however, I wouldn't call it "lying" but more the idea of those previous administrations being less overt in their rhetoric than this loud-mouthed incompetent juvenile of a "tough guy" who's now parked his fat butt in the White House, BUT who as I just said, has his sheep bleating about "what a great leader" that loud-mouthed incompetent juvenile of a "tough guy" is)

Link to post
Share on other sites

no, what I'm really saying is that behind all the liberal rhetoric is decades of a fundamental disloyalty to America and what it stands for..

 

God, liberty and country.

:P

Who fed you this crap, Nip?

Sounds good on paper, or in somebody's speech, but reality has an entirely different face.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

you trump haters are scared that trump will meet the NK threat head on...and solve it!

 

proving that all this bs about diplomacy from the democrats since the vietnam era was just a cowardly lack of resolve and basic human courage.

 

Hey, if Trump can solve the problem without getting us into a bigger one, great! All for it!

Reps and Dems aside, courage and resolve have nothing to do with it...

 

Anyone willing to die for any cause has plenty of courage and resolve.

 

I doubt that you will find a larger group of persons against war, than those that have actually participated in it on an up-front and personal level.

 

And please don't get any of us here started on Vietnam, because that is a can of worms that I don't think you really want to open.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would they fire nukes?  Russia are no longer communist and have no interest in protecting NK. OMG if China does where are they going to sell their junk??  Talk about cutting one's own economic throat!

 

 

You make a valid point. One of the best ways to avoid military conflict with a potential opponent is by having both parties deeply vested in each others economies.

 

Of course protecting  vested economies has also brought nations into past wars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If all that Lil' Kim wants is to retain his regime (as despotically corrupt as it is), be recognized as a nuclear power (with the security of possessing a deterrence capability), and have dialogue at the UN table. Then that would be "reasonable" when contrasted by the alternative options, as they are.

Remember, just because you don't like someone (for whatever reasons) is not an adequate reason to try to kill them.

And we have dealt (and are dealing) with other unsavory regimes without resorting to war.

 

Some of the reasons why we have retained the same stance with North Korea since 1953, are:
- Conventional war in Korea proved to be a very bloody affair, and brought us into direct confrontation mode with China.

- And, because it is not that easy to bring about a regime change.

- And certain powerfully influential corporations here found it quite profitable to maintain a "hostile" stance with Korea (as with others). 

- We have had "bigger" more distracting "fish to fry" in the interim, and let N. Korea sit on the back burner.

- We have "successfully" used our own nuclear deterrent against their invasion of the South since 1953. Meaning if N. Korea overran South Korea with such overwhelming force that we could not stop them with our "token" military presence there, then we would use our nukes to strike them at that time (whether they possessed nuclear weapons or not).  

- And diplomacy had worked to a degree, in restraining North Korea, and persuading them to refrain from developing a nuclear capability, up until a 20 something year old spoiled brat took control after his fathers death in 2011.

 

If the price of direct confrontation with North Korea was deemed  too costly to violate the 1953 "Ceasefire Agreement" with the horrible destructive capabilities of conventional weaponry, then.... How much more costly would it be now with the unimaginable destructive power of todays nuclear weapons. 

 

In any conflict, conventional or otherwise, both Northern and Southern infrastructure would be wiped out, with a tremendous, immediate loss of life.

As others have already posted, using tactical and just mid-range nukes would only amplify that destruction and carry it further to China, Japan, and our regional allies.

If even one mid-range nuke launched from a sub, or one ICBM, were to hit our shores, then we would share, in part, some of the horror of those much, much closer to the epicenter of the "conflict." 

And the long term collateral effects of even a limited nuclear exchange are almost too painful to imagine.

 

I would like to think that beneath all that bluster and hype that Kim Jong-un actually possesses a greater "rational" sensibility than our current President has exhibited. But I do have my doubts.

If we play the diplomacy hand (as I hope we will) as far as it will go. And it proves insufficient to prevent a nuclear bully boy from continuing to threaten his neighbors, then I'm afraid that one day, sooner or later, there will be a confrontation.

 

But hopefully, that remains to be seen.

 

If Kim continues as he has, and is as unstable as we fear he is, then it may ultimately come down to that last scenario, regardless of who we have sitting in the executive chair on our side. 

 

But since 1945, we have possessed that last, and very final, option. And as we used to say in kindergarten, "sticks and stone may break our bones, but words will never harm us." Cyber bullying aside, it's one thing to threaten to do something, it's another to carry it out.

I learned a long, long time ago, when in a confrontation, and possessing lethal force. Never threaten someone with it. But if it becomes the only available means necessary to save a life or limb, use it.

 

If we cannot make this situation cool down through diplomacy, then we can always ignore the  ****  while maintaining a cautious eye upon him. If all he does is talk loud, then that does not of itself warrant a preemptive action, and we always reserve the right to retaliate with overwhelming force should he act upon any of his threats either against us, or any of those that we've pledged to defend.

Deterrence works both ways. This is the stance that we maintained throughout the "cold war" with the former Soviet Union. It is a tacit understanding that we have with Russia today. 

 

When dealing with childish behavior, it is better if one side behaves as an adult.

Where is an adult when you need them?

Edited by Stephan55
Edited for Language
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

If all that Lil' Kim wants is to retain his regime (as despotically corrupt as it is), be recognized as a nuclear power (with the security of possessing a deterrence capability), and have dialogue at the UN table. Then that would be "reasonable" when contrasted by the alternative options, as they are.

Remember, just because you don't like someone (for whatever reasons) is not an adequate reason to try to kill them.

And we have dealt (and are dealing) with other unsavory regimes without resorting to war.

 

Some of reasons why we have retained the same stance with North Korea since 1953, are:

- Conventional war in Korea proved to be a very bloody affair, and brought us into direct confrontation mode with China.

- And, because it is not that easy to bring about a regime change.

- And certain powerfully influential corporations here found it quite profitable to maintain a "hostile" stance with Korea (as with others). 

- We have had "bigger" more distracting "fish to fry" in the interim, and let N. Korea sit on the back burner.

- We have "successfully" used our own nuclear deterrent against their invasion of the South since 1953. Meaning if N. Korea overran South Korea with such overwhelming force that we could not stop them with our "token" military presence there, then we would use our nukes to strike them at that time (whether they possessed nuclear weapons or not).  

- And diplomacy had worked to a degree, in restraining North Korea, and persuading them to refrain from developing a nuclear capability, up until a 20 something year old spoiled brat took control after his fathers death in 2011.

 

If the price of direct confrontation with North Korea was deemed  too costly to violate the 1953 "Ceasefire Agreement" with the horrible destructive capabilities of conventional weaponry, then.... How much more costly would it be now with the unimaginable destructive power of todays nuclear weapons. 

 

In any conflict, conventional or otherwise, both Northern and Southern infrastructure would be wiped out, with a tremendous, immediate loss of life.

As others have already posted, using tactical and just mid-range nukes would only amplify that destruction and carry it further to China, Japan, and our regional allies. If even one mid-range nuke launched from a sub, or one ICBM, were to hit our shores, then we would share, in part, some of the horror of those much, much closer to the epicenter of the "conflict." 

And the long term collateral effects of even a limited nuclear exchange are almost too painful to imagine.

 

I would like to think that beneath all that bluster and hype that Kim Jong-un actually possesses a greater "rational" sensibility than our current President has exhibited. But I do have my doubts.

If we play the diplomacy hand (as I hope we will) as far as it will go. And it proves insufficient to prevent a nuclear bully boy from continuing to threaten his neighbors, then I'm afraid that one day, sooner or later, there will be a confrontation.

 

But hopefully, that remains to be seen.

 

If Kim continues as he has, and is as unstable as we fear he is, then it may, ultimately come down to that last scenario, regardless, of who we have sitting in the executive chair on our side. 

 

But since 1945, we have possessed that last, and very final option. And as we used to say in kindergarten, "sticks and stone may break our bones, but words will never harm us." Cyber bullying aside, it's one thing to threaten to do something, it's another to carry it out.

I learned a long, long time ago, when in a confrontation, and possessing lethal force. Never threaten someone with it. But if it becomes the only available means necessary to save a life or limb, use it.

 

If we cannot make this situation cool down through diplomacy, then we can always ignore the  ****  while maintaining a cautious eye upon him. If all he does is talk loud, then that does not of itself warrant a preemptive action, and we always reserve the right to retaliate with overwhelming force should he act upon any of his threats either against us, or any of those that we've pledged to defend.

Deterrence works both ways. This is the stance that we maintained throughout the "cold war" with the former Soviet Union. It is a tacit understanding that we have with Russia today. 

 

When dealing with childish behavior, it is better if one side behave as an adult.

Where is an adult when you need them?

all of that requires that trump ignore what is a direct existential threat to us and our territories....

 

would you require the same of a liberal democrat president??? :huh:

Edited by TCMModerator1
Edited for Language
Link to post
Share on other sites

NipkowDisc--Re-read the second to last paragraph of Stephan55's  post.  He specifically says "we ALWAYS reserve the right to retaliate with overwhelming force should he act upon any of his threats either against Us, or any of those that we've pledged to defend."

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My bet is if Trump could come up with some sort of Iran nuclear deal with North Korea he would think himself a genius.  "The worst deal in history" is not looking too bad right now.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

all of that requires that trump ignore what is a direct existential threat to us and our territories....

 

would you require the same of a liberal democrat president??? :huh:

 

Korea isn't the first "threat" that we have had to co-exist with. And more than likely, if we all live long enough, it will not be the last.

Just because we don't like a nation's politics, or it's leadership, is not a reason to go to war with them.

 

If a nation is to change, for better or worse, it must change from within. The best that we can do from the outside is to help to influence a change.

 

Many nations on this planet don't agree with "us" and some see us as a direct threat and fear us. A few quite rightfully so.

But if they tried to take us out just because we are here, would be totally unacceptable to us.

The same goes for the shoe on the other foot.

 

We live in an imperfect world of our own creation.

Korea didn't become the way that they are in a vacuum. We (our actions and policy's) had a direct hand in making them what they are today.

We are not very good at nation building. And even when we have been successful in influencing a nation to adopt the democratic process, that has not automatically meant that nation approved of us.

 

In a Sept. 2, 1963, televised interview with Walter Cronkite, John F. Kennedy spoke about our involvement in Vietnam, and nation building, in part he said:

 

We can't expect these countries to do everything the way we want to do them.

They have their own interest, their own personalities, their own tradition.

We can't make everyone in our image, and there are a good many people who don't want to go in our image.

In addition, we have ancient struggles between countries..... there are ancient differences there.

We can't make the world over, but we can influence the world.”

 

I agree with those observations, and what they imply.... Tolerance.

Tolerance for those that differ from ourselves.

 

With all of our different religions, political persuasions, nationalities, cultures, races, creeds, beliefs, with ALL of our differences, We all exist upon and share this one small planet floating in space. ...

our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.

 

We continue to possess the most powerful military deterrent the world has ever known.

If that isn't enough to prevent another nation from starting WW3, then there is nothing else that would. Certainly no amount of verbal rhetoric. But I believe that we should not be the one to provoke an attack, nor strike first with that overwhelming force. 

The only way to live with this awesome power is to NEVER use it. If we are to ever use it again, it must only be because someone else struck first.

That is my politics a No First Use policy.

In the 1850's I likely would have been a Republican, in the 1960's I likely would have been a Democrat.

Aside from that I am apolitical. I am affiliated with no party. I vote only for those whom I think are best suited for the position at hand.

I am free and have voted for Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Greens, and others. I consider neither race, ethnicity nor sex.

The problems we face today are too great to be that petty. We need the brightest and best, always.

So to answer your question simply, my attitude on this question would be the same for whomever.

 

 

I know how some of you abhor long posts, so I have reserved the quotation of the following speech at the end of this one so some of you may not want to read any further.

 

However I believe that the topic is timeless, and as relevant today as when it was written.

 

 

I have therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived - yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.

 

What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children  -  not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

 

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.

 

Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles - which can only destroy and never create - is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.

I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war - and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.

 

Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament - and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude  -  as individuals and as a nation  -  for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward - by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.

 

First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable, that mankind is doomed, that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade; therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable, and we believe they can do it again.

I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams, but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.

 

Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions, on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace, no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process, a way of solving problems.

 

With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor; it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.

So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.

 

Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on military strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims, such as the allegation that “American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars…that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union…[and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries..[and] to achieve world domination…by means of aggressive wars.”

 

Truly, as it was written long ago: “The wicked flee when no man pursueth.” Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements, to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning, a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.

 

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements, in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

 

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation’s territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland, a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.

 

Today, should total war ever break out again, no matter how, our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many nations, including this nation’s closest allies, our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counter weapons.

In short, both the United Sates and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours; and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.

 

So, let us not be blind to our differences. But let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.

 

Third: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different.

 

We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists’ interest to agree on a genuine peace.

 

Above all, while defending our own vital interest, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy, or of a collective death-wish for the world.

To secure these ends, America’s weapons are non provocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter, and capable of selective use. Our military forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self-restraint. Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility.

 

For we can seek a relaxation of tension without relaxing our guard. And, for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove that we are resolute. We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded. We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people, but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth.

 

Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system, a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can finally be abolished.

 

At the same time we seek to keep peace inside the non-Communist world, where many nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues which weaken Western unity, which invite Communist intervention or which threaten to erupt into war. Our efforts in West New Guinea, in the Congo, in the Middle East, and in the Indian subcontinent, have been persistent and patient despite criticism from both sides. We have also tried to set an example for others, by seeking to adjust small but significant differences with our own closest neighbors in Mexico and Canada.

 

Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear. We are bound to many nations by alliances. Those alliances exist because our concern and theirs substantially overlap. Our commitment to defend Western Europe and West Berlin, for example, stands undiminished because of the identity of our vital interests. The United States will make no deal with the Soviet Union at the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely because they are our partners, but also because their interests and ours converge.

 

Our interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of freedom, but in pursuing the paths of peace. It is our hope  -  and the purpose of allied policy  -  to convince the Soviet Union that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does not interfere with the choices of others. The Communist drive to impose their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today. For there can be no doubt that, if all nations could refrain from interfering in the self-determination of others, the peace would be much more assured.

 

This will require a new effort to achieve world law, a new context for world discussions. It will require increased understanding between the Soviets and ourselves. And increased understanding will require increased contact and communication. One step in this direction is the proposed arrangement for a direct line between Moscow and Washington, to avoid on each side the dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and misreadings of the other’s actions which might occur at a time of crisis.

 

We have also been talking in Geneva about other first-step measures of arms control designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and reduce the risks of accidental war. Our primary long range interest in Geneva, however, is general and complete disarmament, designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms. The pursuit of disarmament has been an effort of this government since the 1920’s. It has been urgently sought by the past three administrations. And however dim the prospects are today, we intend to continue this effort, to continue it in order that all countries, including our own, can better grasp what the problems and possibilities of disarmament are.

 

The only major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight, yet where a fresh start is badly needed, is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests. The conclusion of such a treaty, so near and yet so far, would check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms. It would increase our security. It would decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort or the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards.

 

I am taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard.

First: Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan, and I have agreed that high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking toward early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Our hope must be tempered with the caution of history, but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind.

 

Second: To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on the matter, I now declare that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other states do not do so. We will not be the first to resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty, but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would such a treaty be a substitute for disarmament, but I hope it will help us achieve it.

 

Finally, my fellow Americans let us examine our attitude toward peace and freedom here at home. The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad. We must show it in the dedication of our own lives, as many of you who are graduating today will have an opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home.

 

But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together. In too many of our cities today, the peace is not secure because freedom is incomplete.

It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of government  -  local, state, and national  -  to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within our authority. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels, wherever the authority is not now adequate, to make it adequate. And it is the responsibility of all citizens in all sections of this country to respect the rights of others and respect the law of the land.

 

All this is not unrelated to world peace. “When a man’s way pleases the Lord,” the Scriptures tell us, “he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.” And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights  -  the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation, the right to breathe air as nature provided it, the right of future generations to a healthy existence.

 

While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both. No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion. But it can  -  if it is sufficiently effective in its enforcement and if it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers  -  offer far more security and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.

 

The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough, more than enough, of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we must labor on, not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.

 

John F. Kennedy
American University, Washington, D.C. USA
June 10, 1963
  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Those were very profound, insightful and intelligent thoughts.  To suggest the world find a peaceful coexistence through the tolerance of our differences and acceptance to let them do what they do as long as it's done internally and not imposed forcibly on other unwilling countries and also resolve any differences diplomatically rather than militarilly and to also strive for a world where no nation is considered "greater" than another to the point any nation desires to change the course another follows be the one another nation feels should  be the one  they  choose seems to be a step in the right direction for peaceful coexistence for all nations.  With none actually being considered the "best" among them.

 

No WONDER they shot him.

 

 

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

so we should allow this sick ugly little ph uc and his regime to acquire nuclear weapons and become an existential threat to every pacific rim country in the vicinity as well as ourselves?...outstanding! :D

 

just where does the timidity of the left end and any self-assuredness in our own basic goodness, albeit imperfect, begin?

 

somehow I doan think the SoCal celebs will cotton to liberal democrats (their own people!) expecting them to tolerate a nuclear NK sword of democles hanging over their heads while schtootzes like chuck schumer and nancy pelosi are telling them it's alright. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(Rest of post deleted due to extreme length.)

 

John F. Kennedy
American University, Washington, D.C. USA
June 10, 1963

 

Vietnam timeline for several months before Kennedy assassination.  Note: Kennedy supported the coup replacing RVN leadership, as well as our not being there to lose a war.

There has always been speculation as to what Kennedy would have done eventually, but he obviously supported the US military being there and our support for the RVN government and its efforts to resist North Vietnam.

Would he have pulled out as the situation deteriorated?  Who knows.  As a WW  II veteran, he would not have been inclined to be the "first president to lose a war."

 

Posted this to show that what politicians say on one day may not be how they actually think or what they will do when circumstances change.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_in_the_Vietnam_War#June

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Would he have pulled out as the situation deteriorated?  Who knows.  As a WW  II veteran, he would not have been inclined to be the "first president to lose a war."

 

 

 

But, Viet Nam wasn't really a "war".  At least that was what the right-wing wags in congress and the White house at first said when refusing returned vets their rights under the GI bill.  It took an almost ten year fight to get Viet Nam vets any respect from the VA and other veteran's associations.

 

And as we actually didn't "win" concerning the Korean "conflict" in the early '50's, Kennedy wouldn't have been the first pres to do so.

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

But, Viet Nam wasn't really a "war".  At least that was what the right-wing wags in congress and the White house at first said when refusing returned vets their rights under the GI bill.  It took an almost ten year fight to get Viet Nam vets any respect from the VA and other veteran's associations.

 

And as we actually didn't "win" concerning the Korean "conflict" in the early '50's, Kennedy wouldn't have been the first pres to do so.

 

 

Sepiatone

Korea was a draw, not a loss as we returned to the situation prior to the war.  While we did not win, we did not lose either.  Sort of like the War of 1812.

You might also view the Korean War as similar to Persian Gulf War (Desert Storm), the "mission" was to eject the enemy invader in both wars.  Once done, we had accomplished our mission.  In that respect, you could say US won.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so we should allow this sick ugly little ph uc and his regime to acquire nuclear weapons and become an existential threat to every pacific rim country in the vicinity as well as ourselves?...outstanding! :D

 

just where does the timidity of the left end and any self-assuredness in our own basic goodness, albeit imperfect, begin?

 

somehow I doan think the SoCal celebs will cotton to liberal democrats (their own people!) expecting them to tolerate a nuclear NK sword of democles hanging over their heads while schtootzes like chuck schumer and nancy pelosi are telling them it's alright. :lol:

 

They already have them Numbskull!

And he is as big a threat in the area as "we" have recently become with "our" own inflammatory rhetoric.

They made their first "test" in October 9, 2006, while George the 2nd was at the helm.

 

No one, has been able to put the nuclear genie back into the bottle since "we" first released it on July 16, 1945. 

 

The U.S. tried to be the "only" kid on the block with a nuclear "bat," but that proved to be impossible.

 

There have been several countries around the world that once had nuclear programs, but have since abandoned nuclear aspirations (South Africa, and Argentina, to name but two).

Some that actually possessed bombs eventually dismantled them. 

Some countries have been persuaded to halt their programs because they came under the protective umbrella of a greater nuclear power (i.e. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea). And several of the former Soviet States that once possessed nukes agreed to dismantle their indigenous programs and send their "bombs" back to mother Russia.

A few that had been persuaded to give up or dismantle their nuclear programs have been invaded after doing so, by one of the greater nuclear powers. Iraq and Libya (by the U.S.) and the Ukraine (by Russia).

 

However No country has (yet) been invaded by another, once it has acquired a nuclear weapon system capability.

 

The lesson here for many countries has been, "If you don't have nukes, get them as quickly as possible. If you do have them, don't give them up."

 

Since their possession, especially coupled with a capability of delivery, has thus far "proven" to be the only successful way to "insure" that you will NOT be invaded by a lessor, equal, or greater power than yourself. 

We and the Russians are the primary "instructors" of that train of logic.

 

The nuclear "club" is pretty exclusive, and it's membership has sought to keep it that way since the beginning. Unfortunately it has not succeeded. And once a new member "invites" itself into the club, the rest have been forced to live with that fact, as repugnant as it may be, because war between two nuclear powers, no matter how lopsided, is even more repugnant. 

That has been the "problem" since "we" first created it in 1945, and the Soviets became the second ("uninvited") nuclear power to "join the club" on August 29, 1948. And no one has been able to come up with a satisfactory solution since then.

 

There are several nations still making aggressive efforts to acquire the "bomb," some of them are also on our "black ball" list.

But the only ways to temporarily halt a nation with a nuclear program in progress, have been through either diplomacy, covert action, a preemptive strike,  or all-out invasion. The least provocative, and thus far most successful option, has been diplomacy. 

 

However, Once a nation actually possess nukes, it is a brave new world.

 

 

 

I don't know why I am "wasting" my time writing all this, as it has become quite evident that you have neither read through any of my posts, nor performed your own research on the subject. Either that or you lack the motivation or ability to comprehend.

I don't mind occasionally spoon-feeding someone, but if they refuse to grow up and "learn" how to feed themselves, the repetition becomes wearisome.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why I am "wasting" my time writing all this, as it has become quite evident that you have neither read through any of my posts, nor performed your own research on the subject. Either that or you the lack motivation or ability to comprehend.

I don't mind occasionally spoon-feeding someone, but if they refuse to grow up and "learn" how to feed themselves, the repetition becomes wearisome.

 

Either that or you the lack motivation or ability to comprehend.

 

You hit the nail on the head there my friend.  He keeps coming back with slippery slope arguments against gays and all sorts of things.  He is incapable of change or free thought I'm afraid.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, pretty much I suppose that's what I'm saying, James...in so much as previous administrations headed by men and not a man-child had to know that without instituting some covert and successful plan at a regime change within NK, that country's development of a nuclear capability would be an eventual fact.

 

(...however, I wouldn't call it "lying" but more the idea of those previous administrations being less overt in their rhetoric than this loud-mouthed incompetent juvenile of a "tough guy" who's now parked his fat butt in the White House, BUT who as I just said, has his sheep bleating about "what a great leader" that loud-mouthed incompetent juvenile of a "tough guy" is)

 

The prior 3 administrations did lie when they said 'all options are on the table',  if going to war was never one of the options.

 

Anyhow,  it appears a majority of folks at this forum are willing accept N.K. having nukes.  

 

What I wonder is:  Is this a change in your (as well as others) stance or did you always believe that the USA had no business trying to impose conditions on N.K.  E.g. you have been against sanctions for over 20 years?  

 

(Note:  Trying to get a nation to voluntarily agree to the non-proliferation-nuke pack is wise foreign policy,  but when a nation refuses,  what should the US do,  if anything,  is the policy stance question).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vietnam timeline for several months before Kennedy assassination.  Note: Kennedy supported the coup replacing RVN leadership, as well as our not being there to lose a war.

There has always been speculation as to what Kennedy would have done eventually, but he obviously supported the US military being there and our support for the RVN government and its efforts to resist North Vietnam.

Would he have pulled out as the situation deteriorated?  Who knows.  As a WW  II veteran, he would not have been inclined to be the "first president to lose a war."

 

Posted this to show that what politicians say on one day may not be how they actually think or what they will do when circumstances change.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_in_the_Vietnam_War#June

Yes, I am not unaware of Kennedy's vacillation over how to handle many issues, including Vietnam.

But he was a "thinking" president, and not mired into an immutable train of thought, which can be a good thing.

 

His was at least the fourth administration that had to seriously consider the ramifications of a post WW2 Indochina, that had been under French domination for almost 100 years prior. Unfortunately, South East Asia became wrapped up with the "Red Menace" scare of McCarthyism that began to (again) permeate our society almost as soon as the allies won the war.

We had already been heavily involved financially supporting France's efforts to keep "her" colonies, while we were actively involved fighting our "own" communists in Korea.

So all this "Red," "domino theory" propaganda seemed to have some sort of credibility at the time.

 

Kennedy inherited Vietnam from Eisenhower, and (just as with the Bay of Pigs operation), certain motions were already well advanced with pre-existing policies in place. Disrupting the stability of the status quo is generally a difficult thing for most new presidents, and we both know who his advisors were.

Kennedy had made a motion to increase the number of "military" advisors (MACV) by several thousand more, earlier in 1963. However before his assassination he also discussed placing a time-limit on how long the U.S. would continue to support Vietnam under Diem's obviously repressive regime, and mentioned a "weaning" down strategy that would take place in incremental steps over a period of years. Then he ended up authorizing Diem's coup d'état that took place on November 1, 1963.

Of course Johnson honored Kennedy's build-up motion, and not the later downsizing strategy.

 

So yes, there are definitely some obvious discrepancies between the "great words" in a president's speech, and the man behind the words. I have read that Kennedy agonized over Diem's death. Whether he was sincere or not, who knows, as he certainly was intelligent enough to know that would be a very real possibility in such a coup.

I find it interesting that within three weeks after Diem's assassination, Kennedy would himself be assassinated.

 

Man is a mass of contradictions. Men are capable of publicly speaking about many things, sometimes quite truthful things, as well as great ideologies, and yet not personally agree with or practice them. Sometimes not even publicly, though most often the difference is hidden in the private man behind the office.

And the office itself, and our political "system" often invites contradiction.

Kennedy was certainly not the first president who in review appears  hypocritical, I could cite many, many others.

Some whom have become the icons of our very Republic.

 

I was once baffled by this phenomenon, but have since learned to separate the chafe from the wheat. I am not an ideologue, but that does not prevent me from seeing the merit within certain ideologies. And I believe that the speech I quoted stands upon it's own merit, perhaps in spite of the man behind it.

 

I know that you already knew all this. I just wanted you to know that I am not so naive (or blind sighted) to not understand it as well. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So yes, there are definitely some obvious discrepancies between the "great words" in a president's speech, and the man behind the words. I have read that Kennedy agonized over Diem's death. Whether he was sincere or not, who knows, as he certainly was intelligent enough to know that would be a very real possibility in such a coup.

I find it interesting that within three weeks after Diem's assassination, Kennedy would himself be assassinated.

 

 

 

I don't have my sources at hand but I read that Kennedy and the ambassador to Viet Nam were at cross purposes.  Diem was supposed to be offered safe haven for stepping down but the American ambassador did not come through.  He purposely let the assassination go down.  One interpretation is that Kennedy was betrayed by Intelligence and the ambassador.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...