North Korea accuses U.S. of declaring war

[Publicus]

1 hour ago, Dumbastheycome said:

It  would  seem  reasonably  obvious  that since  China  has  apparently stated  that  an attack on  NK  would  require intervention  on  NK  behalf yet  an attack  by  NK  on others  would  require  it's assistance  in  defence  against  NK that  China  is/has  attempted  to  set a  blockade  against  initial attack  by  either  side. A  very  reasoned  strategy in the  circumstance  because   proximity  and  significant  military  capacity are very  relevant  factors.

The  weakness  of  that strategy  is  that  blatant incitement  to  make the first move by  NK is  obvious .

The  significance  of the  accusation  of  a  "Declaration  of  War " is  that it is  exclusive  to  the  USA with regard  to  NK because the  status  of  the  war  between  NK  and  SK remains  in a  state  of  impass /truce.

So  does   NK consider  this  a new  war  or  a breaking  of  the truce?

It  does  become  confusing  when it is  considered   that  NK  has a  seat  in the  UN  which  also   has  imposed  sanctions  and  approval for  measures  of  containment containment on  both  occasions!

Too  often  I am  led  to  think  that  international  political  headlines   should  be  preceded with  the  same  advisory  that  movies  of  fiction  Based  on  Reality   should  be  included. The   Iraq  war and  the preamble  to  that  as  an example.

The   most  dangerous  aspect  is  that if  someone stutters  badly  when  reading their part  of the  script  is  that  the  result  could  be  a disaster  rather  than a necessity  for the  impossible  retake! 

 

 

The Maoist Xi Jinping is only recently catching up with the fact he's the last guy standing in Beijing who does care what happens to the Kim Dynasty and its lieges in Pyongyang. The statements you quote about Beijing defending NK are from the Party media and not from Xi himself. Unless and until Xi says something about military action there isn't any official position by Beijing in this chaos. Washington knows this of course. So does South Korea and Japan etc.

 

All accounts and intelligence say Xi is the holdout on cutting off the crude oil exports to NK. Xi is in fact doing much of what Trump is doing in threatening war and talking war. Xi is however doing it in the Chinese way, i.e., rather than Xi standing up and declaring, he is using the Party media. The particular Party media for Xi is the PLA controlled Global Times which is making the statements of a supposed war doctrine. PLA is of course always happy to talk war but PLA knows it is an arm of the Party and that it needs to toe the Party line. And the Party line on Kim and NK has shifted to negative under the feet of the reluctant Xi. PLA and Air Force have in fact begun antimissile drills on their shores of the Yellow Sea given Kim can fire off missiles toward Japan or toward China depending on his mood on a given day. PLA has done live fire shooting down of its own missile targets to make the preventive point to Kim.

 

Kim and Xi hate each other's guts. The two have never met and it's very hard to imagine 'em ever meeting for any reason. Further, the Chinese people disrespect immensely the Kim Dynasty for long ago rejecting completely the economic reforms of Deng Xiaoping. Chinese people see prosperous SK and a successful democracy allied to the U.S. while knowing NK is a disaster that hides behind China and sucks on China's huge teat in every respect.

 

The Party underneath Xi no longer views NK as a buffer state either given modern missiles and their technologies that reach thousands of miles over NK -- nobody is going to invade China by land besides. Xi is stuck now between the Party that has shifted under him to get tougher with NK and Trump twisting Xi's arm to put the serious squeeze on Kim & Co. We'll see what Xi looks like and says in November which will be after the October Party Congress that chooses the leaders for the next five years and at which Xi needs to get his guyz into the five seats being vacated on the 7 member Politboro. Only Xi and the English fluent Prime Minister and peacenik Li Kejiang are expected to continue as holdover members. If the five new members happen to be among the Party's increased number of NK hawks then Xi is going to be isolated in coddling Kim. 

Edited September 26, 2017 by Publicus
Xi is between a rock and a hard place.

[elliss]

16 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

 

 

 Hope China steps in before it's too late but there is some sort of 'inevitability' about this.

 

 Why  would  China or Russia , want to intervene . Not on their agenda .

  They  really love the  USA . 

Edited September 26, 2017 by elliss

[Kieran00001]

7 minutes ago, elliss said:

 

 Why  would  China or Russia , want to intervene . Not on their agenda .

  They  really love the  USA . 

 

For China, stability in Asia is very high on their agenda, as is not seeing Seoul or Tokyo nuked, neither would be good for business, if it were a square fight between the US and NK then I am sure they would stand back and watch, but as it is, Trump provoking them into striking who ever they can reach, no way will China just sit back and let this happen.

[flipflop99]

8 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Youre really not doing very well, I did not say their crime IS choosing communism, I said their only crime WAS choosing communism, and then the sanctions came that led them to chose spending beyond their ability on arms which left the country in ruins, plenty of atrocities have followed but their crime that got them sanctioned in the first place was just being communist, the same as Cuba.

 

And Cuba is socialist but not communist, you are confusing politics and economics.

I think their "Crime" was refusing to conclude a Peace treaty after the truce that brought about the "temporary" halt to the hostilities in Korea. SK required military support in the absence of a treaty. And really the fact that Russia and China are close to (Physically and geo-politically) to Korea did`nt provide a sufficient security blanket to NK ?   I think you are stretching. The USA LOST  an Armed Conflict against Vietnam - if anything a situation that should have have led to far worse consequences for the Vietnamese than you are arguing faced NK, especially as VN  had a major falling out with one of their sponsors after that war.  Yet VN did not pursue the Nuclear option.

 

And nobody but the elite make any decisions in NK. Its  disingenuous to make any claims or justification  on behalf of the population of NK. 

Edited September 26, 2017 by flipflop99

[craigt3365]

11 hours ago, dunroaming said:

Where are the grown-ups when you need them!

Luckily, all over and around Trump.  He can't just do anything he wants.  And for sure has cooler heads surrounding him.  That can't be said for Kim.

[craigt3365]

7 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Yeah, they did that in the 50's, that war is not actually legally over, and any breach of the cease fire agreement would make a strike on an American aircraft flying over a neighbouring country perfectly legal, Trump really does have to be careful on this one.

War was actually never declared.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

Quote

As a war undeclared by all participants, the conflict helped bring the term "police action" into common use.

 

[Ace of Pop]

History repeats its self.Kennedy told the Bearded Lefty Castro move the Missiles or we will , now its Trumps turn. Main difference America has more lefty leaches of its own than JFK had.Some anti Trump woozies even post here. Hes not the best but hes better than that Islamic Appeaser he replaced.?[emoji562]


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Cory1848]

12 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

Not the point but the dictator does speak advanced English, he was educated from a small boy to early twenties in Switzerland.

Thanks -- I didn't know what his English skills were. Also, to what extent his comments are directed at his domestic audience rather than a foreign audience.

[geriatrickid]

1 hour ago, Ace of Pop said:

History repeats its self.Kennedy told the Bearded Lefty Castro move the Missiles or we will , now its Trumps turn. Main difference America has more lefty leaches of its own than JFK had.Some anti Trump woozies even post here. Hes not the best but hes better than that Islamic Appeaser he replaced.?
Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

What a pathetic and childish display of bigotry. President Obama was no appeaser of Islamic  militants and was on their kill list. How much longer do you intend to blame everything on the US President who righted the US economy and who stopped US military expansionism and the conveyor belt of dead youth? I used to watch the Friday newscasts of PBS when  it listed the week's military dead. Almost all were the best and brightest of America, often skilled or educated reservists or specialists. It was heartbreaking.  Is this what you want to return to? Why don't you go and volunteer your life for a fight that is not needed and not demand that a decent 25 year old kid die to satisfy your primitive bloodlust?

 

Your use of the tired McCarthy era murderous phrase "lefty leaches"  is the same type of cluelessness that brought us the Vietnam war and the decades of horrific war crimes and brutal military dictatorships in Latin America that turned  generations  of once pro- USA sentiment into hatred. It's also the same gutter politics that are now used to whip up hatred against Mexico and Canada as Trump plays dog whistle politics on NAFTA.

 

You conveniently forget that more islamic terrorists were identified and neutralized under the Obama administration than under previous administrations.  And most importantly of all, you ignore the fact that North Korea was relatively docile  when rational presidents occupied the White House. Obama, Bush, Clinton and the elder Bush were able to contain  North Korea. They did so with common sense and real politik. They were  smart enough to appreciate that  provoking a deranged madman only exacerbates the situation. Obviously  when a mentally unstable Nixon clone is president different rules apply. There will be no winners in the event of a new Korean peninsula war. South Korea and Japan are at risk of being destroyed. Do you not understand that if nuclear devices are detonated anywhere near the US west coast, North America is at risk of  radioactive contamination? Fish stocks could be poisoned for centuries and there is a significant risk that an errant missile falling over Russia or China could spark an international nuclear war.  You are not safe in Thailand because radioactive fallout doesn't play favourites.  In international  relations,  picking the right time to act is crucial and ensuring that there are no safe havens is even more vital. Until China and Russia are on board, there can be no progress.

 

[Ace of Pop]

What a pathetic and childish display of bigotry. President Obama was no appeaser of Islamic  militants and was on their kill list. How much longer do you intend to blame everything on the US President who righted the US economy and who stopped US military expansionism and the conveyor belt of dead youth? I used to watch the Friday newscasts of PBS when  it listed the week's military dead. Almost all were the best and brightest of America, often skilled or educated reservists or specialists. It was heartbreaking.  Is this what you want to return to? Why don't you go and volunteer your life for a fight that is not needed and not demand that a decent 25 year old kid die to satisfy your primitive bloodlust?
 
Your use of the tired McCarthy era murderous phrase "lefty leaches"  is the same type of cluelessness that brought us the Vietnam war and the decades of horrific war crimes and brutal military dictatorships in Latin America that turned  generations  of once pro- USA sentiment into hatred. It's also the same gutter politics that are now used to whip up hatred against Mexico and Canada as Trump plays dog whistle politics on NAFTA.
 
You conveniently forget that more islamic terrorists were identified and neutralized under the Obama administration than under previous administrations.  And most importantly of all, you ignore the fact that North Korea was relatively docile  when rational presidents occupied the White House. Obama, Bush, Clinton and the elder Bush were able to contain  North Korea. They did so with common sense and real politik. They were  smart enough to appreciate that  provoking a deranged madman only exacerbates the situation. Obviously  when a mentally unstable Nixon clone is president different rules apply. There will be no winners in the event of a new Korean peninsula war. South Korea and Japan are at risk of being destroyed. Do you not understand that if nuclear devices are detonated anywhere near the US west coast, North America is at risk of  radioactive contamination? Fish stocks could be poisoned for centuries and there is a significant risk that an errant missile falling over Russia or China could spark an international nuclear war.  You are not safe in Thailand because radioactive fallout doesn't play favourites.  In international  relations,  picking the right time to act is crucial and ensuring that there are no safe havens is even more vital. Until China and Russia are on board, there can be no progress.
 

Well now we got You in the Dove Cote.Il stay Hawk n Nuke em..?[emoji481][emoji481]


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Morch]

15 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Then why have you gone off on this tangent, it has nothing to do with what I was saying, that North Korea chose communism and that if it were not for the US involvement, for the Cold War, we most likely would not be in this situation and neither would NK.

 

You keep going on about choices made by North Korea. I'm arguing that the choices weren't made by North Koreans, but by a dictator-like leadership. The North Koreans, as a people, do not have a say as to decisions made. It doesn't matter if you want to reference communism, perusing nuclear capability, or adopting a hostile stance against South Korea. Making claims referring to North Korea or North Koreans and their wishes is all very well - just not what this is about.

[Kieran00001]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You keep going on about choices made by North Korea. I'm arguing that the choices weren't made by North Koreans, but by a dictator-like leadership. The North Koreans, as a people, do not have a say as to decisions made. It doesn't matter if you want to reference communism, perusing nuclear capability, or adopting a hostile stance against South Korea. Making claims referring to North Korea or North Koreans and their wishes is all very well - just not what this is about.

 

But it is what it is about, there is no way we would be here today if North Korea had not chosen/ adopted communism combined with the US pursuing every communist state with a view to force them to switch to capitalism, so this is actually the topic we were discussing, which was who is to blame, there is no reason why their state could have been far more successful with far less suffering if the US was not on every communist states back pushing for sanctions.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

But it is what it is about, there is no way we would be here today if North Korea had not chosen/ adopted communism combined with the US pursuing every communist state with a view to force them to switch to capitalism, so this is actually the topic we were discussing, which was who is to blame, there is no reason why their state could have been far more successful with far less suffering if the US was not on every communist states back pushing for sanctions.

 

No, this is how you wish to formulate and discuss things - not a general accepted view or premise. The blame game may be interesting for some, but that's not going to get anyone anywhere, nor is it going to play a helpful role in finding a way out of the mess.

 

And you can keep going on about "North Korea had chosen", or "their country" - still wouldn't change facts: they North Koreans, as a people, do not make choices and are not offered a choice by their leadership.

[Kieran00001]

49 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, this is how you wish to formulate and discuss things - not a general accepted view or premise. The blame game may be interesting for some, but that's not going to get anyone anywhere, nor is it going to play a helpful role in finding a way out of the mess.

 

And you can keep going on about "North Korea had chosen", or "their country" - still wouldn't change facts: they North Koreans, as a people, do not make choices and are not offered a choice by their leadership.

 

North Korea chose communism, it matters not whether it was a democratic decision or one made by the dictators of North Koreans, that was the choice made.

 

And as for playing helpful roles, not sure what you expect to come out of a forum comment, but I was just replying to the comment stating the blame was all on NK, all I was doing was rubbishing that nonsense, I was not trying to play diplomat via TV.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

But it is what it is about, there is no way we would be here today if North Korea had not chosen/ adopted communism combined with the US pursuing every communist state with a view to force them to switch to capitalism, so this is actually the topic we were discussing, which was who is to blame, there is no reason why their state could have been far more successful with far less suffering if the US was not on every communist states back pushing for sanctions.

NK went with communism due to support from Russia and China.  You blame the US for pursuing every communist state with a view to force them to switch to capitalism, but don't condemn Russia/China for doing the exact opposite.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

North Korea chose communism, it matters not whether it was a democratic decision or one made by the dictators of North Koreans, that was the choice made.

 

And as for playing helpful roles, not sure what you expect to come out of a forum comment, but I was just replying to the comment stating the blame was all on NK, all I was doing was rubbishing that nonsense, I was not trying to play diplomat via TV.

 

It does matter. If the choices are made by dictators, then arguments pertaining to the North Korean people wishes, or to reference the country as a whole are less compelling.

 

I think most posters critical of North Korea's policies often reference Kim (or his predecessors), rather than implying much by way of collective responsibility.

 

 

 

 

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It does matter. If the choices are made by dictators, then arguments pertaining to the North Korean people wishes, or to reference the country as a whole are less compelling.

 

I think most posters critical of North Korea's policies often reference Kim (or his predecessors), rather than implying much by way of collective responsibility.

I just read an interesting report about South Korea's perceptions on NK.  They like the people and hate the regime.  Younger people are more critical of the regime than older people. 

 

As with most countries around the world.  The people are generally OK.  It's their government that causes the problems.

[Kieran00001]

14 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

NK went with communism due to support from Russia and China.  You blame the US for pursuing every communist state with a view to force them to switch to capitalism, but don't condemn Russia/China for doing the exact opposite.

 

I did not appreciate what they were doing, but then they did not impose sanctions on every capitalist country, no, actually they tried to work with capitalist neighbors, it was the US who did their best to prevent anyone working with any communists, quite different indeed.

[craigt3365]

10 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I did not appreciate what they were doing, but then they did not impose sanctions on every capitalist country, no, actually they tried to work with capitalist neighbors, it was the US who did their best to prevent anyone working with any communists, quite different indeed.

Right.  Just imposed their own leaders, subjugated the population, brought in their own people to take everything over, etc.  Kinda like what's happening in Crimea today.

 

Most of these countries weren't communist in the first place.  And aren't communist today.  For good reasons.  It didn't work! LOL

[Kieran00001]

48 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Right.  Just imposed their own leaders, subjugated the population, brought in their own people to take everything over, etc.  Kinda like what's happening in Crimea today.

 

Most of these countries weren't communist in the first place.  And aren't communist today.  For good reasons.  It didn't work! LOL

 

Exactly, and my earlier point was that without US meddling North Korea most likely would have reached the same conclusion by now, as it stands they have no idea whether their ideology could result in a successful economy as they keep feeling that they need to put everything into arms just to maintain their existence.

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Exactly, and my earlier point was that without US meddling North Korea most likely would have reached the same conclusion by now, as it stands they have no idea whether their ideology could result in a successful economy as they keep feeling that they need to put everything into arms just to maintain their existence.

Most ex-USSR satellite states came free after the fall.  Of which a big reason was Chernoybl.

 

https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21697741-chernobyl-led-thousands-deaths-including-soviet-union-nuclear-disaster

 

Quote

 

A nuclear disaster that brought down an empire

Chernobyl led to thousands of deaths, including that of the Soviet Union

 

 

Can you imagine what would happen if NK gave a dirty bomb to, say, IS.  And it was let off in a major Western capital?  Not beyond the realm of possibility.  They did recently sell Syria chemical weapons....

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Most ex-USSR satellite states came free after the fall.  Of which a big reason was Chernoybl.

 

https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21697741-chernobyl-led-thousands-deaths-including-soviet-union-nuclear-disaster

 

 

Can you imagine what would happen if NK gave a dirty bomb to, say, IS.  And it was let off in a major Western capital?  Not beyond the realm of possibility.  They did recently sell Syria chemical weapons....

 

I can imagine, I can also imagine what would happen if they did it themselves, I see no reason for them to need ISIS now that they have an intercontinental missile program.  But what is your point?

[iReason]

Trump warns of 'devastating' military option as North Korea moves jets

"If we take that option it will be devastating -- devastating -- for North Korea," Trump said in the Rose Garden during a news conference. "It's called the military option."

 

"He's acting very badly," Trump said of North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un."

 

"He's saying things that should never ever be said."

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/trump-north-korea-moves-fighters-missiles-fuel-tanks/index.html

 

uh, "Fire and Fury"?, "We will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea” ?

 

"If we take that option it will be devastating -- devastating -- for North Korea ... "It's called the military option."

Glad he clarified that.

[Publicus]

29 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Exactly, and my earlier point was that without US meddling North Korea most likely would have reached the same conclusion by now, as it stands they have no idea whether their ideology could result in a successful economy as they keep feeling that they need to put everything into arms just to maintain their existence.

 

NK started out as the Frankenstein of Stalin and got some ancillary support from Mao to include vital reinforcement after NK invaded SK in 1950  but only when allied forces began to approach the Yalu border with the CCP-PRC. Since the truce in 1953 NK has never been at peace with SK which has remained open to peace and unification. The Kim Dynasty has had its own idea of unification under the Kims of course which was the whole idea of the NK 1950 invasion of the South. Each Pyonyang and Beijing teach their populations the South invaded the North to begin with, that our reward was to get the hell beaten out of us but that we remain eager to get whupped again.

 

The Kim Dynasty has never liked China or the Chinese which is a major reason the Dynasty rejected the Deng Xiaoping economic reforms Beijing advocated to it for 20 years without success. NK has instead always had its Juche philosophy of  self reliance ha ha and the Norks take a great pride ha ha in being a self reliant people ho ho and and independent sovereign nation state har har ho ho.

 

As to the CCP Dictator-Tyrants in Beijing, they are but another Chinese Dynasty of latter day emperors who prefer business suits and whose socialism with Chinese characteristics mark it as yet another dynasty destined to fail as every dynasty before it has failed no matter.  We are dealing with authoritarians here who have it in their thousands year old bones to rule absolutely. And to extend their absolute rule geographically, i.e., into your living room.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Publicus]

2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I did not appreciate what they were doing, but then they did not impose sanctions on every capitalist country, no, actually they tried to work with capitalist neighbors, it was the US who did their best to prevent anyone working with any communists, quite different indeed.

 

And for good reason besides.

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, Publicus said:

 

And for good reason besides.

 

If protecting the finances of the elite is a "good" reason then sure, if the reason is someones notion of freedom then that is debatable.

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, iReason said:

Trump warns of 'devastating' military option as North Korea moves jets

"If we take that option it will be devastating -- devastating -- for North Korea," Trump said in the Rose Garden during a news conference. "It's called the military option."

 

"He's acting very badly," Trump said of North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un."

 

"He's saying things that should never ever be said."

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/trump-north-korea-moves-fighters-missiles-fuel-tanks/index.html

 

uh, "Fire and Fury"?, "We will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea” ?

 

"If we take that option it will be devastating -- devastating -- for North Korea ... "It's called the military option."

Glad he clarified that.

 

He had probably had the term explained to him slowly shortly before.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

On 9/26/2017 at 2:49 PM, Yann55 said:

If we do decide not to silence our intelligence and honesty, we will be reminded that :

 

1/ The amount of bombs (including napalm) showered on North Korea by the US in the 1950s is stupefying. Air Force General Curtis Le May, who headed the Strategic Air Command during the Korean War, told the Office of Air Force History in 1984 : “Over a period of three years or so, we killed off ... what ? 20 percent of the population". That is not North Korean propaganda, it's a statement made by the American military man who oversaw the 'operation'. Twenty percent, now that's about 2 million people. Not 2 million Kim Jong-Uns, two million people like you and me. Does anyone imagine that Krazy Kim has a hard time reminding the North Koreans why they should hate the US ? Oh sure, he's doing it for the wrong reasons, but isn't that a recurring practice in politics, and everywhere ?

 

 

Not going to argue about the Iraq War and Bush and Co.'s disingenuous dealings re that. And the rise of ISIS and how they've acted on the world stage is a whole different discussion that doesn't belong here.

 

But as for North Korea, the part you left out in your "honesty" is the fact that the North Korean Communists started the war by invading the South and trying to take over the entire country. And they did so only after consulting with and getting approval in advance from Russia and China, back during a Cold War period when Communist China especially was trying to expand its control in other areas of Asia.  The U.S. wasn't looking for a fight back then in Korea, and AFAIK, didn't do anything/any provocation itself that forced N.K. to invade. So when you want to start looking at the blame for Korean casualties in that "war," you'd better first start looking at the N.K. communists and their benefactors in China and Russia that started the whole thing.

 

As for the feeling of today's N.K. people, most of them (as a percentage of the population) probably weren't even alive during the Korean War to experience it. I certainly wasn't by more than a few years, and I'm no spring chicken now. But they have now had 60+- years of being ruled by an authoritarian dictatorship that's cut off their country from the rest of the world, starved and otherwise abused their own people, and prevented them from having any knowledge or opportunity to decide what kind of government and country they want to have. And none of that is/was the doing of the U.S.

 

Perhaps you should look at the more recent Vietnam conflict as an example relative to NK. Without getting into arguments about why the Vietnam War was fought, it was fought and caused immense damage to the country and its people (and American/Allied casualties as well). But today, only -+40 years later, Vietnam and the U.S. are on pretty good terms, Vietnamese society is more open despite being nominally communist, and AFAIK, most Vietnamese in many ways admire the U.S. for what it's achieved as a nation, and certainly today are pretty hospitable to American tourists, even including U.S. vets from the war.  That could too have been N.K., and the only reason N.K. didn't turn out the same way in the brutal and brazen dictatorship of Kim and his predecessors kept the country in the dark as a means of maintaining their dynasty, where it remains to this day. That's where the blame rightly belongs in the case of N.K.

 

 

Edited September 27, 2017 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Publicus]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

If protecting the finances of the elite is a "good" reason then sure, if the reason is someones notion of freedom then that is debatable.

 

Framing it in class terms seems to make it neat, i.e. the one percent for instance, which can be one way to do it. One could frame the elites by a primarily horizontal scheme or one could frame elites vertically. Or one could frame the elites by form of government for instance (and throw in efficacy). No matter how one likes to frame the elites however, elites have existed since time immemorial and elites will continue to exist and to thrive. So one might choose his poison to include condemning 'em all. Nihilists can be amused to play fun and games -- at least until the fun slams up against specifics. Bringing on specifics does consistently mark the point at which the dancing music stops however.

 

Chinese elites do for instance consider themselves as the elite of all elites -- of all places and times. And they are certain the NK elites are pretenders who need to be put back into their proper place. And that they the Chinese elites are the extension of the eternal elite while the USA elites are a rabble and a flash in the pan. Thus, referring simply to "the elite" can be meaningless out of context, place, time, circumstance. Unless of course all that matters is the fun and games of telling people they are suckers and pedestrian saps.

[Kieran00001]

3 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Framing it in class terms seems to make it neat, i.e. the one percent for instance, which can be one way to do it. One could frame the elites by a primarily horizontal scheme or one could frame elites vertically. Or one could frame the elites by form of government for instance (and throw in efficacy). No matter how one likes to frame the elites however, elites have existed since time immemorial and elites will continue to exist and to thrive. So one might choose his poison to include condemning 'em all. Nihilists can be amused to play fun and games -- at least until the fun slams up against specifics. Bringing on specifics does consistently mark the point at which the dancing music stops however.

 

Chinese elites do for instance consider themselves as the elite of all elites -- of all places and times. And they are certain the NK elites are pretenders who need to be put back into their proper place. And that they the Chinese elites are the extension of the eternal elite while the USA elites are a rabble and a flash in the pan. Thus, referring simply to "the elite" can be meaningless out of context, place, time, circumstance. Unless of course all that matters is the fun and games of telling people they are suckers and pedestrian saps.

 

But it was not said out of context place or time, the context being the US fight against socialism, worldwide, for the past 60 odd years, the elite I referred to that they are protecting are their own elite.

Elites are not thriving everywhere, Scandinavian social democracy has done a very good job of levelling things there, no one is Europe is blinkered into thinking that there is nothing that can be done about the issue, most countries have had revolutions that removed the elite and levelled the ground not so long ago, doing nothing and allowing the greedy elite to impoverish half the nation is just part of the American dream, not anyone else's.