|
Another Korea War?
After the UN slapped some new sanctions on North Korea for its third nuclear test, North Korea has nullified the armistice with the UN forces starting Monday March 11.
Today the official paper Rodong Sinmun carries some 15 pieces about war. The main editorial: We'll Be Victors in the Fight to Defend National Sovereignty
If the enemy comes at us with a dagger we’ll draw out a big sword to slice him in pieces, if he comes with a rifle we'll turn a big gun to blow him off, and he threatens with nuke, we’ll face up to him with more powerful and accurate nuke strike means of our own — that will be the mode of counter attack of Mt. Paektu type. The statement declared that the KPA Supreme Command would totally nullify the Korean Armistice Agreement and stop all activities of the Panmunjom Mission of the KPA.
The statement also demonstrated the heroic spirit of Songun Korea pressing forward to a bright future with the might of its people's single-minded unity.
Local headlines: U.S. And Puppet Warmongers Are Destined to Meet Final Ruin, In Concerted Efforts, All People Ready for Decisive Battle, With Power of Single Hearted Unity
Inter-Korean headlines: U.S., South Korea Start Joint Military Exercises, Is It "Defensive"?, Converted Version of "Preemptive Strike"
There is no doubt that North Korea is preparing for a bit of war. It has to raise its deterrence especially against a naval blockade. An over-interpretation of the latest sanctions could lead to such a move.
Starting Monday the U.S. and other countries will also be, in a legal sense, again at war with North Korea. Something will then happen that lets this war go from cold to hot. Such something does not have to come from North Korean. There are enough South Korean hawks who would like a limited or even a bigger clash to occur.
The U.S. and South Korea should stand down and call off their current maneuvers. If only, should the war go hot, to make sure that it is clear which side is the aggressor. Unfortunately the new South Korean president, the daughter of South Korea's former dictator, is likely too hawkish to do so.
For now I do expect some limited clashes. Likely at sea or on one of the disputed islands. But I do not see anyone interested in a longer war. The tricky issue for all sides will be to avoid incidents that could get out of control. One wrongly submitted command or one out of control local commander can screw up the intended limits of the clashes and ruin the day for millions of people.
One might hope that the Chinese keep some influence over North Korea. But as China joined in the new sanction round its influence of happens next is limited.
The new sanctions, useless as they are, will cost a certain price. Let us that it will not be too high.
b – 3
“Why did you write “Israel-America” when the situation in Korea has zero, nadda, nil to do with Israel?”
I consider Israel and the USA to be a single entity, from about the late 60’s on, I think the oligarch interests called Israel and America merged and become a sort of working association of corporate interests. So I generally write Israel-America when referring to things this entity is doing. Prior to the 60’s, I generally refer to them as separate entities. I also refer to them singly when the subject is of minor interests to them, or local and appears to be the actions of one of them. So when Israel attacks a Palestinian demo, I use Israel. When America attacked Korea in the 40’s, I use America.
Zionist interests, economic and geopolitical, are so heavily intertwined with American corporate interests, and the west’s, in general, that it is hard to tell which aspect of an action is due to “American” interests, and which is due to zionist or “Israeli” interests. Major actions, such as the campaigns against Syria, Iran and North Korea are the actions of this NWO combine working fully together. It is in both zionist and the older established fascist capitalist interests to dominate these countries. Same for the “great game” geostrategy of subverting Asia to NWO dominance, of which the destabilisation of Syria, Iran and North Korea is very much a constituent part of.
If one looks at the details of many so called American actions, one will find Israel involved. From zionist mega-banksters providing the funding, zionist media providing the propaganda, down to the Israeli mossad or special ops forces helping on the ground. Even American cops are now being trained in Israel, or by Israelis. And the Israeli penetration of American security, in general, from homeland security, which is essentially an Israeli occupation army, down to many local private firms doing mundane tasks, is quite complete.
Pretty much the same zionist influence can be claimed about countries of Europe and the old British Commonwealth. The zionist interests, American interests, local capitalist fascist interests are also so closely intertwined, these places can be considered as part of this NWO conglomerate, though local interests tend take a somewhat backseat to those of American and zionist as per the power pecking order.
I use terms like Israel-America to remind people it is not really single countries any more, but combinations of interests operating together, and that zionist interests are heavily involved in one way or another, either overtly and obvious, or there in the background with all of it. One of the major distortions of the history of nazi Germany is blaming all the aggression of this country on nazi government officials and ignoring the business interests, international and local, who actually were the facilitators, and major beneficiaries, of those nazi officials. Most histories leave out the corporate aspect, which was the actual power behind the nazi “throne”. Subsequently, much history about this period is simplistic, inaccurate and logically confusing. This left those same corporate interests still in power and has greatly contributed to the problems we have today with the NWO fascists, who are essentially the same animal. Leaving the zionist power group, what Petras calls the zionist power configuration (zpc), out of the present day matrix of the international power plays similarly distorts reality and only gives a very partial and confusing picture.
Posted by: вот так | Mar 8 2013 19:51 utc | 5
heath – 17
Your post is a good example of why I use terms like Israel-America. It is because many still think in terms of America, Israel, UK, Germany, France when discussing what the corporate oligarchies do. Mali is discussed as a “French” operation. The Iraq war as an “American” operation, etc. These are international policies not decided at a country level, but by groups of corporate oligarchs who operate internationally. Oligarchs whose loyalty is to their own class and interests, not to a country. They are not really loyal to any one country at all. Most of them. There is a major exception, and possibly another somewhat smaller exception, which I’ll get to below. These oligarchs use the governments of the countries they operate in to further their own interests and power, not the interests and power of the countries. When it serves their interests, they suck the country dry and split it up, destroying it as a country. If it serves their interests to make the country a powerhouse (totally loyal to their interests, of course), then they do that. Tomorrow, if that country’s neighbour fits that bill, these oligarchs will then use that neighbouring country as their main base of operations. A well known example of this is a major chunk of the corporate oligarchy replacing the British empire with the emerging American empire in the early part of the 20th century.
The main exception are the zionists. The other notable exception may be the Japanese, who may have a bit of nationalism still left among their local ruling oligarchy, and enough clout internationally to keep some semblance of independence. The zionists have that same class loyalty as the others, but they are also loyal to Israel – the zionist ideal. In that way, they differ from the majority of the international oligarchs. That loyalty also makes them more united than most of the rest. It’s that unity that makes zionist power so strong. Also, they are spread throughout the world more, there are loyal zionists throughout the power structures of the capitalist west. That zionist unity is what sets them apart from the others, in that they do have a country. That country is Israel. Right now, the various oligarchs, zionist and not, in the capitalist west use the USA as their main strong arm, but should their continued use of the USA cause that country to fail to be that strong arm, these oligarchs will select another to replace it. Like they replaced Britain with the USA 100 years ago. But no matter who the enforcer country is, and which countries are sucked dry and allowed to decline, Israel will undoubably remain protected. If the zionists get their way. Other countries get thrown under the bus when better ones come along, but not Israel, Israel is eternal and untouchable – the 1000 year reich – in the eyes of the zionist branch of the NWO. In that sense, these zionists are a separate power block of the oligarchy, and they maintain enough power to keep their independence.
The various lobbies the zionists maintain throughout the west are there to maintain independent zionist power, and while the majority of powerful zionist oligarchs live outside Israel, Israel is home. Israel is central. These lobbies are used to maintain zionist power locally, and to maintain Israeli influence in those countries and among the other oligarchs. The following essay provides a good overview how this works in the USA, but it should be remembered that the zionists maintain similar influence structures throughout the capitalist west, and in some countries, their influence is even stronger than it is in the USA.
The State and Local Bases of Zionist Power in America
http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=1820
This is getting off topic and I don’t want to further hijack this discussion about recent Korean events. My original post was a response to “b” explaining why I use the term Israel-American, I intend to get into an extended discussion about it. Unless “b” is interested in further discussion, which I would be happy to, I think it’s best I should stop here.
Posted by: вот так | Mar 9 2013 7:57 utc | 20
|
