Nikki Haley to UN on North Korea's nuclear program: 'Enough! is enough!

In fact the world has an organization called the United nations that tells people what they can do and what they can't do. In the Korean War the North, supported by international Communism, invaded the South. It was a UN action against the Communist attack in which Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and many other countries participated. Although officially called a draw it's clear that the South won and were able to live in freedom while the people forced to live under Communism, and a dictatorial dynasty, lost. The history is quite clear.

 

No, hegemony is more like dominance; preponderant influence or authority over others, the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group.

 

It really doesn't matter what Princeton's opinion might be. There is not a great deal of practical thought coming out of these institutes of higher learning recently, with Princeton ranking high among them.

The USA is a democracy (or Republic if you will) that has done very well for 240 years or so and there is, despite all the upheavals around the world and within, it continues to be a strong nation and still the preferred place to live for much of the world's people. The world would not be a better place without the United States.

 

While leftists believe that's unsporting and Americans deserve to be punished.

 

Not true.
Seoul changed hands 4 times in the last 2 years. So it was obvious that the war was not going anywhere. The US was getting increasingly desperate. The losses were just adding up, while military progress was zero besides that they were killing more and more civilians with their genocidal bombing campaigns.

 

Come on Fred...

The Communist government of China wasn't even recognized by the UN (it was Taiwan in its place) and the soviets were against. That's two main players in the matter right there. It took Resolution 377 to use the UN as the Occident's imperialistic tool.

That was a nasty record for the young UN; two years before, they condoned the partition of Palestine... against the will of those most concerned, the Palestinians themselves, who found themselves but one voice among hundreds regarding their own fate.

Besides, the UN is but an instrument of convenience, that the US ignore or coerce according to the occasion. Everybody can see the Emperor's naked, Fred...

You maybe won then, but you got too cocky and now you lost. Pack your hardware and then leave the place before it gets too apparent.

 

I was talking about the contemporary situation, not the 50s' war.

 

The South Koreans and South Vietnamese wanted no part of an evil ideology that would make their lives hell. They fought for freedom, and we helped. It worked in South Korea and they've done very well. SK is one of the most advanced societies on the planet. We chickened out in South Vietnam and those poor people have suffered.

 

They're rooting for an ICBM to hit Chicago.

 

I was talking about the contemporary situation, not the 50s' war.

And that's a funny story you are telling: Hearing it, one might believe that the US just debarked in SK to save the poor Koreans from the evil Commies. That's far from being the case: What happens is that you already were in Korea, fighting the Japanese at the end of WWII... and then somewhere between the two nukes the Soviets also fought Japan there, from the North. The Koreans themselves, stuck between the two, never had a say in their country's matter since 1910.

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

"A unified Korea could have great implications for the balance of power in the region, with South Korea already considered by many a regional power. Reunification would give access to cheap labor and abundant natural resources in the North, which, combined with existing technology and capital in the South, would create large economic and military growth potential. According to a 2009 study by Goldman Sachs, a unified Korea could have an economy larger than that of Japan by 2050. A unified Korean military would have the largest number of reservists as well as one of the largest numbers of military hackers."

 

Since there was no actual reason to drop the bombs why are you patting yourself on the back for being so damn clueless.

 

What does it matter if the Communist government was recognized or not? The Soviets were against what?

"Though not officially belligerent during the Korean War (1950–1953), the Soviet Union played a significant, covert role in the conflict. It provided material and medical services, as well as Soviet pilots and aircraft, most notably MiG 15 fighter jets, to aid the North Korean-Chinese forces against the United Nations Forces". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_in_the_Korean_War

That's generally well known and if you really understood who did the invading, and the meaning of "Imperialism", you wouldn't make the claims you just did.

That's another topic altogether.

The UN is corrupt, has become a soapbox for dictators, is ignored by all its members when it's to their advantage, and should be discarded. However that doesn't change the history of the Korean War. Your obvious anti-Americanism .is blinding you to the facts.

The UN Forces, led ably by the Americans, won. A few generations of free South Koreans also won. The Communists lost, as they did in 1990, and that was good for free people everywhere. The Americans, led finally by Ronald Reagan, won that war also and all of Eastern Europe can certainly be grateful to the American people.

Now it's possible that the people of North Korea can finally be free as well, though we don't know yet as to what cost. You seem to supporting another disgusting dictatorship here, and it's certainly not the first time leftists have done so.

 

It stopped being a military war and became a political war, just as recently happened in the ME - and with similar consequences. It seems Trump isn't going to make that same disastrous mistake.

 

The grateful Poles, liberated when the Soviets finally collapsed, remember him with this monument in a park across from the US embassy:

It depicts the indomitable Reagan at the Brandenburg gate as he uttered that historical demand; "take down this wall!"

 

Of course the Soviets were against UN intervention. And as they were part of the SC, no resolution could be adopted against NK without Resolution 377. And of course the Soviets were important in the matter, but what about communist China, not even recognized? They kinda played a role too huh? You got this UN thing as if to say that the whole world was agreeing with the US intervention - I just showed you how detached it was from the true players in Korea but you.

It was just to demonstrate you the constance of that era's UN.

First, you didn't won.

Second, if the commies lost, how come they're still there?

Third, the Americans didn't won the Cold War neither. The Poles did. Lech Walesa and the era's Pope did it. Heck, Gorbachev himself has more merit in reforming Russia, and he did it in spite of Reagan. Reagan just assured you guys won't survive being the world's sole superpower for long, making your country pass from a creditor nation to a debitor one. It could have happened under Carter.

What Reagan did for the fall of the USSR is about half of what Stallone committed with legendary turnips Rambo III and Rocky IV. Man, that era.

The only thing that I support here is auto-determination.

 

They are there to die and give America a pretense to go to war for reasons yet to be explained.

 

Of course communist China played a role and I mentioned that more than once. "As though"? I'm giving you the facts.

They kept the people of South Korea free from the Communist invasion. That's a win. Perhaps they should have freed the North as well but the world was sick of war by that time.

In North Korea? As mentioned, perhaps the UN Forces should have taken over the North but that was very risky and many lives had already been lost.

The Cold War was international and full credit also to Pope Paul II, Margaret Thatcher but, especially, Ronald Reagan. He was the one with the power to back up his words and to lend inspiration to the eastern Europeans, especially the Poles. Perhaps you're not aware of the esteem Ronald Reagan is held in the former Communist countries. Gorbachev's budgets and policies included the same policies as his predecessor. He tried to 'reform' Communism when the inevitable was near, an impossible task, and the system collapsed. I think we can all be grateful for that, correct?

You've now entered the Silly Zone. Please don't advance any further in that direction.

And you feel countries being invaded, like the South Koreans, would have enjoyed auto-determination under a communist dictatorship? Communists do not allow human rights and freedoms in those countries where they have gained control. You know that, right?.

And you should also understand more about US debt in relation to other countries.. Not too bad for being The World's Policeman. https://www.fool.com/investing/gene...ted-states-the-worlds-most-indebted-coun.aspx

 

"auto-determination"? I think you mean "self-determination" and it is a loable goal, but not one favored by Putin's Russia (or his Soviet predecessors), just consider the degree of self-determination enjoyed by people in Chechnya, Kazakhstan, Belarus or Uzbekistan.

 

Yeah - well in any case, it was a one-sided decision by the UN, one that you coerced it to take, with no input from two the main actors, China and the USSR. A minority decision, as it is. Do you know how many people it represented? To make matters worse, India abstained too.

And what about the American invasion, that pre-dates the Korean war? Oh, that was liberation you say? Then how come you are still there? You think SK wants you there to act as a dog of war? Koreans have not been liberated since 1910.

Whatever, you didn't win that war.

Typical WASP delusion - they think the world goes round because of them. The fall of the USSR came from the ground up - not from the top down. Reagan just spend a lot of money, and that still hurts you to this day. The USSR would have fallen even without Reagan, or Thatcher. There's no countries in the history of the world that disappear because they were being outspent - thats' ridiculous.

When I compared Reagan's reign to the worse Stallone movies, who were contemporaries, I didn't jest. "Rocky" has just has much vanquished the USSR represented by another actor as Reagan has "vanquished" Gorbachev - with symbolism. Reagan's era was just posturing, just like Churchill was - the WASPs didn't beat the Nazis, the Soviets did. The USSR's fall could have happened during Carter. Are you going to also attribute Reagan all the sunshine you got while he was there?

But Fred you are one of Korea's invader, and you would prefer to see Seoul flattened rather than to leave.

These debts are a mean for you to coerce these nations.

 

Somehow it is hard to accept that our amazingly stupid and costly wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afganistan have anything to do with being the worlds policeman.

 

Vietnam was a just war

But I think the 2nd Iraq war was a mistake by bush

 

I have news for you. When Washington delivered its Thaads, the S. Koreans weren't asked. As for starving the N. Koreans, Kim is not the one sanctioning his people, the US is.

 

South Korea wants the missle defense now

 

While Americans gloss over the Korean war, the following is what is drummed into the N. Korean schoolchildren day in and day out. Is it any wonder they hate us with a passion and with good cause:

According to Globalresearch, it is now estimated that North Korea lost 30% of its population during the 37 month bombing between 1950 -1953.

According to Newsweek, we destroyed more cities in North Korea then we did in Japan or Germany during WWII. During the three-year war, the U.S. dropped 635,000 tons of explosives on North Korea, including 32,557 tons of napalm, an incendiary liquid that can clear forested areas and cause devastating burns to human skin. This is more explosives than was used in the Pacific theater during WWII.

​

 

When it comes to leaders of nations that are pressured to bow to Washington's dictates, never assume it's what the people want. Would you want a missile defense system when it might lead to war, and your brother and relatives live on the other side of that border?