Do you oppose the Korean War in hindsight?

[whitehall]

The mainstream media were allowed the same access to the three year Korean Conflict as they had in WW2 but for some reason they called it the "Forgotten War". Anybody think why they would do that? The reason is simple. Harry Truman didn't have time to consult with Congress so he issued a presidential order that authorized American Troops in combat. It was the right thing to do but it doesn't absolve him of legal responsibility. The media created the myth about the feisty little former congressman "give 'em hell Harry" but it was a myth. In reality Harry Truman was a timid little man who could not deal with the general he appointed to run the Military. MacArthur was another icon created by the media and he was an old WW1 general in his 70's who neer spent a single night in Korea preferring to run the conflict from his palace in Japan. It was a tough struggle and American Troops finally pushed the NK invaders across the 38th parallel and even took the NK capital of Ponyg Yang. The war was over in less than a year. Truman was silent when MacArthur told his fawning minions in the press that he would liberate the entire peninsula with exhausted ill-supplied Troops and thin supply lines. The Chinese addressed the UN that they would not tolerate UN Troops approaching the Yalu river or they would enter the conflict. MacArthur took his fawning slobbering media followers on a plane tour to the Yalu River and failed to note a division of Chinese troops camouflaged in the snow. The victory in less than a year turned into the worst ambush in history and a three year struggle that ended with anywhere from 38,000 to 50,000 Americans killed and a humiliating "truce" dictated by the NK. Truman was never criticized and MacArthur received a tickertape parade by the same slobbering fawning media that called the loss of 38,000 Americans "the forgotten war".

 

[Flopper]

Flanders,

After the Second World War the United States greatly overestimated the threat of Communism. During the War the Soviet Union lost an estimated 28 million dead, and one third of its industrial and farm plant. A country that had suffered like that was in no position to embark on a career of world conquest.

Communist subversion was never a legitimate concern for the United States. It was only effective against countries where right wing dictatorships oppressed an impoverished majority in order to protect a parasitic oligarchy. Even then it usually failed.

After the Second World War a certain amount of tension with the Soviet Union was probably inevitable. Nevertheless, the United States could have behaved unilaterally in order to reduce tensions.

Although a nuclear war was a real danger, there was never the slightest danger that the United States would somehow "go Communist."

The fear millions of Americans had of the American Communist Party was preposterous. The CPUSA never consisted of more than a few thousand members. It was never more than a Marxist discussion group.

I read somewhere that by the 1960's, 1 in every 3 communists in the US were FBI agents or informants. I really think we overdid the communist behind every bush idea of the 1950's.

 

[Flanders]

There is no honor attacking small countries.

To Bleipriester: I don’t know what honor has to do with annihilating a small AGGRESSIVE country threatening you with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

Does your definition of honor apply to large Communist countries? Just to set the record straight, America stopping large Communist countries from attacking small countries is at the heart of the long-running conflict between free people and communism. Nobody gives a rat’s ass how Communists live in their own countries —— just don’t export it with violent revolution and military force.

....we also supported the post ww2 south Korean gov. that was headed by Syngman Rhee, who was almost as bad as his northern counter part Kim IL Sung......but Rhee was 'our son of a bitch'....

To Trajan: Exactly so. It’s better to support our sons of bitches than it is to support enemy sons of bitches. Socialists/liberals/Democrats want the opposite. The record shows that they supported Stalin, Mao, Castro, radical Islam, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

During the Second World War the Soviet Union suffered 28 million dead and the loss of one third of its industrial and farm plant. Inflicting more suffering on the Soviet people would have been immoral, and we might have even lost. At the end of the Second World War there was no support in the United States for an equally costly war with the Soviets.

To Friends: Immoral my ass. Communism is immoral along with the fools who refuse to fight for their own freedom. The rank and file Cold War cowards even had a slogan: Better Red Than Dead. The shame is that they wanted it for everyone not just themselves. The worst of it is that they still play both sides. They are more than willing to enjoy the freedom provided by those who fight for it, but should it go the other way they will welcome the oppressors with open arms in the hopes of receiving better treatment. The only pleasure I take in their treason is in knowing that nobody trusts a coward or a traitor. Conquerors know that traitors will betray their new masters just as they betray their country; ergo; slaughter them first.

I really think we overdid the communist behind every bush idea of the 1950's.

To Flopper: The welfare state and the current size of the parasite class prove otherwise.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

US warns North Korea of increased isolation if threats escalate further
White House says US will not be intimidated by 'bellicose rhetoric' and is fully capable of defending itself and its allies
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 March 2013 14.33 EDT

US warns North Korea of increased isolation if threats escalate further | World news | guardian.co.uk

The Korean War was sanctioned by the United Nations; therefore, the American Left had their hands tied. American Communists could not protest a military action against the spread of communism without criticizing the UN. The Vietnam War was not sanctioned by the United Nations; therefore; American Communists were free to bring defeat their own country.

NOTE: America’s “loyal” ally, the UK, did not fight with America in Vietnam. I always found that despicable. Communists were determined to destroy America just as Germany would have destroyed England in two wars, yet the Brits always behaved as though it was America’s duty to come to England’s aid while they were under no obligation to fight alongside America against its enemy. I should also point out that the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, were really hot battles in the Cold War against communism. Had the United Nations not sanctioned the Korean Police Action ——ONLY 5 YEARS AFTER THE END OF WWII —— I doubt if the UK would helped us there.

Now that Kim Jong-un is doing a lot more than saber-rattling let me quote President Truman on stopping Communist expansion in Korea:

We've got to stop the sons of bitches, no matter what, and that's all there is to it.

For many years I suggested asking every top Democrat the following:

Do you oppose the Korean War in hindsight?

If they answer “Yes” they admit that fighting against communism is what they oppose.

If they answer “No.” ask them why not? since both wars were fought for the same reason.

Thank you Kim Jong-un for making the question more important today than it’s ever been in the past.

This is where it gets interesting. Is the UN’s stamp of approval still in effect should North Korea attack South Korea ?

If so, American Communists may not have to face the dilemma of demonstrating against the United Nations this time around because three traitors are perched at the top of government. Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Hussein. Biden and Kerry took an active part in betraying this country, and the men and women who were doing the fighting, during the Vietnam war. Hussein was born in 1961; so he was too young to do the things Biden and Kerry did, but there is no doubt as to where his loyalties lie.

Next question

Will America’s allies support us again? Answer: Possibly because of the nuclear bomb factor.

Also, Americans have seen damn few loyal Democrats in high office since Harry Truman stuck it to the Soviet Union in 1950. None in Hussein’s administration. Back in 1950 Communist China was not a member of the UN. Today, they have a seat on the Security Council. Guess how the Chicoms feel about Kim Jong-un’s expansion plans.

Logically, North Korea’s military planners must rely on three things:

1. China will back their play when push comes to shove.

2. American traitors will do everything in their power to portray a second Korean War as another Vietnam.

3. Most importantly, Kim Jong-un is counting on Hussein & Company to keep the United Nations out of it à la Vietnam. In short: Kim would not be poking the lion without Hussein & Company in power.

Incidentally, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is from South Korea. I don’t know what Ban is doing behind the scenes, or how it plays into North Korea’s plans.

On the bright side, no matter how it goes North Korea could trigger the UN’s downfall. The majority of Americans already despise the UN. It won’t take much to push it over the edge. And there would be no better example of poetic justice than to have it happen when UN-loving traitors are in charge.

Both wars we fought the same exact enemy. COMMUNISM. I fully support both wars. I do believe the days of the UN are numbered. League of Nations was an abysmal failure and by any other name including UN it is still a colossal failure. Time to ditch it and ditch the IMF and World Bank as well. We don't need these NGO's stripping nation after nation of their sovereignty. Time to get rid of these clowns. - Jeremiah

 

[Flanders]

I do believe the days of the UN are numbered.

To Jeremiah: I, too, lean in that direction, but only because of the Internet. It’s going to take some time to undo the damage that was done when media controlled information.

 

[Trajan]

Flanders,

After the Second World War the United States greatly overestimated the threat of Communism. During the War the Soviet Union lost an estimated 28 million dead, and one third of its industrial and farm plant. A country that had suffered like that was in no position to embark on a career of world conquest.

Communist subversion was never a legitimate concern for the United States. It was only effective against countries where right wing dictatorships oppressed an impoverished majority in order to protect a parasitic oligarchy. Even then it usually failed.

After the Second World War a certain amount of tension with the Soviet Union was probably inevitable. Nevertheless, the United States could have behaved unilaterally in order to reduce tensions.

Although a nuclear war was a real danger, there was never the slightest danger that the United States would somehow "go Communist."

The fear millions of Americans had of the American Communist Party was preposterous. The CPUSA never consisted of more than a few thousand members. It was never more than a Marxist discussion group.

I read somewhere that by the 1960's, 1 in every 3 communists in the US were FBI agents or informants. I really think we overdid the communist behind every bush idea of the 1950's.

I don't know where you read that, a link would help, but I can provide you several sources that say different;



Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America (Yale Nota Bene) [Paperback]
John Earl Haynes (Author), Harvey Klehr (Author)

and even more so;


The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB [Paperback]
Christopher Andrew (Author), Vasili Mitrokhin (Author)

its dry but very interesting an speaks to the huge push the USSR made to gain intel, subvert citizens here that could help them, and of course theres always the high profile dupes- Owen Lattimer, Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.......etc etc ...and those are some that we knew about...

 

[ThirdTerm]

Another Korean War is unlikely to break out because neither China nor Russia would support North Korea in such an eventuality and any future conflicts on the Korean Peninsula would be minor border skirmishes which can be resolved without American military involvement. Communism in Asia no longer has an expansionist goal unlike the Cold War era and Kim Jong-Un's aggressive and irrational behaviour is a mere reflection of the Korean national psyche and his provocative statements cannot be taken seriously. A major war can be prevented if Washington can control Seoul's overreaction to any border incidents and South Korea's new female leader may need America's assistance on military matters as she could be tempted to escalate a localised skirmish in order to boost her military credentials and Obama has to rein her in to keep the peace in Korea.

 

[Friends]

To Friends: Immoral my ass. Communism is immoral along with the fools who refuse to fight for their own freedom. The rank and file Cold War cowards even had a slogan: Better Red Than Dead. The shame is that they wanted it for everyone not just themselves. The worst of it is that they still play both sides. They are more than willing to enjoy the freedom provided by those who fight for it, but should it go the other way they will welcome the oppressors with open arms in the hopes of receiving better treatment. The only pleasure I take in their treason is in knowing that nobody trusts a coward or a traitor. Conquerors know that traitors will betray their new masters just as they betray their country; ergo; slaughter them first.

You sound like a high school boy trying to sound tough. Real people die in wars. A nuclear war with the Soviet Union would have met the end of civilization.

 

[Flanders]

You sound like a high school boy trying to sound tough.

To Friends: And you sound like a touchy-feely freak trying to save mankind by sacrificing everybody else’s freedoms.

Real people die in wars.

To Friends: War is not the Great Satan ——totalitarian government is. Totalitarian governments killed more people in the 20th century than did all of the wars in the past 500 years. Communist governments slaughtered real people in the tens of millions. Rail against that for a while instead of preaching Better Red Than Dead.

A nuclear war with the Soviet Union would have met the end of civilization.

To Friends: That’s absurd. You may believe in Better Red Than Dead, but most Americans prefer death to slavery. Nuclear war against the Soviets would have meant the end of communism had it taken place when America was infinitely superior militarily. Winston Churchill put it this way:

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

Ronald Reagan said this about freedom:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yS4yf723kmY]Reagan responds to Obama and his supporters - YouTube[/ame]​

America’s Founders would not have rolled over for communism for any reason:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Benjamin Franklin

Give me Liberty, or Give me Death! Patrick Henry

America’s Founders had to deal with cowards who feared death by musket fire and grapeshot. Today’s cowards latched onto nuclear war as an excuse to abandon everyone’s freedoms.

Finally, those who want to surrender their freedoms without a fight never object to the methods governments use to kill their own people. Cowards might even prefer being beheaded by Muslim fundamentalists. The fact is: The method of death matters not if it comes fighting against totalitarian government.

Incidentally, did you ever consider this. Communists don’t mind killing, but they might not be so quick to die for their beliefs.

 

[Flopper]

US warns North Korea of increased isolation if threats escalate further
White House says US will not be intimidated by 'bellicose rhetoric' and is fully capable of defending itself and its allies
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 March 2013 14.33 EDT

US warns North Korea of increased isolation if threats escalate further | World news | guardian.co.uk

The Korean War was sanctioned by the United Nations; therefore, the American Left had their hands tied. American Communists could not protest a military action against the spread of communism without criticizing the UN. The Vietnam War was not sanctioned by the United Nations; therefore; American Communists were free to bring defeat their own country.

NOTE: America’s “loyal” ally, the UK, did not fight with America in Vietnam. I always found that despicable. Communists were determined to destroy America just as Germany would have destroyed England in two wars, yet the Brits always behaved as though it was America’s duty to come to England’s aid while they were under no obligation to fight alongside America against its enemy. I should also point out that the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, were really hot battles in the Cold War against communism. Had the United Nations not sanctioned the Korean Police Action ——ONLY 5 YEARS AFTER THE END OF WWII —— I doubt if the UK would helped us there.

Now that Kim Jong-un is doing a lot more than saber-rattling let me quote President Truman on stopping Communist expansion in Korea:

We've got to stop the sons of bitches, no matter what, and that's all there is to it.

For many years I suggested asking every top Democrat the following:

Do you oppose the Korean War in hindsight?

If they answer “Yes” they admit that fighting against communism is what they oppose.

If they answer “No.” ask them why not? since both wars were fought for the same reason.

Thank you Kim Jong-un for making the question more important today than it’s ever been in the past.

This is where it gets interesting. Is the UN’s stamp of approval still in effect should North Korea attack South Korea ?

If so, American Communists may not have to face the dilemma of demonstrating against the United Nations this time around because three traitors are perched at the top of government. Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Hussein. Biden and Kerry took an active part in betraying this country, and the men and women who were doing the fighting, during the Vietnam war. Hussein was born in 1961; so he was too young to do the things Biden and Kerry did, but there is no doubt as to where his loyalties lie.

Next question

Will America’s allies support us again? Answer: Possibly because of the nuclear bomb factor.

Also, Americans have seen damn few loyal Democrats in high office since Harry Truman stuck it to the Soviet Union in 1950. None in Hussein’s administration. Back in 1950 Communist China was not a member of the UN. Today, they have a seat on the Security Council. Guess how the Chicoms feel about Kim Jong-un’s expansion plans.

Logically, North Korea’s military planners must rely on three things:

1. China will back their play when push comes to shove.

2. American traitors will do everything in their power to portray a second Korean War as another Vietnam.

3. Most importantly, Kim Jong-un is counting on Hussein & Company to keep the United Nations out of it à la Vietnam. In short: Kim would not be poking the lion without Hussein & Company in power.

Incidentally, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is from South Korea. I don’t know what Ban is doing behind the scenes, or how it plays into North Korea’s plans.

On the bright side, no matter how it goes North Korea could trigger the UN’s downfall. The majority of Americans already despise the UN. It won’t take much to push it over the edge. And there would be no better example of poetic justice than to have it happen when UN-loving traitors are in charge.

Both wars we fought the same exact enemy. COMMUNISM. I fully support both wars. I do believe the days of the UN are numbered. League of Nations was an abysmal failure and by any other name including UN it is still a colossal failure. Time to ditch it and ditch the IMF and World Bank as well. We don't need these NGO's stripping nation after nation of their sovereignty. Time to get rid of these clowns. - Jeremiah

The UN's been around for 63 years and is not about to go away. Although most people are not confident about the UN's ability to solve problems, they certain don't think the UN should be abolished. In a recent Gallop poll, when respondents were asked, "Should the United States give up its membership to the United Nations, or not?" 85% responded "NO".

United Nations | Gallup Historical Trends

 

[Flanders]

The UN's been around for 63 years and is not about to go away. Although most people are not confident about the UN's ability to solve problems, they certain don't think the UN should be abolished. In a recent Gallop poll, when respondents were asked, "Should the United States give up its membership to the United Nations, or not?" 85% responded "NO".

United Nations | Gallup Historical Trends

To Flopper: The poll you cite will get turned on its head by any one of these questions:

1. Should America surrender any part of its sovereignty to the United Nations?

2. Should the United Nations be given taxing authority over the American people in treaties or any other way?

3. Does the UN’s judicial system have the authority to impose International law on the American people?

Incidentally, you might enjoy a thread I just posted. Scroll down to the bottom part of the OP for some comments about open-borders and the United Nations:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/immigration-illegal-immigration/286575-only-on-maps.html

 

[JakeStarkey]

I only oppose the permission given to General Mac to drive to the Yalu.

Mao said he would kick UN coalition ass if it were to happen, it did, and he did.

We should have stabilized the line at the DMZ.

 

[Flopper]

The UN's been around for 63 years and is not about to go away. Although most people are not confident about the UN's ability to solve problems, they certain don't think the UN should be abolished. In a recent Gallop poll, when respondents were asked, "Should the United States give up its membership to the United Nations, or not?" 85% responded "NO".

United Nations | Gallup Historical Trends

To Flopper: The poll you cite will get turned on its head by any one of these questions:

1. Should America surrender any part of its sovereignty to the United Nations?

2. Should the United Nations be given taxing authority over the American people in treaties or any other way?

3. Does the UN’s judicial system have the authority to impose International law on the American people?

Incidentally, you might enjoy a thread I just posted. Scroll down to the bottom part of the OP for some comments about open-borders and the United Nations:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/immigration-illegal-immigration/286575-only-on-maps.html

Do you know those were exactly the same questions being asked by the anti-UN movements in the 1950's. They had no effect then and they will have even less effect today. Whether we like it or not we are dependent on other nations and they are dependent on us. Building a wall of isolation around us will not solve our problems.

 

[Bill Angel]

Incidentally, did you ever consider this. Communists don’t mind killing, but they might not be so quick to die for their beliefs.

The Communists did use "human wave assaults" during the Korean War.

 

[Flanders]

Do you know those were exactly the same questions being asked by the anti-UN movements in the 1950's. They had no effect then and they will have even less effect today.

To Flopper: I don’t recall any specific anti-UN movements in the ‘50's. Are you sure you are not confusing your history with the much broader anti-communism movements the media successfully pooh-poohed away.

In any event the Internet was not around back then. Instead, the only thing the American people knew about communist infiltration was what the media said about Senator McCarthy picking on poor Lefties in the entertainment industry.

Let me cite what the media did not say:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.”

“It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller

BBC's Disinfo Piece: "Bilderberg mystery: Why do people believe in cabals?" - The Vigilant Citizen

That was said in 1991 Bilderberg Meeting in Baden Baden Germany. That means the media blackout on global government has been in effect for approximately six decades.

Thanks to the Internet membership in the United Nations is being questioned as never before. Where Democrats stand is no secret. The next step for American voters is to demand that Republican candidates declare their views on UN membership and global government. I’d sure like to hear them justify the tens of billions that go through UN agencies every year. A bunch of resident RINO couldn’t get elected dogcatcher if their views on America’s sovereignty became known.

Happily, not too many years ago a few local communities passed ordinances proclaiming “UN FREE ZONE.” A few even put up signs.

Whether we like it or not we are dependent on other nations and they are dependent on us.

To Flopper: Not true. Give me one example of how the American people are dependent on even one foreign nation. And foreign governments are only dependent on the foreign aid they use to drive their own people deeper into poverty and despair. Those peoples would be better off if foreign aid was stopped.

Building a wall of isolation around us will not solve our problems.

To Flopper: Digging up the old Snoot-Hawley scare tactic as cover for abandoning sovereignty doesn’t work in today’s world of rapid travel, instant communications, and global financial markets. Bottom line: A world full of sovereign nations does not require a global government. Instead of betraying the country to the United Nations by preaching the inevitability of collectivism our government should be promoting T. J.’s worldview:

Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

The Communists did use "human wave assaults" during the Korean War.

To Bill Angel: Top Communists sending cannon fodder to their deaths is the same as killing non-communists.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

You sound like a high school boy trying to sound tough.

To Friends: And you sound like a touchy-feely freak trying to save mankind by sacrificing everybody else’s freedoms.

Real people die in wars.

To Friends: War is not the Great Satan ——totalitarian government is. Totalitarian governments killed more people in the 20th century than did all of the wars in the past 500 years. Communist governments slaughtered real people in the tens of millions. Rail against that for a while instead of preaching Better Red Than Dead.



To Friends: That’s absurd. You may believe in Better Red Than Dead, but most Americans prefer death to slavery. Nuclear war against the Soviets would have meant the end of communism had it taken place when America was infinitely superior militarily. Winston Churchill put it this way:

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

Ronald Reagan said this about freedom:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yS4yf723kmY]Reagan responds to Obama and his supporters - YouTube[/ame]​

America’s Founders would not have rolled over for communism for any reason:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Benjamin Franklin

Give me Liberty, or Give me Death! Patrick Henry

America’s Founders had to deal with cowards who feared death by musket fire and grapeshot. Today’s cowards latched onto nuclear war as an excuse to abandon everyone’s freedoms.

Finally, those who want to surrender their freedoms without a fight never object to the methods governments use to kill their own people. Cowards might even prefer being beheaded by Muslim fundamentalists. The fact is: The method of death matters not if it comes fighting against totalitarian government.

Incidentally, did you ever consider this. Communists don’t mind killing, but they might not be so quick to die for their beliefs.

Excellent response!

 

[Billo_Really]

US warns North Korea of increased isolation if threats escalate further
White House says US will not be intimidated by 'bellicose rhetoric' and is fully capable of defending itself and its allies
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 March 2013 14.33 EDT

US warns North Korea of increased isolation if threats escalate further | World news | guardian.co.uk

The Korean War was sanctioned by the United Nations; therefore, the American Left had their hands tied. American Communists could not protest a military action against the spread of communism without criticizing the UN. The Vietnam War was not sanctioned by the United Nations; therefore; American Communists were free to bring defeat their own country.

NOTE: America’s “loyal” ally, the UK, did not fight with America in Vietnam. I always found that despicable. Communists were determined to destroy America just as Germany would have destroyed England in two wars, yet the Brits always behaved as though it was America’s duty to come to England’s aid while they were under no obligation to fight alongside America against its enemy. I should also point out that the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, were really hot battles in the Cold War against communism. Had the United Nations not sanctioned the Korean Police Action ——ONLY 5 YEARS AFTER THE END OF WWII —— I doubt if the UK would helped us there.

Now that Kim Jong-un is doing a lot more than saber-rattling let me quote President Truman on stopping Communist expansion in Korea:

We've got to stop the sons of bitches, no matter what, and that's all there is to it.

For many years I suggested asking every top Democrat the following:

Do you oppose the Korean War in hindsight?

If they answer “Yes” they admit that fighting against communism is what they oppose.

If they answer “No.” ask them why not? since both wars were fought for the same reason.

Thank you Kim Jong-un for making the question more important today than it’s ever been in the past.

This is where it gets interesting. Is the UN’s stamp of approval still in effect should North Korea attack South Korea ?

If so, American Communists may not have to face the dilemma of demonstrating against the United Nations this time around because three traitors are perched at the top of government. Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Hussein. Biden and Kerry took an active part in betraying this country, and the men and women who were doing the fighting, during the Vietnam war. Hussein was born in 1961; so he was too young to do the things Biden and Kerry did, but there is no doubt as to where his loyalties lie.

Next question

Will America’s allies support us again? Answer: Possibly because of the nuclear bomb factor.

Also, Americans have seen damn few loyal Democrats in high office since Harry Truman stuck it to the Soviet Union in 1950. None in Hussein’s administration. Back in 1950 Communist China was not a member of the UN. Today, they have a seat on the Security Council. Guess how the Chicoms feel about Kim Jong-un’s expansion plans.

Logically, North Korea’s military planners must rely on three things:

1. China will back their play when push comes to shove.

2. American traitors will do everything in their power to portray a second Korean War as another Vietnam.

3. Most importantly, Kim Jong-un is counting on Hussein & Company to keep the United Nations out of it à la Vietnam. In short: Kim would not be poking the lion without Hussein & Company in power.

Incidentally, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is from South Korea. I don’t know what Ban is doing behind the scenes, or how it plays into North Korea’s plans.

On the bright side, no matter how it goes North Korea could trigger the UN’s downfall. The majority of Americans already despise the UN. It won’t take much to push it over the edge. And there would be no better example of poetic justice than to have it happen when UN-loving traitors are in charge.

You god-damn war-mongers need to shut your fuckin' mouths!

We've been at war of 10 years and I'm sick of it!

This country needs to stop listening to your god-damn bullshit!

 

[Bleipriester]

Does your definition of honor apply to large Communist countries? Just to set the record straight, America stopping large Communist countries from attacking small countries is at the heart of the long-running conflict between free people and communism. Nobody gives a rat’s ass how Communists live in their own countries —— just don’t export it with violent revolution and military force. [/B]

North Korea doesn´t. But when I think about Libya, "export it with violent revolution and military force" is what you did.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The reactionaries are down playing the virulent anti-UN rhetoric by the flaming far right during the fifties.

They and the McCarthyites then and flaming far right wacks today are despicable.

 

[Ernie S.]

And you're irrelevant. The people have spoken