CS315 - War on a Whim?

[pineapplemike]

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/3/0/6/306fb45 ... te]There’s a lot in this show subject-wise, but it’s really supposed to be about War Powers in the USA and how events in Syria and North Korea play into the issue.[/quote]

Probably won't listen until tomorrow morning but it sounds promising

[Smitty-48]

Carlin's analysis of the North Korean position is all wrong, when he says "put yourself in the North Korean's shoes", Carlin actually projects a very un-North Korean view of things.

First of all, the North Koreans do not feel threatened by the United States, the North Koreans view the United States as being a "Paper Tiger" (their words), in that, if the United States was going to do something about North Korea, it would have done it a long time ago, so the North Koreans are supremely confident that the United States is not going to attack them, they view all Americans threats to take military action as bluffing.

The actual North Korean position; is to win the Korean War and impose re-unification of the Peninsula under North Korean rule. They have had a plan to do this, dating back to the 1980s, and they are quite clearly continuing to implement their long term plan, if you're not aware of the North Korean reunification plan, it is as follows;

1. Acquire thermonuclear weapons (hydrogen bombs)

2. Acquire the capability to strike the United States with thermonuclear weapons (ICBM's)

3. Threaten to strike the United States with thermonuclear weapons, and this is where the North Koreans assert the phase which they call "the failure of will", in that the United States will not risk a nuclear war with North Korea, and so will instead negotiate. Which leads to...

4. Peace agreement to end the Korean War, in which US forces are withdrawn from Korea. followed by...

5. North and South Korea enter into a Confederation, at which point, without the United States in the way, the North Koreans will impose their will incrementally on the South, by coercive means, using the threat of military force as the lever to induce the South to capitulate over time, in order avoid a war.

The North Koreans are not threatening South Korea with nuclear weapons and do not intend to, because they do not believe that it would be necessary to gain compliance from the South Koreans, the mere threat of conventional war is entirely sufficient to cow the South Koreans, the nuclear weapons are solely intended to threaten the United States, in order to force the United States to the negotiating table for the purposes of selling the South Koreans down the river, at which point North Korea will be in a position to impose its will on the Peninsula, without having to fight a war at all.

The Pentagon, for one, takes the North Koreans at their word, and upon the North Koreans acquiring the capability to strike the CONUS with thermoclear weapons, is expecting what the North Koreans refer to as the "territorial threat" phase, and that is what has them worried, and is in fact what they are preparing for. They have no doubt that the North Koreans will acquire the capability eventually, it is simply a matter of time.

This long predates the Trump Administration, this is a forty year plan which the North Koreans are executing, each Administration has simply inhereted it, in whatever phase it was in, over time.

When you hear people in Washington refer to the situation as a "Cuban Missile Crisis in slow motion", this is what they are referring to.

Bear in mind, the North Koreans have a two track narrative, there is an "outer track" which they release to the outside world, wherein they assert the nuclear weapons to be defensive in nature, and then they have an "inner track", which they only discuss amongst themselves, wherein the nuclear weapons are intended as a lever for winning the Korean War.

[Martin Hash]

I liked the first part of Dan's show: "people hate each other, and I don't know what to do about it." He mentioned a listener who said "Reconstruction can't happen until AFTER a civil war." That's my position on fixing our economic crisis (an arising aristocracy) after a collapse but I hope the aristocracy lose. I think most people think either Republicans or Democrats have to lose: Republicans because they support the aristocracy, and Democrats because they have become socialists.

If Trump is the general in charge during The Collapse, he'll do everything in his power to support the aristocracy. If Bennie Sanders was president, he would do everything in his power to change America into a socialist nation. Both of those options would be equally bad.

Even with the Internet, even with this forum, even with my deep involvement in politics, I can't tell if more people think like I do (liberty first) or not? And if so, how do we get a president in the White House?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

"Liberty first" is a fine principle, but people can only think that way when they are already reasonably comfortable in a functioning society. We may agree that liberty will (or should) be an important component in well functioning, tolerable society... but dang if it isn't an easy principle to jettison when you are afraid.

I expect fear to dominate during any collapse, so mayhaps we shouldn't be too hungry for a 'reconstruction.'

We are, in the end, still animals.

[Martin Hash]

Maintaining liberty does seem hopeless but this country was founded on it once. So one time at least, liberty (plus other less important factors) was the primary imperative.

Still, I have no idea how many Libertyists there are of us out there? I don't meet many at grassroots Democrat meetings, Republicans are Nouveau Aristocratic, and Libertarians are self-defeating. I fear liberty is doomed.

[Speaker to Animals]

People who are unwilling to secure their own liberty on the battlefield can only hope those who do fight for it will see fit to extend it to those who do not fight.

When the Greeks fought against the Persians for their freedom and liberties, they only meant the freedoms and liberties of the men who stood and fought.

An aristocracy arises when only a few people are willing to fight for it. They become the aristocracy. This situation where rich cowards run roughshod over everybody lasts maybe a few centuries at most. How long a run did the cowards have in the Roman empire before the rise of the aristocracy?

Sovereignty means the ability to make war on others. That's literally what it means. An aristocracy is a small set of people who share in sovereignty in some way. They all must be willing to fight to maintain their share in it. If you want popular sovereignty, then EVERYBODY must be willing to fight.

[Martin Hash]

There were no conscripts during the Revolutionary War. Liberty is not won on foreign battlefields, it is won at home. Right now, Antifa is the only ones battling for anything, and they're on the wrong side. How come you aren't out there with Stick Man?

[Speaker to Animals]

There were no conscripts during the Revolutionary War. Liberty is not won on foreign battlefields, it is won at home. Right now, Antifa is the only ones battling for anything, and they're on the wrong side. How come you aren't out there with Stick Man?

LOL

It can't last, Martin. I think the natural state of human government is something like feudalism. The economic system underneath it may vary, but the natural human form of government is simple division of political sovereignty according to subsidiarity.

Every time we try this democratic experiment, we get a good run for maybe four centuries at most. Then it starts to get unbearable for most participants. Eventually the military takes over or it is conquered by some military empire.

And if you want to recall our founding principles.. we weren't even supposed to have a standing army. It was assumed that every able-bodied man would muster in a time of war.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

"Natural" form of government.

[Martin Hash]

"Natural" form of government.

Might Makes Right.