Separation Of Powers

I would understand if this Post never sees light so would like to clearly state it is not intended to be inflammatory or cause conflict.


Instead I am seeking clarification following the latest developments of Korea / Trump rhetorical “sabre rattling”.


Firstly, I look to America’s “separation of powers” (here in Australia we apply the same Political theory that recognises three powers of government—the legislative power to make laws; the judicial power to interpret laws and to judge whether they apply in individual cases; and the executive power to carry out and enforce the laws).


That is, are there not these same three parts of the American federal government which act as checks and balances on each other:

1. Legislative (Senate and House of Representatives);

2. Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts)

3. The Executive (President)?

That being said, under the American Constitution, is not the lawmaking body – Congress – made up of two houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate and then when signed by the president, becomes the law of the land.

Bearing that in mind, before any decision for any war like direction be given, would not it be a requirement for the President to first get the go ahead from Congress?

Was this not the case with President Roosevelt following Japan’s bombing of Pearl Harbour asking Congress to declare war on Japan – which was a valid reason for an unprovoked attack? (Many Americans with Japanese backgrounds then volunteering to join the war as loyal Americans.)

Secondly, Personal concerns:

1. China, Japan being Asia/Pacific region to which Australia belongs, any nuclear war happening within this region (e.g. Quam) possibly will have an outcome rippling affect to my country.


2. Australia is one of America’s biggest allies along with England. We have been through two World Wars together, and Australia still stands with America in current conflicts. Rather than these heightening and threatening rhetorical between Trump and Kim Jong-un continuing which may very well open the door to a Third World War, why are there not the proper American delegates managing dialogues seeking diplomatic solutions?

We are already involved in conflicts and wars around the Globe while battling with ISIS within our backyards.

So for my clarification, why aren’t the political and diplomatic experts dealing with this on a proper political level rather exchanges of inflammatory rhetorical by the two heads of Korea and USA which only appear to make matters worse, galloping towards an apocalyptic outcome?

Again, is not Congress required before any war like direction may be made?

As previously stated, if this Post never sees light, I would understand.

I pray some peaceful solution/resolution may be found because Pride on both sides is evidence to indicate neither Kim Jong-un nor Trump will back down after what I personally view as such inflammatory rhetorical tensely heading down towards a destructive end which will cost lives on both sides. This could be avoided if properly managed and handled by the proper delegates.

There is enough war and conflict going on in the world along with ISIS in our backyards, so we do not need WWIII.

Again, these are my personal thoughts and feelings while I seek clarification in regard to separation of powers and is not intended to insult or cause conflict with any reader.

 

Then I wish he would listen to and let his professional advisors, given their expertise, experience and knowledge properly deal with these matters...

 

Not being politically minded, I know understand better why Australians of late following recent events now better appreciate our Prime Minister Turnbull...I join many in hoping calm resolution and redirection away from the current stressful environment. Our war warriors are tired, they need to know their loved ones on home ground are safe and should not have added worries of what is now becoming an uncertainty of future events...

 

If you examine just the last 30 years, the western political establishment - fronted mostly by the thoroughly corrupt US establishment in the Presidency and Congress - has not resolved a single international issue of aggression successfully. Indeed it has created and led wars and invasions that have been almost entirely unjustified and mostly illegal, and in consequence have led to millions of unnecessary deaths and injuries to mostly innocent civilians.
That western political agenda has been almost entirely responsible for the creation of the 'demons' it now fights - Al-Qaeda, ISIS/Daesh, while at the same time funding and arming murderous dictatorships in the Middle East, just like it did in Latin America for decades. Indeed the USA in particular is continuing its barely covert efforts to destabilise Venezuela, just like it did from the moment that Hugo Chavez was first elected - just like its funded and organise coups in Iran in 1953 to bring to power the
torturer and loathsomely obscene playboy Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - Shah of Iran thereby pushing sufficient Iranians to go down the route of Islamic rule, in Chile 1973 bringing to power a murderer and torturer in the guise of Augusto Pinochet, in Egypt where it funded and armed one of the most murderous torturers in the guide of Hosni Mubarak for almost 50 years, and now arming and funding Saudi Arabia while it murder civilians in Yemen every day that passes.

To expect a cadre of political leaders responsible for the above to now engage real 'diplomacy' around Korea is almost laughable.

A US congress where a majority of its members are in the financial pocket of the defence industry, medical insurance companies, gun manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies, so much so that they can't agree a simple health care system like ones that exist in every other country in the developed world; can't agree simple and easy to enforce legislation that prevents people with known histories of mental instability buying guns?

Looking to the current US congress to solve any issue is more than laughable.

 

Thanks for your in depth responses Max. There is a lot of information.

Again, politics are not my forte so I will try to tread softly with my responses:

You responded to some of my earlier comments:
So for my clarification, why aren’t the political and diplomatic experts dealing with this on a proper political level rather exchanges of inflammatory rhetorical by the two heads of Korea and USA which only appear to make matters worse, galloping towards an apocalyptic outcome?

Countries' politics continually move, evolve depending on changes with political environments. The same applies where western establishment may have aided countries at one time that later indicate their ideologies prove contrary. I believe (and I reckon proper legit research would probably back up my thoughts) that this probably occurred in the past with some Middle Eastern countries in question.

My understanding is that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda viewed global jihad as a long term objective. Al-Qaeda and Taliban being distinct terrorist groups of extremist Muslims who misinterpreted the tenets of Islam to further a violent agenda.

I remember in the 1990s when Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States. If there was any American funding involvement, I reckon any in depth research (or those in the know) would probably be able to qualify that the policy establishment in general would not have known what was happening nor have known who these radical groups were until later on following certain events and intelligence gathering.

ISIS wants a Muslim state and intend forcing their ideology regardless, with terrorists funding such terrorists.

As far as financial assistance towards weaponry for these terrorist activities...I remember seeing a news item of late where many assets housed in some provinces were taken after Iraqi forces fled and abandoned them. Many assets being listed as American were acquired this way by ISIS, such as utility trucks, weapons including small arms and even artillery.

So with respect and in my opinion, one should take care not to misinterpret how this came about when viewing ISIS propaganda of them riding around and using American weapons. Terrorists are opportunists grabbing whatever they can on their destructive road, as they did in this example of acquiring such American weapons.

I would agree it as being laughable if left to the two current heads Trump and Kim Jong-un given the current status, following all the rhetorical exchanges.

In response to my earlier comment:
Again, is not Congress required before any war like direction may be made?

With respect, I cannot agree with your comments. From what I have seen of US Congressional Committees and their handling when addressing current investigations, on a personal basis I view these as being transparent, showing integrity while trying to ensure same of those in the different arms of law who are under fire.

I believe in this instance you are referring to ObamaCare?

We have something similar called Medicare which came into effect some years ago. Likewise, our Medicare took many years to develop. Since its implementation it continues to go through changes to be in line with like legislation. Our Medicare may be supplemented by a Private Health Cover (not all pensioners or the aged, on pensions take on this private expense). There’s a plethora of different types/levels/inclusions of private health cover agencies which individuals can shop around then tailor cover to their own needs (e.g. women past child bearing would not include pregnancy services in private health cover).

ObamaCare likewise took years for development and implementation. With respect, I cannot agree it is a “simple health care system” and there are good reasons why it is going to take some time to make any changes to it given its complexities. From the beginning to claim it would be “Repealed and Replaced” was unrealistic, showing a total lack of understanding of its complexities which have since emerged.

We the People elect those we put in office. So, we should show confidence to those elected in their works and likewise voice whenever they fail in their works. Particularly with a loud voice when time for re-election. It is individuals that often fail, so I reckon it as unfair to tarnish everyone with the same brush when individuals are at fault.

Again, Thank You for your information and debate...always good to get, explore and debate different perspectives.

Cheers

LS

 

Thanks Laura. Yes, I must admit both yourself and TimW have been succinct in your responses.

Down here it is worrying given Australia is in the Asia/Pacific region. As an ally to the US and noted by our Prime Minister Turnbull:

"If there's an attack on the US, the ANZUS* Treaty would be invoked and Australia would come to the aid of the United States, as America would come to our aid if we were attacked."

So we will be backing Trump if there is a dire outcome.

Trump has much to learn about the enormity and responsibility of his office and diplomacy not only for his Nation but also in respect to his allies and probability outcome as effects of his inflammatory rhetoric. By appearing to have backed himself and Kim Jong-un into a corner while "flexing his muscles", he is cleverly pulling his allies into the play to accomplish his objectives because of existing Treaties.

Hopefully our prayers will be heard and there will be a peaceful resolution.




*"ANZUS" stands for Australia, New Zealand, US - a security Treaty

 

I was impressed when I first read Prime Minister Turnbull's comment.
I hope that if Australia or New Zealand were ever targeted, that we would be ready to respond as needed!
Personally, I hope both men are bluffing.

 

O Lord! I so hope you're right about the "bluffing". Both are proud and narcissistic, so a lot will depend on "the adults" working behind the scenes (hopefully) to seek a peaceful resolution.

When Australia was threatened by Japan during the war, New Zealand and America came to defend Australia. It was after this that the ANZUS Treaty came into effect. As allies, we cover each other's backs.

 

I think they are.
However, I don't trust Kim Jong-un. He suffers badly from Short man syndrome.
And Donald Trump is an arrogant loudmouth. But, irregardles of how much he's hated, he's not so stupid to just launch a military attack against North Korea.

Diplomacy? Yes, we need it in politics.
Me? I would have told shorty a long time ago: "F*** with us or our friends, and we will wipe you from planet earth."

If North Korea attacks the US or it's allies...

 

Trump has been carrying on as though he has absolute power with his tweets and going off script when doing Press. He is unpredictable. He has appointed military persons in key positions, so I hope they will be "the adults" to ensure he isn't "so stupid to just launch a military attack against North Korea".

Personally I reckon Trump and Kim Jong-un should be given boxing gloves, stuck in a ring and let them sort it out between themselves to give them both an idea of what it's like for "grunts" to fight when put into a position with no clear thought of consequences from thoughtless inflammatory rhetoric.

Reckon your back would be covered with allies should Korea fire the first shot.

I agree that both heads are problem babies:
Kim Jong-un seeking attention with his missile tests, trying to show muscle power.
Trump (narcissistic with a constant need for limelight) has escalated the profile of this issue with his ongoing rhetoric verbals and tweets.

I wonder if maybe a pacifier would do the trick?

​

 

You know, we just recently past the 2 anniversary dates of the only 2 times nukes have been used. Maybe it was wrong or right, but then there was a whole lot of war going on and probably much more to go if something didn't give.

We (the World) don't have anything as urgent such as that now to create the need for such drastic measures.

And as for a few hundred thousand non-nuke ammunitions, no need for that to happen either. If both the men take a step back it might give each a way to back down without losing.

The north may not be able to aim as good as they wish were possible. And we may also not be able to aim our anti-missiles as well as we wish either.

And maybe we'll all be better off if no one ever knows for sure.

 

In terms of foreign policy I believe the evidence for western policy having aided the rise of Islamic fundamentalism is crystal clear. Prior to western intervention, Iraq was a settled predominantly secular society, as were Libya and Syria. The same was the case for Palestine where, until the continued failures and breaches of peace accords by Israel and its western sponsors, the PLO was a secular body and most definitely not an Islamic one. The Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas were a complete irrelevance with little support up to the end of the 1990s. Continued breaking of the peace accords by Israel - and the verified coalescence with that by western states - led to the rise of Hamas among a brutalised Palestinian population losing any hope of a peaceful two-state solution.
In Iraq the actions of the US, UK and French governments treating Saddam Hussain as an 'ally' over the decades prior to the first Gulf war - selling him armaments and chemical weapons - was bound to lead to him using them sometimes against his own people. What would anyone expect? The fact is the USA used Iraq - whatever criticisms many of us had about the Hussain regime and protested against him in the 1970s and 1980s - as an ally against Iran. The west, not just the USA, funded and armed the disastrous 8 year war between Iraq and Iran from 1980-88 for all the worst reasons and it ended in failure as it didn't wrench power away from the Iran Ayatollah leadership. Indeed, it gave implied support to Hussain to go on after to invade Kuwait.
During this same time the west continued to keep in power - with money and arms - the brutal regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
When people talk about the horrors of Al-Qaeda, ISIS/Daesh and other such groups, they conveniently forget the obscene brutality including daily torture and murder carried out in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and to a lesser extent in western-favoured regimes such as Bahrain. They conveniently also forget that the rich of Saudi Arabia have been, for at least two decades, the biggest funders of Islamic Fundamentalists. and the 19 9/11 bombers were Saudi Arabians - such a great ally of western nations. The hypocrisy of that beggars belief.
Libya is another interesting case. Whatever his faults Gaddafi led a country that was the most equal in the Middle East. It was secular, women had equal rights unknown in most of the rest of the middle east and the revenues from oil were distributed fairly and comprehensively among the entire population.
The reason for the military action against Libya in 2007 (which even Obama resisted until bullied enough by Hilary Clinton) was a lie. The alleged threat of Gaddafi bombing Bhengazi was never true and that has been shown by many US and UK commentators before the action, during it and after.
Libya is now a failed state of almost epic proportions and is even more ungovernable than Somalia.
The man responsible for the Manchester bombings - and almost all his family - were not only activists in Islamic Fundamentalist groups in Libya, but they were aided in that by British intelligence being given 'refugees status' in the UK but allowed to travel back and forth to Libya to engage in training with Islamist groups.
The west is 100% responsible for that and who would be surprised if that action in Libya has directly profited Islamic Fundamentalist recruitment and support.
Syria is a comic tragedy of brutal western lies, mistakes and miscalculations and overt support for the Gulf states who armed the opposition to the Assad regime, and the west then went on secretly to arm those 'opposition' groups via coordinated plans by the US/UK/Turkish/French intelligence services to transfer major armoury from Libyan supplies to Syria. Much of that armoury ended up in the hands of groups like the Al Nusra Front and other murdering Islamic Fundamentalist groups.
Once again, in Syria a country with quite incredible cultural and educational achievements that was a model of secular life, has been driven to almost total destruction in many regions as a direct result of western and gulf state actions. The blame for the half a million civilians deaths in Syria since 2011 lays firmly and squarely on the shoulders of the west and its brutal gulf state allies.
In that context the demonisation of Bashar Al Assad by the west is nauseating in its dishonesty.

As far as the US congress is concerned, the evidence that business money/donations determines the votes on major issues for at the very least a simple majority of its members, is so great it cannot be disputed.
ObamaCare was without doubt a terrible fudge that while providing care to a few more million people than before its introduction, protected the unacceptable and obscene profiteering of Insurance companies and the single worst cost in GDP terms when compared to any other developed nation. The failure of Congress to implement a single-payer system means that the US health care is still the most inequitable and administratively expensive health care system on this planet. ObamaCare hasn't stopped people going bankrupt when they face long term serious health care costs. It still hasn't provided primary heath care to about 20 million US citizens. So it's not surprising then that the USA still to this day - despite ObamaCare - has the worst rate of infant mortality and maternal mortality rates in the developed world - much worse than the USA's hate regime Cuba and many Latin American countries. Those USA rates are only comparable to some of the poorest regions of Africa.
That 'fudge' around health care is obvious when you see the public declarations of Insurance company donations to 100s of members of Congress.
It is not true that ObamaCare came out of 'years' of fair planning. It was a dog's breakfast that came out of one of OBama's many failed 'promises' and was tied up nicely by business interests to actually prevent a fair and equitable system.
Every single in depth reputable report on health care internationally rates the USA (post ObamaCare) as the worst system in the developed world in terms of access to health care and health outcomes and, shockingly, how much GDP it sucks out of the US economy for a third-rate system.
The US system costs approximately 18% of its GDP which is the highest in the world, and roughly twice the UK NHS costs. Yet the NHS provides a level of care, a level of access to 100% of the population, a level of verified satisfaction among users, and a level of positive health outcomes that makes the USA system look like a third-world nation. If you are a US citizen with fantastic health insurance (and generally wealthy) you get a great service, if you haven't you dont. In the UK we get a level of health care second to none and it has no bearing on that person's wealth.
I have often viewed on TV and read in newspapers moronic comments by some Americans about the 'evils' of 'socialised medicine' and I just sigh hearing such inaccurate and brain-washed comments. The health care systems in most of Europe - even where an insurance element exists which is always single-payer - is 'socialised' and that's because right to health care is a 'social' matter, not a business or profit one.
Michael Moore's 2007 documentary 'Sicko' was a big force in pushing for US change and it showed the veracity of how bad the US system is, even after ObamaCare.

The same applies precisely to gun control. If the force of the power of the Gun Lobby wasn't so strong among massive numbers of the Congress, then private gun sales would be illegal and anyone purchasing a gun would have to submit to thorough back ground checks.
That's even without considering the UK situation which simply makes gun ownership outright illegal.

On the basis of all of the above, while one can be hopeful that a peaceful diplomatic resolution to the NK/USA crisis will come about it's by no means sure.

 

Yes, totally agree...BOTH need to step back.

One would think Pearl Harbour, the retaliatory American nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (as you noted) and the nuclear outcome would be stark reminders to avoid war at all costs.

I reckon these two leaders are too proud to ever back down after alleviating their rhetorical.

Hopefully high level delegates are talking on both sides in the background and will come to some resolution in a manner that both can save face.

Sadly, am inclined to agree with you...

 

Max, thank you for your comprehensive comments in your earlier Post, which highlights and evidences (to me), that when considering events brought about by politicians, one must add to the equation how countries have their own operational institutions (e.g. America’s CIA, FBI; Australia’s ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organization); UK’s MI5 and MI 6; etc.) and the use made of the intelligence gathered which is not always made known to the general population.

These institutions’ main operations being to collect, analyse, evaluate and communicate foreign intelligence to assist their individual (or if working in tangent with other agencies/countries) executive officers (e.g, individual Prime Ministers, Presidents, etc.), and government policy makers in making decisions to national security and policies; sometimes has a rippling effect into other nations, which a country’s population may or may not be aware.

If one were to look at any country’s individual mapping of its policy makers, executive and operational institutions; then try to gain some understanding of its workings, it becomes a complex weaving of laws, regulations, “China Walls” and boundaries to maintain security within and without.

Then considering the overlay/overlap of an individual country’s policies, sanctions and laws that interact with other countries, then very quickly, complexities become evident when dealing with different nations, foreign policy agreements, cultural ideologies; then topping changes to government leadership (e.g. Obama/Trump) which may bring about changes and/or removal of previous policies and may cause a domino effect.

These are only some contributing factors towards changes affecting internal and global political environments, events and situations.

When individual human factors are added – as in this instance with two narcissistic personalities – then outcomes become unpredictable.

And based on some arguments you’ve put forward, I can only agree with your comment that “while one can be hopeful that a peaceful diplomatic resolution to the NK/USA crisis will come about it's by no means sure.”

We can only pray as one.

 

"One would think Pearl Harbour, the retaliatory American nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (as you noted) and the nuclear outcome would be stark reminders to avoid war at all costs."
Unfortunately this may also be seen as how dramatic victory can be achieved with one or two bombs.
IMHO part of our problem is hate, Trump haters and those who hate the haters. They often cannot see as clearly as most of the posts here.

 

A “dramatic victory” costing lives on a world stage is not worth the loss of lives on either side. Hopefully, Trump and Kim Jong-un through their vanity and inflated sense of power will resist the temptation to play war games as though playing a game of chess sacrificing pawns.

They should follow the advice of this American, General George Catlett Marshall, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize who said, "The only way human beings can win a war is to prevent it."

A few years back when in Oahu Hawaii, I visited Pearl Harbour. On board, the naval vessel going to the Arizona Memorial on Battleship Row, I noticed a group of Japanese visitors carrying bunches of flowers which upon closer examinations were beautiful Hawaiian leis.

While on the approach to the Memorial, almost in unison, the Japanese visitors leaned over the rail and threw the leis onto the water. Then bowing their heads and closing their eyes, they remained silent for a few moments before rejoining the group.

I was moved by this gesture which without words spoke volumes. For me it was a humbling experience to witness such a gesture from these people, a lesson both Trump and Kim Jong-un desperately need to learn.

 

The appalling nuclear bombs on Japan didn't end the war actually, they were irrelevant to that, and any more than countries disinterested before but like Johnny cum latelies supposedly saved us in 1917 or 1942.
There are Trump opponents in every nation on earth, and of course there are Trump 'lovers' who hate his opponents. That's neither here nor there and just a distraction. Despite Clinton H being pretty awful by any standards - and if I had been a voter in a swing state I would have had to hold my nose voting for her - she got almost three million votes more than Trump, Trump getting fewer votes than Bush or Gore in 2000. The evidence is 100% certain that if Sanders had been the candidate, Trump would now still be talking moderate sense on The Apprentice and not behaving like a chump on TV news and on Twitter.
I see no 'unclear' posts here at all. And no one has yet attacked Trump for, effectively, standing up for Nazis in Virginia.

 

True, dropping the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not end WWII. As you're probably aware, it brought the Japanese to their knees pushing their Emperor to surrender, “…on the deck of the U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay…Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Commander in the Southwest Pacific and Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers…accepted the Japanese surrender 'for the United States, Republic of China, United Kingdom, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and in the interests of the other United Nations at war with Japan.'" [1]

We’ve all be expressing concerns that resolutions should be sought rather than dropping bombs that will cost lives.

[1] National Archives https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured-documents/japanese-surrender-document

And Thank You for the positive tone of your video "I can see clearly now" and its beautiful message.

Yeah......wishful thinking, “…if…”

Personally, I used to enjoy watching “The Apprentice” (I thought Trump was a narcissistic dolt then and couldn’t stand him, but enjoyed some shows, particularly when monies were raised towards charities.

Silence can often be interpreted as disapproval; and Posts in this type of Forum need to avoid raising inflammatory comments, even if it is in regard to what some would consider as a lack of moral leadership from the POTUS.

However, all the news and commentary I have listened to and viewed since the Charlottesville incident (brought about because the Robert E Lee statue was going to be brought down), has been condemning Trump for not disavowing extreme groups by name.

 

We walk a fine line allowing freedom of speech, allowing all views to be heard and maintaining our moral compass.

 

True...however, I still stand by my initial point for clarification - here (in Australia) we apply the Political theory that recognises three powers of government, which act as checks and balances on each other. My understanding is that the USA does the same.

From what I've seen, Trump plunders through with his tweets (e.g. in this particular Korea matter) as though he has absolute power. In this instance I personally cannot view this as a matter of "freedom of speech" particularly given the fact he is POTUS...personally I view the manner he addresses the population without his nominated delegates awareness via his tweets is irresponsible and not in meeting with his position as POTUS.

Again, that's my opinion.

 

There are secret wars still going on that most people don't know about.The top wars are there to blind the public's eyes.

Most outer rim countries hate americans and could give two you know what about us.

You have to dig deeper to find the answer like on the deep web.

 

Hi Wile and thanks for your Post.

History shows secret wars have gone on since time immemorial, so why would this millennium be any different...I can’t say I’m surprised by your comments.

Our Feds and ASIO work well in the background including keeping a keen eye on what’s going on in the “deep web”…so I leave this aspect of research to the experts who know what they’re doing and what to look for.

TimW and LauraR summed a simple response which ring true upon further news of the POTUS unfurls, truly exposing his makeup (pun not intended).

 

Trump is doing ok job i guess usully-tulsi gabbard is about only dem i trust not that you non americans etc would care--theres not one conservative here is there?i bet its all UN ,NATO, EU Politics....USA OUT of UN!

 

Hi Jonah, thanks for joining in this Post.

Our country (and other countries) are linked to the USA through Agreements (e.g. Free Trade; Import; Export; Defence e.g. ANZUS Treaty; bi-laterial trade services). So as a non-American, I personally do care about what happens overseas in particular with countries such as the USA, because given its ties with my country (Australia) changes and events occurring with USA may well affect us in different ways:

• In particular with this Korea/USA matter should a bomb be dropped by either side bringing about a war, because Australia has an ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, USA) Treaty with America, if war is declared on America, then this would immediately invoke our ANZUS Treaty and we would stand by America's side to fight a war. The reverse would occur should anyone declare war on Australia.

I expect America may have similar Treaties with other countries, so again, American events may well affect other countries.​

• Another concern which had me start this Post is given Australia is in the Asia/Pacific region, should any bombs be dropped on Quam, a nuclear fall out may well affect Australia given its proximity.

So yes, some non-Americans do care about what goes on in America because in one way or another, we are connected - this being either a negative or (preferably) a positive.

Here in Australia we even have Sister Cities with America. Two I'm aware of:

• Sydney in my State of New South Wales with San Francisco, California
• Perth in our Western Australian State with Houston Texas and San Diego California

Cheers

LS

 

I am glad that there are other country's that don't hate on US.

But most of the places that hate us could care less about us and just want to nuke us if they could get away with.

Other than Korea that wants us dead any way.

The 1950-53 Korean War, framed in North Korean propaganda as the result of direct US aggression, is used to depict the United States to the North Korean people as an adversary intent on destroying the country.

For the country's older generation that recall US actions during the war, when virtually every urban centre in the North was obliterated by American bombing, this narrative is a convincing one and is routinely reinforced for the wider population in the state's daily political messages.

Is it both North and south that hate us.Or is it just the north be cause the US helped the south in the 50's.

The Korean War was 67 years ago.And they still hold bitter pill after that long.

 

Semantics...

The Korea War was a conflict fought on the Korean Peninsula from June 1950 to July 1953. Initially the war was between South Korea (Republic of Korea) and North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), but soon developed into an international war involving the USA and 19 other nations. The USA sent troops to South Korea as part of a United Nations “police action” which sought to repel the Communist aggression of North Korea.”[1]

In my opinion, I don't believe it's a matter of "hate" but rather a matter of a country trying to establish itself as a nuclear power and the frustration felt by North Korea's Kim Jong Un possibly/probably due to sanctions imposed by the UN.







[1] West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.

 

LS, your concerns of a nuclear incident happening may be more realistic but for a different reason. If the north keeps playing around with nukes and missiles, one day they are bound to have an accident. USA, Russia and Japan have all had accidents already with commercial power generating plants. These accidents have had various outcomes. But if the north has an accident with a weapon grade material it could be a whole other game.

I was in Sardinia when the Russian reactor blew up. The cloud found its way with the weather to that area. Radiation monitors were going off before it was know why or what happened.

The north (or Iran or any new country trying to advance their capabilities) could have an accident with weapons grade material and then its a whole new ball game! There are multiple reasons to have nuclear non-proliferation!

If a bomb test or a missile doesn't go as expected there's going to be a problem!

 

Totally agree with your comments Imandy .

Latest North Korean media news reports that Kim had delayed the decision while he waited to see what the United States did next.

Trump twittered: "Kim Jong Un of North Korea made a very wise and well reasoned decision,"

So we can breathe easy for a bit (personally), I just wish someone would tape Trump's mouth and fingers - all the news is always about Trump - he just sucks all the air out of media news

 

That's why i don't watch the TV any more.

I rarely watch tv and most of the time if you watch CNN,Fox or what ever they suck and 70 of the stuff they report is fake.

 

Nope, I have internet access on my Android phone that provides news whenever so have access to my own backyard channels:
· SBS – a mix-funded Australian public broadcasting radio, online, and television network.
· ABC – Australian National public television network; and
· Channels 7, 9 and 10

One doesn't need TV nowadays to keep up with the news.

 

I didn't think that sounded like you.

 

Nope

 

On a personal note - with now-a-days technology, information and reference material is easy to find. So people commonly refer to different sources of information for almost anything/everything, not always thinking to acknowledge (or with written material, 'footnote') the source of reference material, particularly in something like this Forum. So plagiarism may be done unthinkingly/without intent or without the knowledge that a source should be referenced when quoted.

Groan...here we go again..."North Korea warned Sunday that the upcoming US-South Korea military exercises are "reckless behavior driving the situation into the uncontrollable phase of a nuclear war."

Pyongyang also declared that its army can target the United States anytime, and neither Guam, Hawaii nor the US mainland can "dodge the merciless strike."[1]




[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/20/asia/north-korea-south-korea-us-military-drills/index.html

 

May our grandchildren forgive us....

 

Prior to the end of WW2 Korea was essentially a colony of Imperial Japan and post 1948 - whatever one thinks of Korea, north or south, now - the majority of its people didn't want to be another colony of an Imperialist regime - whether that was the USA or anyone else.
Since it was primarily the USA that sought to militarily crush North Korea (and MacArthur was removed by Truman as his statements became more incendiary and bellicose) and potentially use it as a base against China, it's no surprise North Koreans do not trust the USA political and military establishment, and their fears have been confirmed by 60+ years since watching the USA fund and support illegal and murderous regimes on several continents.
North Koreans don't hate Americans, they hate the history of the US state in its policies in so many parts of the world that only an idiot would be blind to. The 'Do as I say' not 'Do as I do' attitude of the USA establishment for the entire post Second Ward war era wearies people all over the world, not just in the East.

 

Unless Trump and Kim Jong Un stop ruffling each other's feathers, they can thank each other if it turns that there are not even children to "forgive us"...

 

Ok...duly noted.

 

Oh really like you have not done it either give me a break.

Go mind your own business.Getting tired of you no body else has had any problems lately and all the sudden you want to start up.

Go back on the malware forums.Just of one little text i posted god grow up.And yes i did forget to post the link.It happens.

What are you the grammar police.

 

Peace

Enough wars going on...let's not start one here.

Cheers

LS

 

After seeing various opinions occurring at a time when there was much Trump/Putin discourse going on:

• "Why Putin is world's most powerful man"on http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/13/opinions/putin-most-powerful-man-world-zakaria/index.html and comments reiterated like "...That respect is important..",
• Vladimir Putin President, Russia "The world's most powerful person for four years running, Russia's president has exerted his country's influence in nearly every corner of the globe.." https://www.forbes.com/profile/vladimir-putin/

I knew this would hit a chord and given time, Trump would flex his muscles to push forward that USA (i.e. Trump) is the most powerful man in the world...sure enough (for me) he showed how predictable he can be...

 

Why not now?
“I think it wiser moreover not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife & to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.”
"As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated, my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the country would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment, and of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour,"

 

Personally, I view the discord of minorities as one that has been going on pre-Trump Administration.

However, Charlottesville and events following, including Trump’s “communications” have fueled the incident and brought the problem under microscopic investigation (we in Australia too still going through changes).

Recent events following Charlottesville have simply refocused on Human Rights which minority groups are trying to articulate:

“Human rights are the basic freedoms and protections that belong to every single one of us.

All human beings are born with equal and inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms.

Human rights are based on dignity, equality and mutual respect – regardless of your nationality, your religion or your beliefs.

Your rights are about being treated fairly and treating others fairly, and having the ability to make choices about your own life. These basic human rights are:

· Universal They belong to all of us – everybody in the world
· Inalienable They cannot be taken away from us
· Indivisible and interdependent Governments should not be able to pick and choose which are respected.”[1]

Requesting removal of, or honouring of such statues to some minority groups stand as stark reminders of a time they had no voice, no human rights.

Personally, I view these monuments as a reminder of what occurred in past history and what to avoid repetition of TODAY. Taking down some such monuments doesn’t change history.

To use Germany’s example, there are no tributes or monuments honouring Hitler or some of his top men (e.g. Joseph Goebbels, Hermann Göring, Heinrich Himmler just to name a few).

For me, such monuments belong in a museum for generations to learn from.



[1] https://www.amnesty.org.au/how-it-w...MI5PbGg-X41QIVxgcqCh2KjghPEAAYASAAEgJ5-PD_BwE