04 April 2013

Why is the peace movement so quiet about Korea?

North Korea threatens to start a war with the United States, threatens with bellicose rhetoric to attack with nuclear weapons, to wipe out the enemy.

What do you get from the so-called "peace" movement and the political parties which so rabidly go on about nuclear weapons?


The Green Party is completely silent about north Korea.  Just imagine if it were the United States, or even the UK or France threatening to attack another country.   Just imagine if any nuclear weapons state was happily and gleefully testing nuclear weapons, to show off that it shouldn't be messed with.

The leftwing blogs similarly have largely little to say.  The Standard ignores it.  Real estate agent Martyn Bradbury's outlet ignores it. Idiot Savant ignores it.  

Tim Selwyn thinks that the regular US/ROK military exercises are a "provocation", as if close allies facing a proven holder of all types of WMDs shouldn't make a show of strength as a deterrent.   In fact he just wants New Zealand to not be involved, even though New Zealand fought bravely with the UN-led forces in the Korean War to defeat north Korea's attack on south Korea.  He appears to grant moral equivalency to US and DPRK forces, while criticising the DPRK for being crazy, he doesn't think it is "ok" to support a close ally and major trading partner, the ROK, in deterring Pyongyang.  His rabid anti-Americanism gets in the way of him supporting New Zealand willing to oppose one of the worst dictatorships in modern history.   

Internationally, Greenpeace is silent.

I don't believe most on the left support the DPRK, for it would be akin to supporting the Khmer Rouge, Mao, Stalin or Hitler.  The regime is reprehensible, and commits acts against its own citizens that are sheer horror.   Find another regime that imprisons small children in gulags for the political crimes of their family.

Yet it is that sheer horror that should unite them in opposition to the regime.  There should be protests outside DPRK embassies, there should be peace marches, there should be effigies of Kim Jong Un burnt in the streets.

But nothing.  Surely the left aren't sympathetic to this slave state?

No, I am sure most are not, but they are fickle because the DPRK wants to take on the great Satan - the USA.   So it doesn't really matter if warmongering dictators threaten to attack US targets, for the so-called peace movement presumably thinks they are "fair game".

What happens if the bluff is real?  What happens if there is an attack, will the left claim it is ok for the US to respond?  What if a north Korean nuclear, chemical or biological warhead is released on south Korea?  Will the left/peace movement believe it is ok to respond in kind to utterly destroy north Korea's military capability?

I doubt it.

Why so neutral in the face of unspeakable evil?  Most on the left and in the peace movement accept it was right to fight Nazism.

Why is it not acceptable to deter totalitarian socialism, and to fight it when it attacks?

Is it just because hatred for the United States is stronger than anything?


Anonymous said...

The real reason that the left are silent is because North Korea is their model state. Don't believe me?

It's just a matter of their justification.

'unless we start to turn the global economic ship around, fast.'

Anonymous said...

The single most important thing the US could do for actual peace would be a first strike against North Korea.

Vaporise the entire place. And make clear that the next country that fucks with America will have exactly the same treatment.

The North is only risking America's hand because the current usurper president, an unelected, unamerican, communist - is doing his level best to destroy America's military power and might.

Reagan or Bush would have nuked NK long long ago

Libertyscott said...

Anonymous 2: Oh yes, that would do wonders for the US-ROK defence treaty. The only reason the US is involved is to defend the ROK, if it pulled out of the ROK then I doubt the DPRK would be so bellicose in rhetoric (but it would be encouraged to invade).

Nuking the DPRK as a first strike (especially with more than one weapon) would do untold damage to the ROK, as the DPRK would strike back to the extent it could, but moreover the nuclear fallout conditions would harm millions. It would sever US relations with Japan and China would likely aim its weapons at the US.

Certainly threaten to do that as a response, as the Clinton Administration made clear. Certainly do it if there is a first strike, indeed it is mandatory to do so for credibility.

However, the object of this exercise is to protect the ROK - that isn't well served by inflicting fallout and igniting a war with the DPRK, indeed one that China might feel inclined to take the wrong side on (or inflict its own economic sanctions for).

Anonymous said...

No. the object of the exercise is to defend freedom and property rights throughout the world, and to show leftists everywhere (including in NZ) what will happen to them if they continue to advocate economic terrorism, industrial terrorism, counter value terrorism.

For 40 years after Hirshima noone dared fuck with a superpower: but GenX have forgotten why. Now we have only one superpower it is clear another demonstration of just what the US military can do when unleashed. The US must counteract the image of weakness following on from failed leftist attempts to win hearts and minds in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria & Libya. Leftist and terrorists all over the world think they can oppose freedom and get away with it.

Nuking the DPRK with a full first strike would completely sterilize the country - a combined counterforce and countervalue strike would prevent any possible armed response (or any other response) against the ROK before it began. There would be nothing left to surrender to the South.