the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

Steve James wrote:
The US is there because of the Korean War, and the desire to stop the spread of communism.

mmm, some call this history. I call it history I guess for some its not

Steve James wrote:Well, we shouldn't be involved in Cuba either. (See Mike, I'm not an imperialist ).

I'm currently watching Oliver Stone's interviews with Fidel Castro from 2004. I think Stone doesn't like our foreign policy.

I'm currently watching Oliver Stone's interviews with Fidel Castro from 2004. I think Stone doesn't like our foreign policy.

No he doesn't. Afa Cuba, imo, Russian missiles on the island were a "credible threat" and Kennedy had to do something. Otoh, the reason the Soviets wanted to put missiles there was because there were US missiles in Turkey.

However, the Cuban embargo continues, and Trump says the restrictions need to stay. They'll say it's because communism is bad for the people. But, Cubans have free health care and education, and are almost 100% literate. It's true that the country is poor. Duh. The people are poor because of the embargo. There are no reports of starving Cubans.

We're in Cuba now because of American imperialism from the 19th century. "Remember the Maine" and the Platt Amendment ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platt_Amendment.

windwalker wrote:

Steve James wrote: The US is there because of the Korean War, and the desire to stop the spread of communism.

mmm, some call this history. I call it history I guess for some its not

Yeah, "some" can mean 1, as in "somebody thinks ..." or I have some money. I.e., it doesn't tell you anything about the subject discussed. In this case, what is the history of the Korean War? The fact that there are US troops there isn't history; history is or describes (someone's interpretation of) the reasons for the troops being there.

For example, some would say that the reason we're there is because the North invaded the South. Hmm. That's without nuclear weapons. Some in China would say that the reason we're there is because the US wanted to invade China. Hmm.

My son taught at West Point and served in Korea --all of which mean nothing, I'm just sayin', since you like just sayin'. Just sayin.' Anyway, he didn't write this, but what do you think?
https://www.quora.com/What-parts-of-Chi ... -this-plan
http://b-29s-over-korea.com/Why-Truman- ... rthur.html

Steve James wrote:
' Anyway, he didn't write this, but what do you think?
https://www.quora.com/What-parts-of-Chi ... -this-plan
http://b-29s-over-korea.com/Why-Truman- ... rthur.html

"Anyway, if there were no US troops in Korea,but there are, and the history that made it so"

Thought it was quite clear the first time.
The end result is that there are US troops stationed in Korea, one can read history to understand why
this is so.

Y'all Trump-bashers need to remember the Vulcan proverb, "Only Nixon could go to China."

Ironic to compare him to Nixon. Different in so many way, yet so similar in others.

I would characterize both as problem solvers, not Mister Sensitivity.

problem solvers

Yeah, problem solved, if you say so. Was it his idea that the two Koreas unite?

Anyway, your comparison is ironic, if not prophetic.

“Clearly credit goes to President Trump“ -Foreign Minister of South Korea



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH0e0SUF_0o

Seems to me that Kim played his cards well. Now that they have the nuclear option everyone is willing to come to the table. He wants a guarantee that the US will not invade. I am sure the US will think twice about tearing up treaties and international agreements now especially with Iran.

The irony is that we had a treaty with the Norks under Clinton, Bush (playing the tough guy) tore it up and the Norks went back to building up their nuclear capability and here we are. Hope the US doesn't blow it again.

There's no doubt that Trump is responsible for these changes. However, it's not because he called Kim "little rocket man" or that Kim called him a "dotard." It's not because Trump fired his secretary of state. But, it doesn't really matter why if, in fact, the peninsula steps down from a state of war. If Trump wants to take a victory lap for it, let him have it. There may be a picture of him in between Kim and Moon holding their hands high. Heck, give him the Nobel Peace Prize.

Since the nobel literature prize seem to soon be history, they could dubble up the peace prize money for him or maybe also let Kim and Moon In it too....better hurry up before they go on as usual

Foreign countries know that when US presidents vilify nations like North Korea, Iran, etc, the tail is wagging the dog meaning declaring war on nations are good enough to allow for the pleasure factor of maintaining a stauts quo on present POTUS. The Koreas uniting against the threat of Trump is positive and as usual his allies are claiming a positivbe role of Trump desipite the facts to the obvious.

klonk wrote:Y'all Trump-bashers need to remember the Vulcan proverb, "Only Nixon could go to China."

Nah! I don't give the US much credit. To me it was all a matter of time. Kim has nukes and is ready and willing to use them and from this position he will negotiate peace for his country, so much for unconditional surrender and regime change which is US foreign policy in these situations. Kim wins and the negotiations will be to his benefit. I will give Trump credit for not blowing it and sending Pompeo at the right time but we are not there yet. He was simply in the right place at the right time just as Bush Sr was president when the Berlin wall came down. To give either president full credit for what happened on their watch is preposterous. Do you realize under Trump that we don't even have an ambassador to South Korea?