Reach out to North Korea, Chico State professor suggests
By LARRY MITCHELL – Staff Writer
Posted: 12/18/2010 12:03:11 AM PST
Chico State University professor James Matray opens the door to his office to talk about North…CHICO — Don’t call North Korea a “rogue nation.” That’s the advice of James Matray, a Chico State University history professor and an expert on American foreign relations in Asia. (cont read the ERonline story) END
Post Scripts comments:
If this CSUC professor is an expert on foreign relations and teaching this crap to our young men and women, we’re in trouble!
North Korea IS A VICIOUS ROGUE NATION and it has been the sole instigator of countless atrocities both in South Korea and on the high seas. You don’t play nice with a rogue nation! They only understand force.
North Korea has a long standing pattern of outrageous and dangerous conduct, such as sending their spies and political agents into South Korea to disrupt whatever they can and selectively murder political opponents or kidnap or kill their own North Korean dissidents that have tried to escape their reach.
On January 28, 1968, North Korea hijacked the American Naval vessel, USS Pueblo, while it was patrolling in international waters. The Pueblo was lightly armed and it’s sole mission was to listen in on North Korea’s radio traffic. It was originally designed as a freighter, not a warship and it only carried two light machine guns that had to be removed from a storage locker before use. It was hardly a menacing warship, but it did carry something the Russian’s and their North Korean allies desperately wanted.
This was a clear act of war, but the North Koreans said it had violated their territorial waters and despite the contrary assertions of the Captain and crew, it’s true location at the time remained uncertain. Many years later we learned from high ranking defectors from within the former Soviet Spy agency the KGB, the North Koreans were actually acting on secret orders from them when the Pueblo was captured. NK took great pleasure in carrying out that mission and torturing our navy personnel to hide their real agenda.
They committed this criminal act to get their bloody hands on our top secret cipher machines… and ironically it was due to John Walk Jr., A Navy Cheif Petty Officer who was selling navy secrets to the USSR, The Soviets needed our cipher machine to make maximum use of Walker’s information.
and it was decided they had to steal a cipher machine by any means, it was that important. This was one of the Soviet’s most closely guarded secrets and it stayed buried in history until last year. (See Pueblo’s new Captain on right)
The Pueblo’s capture remains an open wound and if we have any honor left as a nation we should set things right. I feel very personally connected to that event and what those men went through because I served on a similar navy ship from 1966-67. What happened to the Pueblo’s crew was an act of war and it was swept away by trying to appease North Korea. We had no clue at the time it John Walker’s activities that caused this event – how do you diplomatically handle that one? Obviously, you don’t, but we tried and we were laughed at.
The hapless crew of Pueblo were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time and they were captured to enhance the USSR’s new espionage find that ironically went right back to a Navy Chief (Walker). Had someone with a little guts been our President at that time we would have retaliated by sinking our hijacked ship on display in the North Korean port of Pyongyang and also take out as many of Korea’s warships as we could find in that same harbor. Lybia’s Khadfy did far less and look how we responded to him! And it worked so well too.
Since the cessation of hostilities (open warfare) in the Korean War the North Koreans have repeatedly sneaked across the DMZ to murder American servicemen patrolling that area. They beheaded a us. army Lt. just to send us a message.
Most recently they have torpedoed and sunk a South Korean naval vessel and fired dozens or more heavy shells into a civilian populated island owned by South Korea. During all this S. Korea has been more than accommodating and for years we have extended a hand of friendship to North Korea.
Can you readers out here even begin to imagine how many innocent Korean people have died from starvation in order to provide luxuries for these despots and food for their massive million man army? It’s disgusting and barbaric!
Yet, here we are still trying to reach some sort of diplomatic accommodation. We’ve been trying this since the Korean War and so has South Korea!
It is amazing to me that this ridiculous CSUC professor thinks talking nice at this point will make all that history just go away and we can live happily ever after? Well, here’s a news flash for the professor… this is a rogue nation and it will continue to be as long as they are run by communist dictators.
They must be held accountable for their dirty, vile, cowardly deeds. They’re a black hearted regime that has justified evil too many times and they do it in the same way that all dictatorship do…they’re twisted, sick and narcissistic! It’s always somebody else’s provocation that forced them to kill and I am sick of us playing that game. I want to take them up on their acts of war. This family of ruthless, cold blooded killers… Kim Il-sung, Kim Il-jung and Mentally Ill-jung deserve nothing but a bullet through the brain. They are on the same level like Stalin, Ichman, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.
This is why its so upsetting to read that our CSUC Professor is foolish enough to think we can speak soft, kindly words and in any way influence the NKPR. Politically correctness has no more effect on them than it did on Stalin, Mussolini, or Hitler.
Appeasement and walking on eggs (sucking up to tyrants) diplomacy.
Has it worked for the past 20-30 years?
Pie, I am not aware of any time when appeasement has worked on a ruthless narcasistic dictator like we have in North Korea.
Appeasement worked for Jimmy Carter and got him a Nobel Peace prize. Remember when he went to North Korea and negotiated a nuke deal with the ruthless narcisistic dictator? Carter gave the NK Communists some of our advanced nuclear technology on the promise that they would use it for peaceful energy production and not nuclear weapons. History shows that now North Korea has not a single nuclear power plant, but it does have untold numbers of nuclear weapons.
“untold numbers of nuclear weapons”? cite sources please.
Carl, not trying to speak for Soaps, but this is one of those “prima faci” statements that is not subject to debate. We know North Korea has developed nuclear weapons, they’ve admitted it, they’ve openly tested them, the US, Russia, China, Iran and the UN have all been involved to some degree with this issue – so whether they have nukes or not is not something for debate.
What we don’t know is how many nuclear weapons they have. You could say they have an untold number. Jack Lee, Post Scripts
PS Soaps has a reputation for not responding to questions that he considers inane or obvious, so you’ll probably not get him to respond.
According to United Nations documents the current list of five nuclear-weapon states under the NPT are….
United States 2,468 / 9,600[3] 1945 (“Trinity”) Signatory
Russian Federation (former Soviet Union) 4,650 / 12,000[3] 1949 (“RDS-1”) Ratifier
United Kingdom 160 / 225[3] 1952 (“Hurricane”) Ratifier
France 300 / 300[3] 1960 (“Gerboise Bleue”) Ratifier
China 180 / 240[3] 1964 (“596”) Signatory
The three non-NPT nuclear powers are…
India n.a. 1974 Non-signatory
Pakistan n.a. 1998 Non-signatory
North Korea, 2006 Non-signatory
A bit of info:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke.htm
“The Pueblo’s capture remains an open wound and if we have any honor left as a nation we should set things right.”
You would risk young American’s lives for “honor?”
For “revenge?”
Wow, Jack.
Wow.
Ask your Christian friends what Jesus would do.
“untold” means exactly that.
They’re not going to tell you!
So, it will always be “untold!”
and they will always be right in their own minds.
Quentin what would Jesus do about this Pueblo incident? Hmmm…well we know that, according to Bible anyway, that he flew into a violent rage at the Pharases money lenders and issues which he considered price gouging. He sent them running and he then tore up the place. So, what would he do if some criminals attacked his friends for an evil reason…geez, thats a good one. It could get really messy I suppose. Remember, His Father, which he is part of according to the Bible and the definition of the trinity, He rained down fire and brimestone on two large cities, Soddom and Gamorah that he considered immoral. Heck, they didn’t even commit an act of war. So you can say that it was Jesus doing the raining of fire and brimestone too, blowing up houses, dumping molten rock on infidels and burning them to death! That’s kinda harsh isn’t it? And lets not forget the great where He drowned nearly every person on the face of the earth because he didn’t like their conduct.
So, I think Jesus/God would have been really, really, really ticked off ove the Pueblo and I think he probably would have slaughtered their entire government right down to the last official, brought a plague and pestalence upon them, shooking their cities to the ground – that’s my guess. What do you think he would have done and how does this help resolved anything?
By the way Q, a country without honor is a country about to fail. Without honor you have nothing, no conscience or passion for justice.
Has there ever been a war fought over honor? lol Just about every one of them! WWI began that way. Hitler convinced Germany they need to fight WWII to recover their honor.
What would you do if you were President and you knew North Korea had acted with reckless disregard and attacked your warship on the high seas without any provocation? That they had hijacked said ship and murdered 4 of the crew and had systematically tortured the others. Whatcha gonna do about it?
“The Pueblo’s capture remains an open wound and if we have any honor left as a nation we should set things right.”
You would risk young American’s lives for “honor?”
For “revenge?”
Wow, Jack.
Wow.
Ask your Christian friends what Jesus would do.”……..
Quentin are you suggesting that risking ones life for honor is unreasonable?
Are you also implying that revenge and retribution are the same thing?
Quentin are you also implying that God does not confront injustice with justice?
Excellent points Nick. It’s also interesting to note that retribution is exacted all the time by just agencies of the people and as for revenge, the Bible cites instances where revenge is reserved for the Lord or God has taken his revenge, etc.
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.
Romans 12:17 Give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. (What is more honorable than to defend one’s nation from unprovoked aggression from a vial despotic regime of murderous criminals?)
Exodus 22:1-31 we see where God suggests punishment for evil doers…
If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the stolen beast is found alive in his possession, whether it is an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double. If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed over, or lets his beast loose and it feeds in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best in his own field and in his own vineyard. …
And this one…Luke 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them? This was their first thought to seek retribution for an injustice.
I always find it interesting when one claims that we shouldn’t put people’s lives in danger for mere “Honor”.
It seems to imply that they confuse honor with pride. Pride is certainly not something which we should attempt to encourage. Pride is pernicious and the root cause of all evil.
Honor on the other hand is the act of upholding truth and justice, and conducting oneself in a righteous manner.
(noun 1. honesty, fairness, or integrity in one’s beliefs and actions: a man of honor.)
To act honorably in such an instance as the one described may very well be to react with military force. In order to demonstrate to the offending party that our sense of justice is backed up with a practical application in order to ensure that the rights and physical safety of our citizens and military men and women is something to which we feel a special obligation to defend.
Perhaps Quentin is not all together impressed with the concept of honor. I must admit this seems strange given his propensity to argue and insult those whom he feels disagree with his “honesty, fairness or integrity to his beliefs…”
Perhaps he is only prone to such arguments and retaliation when he is quite certain of his own physical safety. If this is the case then I hardly think it is the concern for others which motivates his desire to allow such acts of lawlessness to go unopposed with a martial response. I have often observed that those who are unwilling to place themselves in harms way for what they believe in, often find solace in suggesting that no one else should either.
This provides one with a sense of moral superiority to those who can and do defend their, their nations or the honor of their beliefs with physical force when necessary and appropriate.
I wonder if Quentin would use physical force to remove a burglar from his property…or perhaps he would call the police and have others use force on his behalf. I would think he would. And if so would he have them do so to protect his property or the honor of property rights or perhaps both?
Either way it would seem somewhat petty if Quentin would be willing to potentially put a police officers life on the line to protect his trinkets but not the honorable concept of property rights. For where as Quentin’s physical possessions are theoretically replaceable, the loss of which is brings discomfort or distress to only one person, the loss or abandonment of property rights and the ability of one to feel secure in their homes could potentially effect everyone.
In such case I would think that while the practical application carried out is the preventions of Quentin’s possessions being taken, the larger concept being defended is the honorable concept of property rights.
All this to say that in almost all things which people can, for the most, part universally agree on as it concerns the appropriate application of physical violence, a sense of honor is the very thing which provides legitimacy to the act itself.
In short, honor is ultimately the only thing genuinely worth risking your life for.
Those who are willing to blog for their “honor” but not fight for it if appropriate are not morally superior, they are cowards.
Those who confuse pride with honor are often cowards attempting to morally justify their cowardice through deliberate misinterpretation or sophistry.
Then there are those who simply post little quips without genuinely considering the manner. Or as one person put it, they fail to read, educate themselves and THEN post.
Excellente’! Couldn’t or wouldn’t want to change a thing.