The Korean Armistice Agreement of 1953 brought the hostilities to a close with a cease fire. The U.S. broke the agreement in 1956:
“Paragraph 13(d) of the Armistice Agreement mandated that neither side introduce new weapons into Korea, other than piece-for-piece replacement of equipment. In September 1956 the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Radford indicated that the U.S. military intention was to introduce atomic weapons into Korea, which was agreed to by the U.S. National Security Council and President Eisenhower. However paragraph 13(d) prevented the introduction of nuclear weapons and missiles. The U.S. unilaterally abrogated paragraph 13(d), breaking the Armistice Agreement, despite concerns by United Nations allies. At a meeting of the Military Armistice Commission on June 21, 1957, the U.S. informed the North Korean representatives that the United Nations Command no longer considered itself bound by paragraph 13(d) of the armistice. In January 1958 nuclear armed Honest John missiles and 280mm atomic cannons were deployed to South Korea, a year later adding nuclear armed Matador cruise missiles with the range to reach China and the Soviet Union.”
UPDATE: August 10, 2017
US Foreign Policy puts its own people at risk. Foreign policy is not a policy of a national security. That concept is a joke. Read Rozeff’s follow-up:
The 1953 Armistice in Korea was followed two months later by the “Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Korea“. This commitment on the part of the U.S. was a mistake. It was an entangling alliance with far-reaching consequences. This brought S. Korea under the nuclear bomb protection umbrella of the U.S., and this gave N. Korea an incentive to develop nuclear weapons. It lent permanence to the U.S. as an enemy of N. Korea. It gave the S. Koreans a negative incentive to negotiate a permanent peace with N. Korea.
The two Koreas on 19 February 1992 committed themselves to a treaty ban on nuclear weapons. However, they could not agree on inspections. Joint military exercises of S. Korea and the U.S. were a sticking point, again being negative fallout from the U.S. defense treaty with S. Korea.
When and if, or even before, N. Korea has the capability to launch a nuclear-tipped missile aimed at Washington or Los Angeles or a city in between, there arises a strategic problem that stems from that 1953 defense treaty but was entirely unforeseen at that time: Why should Washington be willing to defend S. Korea and open itself to such a nuclear threat? Why should Washington be willing to exchange Washington for Seoul?
Since Washington is not willing to face such an exchange, there exists now a hair-trigger situation. The more that N. Korea’s nuclear and missile capabilities mature and the more that its leader threatens the U.S., the closer the U.S. gets to a pre-emptive attack on N. Korea. Furthermore, the U.S. is getting closer to an attack triggered by some military movements or preparations in N. Korea that can be construed as precursors to an attack of some sort.
The warring sides did not get to face-to-face negotiations, but for eight days no party walked away, while Russia talked with the parties separately.
Here is the real kicker. Following peace talks where Assad sits down with the opposition forces, the U.S. comes out with a wildly exaggerated claim that Assad gases his own people. Really? So the leader of a sovereign nation, who spent weeks in talks toward resolution out of the blue gases his own people?
April 4, 2017:U.S. claims Assad gassed his own people. Given the timing of the event, one month after the Geneva peace talks, does that really make sense?
April 7, 2017: The U.S., trying to make its lies stick, acts on its propaganda and launches 59 tomahawk missiles on Syria. CNBC calls it a “proportional strike.” Hmm. 59 missiles with most of them way off target. Proportional, my green back. It’s not just the Pentagon, the U.S. government, but then it’s also the media that is poised and ready to lie for the regime.
On April 7, 2017, U.S. President, Donald Trump, launched 59 missiles against Syria because he claimed to have evidence that Syria used chemical weapons–get this–against his own people. How odd, particularly when the U.S. has all but assumed that all Americans are enemy combatants. Yet we’re supposed to believe that some sovereign power in the middle east is doing exactly what the U.S. is doing to its own people?
Would Syrian President Assad launch a chemical attack on civilians just as peace talks are about to be held and where government gains against ISIS and al-Qaeda rebels give him the upper hand? He would be literally committing suicide. Who benefits from the attack? Not Assad. But the rebels and the US neocons and the warmongers benefit a great deal. Are we about to be taken to war yet again based on lies? Tune in to today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:
The US did not use its hotline with Russia ahead of the downing of the Syrian government warplane, said the ministry, which accused the US of a “deliberate failure to make good on its commitments” under the deconfliction deal.
June 19, 2017: Russia denounces attack on Syrian jet as aggressive and withdraws its participation with the U.S. in its deconfliction deal.
I assembled the brief timeline above just to give yesterday’s downing of the Syrian jet some context. So what are the claims?
The U.S. shot down a Syrian jet. That Syrian pilot ejected and has been rescued.
The Pentagon argued that because they are allied with the Kurds they were free to attack the Syrian plane under the concept of “collective self-defense,” and added that they “will not hesitate” to take further military action to defend the Kurds, or other partnered forces, from future threats.
Had no idea that the U.S. was in Syria to protect the Kurds. That makes no sense at all. I thought they were there in a coalition effort to shrink ISIS.
The Assad government claims it was in an area of an ISIS stronghold where they were trying to push them back.
The ministry emphasized that Russian warplanes were on a mission in Syrian airspace during the US-led coalition’s attack on the Syrian Su-22, while the coalition failed to use the communication line to prevent an incident.
“The command of the coalition forces did not use the existing communication channel between the air commands of Al Udeid Airbase (in Qatar) and the Khmeimim Airbase to prevent incidents in Syrian airspace.
The ministry considers the move “a conscious failure to comply with the obligations under the Memorandum on the Prevention of Incidents and Ensuring Air Safety in Syria,” and is thus halting cooperation with the US within the memorandum framework as of June 19, the statement concluded.
The Russian Ministry, in fact, declared that any American jet west of the Euphrates, meaning most of Syria, is a target, an enemy.
“All kinds of airborne vehicles, including aircraft and UAVs of the international coalition detected to the west of the Euphrates River will be tracked by the Russian SAM systems as air targets,” the Russian Defence Ministry said in a statement.
France led the military intervention. Khadaffi’s son, Seif, had claimed that his father had helped finance French president Nicholas Sarkozy’s election. The vindictive Sarkozy intended to shut up the Khadaffis.
Anytime war looms, which is almost every year for the United States, always undeclared, of course, but justified somehow through convoluted rationale of a threat to national security, people, in their last refuge of defending the bombing of innocent people love to reference WWII and how that war brought us out of the Great Depression. “See! War returned us to great prosperity!”
Here Tom Woods explains the economic basics of that ludicrous position that says let’s bomb other people to have prosperity at home.
Woods cites Robert Higgs’s presentation on this topic. Check it out.
Check out the rest of the resources that Woods presents. In his usual, elegant style, Dr. Woods goes meticulously through the reasons why this preposterous claim is wrong. Worth a listen and a read. People actually think there was prosperity during the war. Incredulous. The evidence in economic circles that is presented to defend that claim is never consistent.
The reasons why this preposterous claim is wrong:
If you draft 10 million people into the armed forces, well, you draft 10 million people and, what do you know, unemployment goes down. To a large degree that’s the explanation. Now obviously that’s not the way a healthy economy deals with unemployment. I mean at any time I supposed you could, if you were perverse and insane line up the unemployed, execute them all, and say, hey, [the economy is doing] great.
Second, if we’re going to believe these crazy GDP numbers from the early 1940’s, that tell us oh, wow, what a great bout of prosperity we had, we also have to believe these same figures when they also tell us that 1946 was a terrible depression year. Yet we know that 1946 was the probably most prosperous year in all of American history from the point of view of production. Private production increased by 35% in one year. We’ve never seen anything before or since that would even touch that. But according to these same figures, this was a time of depression.
During the war the most skilled sector of the labor force was sent off to Europe or to the Pacific to fight. What did that mean on the home front? That meant that the labor force was increasing composed of people with much less work experience. Much younger people, or women, many of whom had no prior experience in the labor force or elderly men, and yet during those years when we have this unbelievable and very abrupt resource constraint where the best, most-skilled, experienced workers are gone fighting, and yet we get growth rates of 13% per year which had never been seen since and smashed all previous records. Is the path to prosperity constraining resources?
During the war, a huge portions of the economy were controlled. And consisted of government purchases of military equipment. That’s not a free market. That’s the government and some firm reaching an agreement and has no basis on consumer choice. GDP figures for this period are a whole bunch of non-sense numbers added up to give you a giant non-sense number. Finally economists are looking at it closer and saying the claim is absurd.
2 our of 5 people in the work force were not producing consumer goods. Now you may say, “But we needed them to fight the war.” That’s a separate issue. Those people are not producing consumer goods. No consumer buys a tank. 2/5 of the labor force is producing stuff that from the point of view of the consumers might as well never have been produced. All the inputs going into the economy, from the consumer’s point of view, are a waste. Meanwhile, the other 60% are now being taxed to pay for those 40% not to produce any consumer goods. That means we have less production Less production going on and less monetary wherewithal with which the remainder of the people can buy those goods. How can that possibly be prosperity? Not to mention the price controls, not to mention the product quality deterioration which is how private firms have to deal with price controls. How do you deal with the fact that entire classes of consumer goods could not be acquired during the war? You put all this together and the result is this was not a time of great prosperity. It was a time of great deprivation. from the point of view of the private economy. That’s what matters. You have to disaggregate from these figures–what were people actually able to buy? What were the goods that people could buy to improve their standard of living? Not how many tanks were produced, because nobody could actually, it turns out, eat a tank.
As college campuses are run amok with identity politics, the anti-war response against the U.S. government and against Trump are silenced and will be diluted by sexual orientation. The Left has won. From an anarchist demonstration opposing free speech to a women’s march on Washington, D. C. led by Ms. Raunch herself, Madonna, the anti-war efforts have gone to the swamp. All the while Donald J. Trump and the U.S. war machine prepare for nuclear war with Iran. What has happened to Trump’s call for non-intervention and the elimination of NATO? And he just nominated Elliott Abrams, super Neocon, to the position of Deputy Secretary of State. The wars in the middle east will continue unabated through Bush II, then Obama, now Donald J. Trump. When did America become so weak diplomatically?
U.S. government asserts that Vladimir Putin interfered with the 2016 American presidential election. Okay, let’s hear how. How exactly did Russia or Putin interfere? CNN can’t answer that though their headline promises to. It’s loose and general accusations flying with threats made by the lame duck president. How is that not shameful? “President Barack Obama has vowed the US will retaliate against Russia “at a time and place of our own choosing” for Moscow’s hacking attempts to influence the country’s elections.” Vowed? Don’t you mean threatened?
Stephen Cohen by the way is professor emeritus of Russian studies, history, and politics at New York University and Princeton University. So there’s that.
Many of the people pursuing them [the accusations that Russia intervened] are actually trying to stop President-elect Trump’s vow for establishing a new, cooperative relationship with Russia, which I think is essential for American national security. I’m not pro-Kremlin. I’m pro-American national security. But if you can discredit Putin as a war criminal, as a guy who despoiled our democracy, then how will Trump get the traction to go ahead and begin detente. Detente, cooperation in a time of war, was a Republican policy.
Then he adds this . . .
Can’t remember in my lifetime where when a publication like the NY Times would refer to the man whose been elected of the United States as a lackey of the Kremlin. Where have we gone when a NY Times says that Trump is the Kremlin’s poodle and the Putin’s puppet? We’re libeling our own president. It may be that they are absolutely determined to prevent the kind of cooperation with Russia that will make it safer. Putin is potentially America’s most essential, valuable national security partner. I am referring in particular to the war against terrorism.
So what does it all mean? It means that the deep state is at each other’s throats. It means that all of the military appointments made by Trump will be an attempt by military intelligence to dismantle the CIA. The “Russia Shaped American Elections” is a push-back from the CIA after Trump appoints so many anti-CIA, military men. Great assessment from Target Liberty.
I thought that the comments between the 9:19-11:39 segment were excellent. Here they are:
McNamara and the defense establishment were caught with their pants down. Talk about the most dangerous moment in all of human history.
We’ve just encountered people who don’t mind at all threatening nuclear war against Russia again.
U.S. and Pentagon pointed Jupiter missiles right on the Russian border in Turkey which led to the Soviet missiles in Cuba. Kennedy to his credit pulled those missiles out of Turkey. Had he lived it’s clear he would have won re-election.
He and Khrushchev were planning a number of initiatives to promote, working-together, collaboration, world peace. I . . . I mean we forget that in November of ’63, shortly before Dallas, he was at the United Nations, giving a speech that said “Look, we are going to go to the moon but we are going to the moon WITH Russia, we’re gonna be partners in this endeavor.” And so this I think had it taken place would have been a true symbol of the end of the cold war and that was just one of a number of things that JFK was up to. Of course we have this legendary American university commencement address where JFK comes out of the closes so to speak and declares himself a man of peace or peacenik. He challenges the American population and the entire world for people to examine themselves internally. During that speech he also introduces the fact he’s going to undertake a limited nuclear arms treaty with Russia, the first of its kind and less than three months later the Senate ratifies the treaty all behind the backs of the CIA and the Pentagon. They were not included in this endeavor. And believe me, that made them absolutely furious.
And they decided to kill him. To what extent was the Pentagon—and you put your finger on the CIA—what aspects of the Pentagon were on that as well?
But this was by no means the only objective of the invasion.
From the monetary perspective there is as much as a trillion dollars of untapped mineral wealthin the country that could make it one of the world’s leading mining centres in the coming years, a mineral wealth that has been known about for decades.
And there is also the fact that the world’s lucrative multi-billion dollar heroin trade sources almost entirely from the country, with up to 90% of the world’s opium coming from the record crops that are being diligently protected by US troops.
The oil and gas pipelines. The mineral extraction. The opium. All of these are factors in the ongoing occupation of Afghanistan years after any pretence of an excuse for NATO’s presence evaporated. But there is one factor that has made Afghanistan the target of would-be world rulers for centuries: its location.
In 1904, Sir Halford John Mackinder PC, the Director of the London School of Economics, published an essay in The Geographical Journal titled “The Geographical Pivot of History.” In that essay, Mackinder laid out the “Heartland Theory,” a theory that would come to dominate foreign policy and geostrategic thought.
The Heartland Theory holds that the earth’s surface can be divided into a “world island,” the “offshore islands” and the “outlying islands.” The “Heartland” lay at the center of the “world island” and the Eurasian landmass, and its importance was summarized in Mackinder’s famous dictum:
“Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
Who rules the World-Island commands the World.”
This is why control of the Central Asian region, and Afghanistan in particular, has been prized by empire since the 19th century, when Britain and Russia engaged in diplomatic struggle, intelligence operations, military conflicts and subterfuge for control over Afghanistan in what was called “The Great Game.” And this is why former National Security Advisor and perennial Washington insider Zbigniew Brzezinski was able to predict in his 1997 magnum opus, “The Grand Chessboard,” that the first major war of the 21st century would take place in Afghanistan.
Brzezniski had no crystal ball. He did not know that the neocons would be in office in 2001. He had not seen NSPD-9. He did not know how 9/11 would be used as the fig leaf to cover the naked ambition of NATO’s land grab. But he did understand the geostrategic imperatives of world empires, and he knew that control over Central Asia was crucial to control over the world. Without NATO’s Afghanistan toehold, the US hegemon would have no chance of countering China and Russia in the New Great Game of the 21st century.
This is what Afghanistan was, is and always will be about: empire. The naked ambition of would-be world rulers. As long as that ambition remains unchecked, NATO will continue to keep its forces in the region at any cost. And as Russia and China continue to exert their own influence in the region, that deployment brings us one step closer to direct military confrontation.
And the people of Afghanistan, once again, are crushed underfoot, mere pawns in the game for world empire.