Why Are We Still on the DMZ?

North Korea has just pulled off an impressive dual feat -- the successful test both of an intercontinental ballistic missile and an atom bomb in the 6-kiloton range.

Pyongyang's ruler, 30-year-old Kim Jong Un, said the tests are aimed at the United States. So it would seem. One does not build an ICBM to hit Seoul, 30 miles away.

Experts believe North Korea is still far from having the capability to marry a nuclear warhead to a missile that could hit the West Coast. But this seems to be Kim's goal.

America has never recognized his, his father's or his grandfather's regime. We have led the U.N. Security Council in imposing sanctions. We have 28,000 troops in the South and a defense treaty that will bring us into any war with the North from day one, and a U.S. general would assume overall command of U.S. and Republic of Korea troops.

And while America cannot abdicate her responsibility and role in this crisis, we should be asking ourselves: Why is this our crisis in 2013?

President Eisenhower ended the Korean War 60 years ago. The Chinese armies in Korea went home. Twenty years ago, the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia abandoned communism and ceased to arm the North, and Mao's China gave up world revolution for state capitalism.

Epochal events. Yet U.S. troops still sit on the DMZ, just as their grandfathers did when this writer was still in high school.

Why? North Korea represents no threat to us, and South Korea is not the ruined ravaged land of 1953. It has twice the population of the North, an economy 40 times the size of the North's, and access to the most modern weapons in America's arsenal.

Why were U.S. troops not withdrawn from Korea at the end of the Cold War? Why should we have to fight Seoul's war if Pyongyang attacks, when the South is capable of fighting and winning its own war?

Had the United States moved its soldiers out of South Korea, and its planes and ships offshore, and turned over to Seoul responsibility for its own security, would the North be building missiles that can hit the United States?

Undeniably, Kim Jong Un runs a tyrannical, wretched regime. But its closest neighbors are South Korea, Japan, Russia and China.

Had we departed 20 years ago, the South would have built up its own forces to contain the North. Instead, we have allowed it to remain a strategic dependency. And the same holds true for Japan.

Japanese and Chinese warplanes and warships are now circling each other near what Tokyo calls the Senkaku Islands and Beijing calls the Diaoyou. These rocks were occupied by Japan in 1895, when the Empire of the Sun was at war with China and colonizing Taiwan.

After Imperial Japan fell in 1945 and disgorged its colonies, the Senkakus, along with the Ryukyus -- of which the largest is Okinawa -- were returned by President Nixon. And as the Senkakus are but a few rocks sticking out of the East China Sea, no one seemed to mind, before reports surfaced of oil and gas deposits in adjacent waters.

Beijing restated China's claim. Last week, Chinese warships reportedly locked firing radar on Japanese ships and helicopters near the islands. China denies it.

The United States has reportedly signaled Japan that the Senkakus are covered by our mutual defense treaty and if China attacks in those waters, and Japan goes to war, we stand with Japan.

Sixty years ago, U.S. commitments to go to war to keep South Korea and Japan from falling into the Stalin-Mao sphere were supported by Americans, who willingly sent their sons to the Far East to defend the "frontiers of freedom."

But South Korea and Japan long ago became economic powers, fully capable of undertaking their own defense. And the Cold War enemies we confronted no longer exist.

Why have we failed to adapt to the new world we are in? As Lord Salisbury said, "The commonest error in politics is sticking to the carcass of dead policies."

Vladimir Putin's Russia is not Stalin's. If Putin is in a quarrel with Japan over the Kuriles, why should that be our quarrel? If Japan is in a quarrel with Xi Jinping's China over the Senkakus, why is that our quarrel?

Undeniably, should the U.S. seek to renegotiate its defense pacts with Seoul and Tokyo, each would consider, given the rogue regime in the North, a nuclear deterrent of its own. This would stun and shock China.

So ZC you do-not think Israel is part of the NWO?

Depends on what you mean by NWO. You mean the eschatologically, prophesied kingdom of antichrist run by Lucifer, who is at war with G-d? Then there is no such thing for the simple reason that there is no "Lucifer" or evil counterpart of G-d who runs an independent kingdom of evil, because there's only one G-d. He's the G-d of Heaven, the G-d of earth, the G-d of "this world," the G-d of the world-to-come, the G-d and Master of every world. This notion that there are two gods, one good and one evil, is one of the errors of chrstianity.

If by NWO you mean some very powerful people who actually believe in "lucifer" and think they are worshiping (G-d forbid!) and following him, then it is certainly quite possible. But believing in an evil counterpart of G-d doesn't cause an evil counterpart of G-d to exist.

I would think you would be proud of their collaboration via the Israeli Central Bank with the fractional reserve dollar world

Economics ain't my thing. However, having once been a John Bircher, I recognize what you're talking about. This anti-Semitism without saying the word "Jews" is one reason I left the JBS. I am naturally suspicious of "anti-socialists" who want to nationalize all the banks and run them like the post office, especially considering that the original American conservatives (the Federalists, including Washington, Hamilton, and Adams) were pro-bank, as were the Whigs who followed them. And if opponents of fractional reserve banking want to establish warehouses where they can store their money for a fee, they are perfectly free to do so. Us poor folks appreciate the free service provided by banks who invest our holdings and make profits from them (and sometimes pay us interest, though I don't receive any on my pitiful little account).

Also, since you've been here for over ten years, you ought to know that I'm not Jewish at all. And I'm also quite poor. And Southern. And rural. And "redneck." And Fundamentalist. So if you're thinking you're debating with a Rothschild here, you're barking up the wrong tree. I am, however, a Noahide and a former chrstian. I suppose that's "NWO" enough for you.

as well as Israel arming and supporting the ‘rebel’ forces in Syria and the recent bombing of same.

The Israeli government is full of secularists and idiots. If you want to label them "conspirators" who receive their orders directly from NWO headquarters (in Heaven?), then that is your privilege.

BTW, how is the Jewish Defamation orgs constant declamation of ‘antisemitism’ any different than the ‘racism’ crap thrown around by DWL, NAACP and other NAM tools?

It ain't. The "official Jewish leadership" is made up of idiots and posers (and I'm perfectly willing to believe thoroughly evil people as well). The only "official Jewish leadership" are the Torah Sages (little old bearded men in black in their nineties). Everyone else is a fraud.

Also I must apologize to Black elk since it was you tattling to Jim Robinson when you got your feelings hurt recently. Not fond of free speech, huh?

I called attention to your post because anti-Semitism is actually against the rules of Free Republic. What Jim Rob does in reaction is his business. I'm certainly not the nicest poster in the world and I could just as easily be banned or suspended for some of the outrageous stuff I've said over the years. If I had hit the "abuse" button your post probably would have been pulled, but I didn't do this. So I'm not as hostile to "free speech" as you imagine.

Furthermore, as a religious fundamentalist and a Theocrat, I am opposed to blasphemy and do not extend "free speech" rights to it, and I regard anti-Semitism as a form of sacrilege rather than "bigotry" (the idea that anti-Semitism is "bigotry" is the product of secularists).

I also grow quite tired of hypocrites who don't believe in free speech for others demanding it for themselves. The Lefties are currently the most egregious of these hypocritical forces, but your Nazi heroes (who now pose as "defenders of free speech") also were no friends of free speech when they were actually in power. They were about as dedicated to "free speech" as Obama is, that is to say, to "free speech" that performs its "historic function" in the Hegelian dialected.

Finally I will assert that I am a Theocrat who refuses to fence "religion" off into its own tiny little area. G-d isn't subjective or allegorical; He is the Ultimate Truth, and True in exactly the same way that secular truths are true. Therefore I assert that all religions founded after the Revelation at Sinai are false and exist in defiance of Divine Law, that HaShem (the Jewish G-d) alone is the True G-d whether people believe it or not, and that the Jewish G-d is the legitimate G-d and Master of everything in existence (including you), and the Ultimate arbiter of what constitutes right and wrong, good and evil. Any moral code that has any other source is false and illusory. In other words, if you're truly against evil, then follow the Jewish G-d. If you're opposed to the Jewish G-d, then you are evil. Did you understand that?

Next weekend's Purim. I hope you enjoy it. I know I will.

IMHO...

That's kind of a list of entities. It's not so straightforward as a list of entities.

I can only recommend methodical (probably going to be slow, but no need to rush) research - and certainly not making rash judgements along the way. We have no need to fear the truth (it just may be shocking when it sets in, but have faith). In complex issues, it can be difficult to know when or if we've arrived at the truth. Also, nwo specifically puts information into the public sphere that seemingly attacks them, so we take it to be 100% true, but other relavant, key parts of the story are omitted, which hides the truth and also makes what they disclosed to seem to be untrue.

I saw the other post mentioned the modern State of Israel. Mention of Israel brings out emotions both for and against which can cloud the issues.

It's impossible to understand the founding of the modern state of Israel without understanding the business elites of Europe, i.e., the Continent and the UK in the 1800's.

It's important to understand what the banking families are all about, and one must have some sort of empathy for the individuals born into very wealthy families. Family members will, like everyone, vary in their feelings of their nation, ethnicity and religion. But we must keep in mind, of course, that the views of members of ultra-wealthy families do not constitute the views of everyone of their national, ethnic or religious affiliations as a whole.

There are a few very simple (shockingly so) concepts that are fundamental to the thinking of financial elites, and these are very basic concepts that they make use. For example:

* The usefulness of framing both sides of an argument and simple techniques for doing so (

* The usefulness of getting two groups fighting each other

* Exposing what you're doing, minus a few key parts, as a way of hiding what you're doing

* The power of being an advisor

* The power of being a creditor

* The advantages of having assets and operations in multiple nations

* The power of information; intelligence, the press, etc.

* Devotion to one's ideas, family and business; some to the point of what can only be called disregard or even contempt for the non-wealthy, which, for some, can mean disregard for others of one's nationality, ethnicity or religion.

* The precedance that wealth so often takes over other common attributes in personal relationships

* The tendency for financial elites, like royal families, to marry within there sphere

The roles and the relationships of the entities are key to understanding nwo; it's not so much specific entities as "interests" at the top. They have certain directions they find useful to go in, and numerous strategies to do so, like the "foundation system", controlling education, controlling the news media, "philanthropy", etc.

One basic idea behind nwo is that organizationally it is "above" or "out of the reach" of government, per se, since it simply uses several very powerful levers of influence strategies to have government serve the leadership of nwo instead of those individuals having the role of ordinary citizens. Not being inside those circles of power, it is very difficult to pinpoint the most powerful figures other than the most obvious ones. Most often when we point to a very powerful nwo individual, they are not one of its leaders but they serve nwo in some capacity. Governmental figures fall into that category.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.