“No” to US food aid for North Korea

Recently, the US agreed to provide 240,000 metric tons of food aid to North Korea in exchange for what will surely be a cosmetic and short-lived limitation of its nuclear weapons program.

My impression:

President Obama is making an error of the first magnitude by agreeing to do this.

My proposal:

The US as well as South Korea shouldn’t give any aid whatsoever to North Korea. If China wishes to do so, be my guest. Furthermore, we shouldn’t engage in any kind of “talks” in order to convince/bribe North Korea to reign in its nuke program. We should impose an official code of silence: Whenever Jong blusters, fusses, or fumes, we should say absolutely nothing. Bottom line? Avoid doing or saying anything that will increase Jong’s stature at home or on the international stage.

My sentiments as expressed on Yahoo:

I posted the following responses on Yahoo News, though I insist on restating my belief that Yahoo News routinely censors its contributors’ comments.

My first response:

QUOTE:

This is a bad idea. China could have provided this aid or arranged its financing. As allies and fellow “Communists,” China should have offered this aid without having to be asked. The US only appears to gain, since our gesture at least slows down DPRK’s nuke weapons program. However, the US loses by bowing down to “North Korea’s DEMANDS for food aid.”

The new “Dear Leader” gains immensely by having the running dog capitalists bow down to him, increasing his prestige among his starving people (not to mention, filling their bellies at our expense). Jong can even laugh at us behind closed doors when he visits his peers in China, saying, “The US gave in to nuclear blackmail and we made them pay for it (ha, ha) – with food that could have fed their own citizens.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The inability of the US to think in other than short-term gains is our Achilles’ Heel.”

UNQUOTE:

This, my second post, was in response to a fellow poster’s comment on the above:

QUOTE:

@ Ha! Ha! Ha!,

You say, “Ignoring a dictator is a bad idea?” We ignore them all the time – though mostly the petty ones. You can’t compare all dictators to Hitler, especially not Jong. North Korea, unlike Germany, is boxed in with (really) nowhere to go except south.

Ignoring Jong really was (and still is) the best way to go. In the news today, though, it turns out we chose not to ignore him. Instead, we’re giving him tons of food. Extremely bad move on our part; now he’s got bragging rights. We went from responding to him tit-for-tat (instead of ignoring him and allowing his starving population to deal with him), and now we’re kowtowing.

You are right that Jong Jr. has potential [to do great harm], but that can still be contained if we insist that local players stand up to him – and that includes a nuclear weaponized Japan if needs be. Of course, if we even mention that possibility, China will reign in Jong for us. Problem solved. No Hitler – as if Jong even has a remote chance.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I’m sure Jong is also thinking of something else: If he starts a war, how sure can he be that one of our surgical strikes won’t take him out, personally?”

:UNQUOTE.

My gut reaction:

First a quote posted on CNN on March 2, then my gut reaction:

QUOTE:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/02/opinion/cha-kim-korea/?hpt=hp_bn9

For North Korea, the young Kim Jong Un may want to demonstrate a continuity of leadership after the sudden death of his father nine weeks ago, and the regime wants food in preparation for its April 15 celebrations of the 100th birthday of the first leader of North Korea, Kim Il Sung.

:UNQUOTE.

I don’t understand what could be meant by “a continuity of leadership.” “Continuity” can’t be questioned as long as Jong controls the military. Maybe this is meant: “We will continue to jerk the US and the world community around by obtaining food aid based on a promise, which will be broken at our convenience.” Well, that would be a “continuity” of the leadership style of Jong’s father. Certainly, there can’t be any “continuity” in genuinely abandoning a nuclear weapons’ program that has served to increased North Korea’s stature among nations.

As for that last bit: “…and the regime wants food in preparation for its April 15 celebrations of the 100th birthday of the first leader of North Korea, Kim Il Sung.” It’s far easier to celebrate on a full stomach, so exactly for that reason the US should have held back and encouraged South Korea to do the same.

Without food, there will be many hungry men in North Korea (who will get only hungrier) who might start thinking, “We’ve got to get rid of Jong before he gets rid of the rest of us.” Such men might think of rebelling. If they don’t rebel, then they will die as have hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens during past famines. That will suit Jong just fine, if the population dies off to such a low level that finally North Korea will be able to feed itself.

What if Jong lashes out militarily?

So what if he does? So what if he even throws a nuclear bomb or two at South Korea? That would be all the justification it would take for the US to retaliate, to which China could hardly object. For that reason, I believe China would be the first to smite North Korea in order to (hopefully) prevent the US from doing so. And I believe young Jong knows this of his northern neighbor.

I’ve heard stories for years about how North Korean artillery could level Seoul. These tales have induced a “waiting for the other shoe to drop” siege mentality. There’s a lot to be said for the other shoe actually dropping. After that, all of the major players will know what needs to be done.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of the Independent Contractors’ Party

“After a while, one is forced to ask, ‘What’s the worst that could happen?’ And then, one will be forced to conclude, ‘Only that? What was there ever to be afraid of?’”

Contract me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

US President’s Weekly Yahoo News Updates

Once per week, I consolidate comments I’d posted to recent articles appearing on Yahoo News. I share my views, written as if I actually were the US President. [I’m working on that.] The following were posted between Dec. 18 and today, though appear below in no particular order. As is my usual custom, if I open with a quoted item, that’s from the article itself.

I hope you enjoy all 13 of these mini-essays/comments:

ONE:

I took another look at a YouTube clip from Sacha Baron Cohen’s movie “Bruno,” which showed the real-life Ron Paul being “hit on” by Bruno, who dropped his pants in this scene.

At the time, I laughed while feeling sorry for a clearly uncomfortable Ron Paul. But I also wondered, “How on earth did Cohen get away with this? Aren’t there laws?” Or did Ron Paul unwittingly sign some kind of waiver in advance that he didn’t read very carefully. If that, then Ron Paul seems to be the kind of person who’s easily duped. Can we afford that?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If Ron Paul’s campaign really catches on, believe me – I won’t be the last person to bring up Bruno.”

TWO:

“State media have showered Kim with new titles.” Under whose authority does state media do this? Who do they think they are, to presume to bestow titles on the Supreme Godhead? If Kim were really supreme, he would bestow titles upon himself. That’s what gods do, right?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If elected president in 2012, I wouldn’t give the North Koreans the time of day. Let China take care of their poor relation.”

THREE:

“[Ron] Paul…[said] insurance companies should not be required to offer coverage to people who are already sick.” Did Paul happen to say what those people are supposed to do? Let me guess: “If you can’t afford to live, then you must die.” I wonder if Dr. Ron Paul ever did any free doctoring for those in need. Lawyers are expected to be available to work Pro Bono on occasion. What about doctors, Dr. Paul?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I suggest that a certain amount of free doctoring, for those who can’t afford it, should be considered part of the cost of doing business. What do you say, Dr. Paul?”

FOUR:

"God, Syria and Bashar only." Whatever happened to “God is great?” People start getting into trouble when they add their country and their Glorious Leader after God.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“We in the US make the same mistake when we equate God and country.”

FIVE:

“…paid silent tribute to Kim Jong Il, ‘praying for his immortality,’ KCNA said.” Praying for his…what?! Immortality? The man’s dead, so it’s too late for a prayer like that.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“What are these people thinking?”

SIX:

“The 2012 election is due to be the priciest ever with Obama expected to raise more than his record $750 million from 2008.” And why should this be the case? Even Obama’s most ardent supporters should be thinking: “Let the President run on his record, which he’s in a great position to promote, but not on one red cent from us.”

By now, friends and enemies alike know all there is to know about Obama. The only purpose for raising tons of campaign contributions is to overwhelm the airwaves with his “message.” Yawn…we already know that message. Frankly, I’d like to see “Change We Can Believe In” starting with Obama refusing all campaign contributions. Like me.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“When it comes to playing the money game, Obama’s no different than anybody else.”

SEVEN:

Upon hearing the news that Newt Gingrich wants to conduct a write-in campaign, since he failed to get on the primary ballot in his [currently] native state of Viriginia, I responded with:

"No write-in shall be permitted on ballots in primary elections." I wish the article had expanded on what that means. For instance, if a voter writes a name on a ballot, is he to be arrested on the spot for violating state law? Or is his ballot simply counted as “spoiled?” If the latter, Newt should plough full speed ahead (to mix a metaphor) and go for a write-in campaign. He could claim a moral victory if the results went something like this:

21% Ron Paul, 19% Mitt Romney, 60% spoiled ballots.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“It won’t matter even if Jesus were to win the presidency, he’d still be stymied by a cranky Congress.”

EIGHT:

[SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court has tossed out a lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.]

“The [Court] ruled Thursday that none of the challengers had legal standing to file the lawsuit…” All of us who are US citizens should have legal standing in such a fundamental case as this. But the Court decided to take the easy (though inaccurate) way out instead of hearing the evidence and ruling on those merits.

This whole concept of “legal standing” has been abused for far too long (along with our tolerance of the Senate’s unconstitutional filibuster rule). But you won’t hear Ron Paul railing against either. And yet, Dr. Paul’s supporters hail him as such a great constitutionalist. Riiigghhtt!

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Hate to break it to you, but Ron Paul (as a staunch supporter of the Two Party System) is as much a part of the problem as are any of his opponents.”

NINE:

"… this may be the greatest transfer of wealth through theft and piracy in the history of the world and we are on the losing end of it”… Transfer of wealth through theft and piracy? Exactly what would Senator Whitehouse call the colonialists’ behavior that saw fit to partition Africa and (prior to WWII) squeeze concessions out of China? I guess much depends on whose ox is getting gored.

Frankly, I don’t think the Chinese are primarily responsible for this massive hacking, although our CIA (the likeliest of culprits) has much to gain by making it appear they are to blame. You can’t convince me that China could overwhelm us with hack attacks so successfully, considering the huge lead the US has in computer technology.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I’ve got a funny feeling that Senator Outhouse’s chief complaint is that ‘we are on the losing end of it.’”

TEN:

The only relevant thing you need to know about Ron Paul is this: If he were to get elected, he would go down in history as the worst of the got-nothing-done presidents.

Granted, he’s got a lot of ideas, and he seems genuine enough. But you know what they say about good guys finishing last.  Congress will prove to be Ron’s undoing, especially the Senate filibuster. Ron will be solidly opposed by Democrats, incensed because Obama lost, and by the GOP, because he’s not one of the boys. And to unify them will be the lobbyists who are quite satisfied with the status quo.

The worst thing about all this? Ron Paul already knows, deep down inside, that he couldn’t be an effective president. He might actually hope to use the bully pulpit to rally “the people” to overthrow Congress. But then you and he will find out exactly how powerless we are to run our own lives. But…go ahead and vote for Ron Paul if that will make you feel better.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Feel better, yes. But change anything? Not a chance.”

ELEVEN:

Chandra,

They’ll be unemployed, all right. Once Ron Paul brings the troops home, there will be irresistible pressure to demobilize. People will ask, “Well, if we don’t need all those troops overseas, why pay to keep them on hand here within our borders?” People will start grumbling about paying troops to sit at home and “do nothing.”

And don’t buy into any argument that these “do nothing” troops will guard our Mexican border. For one thing, not that many guards would be needed; for another, there’s a reason why we intentionally allow illegal immigration (to allow dissatisfied Mexicans to flee instead of revolt against their own government). [What? You didn’t think we allowed illegals to come in unless that served our larger purposes, did you?]

Pressure is already on with the Pentagon looking for ways to fight with fewer troops – a leaner and meaner machine. As for your point about “Ron Paul just wants to bring them home where they belong,” that argument will evolve to this: “And really bringing the troops home is to get as many of them out of uniform as possible so they can really go home (that is, back to civilian life).”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“During one of the presidential debates, the moderator should ask Ron Paul directly: ‘Do you intend to demobilize and if so, what percentage would you cut?’”

TWELVE:

The only way Dr. Paul will win the nomination is if the GOP figures out it's going to lose no matter who they nominate so "what the heck, why not?" BTW, Obama would slaughter Dr. Paul.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"It saddens me that not one single candidate has said what he would do if Iran decided to withdraw from the NPT (which it has the legal right to do) and declared its intention to build a nuke (also legal, once it leaves the NPT). We are a nation that respects the law, so we couldn't legally do anything to stop an Iranian bomb. Right? Right?!"

THIRTEEN:

American Vet,

I think you’re guilty of overreach by calling Romney and Gingrich “freedom-haters.” As for Ron Paul, it won’t matter one bit how loyal he is if he ends up being opposed by a business-as-usual Congress. In short, Paul won’t be able to get anything done because the establishment powers (ably represented by a Congress controlled by lobbyists) won’t let him pass a single bill they don’t approve of.

You were in the military, so you know one man alone can’t do it all – even if he’s POTUS. By the way, here’s a little test for you: Is it possible to be loyal to this country but not to our constitution? Careful…much depends on your answer.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Try this out for size: Anyone who is loyal to our Constitution (resisting all attempts to replace it – not just amend it but replace it), is actually being disloyal to this country.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I noticed, earlier today, that my blog got a hit from someone in the Central African Republic. Thanks for checking in! I’m the only candidate for US President who supports you by insisting, ‘Africa for Africans’”– Steve.


Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com