Japan Today



Do you think the U.S. missile strike against Syria was also a warning to North Korea?

© Japan Today

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

No. Kim Jong-Il and his coterie are far more politcally savvy than that collection of moronic Trumpsters.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

It's Trump trying to overcome his horrific unpopularity.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

No. More than anything it would have been diversionary tactics for his issues at home.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Both the current and previous US Administrations recognize the DPRK as the greatest security risk. This was definitely taking advantage of an opportunity to show the world that the US will not play any games.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Let's look at the facts. North Korea has refused to disarm in accordance with multiple UN security council resolutions because they claim the security council is powerless to guarantee their safety as long as one member, the US, is willing to violate international law by unilaterally striking countries without any UN authorisation. The only thing this illegal Syria strike has done is make North Korea's excuse look more credible. Trump is an idiot.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

First of all, I can't stand Trump. He is a moronic, demagogue. I doubt that he has the brain power to think that profoundly. He maybe a genius and corrupt business man, but he is a moron when it come to political policy.


North Korea has refused to disarm in accordance with multiple UN security council resolutions because they claim the security council is powerless to guarantee their safety as long as one member, the US

North Korea has refused and there is little doubt that they wouldn't refuse even if there wasn't a threat by the US. They are just using that as an excuse and will find another one, even if they are given guarantees that the US will not attack. And let's be honest, Kim is not going to give up power or change his brutal domestic policies or killings abroad of people who anger him. Like grandfather, like father, like son, one could say.

The UN is powerless and so are resolutions as long as China supports his little mafia based hold on North Korea and its poor population. Syria and North Korea are two separate issues and should not be confused. The attacks on Syria were a message that the US will involve itself if Assad continues to use chemical weapons. This is the only action that dumb, dumb Donald has done that I can half way agree with. There was a need to send a message to Assad.

The US has not attacked North Korea at all while North Korea has attacked its southern neighbor numerous times. So, what are we to do? Continue on with useless sanctions? And what happens when the North actually develops nuclear weapons? Go for MORE useless resolutions? Frankly the UN needs to grow a pair.

Yes, Trump is an idiot. But I do think this was the least he could do. If he didn't, people would be angry about how he has not done anything, so what should he have done?

2 ( +3 / -1 )


They might perceive it as a threat, but I doubt it's intended to be.

I have to ask; Why would the US want to attack NK? And the answer is; I can't really think of a good reason at this point.

Do they genuinely want to liberate the long suffering people of NK from the oppression and madness of the Kim Dynasty? The answer is clearly no, they don't. If this were their motivation, they would have done it a long time ago, and they haven't. This has never been a genuine motivational factor for US military involvement in various parts of the world.

Is NK a genuine threat to the US? Clearly, no.

Is NK genuinely a threat to the immediate region? In a limited, short term sense, yes, but the combined militaries of South Korea, Japan and the US would completely dismantle it, and I am almost certain that China will not allow NK to draw it into conflict with the US and it's Allies. If it tries to, China will abandon it to isolation and it's fate.

The surest way to guarantee their downfall, if for the Kim family to do something stupid enough to prompt retaliation from the US. I very much doubt the chubby chap wants that to happen.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If it was, its not much of a warning. "Hey look North Korea, we can slightly damage little used airfields in a country with a military far far weaker than yours. So watch it."

Hardly going to ring terror into a regime that uses anti-aircraft guns to execute its own officials.

0 ( +1 / -1 )


North Korea has refused and there is little doubt that they wouldn't refuse even if there wasn't a threat by the US. They are just using that as an excuse and will find another one

I think that's a fair assessment, but Trump is also reinforcing North Korea's narrative with this illegal strike on Syria. The irony is something we shouldn't overlook. Trump is essentially saying, 'we must break international law to make sure others abide by it.' It's hypocritical nonsense in my opinion.

It's true that Russia and China often abuse their UN vetos, but in the case of Syria this is somewhat overstated. There have been unanimous resolutions condemning the possible use of chemical weapons (Resolution 2209) and demands that a ceasefire be implemented, international law be respected, and civilians not be targeted (Resolution 2254). Russia did not vetos these and they are the foundation of the current peace process. No resolution on Trump's strike was ever put before the security council so it's disingenuous for anyone to complain about the hypothetical use of a veto. The veto power is also part of the rules which America created and agreed to be bound by. Trump cannot just ignore the security council when it doesn't give him precisely what he wants. Trump can always withdraw from the UN if he has so much contempt for international law, but I don't think most reasonable Americans would support that.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Mr Noidall

I don't want the whole country blown to smithereens. What can't be accurately gauged with NK is how loyal the people are to the Kim regime, or how many just can't see any other option when a gun is effectively at their temple all the time.

If it ever came to it, I would like to see surgical strikes that target the inner sanctum of the regime and cut the head off the snake. At that time, you might see a great deal of people simply confused and scared as to how free they have actually become, and what happens next.

At that point, you would need a highly mobilized and coordinated UN task force to immediately step in to allow a democratic transition and to squash any parties like the army from trying to fill the vacuum. The problem with aforementioned solution is the UN part, imo. Because they are spectacularly useless.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I don't think Trump thinks that far ahead.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

My dream would be for the North Korean people themselves to string up the fat boy the way the Italians did Mussolini.

That's the problems with revolutions - they don't always work. The consequences... look at Syria.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Some people may find the stalemate in the UN Security Council frustrating, but they need to remember why it exists and how the system is designed to work.

The security council is a venue for preventing conflicts and de-escalating tensions before they get out of hand. The veto is often criticised, but some countries already hold a virtual veto even without the security council. China has the power to frustrate any attempt to topple North Korea if it is ready to funnel enough weapons and supplies to Kim Jong Un. Likewise, Putin can keep Assad in power indefinetly if he decides to lend Syria sophisticated Russian equipment or even nuclear weapons. This virtual 'military veto' in addition to the 'peaceful veto' in the security council has to be considered. These countries have enough military power to raise the stakes so high that any conflict between them would be an unmitigated disaster for all of humanity. Any conflict between these powers would likely result in a stalemate that would have the same effect as a veto in the security council, but far more deadly.

So the question for reasonable people is this: Do we allow these powerful nations to excercise a peaceful veto by raising their hands around a table at the United Nations, or do we wait until a war has already started to discover whether these countries will excercise their military veto on the battlefield? The security council is like a window into the future that tells us how motivated these countries will be if we were to go to war. The council is actually saving countless lives even when draft resolutions are being vetoed and nothing is agreed. Unfortunately, images of living people who might otherwise be dead do not make for compelling news.

Since 2012 there have been more than 300 UN resolutions on Syria.

Can I ask where the 300 number come from? The security council has passed a total of approximately 300 resolutions on every imaginable topic since 2012. As far as resolutions directly related to Syria, there have been 13 (by my count). There have been 6 draft resolutions vetoed (7 if you include one in 2011).

Incorrect, that is not stated in Resolution 2209.

I didn't actually say it was in 2209. I think I said it was found in the language of 2254, which you have pasted.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You mention the violations by America, several times without any mention of violations by Putin and Assad.

That's a very fair point. I can see how I might be coming across as a bit of a hypocrite but it's not intentional.

Unfortunately, enforcement has always been the biggest problem when it comes to international law. Public condemnation and moral shaming are some of the only tools we have, but these only work on states that still have some shred of dignity and sense of shame left. Assad is certainly no saint and I would like to see him answer for crimes committed during the civil war. But that will be for a competent tribunal to decide, not a man directing missile strikes from his private golf club in Florida. Putin is the poster child for violations of international law, a truly despicable and shameless man (as you have illustrated). No doubt about it in my mind.

On a personal note, for what it's worth, I was a strong (almost fervent) supporter of the Iraq invasion in 2003. I was outraged by Saddam Hussein, his regime, and the human rights abuses that were taking place in Iraq. I advocated for the war to anybody who would listen. We were going to bring peace and democracy to the middle east through the ballot box and Iraq was going to be a shining beacon for the world. I now feel responsible for the hundreds of thosands (possibly millions) of nameless and faceless people who's lives were cut short, many (or most) of whom surely would have prefered to be alive today even if it was under the regime. I can completely understand why people support and oppose this Syria strike. Morally, there are no right or wrong answers. Even the legal answers are shades of grey, so I don't judge anbody. I'm still outraged by what I see, but I now firmly support leaving these matters to international institutions simply because too much is at stake to leave these decisions to the whims of a handful of people guided less by reason and more by urgency and emotion (like I was in 2003).

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

With human rights violations at the heart of the Syrian crisis,

Violations that, unfortunately, have absolutely no enforcement mechanism under international law. The security council veto overrides the responsibility to protect. It gives no authority for a unilateral strike. We have to operate in the framework that exists.

Yes I think you are a hypocrite and your comments does nothing to change that view.

How charitable of you.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )


I'm still outraged by what I see, but I now firmly support leaving these matters to international institutions simply because too much is at stake to leave these decisions to the whims of a handful of people guided less by reason and more by urgency and emotion (like I was in 2003).

I'm pretty much the opposite of you, M3. I have long been very, very opposed to the US involvement in the Middle East, because I have only ever felt it has to do with hegemony, power and wealth. I have never once believed it has anything to do with humanitarian principles. For example, I remember watching 9/11 on TV, and knowing exactly why it was happening. I remember seeing New Yorkers looking confused and bewildered and asking 'Why us?', and I remember thinking that they had to be joking - and I don't mean that callously, but you just knew that given the history of US involvement and interfering in the Middle East, that a radical, militant arm of some organisation from across the Middle East was highly likely involved. The response? More Military incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan. Exactly the wrong response, on absolutely false pretences.

In Syria's case now, well, the world has sat by and done nothing. The International organisations of which you speak have arranged no end to the conflict, stopped no killing, proved themselves ineffectual. I absolutely don't trust the US interest in Syria. There is no question they are trying to arrange a solution that will work favourably for themselves first and foremost. I have no doubt about that - that's what they do.

BUT, in this case, I am glad they have done something in response to (yet another) shocking act by Assad. And surely someone has to step in for the people who can't defend themselves from this madness.

I've been through Syria. It was a wonderful country with truly fantastic people. Incredible. Damascus was a great city. What's happened there is truly horrible.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

In what sense you are comparing Syria with N Korea ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe it wasn't on purpose, but I'm sure little Big Phat Boi took notice. There are still plenty of evil dictators causing havoc on their own people: Venezuela, Cuba still, North Korea, China still (and maybe the communists in China have killed more people than any other evil dictatorship in history, just since 1949!), not much freedom of expression still in Russia, Syria, etc., etc., plenty of places I would not want to live. Would any of you want to have to live in any of these and other socialistic/communist places? No sankyu.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You can say that such a mentally challenged move was a warning to the humanity itself, telling it that evolution might have gone backwards.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Theodore Wirth

Kim Jong-Il and his coterie are far more politcally savvy...

But aren't they dead already?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, it's not. Let's take it through two alternatives:

If Trump is smart (I know, I know, just run with me on this): he knows North Korea is far more able to fight back against US interests and poses far more of a risk to actual American lives than Syria. Calling an attack on an essentially defenseless power who was even warned ahead of time to reduce the damage a warning to a far more powerful enemy would be ridiculous, and hypothetical smart-Trump would know that.

If Trump is not smart: He probably isn't thinking through his belligerence beyond anything more than how he momentarily looks to people back home. When exactly has Trump ever shown us he cares what foreign leaders think of him?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yes. It is a warning to the whole world except possibly the US. It warns the world that Trump is dangerous, America is dangerous, nowhere in the world is safe with his finger over the nuclear button.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Throughout the Syrian conflict, the US has been "accidentally" aiding ISIS and the other terrorists. This latest attack is just more of the same.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I dont think Trump considered the impact the missile would have on NK at all. That's expecting far too much. More likely it was an attempt to appear as if he were distancing himself from the Russians. Having said that, some analysts claim that the Syria strike did make an impression on the N. Koreans. If so, I think it would have been unintentional on Trump's part-as that would have required an adeptness and knowledge of geopolitics that is not consistent with what can only be considered as an accidental presidency.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

No, it was because Ivanka cried when she saw pictures of dead babies (according to brother Eric).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, it was a jerk reaction by yet another man-boy US president out to make himself look big and battle low poll numbers.

I've just realised why they call it a 'jerk' reaction....

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites