Whether The Armistice Will End In War Or Peace Hangs On Technicalities
The insidious “logic” underlying the US’s strategy on DPRK is this: As long as a peace treaty hasn’t ended the War, the Armistice is in effect, which means it’s still technically wartime, which means the US
The insidious “logic” underlying the US’s strategy on DPRK is this: As long as a peace treaty hasn’t ended the War, the Armistice is in effect, which means it’s still technically wartime, which means the US
https://twitter.com/BonicMichael/status/1375555851759411201
2/can attack DPRK, attempt regime change and even launch a nuclear first strike in the name of self-defense at the opportune time. The moment a peace treaty is inked this opportunity is gone since in peacetime an attack on DPRK would technically be illegal.
Technicalities.
Technicalities.
3/Of course DPRK’s leadership understands this only too well. They can virtually read the mind of the US DoD/MIC establishment. Which makes getting to peacetime (War officially, technically over) - by enduring sanctions & deterring the US from attacking - i.e. simply surviving,
4/socialist DPRK’s goal. To “cross the finish line” of a legal peace treaty must be what “the complete socialist victory of DPRK” really means, not US’s misguided notion of military invasion of the South. DPRK’s righteous goal of Peace won thru Self-Defense should be OUR goal.😍
5/So regardless of what your country is, on principle whom are you for? The world superpower US that wants to prolong the Korean War until an opportune time comes to legally attack DPRK & end it by military victory? Or DPRK who is just trying to survive until PEACE ends the War?
6/I’m for DPRK surviving until PEACE ends the War, and for US Congress ending the Korean War in peacetime that makes it illegal for all parties to attack one another.
Legalize Peace!!
Legalize Peace!!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
