Trump

[Lionel Ritchie]

I'm starting to think he might just quit. Seems bored -like it wasn't as much fun as he thought it'd be ...and everyone's a meany.

[DannyInvincible]

Tell me this is real.

https://media.giphy.com/media/xUPGcpC28G9SwQbjwc/giphy.gif

[tetsujin1979]

almost certain it's fake, you can't see a table behind them in the wide shot

[DannyInvincible]

almost certain it's fake, you can't see a table behind them in the wide shot

I suspect it's fake too, although you can see a table in the wide shot. The black statue is standing on it, is it not?

The shirt cuff on what is supposed to be Trump's arm in the close-up is much longer than the real Trump's cuff in the wider shot, which isn't actually visible. That makes me suspicious. Also, it'd just be a really weird thing to do. (Not that Trump isn't weird, mind.) Regardless, I would be quite happy to pop my head in the sand and believe it is real.

[dahamsta]

It's 100% fake, mocking the fact that Trump's wife keeps slapping his hand away publicly at the moment.

Also because OF COURSE IT'S FLIPPING FAKE FFS!

[Real ale Madrid]

So long as we are querying stuff - what about this?


2559

[sidewayspasser]

The real question is: Why does the statue behind the Pope almost look like Darth Vader?

[tetsujin1979]

So long as we are querying stuff - what about this?


http://foot.ie/attachment.php?attachmentid=2559&stc=1

it's fake, here's the original
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAnuclTXgAAUPSW.jpg

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

http://listverse.com/2017/06/03/top-10-reasons-russiagate-is-a-farce/

Top 10 Reasons Russiagate is a Farce

Lack of Evidence


With insider information on the Trump administration being leaked to the press (http://listverse.com/2017/04/01/10-mind-blowing-things-that-happened-last-month-8/) with ritual frequency, Americans can be fairly certain that if any incriminating evidence regarding Trump and the Russians existed, it would have already been leaked. Sensitive conversations shared between the highest political posts in the Oval Office are repeatedly revealed to the media, often read as word-for-word accounts of conversations between Trump and important foreign officials.

So far, White House leaks have allowed the press—and therefore, the American people—unprecedented access to office gossip between low-level aides and internal disputes involving belligerent staffers. More serious breaches of national security (http://listverse.com/2017/02/16/10-hot-spots-where-global-conflict-could-erupt/) include phone calls between the president and foreign heads of state as well as undisclosed Oval Office meetings with Russian officials.[3] (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/16/this-latest-trump-russia-leak-smells-like-a-coup-attempt-commentary.html)

Though President Trump has been the subject of persistent systemic efforts to leak compromising information, his approval rating remains fundamentally unchanged in the wake of any damaging direct evidence.



Partisan Double Standards


It is simple to imagine an America where Hillary Clinton (http://listverse.com/2016/09/23/10-dark-secrets-of-hillary-clinton/) is president and, much like her predecessor, the toughest question the media asks her is: “What . . . enchanted you the most about serving in this office?”

The former Secretary of State would certainly get a free pass on ties to Russia. In one particular transaction, Clinton sat on a secretive board that swiftly approved the sale of 20 percent of America’s uranium reserves to a state-owned Russian company despite the potential national security threats such a deal entailed.[7] (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446526/clinton-russia-ties-bill-hillary-sold-out-us-interests-putin-regime)
Meanwhile, a French-owned company seeking similar board approval for the purchase of significantly less risky defense assets waited two years to have their own proposal approved. Perhaps the sudden urge by investors involved in the uranium deal to donate tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation or the generous Russian bankers’ payment of $500,000 for a one-hour speech by Bill Clinton would grease the wheels that produced the board’s approval for the deal.

Evidence of a similarly controversial deal between the Trump team and Russian big business would surely result in impeachment hearings. After all, Attorney General Jeff Sessions (http://listverse.com/2017/05/19/10-mind-blowing-things-that-happened-this-week-051917/) was compelled to recuse himself from any Russiagate investigations for simply bumping into a Russian ambassador in the presence of numerous other state diplomats at the Republican National Convention in summer 2016, demonstrating the complete intolerance of lawmakers for any interaction with Russian officials.




Unreliable Sources


An alarming percentage of media (http://listverse.com/2016/10/06/10-ways-mass-media-ownership-hurts-the-public/) reports making bold accusations about the Trump White House today rely upon uncorroborated sources to support claims of Trump-Putin collusion. Anonymous sources claimed that Comey was requesting more assets to conduct his investigation into Trump’s ties with Moscow just before he was fired.

Justice Department spokesperson Sarah Isgur Flores called this accusation “totally false.” Similarly, unnamed “officials” also claimed that the mass departure of senior State Department officials was motivated by a lack of respect for the incoming president. The truth, according to actual named sources, was that Trump requested the exodus in preparation for installing his own team.

Across the nation, unimaginative journalists (http://listverse.com/2015/11/18/10-crusading-journalists-who-died-under-mysterious-circumstances/) are increasingly depending on unreliable or anonymous contacts to describe a chaotic, self-destructive White House living on the edge of impeachment. To relate the story of Comey’s ouster, The Washington Post relied upon “the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House.”[9] (https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266714/anonymous-sources-washington-post-and-cnn-fake-daniel-greenfield)

In many cases, stories are going to print in which an anonymous source cites an anonymous source. To reinforce the claims of their unnamed sources, news agencies are frequently turning to each other and former Obama appointees, as if to check the journalistic box requiring at least one verifiable reference per article.

[mark12345]

Taking a real roasting in the American media since Thursday afternoon following decision to leave Paris Accord in its current state. But most of the MSM focused on Trump's decision to pull US out of Paris Accord and that only. That was emphasised to the nth degree and only several hours later, and in some cases not until the following day, did MSM refer to Mr Trump's willingness to renegotiate the deal. So in essence they edited his full speech from the White House lawn and left it out in the public forum to maximize hysteria among the public. And when they achieved that they then released the second half of his statement. Conservative reporters are saying that Mr Trump agrees with all environmental issues that we all agree with, it's the economic part of the deal that he disagrees with.

[Eminence Grise]

Mr Trump's willingness to renegotiate the deal.

Such a pity there's nobody to renegotiate the deal with.

[KrisLetang]

This Comey testimony is interesting. Trump kinda already got what he was looking for in the first few minutes. Just Now though: Asked about Attorney General Loretta Lynch meeting privately with Bill Clinton on the airplane runway when she was supposedly impartial in her investigation into Hillary. "I was confused and concerned that she would do that. I knew then that I had to act. I knew I had to do something. I had to preserve the case of being impartial. It was extremely concerning to me."

Asked if there was anything else he was concerned about regarding the matter: "Attorney General Lynch instructed me to refer to the Governments investigative dealing with the Clinton's as a matter and not an investigation."
What did you think about that?
"I was extremely concerned and confused as to why she would order me to do that. I was extremely worried about the legality of the situation."

So this is obviously Obama trying to affect a Justice Department investigation through his toadies. Sickening. Watergate all over. It's amazing, Obama did everything with a smile and a wave and the MSM behind him. But behind the scenes people like Lynch were so ham handed and obviously corrupt. Simply amazing. I hope they drag her in under oath at some point.

[Real ale Madrid]

Because that is the real issue the world is talking about this evening. Obama's toadies.

[KrisLetang]

Interesting to see what happens with today's "Referendum on Trump" In Georgia 6 runoff. Lot's of Hollywood and Soros money poured in for the Dem's Pajama Boy Candidate. They were up pretty big (especially for a Republican held district) a week ago. I think it would be a debacle for them if they didn't pull it out. Seemed like a dead heat as of yesterday. I don't rust the polls anymore for obvious reason anyway.

[backstothewall]

Polls would suggest it is on a knife edge, though you are right to sound a note of caution about opinion polls in a contest like this.

The amount of money that has been spent on it is clearly ludicrous, with sheer amount of time between the runoff and the election a big part of the problem. In the gap between the runoff (April 18th) and the election (June 20th) France has managed to hold both rounds of a Presidential election (23rd April & 7th May), and both rounds of an election for an entire National Assembly (11th & 18th June).

If the Primary was held a week or so before the election it would serve democracy a lot better in my opinion. American politicians seem to be permanently running for election. I'm not sure how any of them are ever supposed to get some governing done.

[NeverFeltBetter]

I think it was The West Wing where a character opined that American Presidents really have 18 months to get stuff done - after that it's mid-terms, and after that the President themselves is running for re-election (or, in a second term, is a lame-duck).

It isn't so much the two year cycle that would bother me, but the primary system at every level is just bonkers, with the Presidential primaries being one of the most illogical, lopsided and draining ways to pick a candidate that I can imagine.

[KrisLetang]

I'm really surprised they couldn't pull that one out.
GOP sends another woman to Congress, a first for an "R" from Georgia I believe. She's frozen Yogurt money, from the "16 Handel's" family. (Never head of it personally.) She shied away from Donald during the campaign but thanked him last night. I don't think it helped that Ossoff couldn't even vote since he didn't live in the district. Dems thought they had a chance in all five of the special elections, thought for sure they would win 2. Went 0-5. This one has got to hurt. Sally Kohn and the like offering the usual spin this morning but they really should have won this. If Trump can get a decent Health Bill signed and then tax reform this "wave" the Dems are counting on might be more of a puddle. So far they are batting 0.00. On a side note...will they ask D-lister 1980s "star" Alyssa Milano to stop supporting candidates? Talk about Diarrhea of the mouth. Voter poison.

[Real ale Madrid]

Gas how Trump can claim the Dems to be 0-5 over the course of 4 elections.

Dems made serious ground in each, making 3 of the 4 toss ups in the next round of elections.
Huge swing of nearly 10% in S Car 5 & Georgia 6. Montana difficult to assess due to other candidates in 16' and Dems vote % has gone from 29% to 46% in Kansas 4, all in just 1 year.

"If Trump can get a decent health bill" is like saying if North Korea can get a decent round of nuclear testing going over Western Europe.

I am certainly interested in his version of Tax reform mind you, I'd take a bet that he himself will be the biggest beneficiary of any reform.

[KrisLetang]

The gains they made are completely meaningless. The party is imploding. Do you know how many seats across the country they have lost total since 2008? Locally and state wide as well?

Jeh Johnson VS Debbie WS...which one is lying? My bet is on Debbie. One of the true clowns of the Dems.

So many of the O'Care providers are pulling out, they had to do something. Obama's comments today about how people can lose their insurance showed an amazing lack of self awareness. "If you like your Doctor, You can keep your Doctor...."

He knew that was a lie when he said it. Really not a nice thing to do. I think Trump is on the rise. Will he say stupid stuff on twitter? Probably. But even Mike Bloomberg today was saying it's time to accept he is Prez. A lot of people had a hard time under BHO. They deserve a shot too. Maybe things will get better for them under DJT. The Health bill wont be perfect.

Black/Hispanic neighborhoods have been dealing with Heroin problems since Vietnam. For example, Tracey Morgan's father got hooked in Nam in the late 60s and ended up dying of AIDS BC of the needle. Now that it's affecting little Susie and Johnny in suburbia where they grew up wealthy suddenly it's a big concern. I get that. It's not fair. One good way to avoid Heroin addiction and not have to rely on the Gov't to spend tens of thousands of dollars to clean you up is to not get addicted in the first place. I don't think not getting addicted to Heroin is too much to ask. And these people who are walking around on pills all day stealing from family and getting busted for forged prescriptions don't have Health Ins anyway. You can't lose something you don't have. Rehab will be on the house either way. Free of charge, as many times as you want to go. Just a phone number away in NY and NJ as anyone with a TV now knows.

[Real ale Madrid]

I've read it twice , can not compute. O'Care, Debbie WS, BHO, DJT and don't get addicted to heroin if you want to be healthy? Am I close?

[KrisLetang]

Yeah, just the goings ons of the day. Obama and the Dems talking points today included lines about how addicts will lose coverage. The Debbie Wasserman Schultz/ Former Homeland Security Director Jeh Johnson thing is pretty interesting. Etc Etc...

[Real ale Madrid]

I read Obama's statement on the proposed Bill. The thing that's strikes me the most - Trump would be utterly incapable of writing down his thoughts in such a manner.

We should get the 140 character rebuttal before morning.

And he is building a wall made of solar panels because it will reduce* its cost. His idea you know. Very clever.

*By reduce we can only assume he means exponentially increase.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Trumps comments on "solar wall" reminded me of the "solar highway" video that made the rounds a few years ago, in that both were about ambitious application of solar energy technology, and both were completely divorced from reality.

[tetsujin1979]

Wonder what the miners he promised would be gong back to work think about his endorsement of solar energy

[backstothewall]

I've read it twice , can not compute. O'Care, Debbie WS, BHO, DJT and don't get addicted to heroin if you want to be healthy? Am I close?

I picked out that somebody got addicted to heroin in Vietnam, and that it was entirely their own fault. Pretty much the standard.

[mark12345]

Yeah, just the goings ons of the day. Obama and the Dems talking points today included lines about how addicts will lose coverage. The Debbie Wasserman Schultz/ Former Homeland Security Director Jeh Johnson thing is pretty interesting. Etc Etc...

And it was announced today that Loretta Lynch is now under investigation for her handling of the e mails scandal.

[mark12345]

According to Comey, he was asked (by her) to call the investigation a 'matter' and not an 'investigation'.

[DannyInvincible]

An excellent and revealing analysis of the mainstream Western media by Adam Johnson in relation to the contrast between how US war-mongering is reported and how Russian aggression is reported; "Syria the Latest Case of US 'Stumbling' Into War":


One of the most common tropes in US media is that the US military always goes to war reluctantly—and, if there are negative consequences, like civilian deaths, it’s simply a matter of bumbling around without much plan or purpose. This framing serves to flatter two sensibilities: one right and one vaguely left. It satisfies the right-wing nationalist idea that America only goes to war because it’s compelled to by forces outside of its own control; the reluctant warrior, the gentle giant who will only attack when provoked to do so. But it also plays to a nominally liberal, hipster notion that the US military is actually incompetent and boobish, and is generally bad at war-making.

This is expressed most clearly in the idea that the US is “drawn into” war despite its otherwise unwarlike intentions. “Will US Be Drawn Further Into Syrian Civil War?” asked Fox News (4/7/17 (http://video.foxnews.com/v/5388999167001/)). “How America Could Stumble Into War With Iran,” disclosed The Atlantic (2/9/17 (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/02/iran-trump-nuclear-deal/515979/)), “What It Would Take to Pull the US Into a War in Asia,” speculated Quartz (4/29/17 (https://qz.com/969923/what-it-would-take-to-pull-the-us-into-a-war-in-asia/)). “Trump could easily get us sucked into Afghanistan again,” Slate predicted (5/11/17 (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-could-easily-get-us-sucked-into-afghanistan-again-2017-5)). The US is “stumbling into a wider war” in Syria, the New York Times editorial board (5/2/15 (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/opinion/sunday/stumbling-into-a-wider-war.html)) warned. “A Flexing Contest in Syria May Trap the US in an Endless Conflict,” Vice News (6/19/17 (https://news.vice.com/story/a-flexing-contest-in-syria-may-trap-the-u-s-in-endless-conflict)) added.

...

In contrast, foreign policy actions by Russia are painted in diabolical and near-omnipotent terms. “Is Putin’s Master Plan Only Beginning?” worried Vanity Fair (12/28/16 (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/is-vladimir-putin-master-plan-only-beginning)). “Putin’s Aim Is to Make This the Russian Century,” insists Time magazine (10/1/16 (http://www.newsweek.com/putin-aim-make-russian-century-503571)). Russia isn’t “drawn into” Crimea; it has a secret “Crimea takeover plot” (BBC, 3/9/15 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31796226)). Putin doesn’t “stumble into” Syria; he has a “Long-Term Strategy” there (Foreign Affairs, 3/15/16 (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2016-03-15/putins-long-term-strategy-syria)). Military adventurism by other countries is part of a well-planned agenda, while US intervention is at best reluctant, and at worst bumfuzzled—Barney Fife with 8,000 Abrams tanks and 19 aircraft carriers.

[DannyInvincible]

A worthwhile analysis by Media Lens of the BBC's deceptive reporting on the recent heightening of tensions between the US and North Korea, the US's relationship with Iran and climate change in contrast to the clarity and context provided by Noam Chomsky on those matters: http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2017/857-noam-chomsky-and-the-bbc-a-brief-comparison.html


A recent interview with 88-year-old Noam Chomsky once again demonstrates just how insightful he is in providing rational analysis of Western power and the suffering it generates. By contrast, anyone relying on BBC News receives a power-friendly view of the world, systematically distorted in a way that allows the state and private interests to pursue business as usual.

In what follows, we present examples of Chomsky's clarity on several important topics and contrast them with the distortions and silences from BBC News. These examples are not intended to be fully comprehensive, with lots of detailed background. But they are highly illustrative of the propaganda nature of what the BBC broadcasts every day.

...

[mark12345]

A worthwhile analysis by Media Lens of the BBC's deceptive reporting on the recent heightening of tensions between the US and North Korea, the US's relationship with Iran and climate change in contrast to the clarity and context provided by Noam Chomsky on those matters: http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2017/857-noam-chomsky-and-the-bbc-a-brief-comparison.html

Chomsky has a very rose coloured glasses view of the world. He seems to forget that the US has handed North Korea tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars since the Jimmy Carter presidency. The money was given to Kim Jong Un's father who promised to feed his people with it. It's doubtful that he ever did that, but what's not in doubt is the amount of money he spent on building up his nuclear arsenal. His son, probably taking after the father, has let his people starve, and there are reportedly 300.000 in prison camps.
And if a deal is so easy to come by and so straight forward as Chomsky suggests, then why is the 28 year old cocaine sniffing leader of N. Korea making the threats that he has been over the last few months? Doesn't sound like someone wanting peace, does it?

[mark12345]

A worthwhile analysis by Media Lens of the BBC's deceptive reporting on the recent heightening of tensions between the US and North Korea, the US's relationship with Iran and climate change in contrast to the clarity and context provided by Noam Chomsky on those matters: http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2017/857-noam-chomsky-and-the-bbc-a-brief-comparison.html

And on the subject of Iran - Chomsky is out to lunch.
"Obama had to install an advanced air defense system near the Russian border to protect Europe from Iranian nuclear weapons -- which don't exist," They don't but for how long? What does he think they are doing with the $152 billion given them by Obama and Kerry in what was the most ridiculous 'deal' in the history of the world. There is no one in America with half a brain who feels Iran - and remember their leaders have called for death to America and the wiping of Israel off the face of the earth - is doing anything other than working towards a nuclear bomb, and sponsoring every terror group that comes their way.

[Charlie Darwin]

$152 billion no less!!!

[Real ale Madrid]

$152 billion no less!!!

We're going to need to see receipts or else that is unsubstantiated!

[DannyInvincible]

Chomsky has a very rose coloured glasses view of the world. He seems to forget that the US has handed North Korea tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars since the Jimmy Carter presidency. The money was given to Kim Jong Un's father who promised to feed his people with it. It's doubtful that he ever did that, but what's not in doubt is the amount of money he spent on building up his nuclear arsenal. His son, probably taking after the father, has let his people starve, and there are reportedly 300.000 in prison camps.
And if a deal is so easy to come by and so straight forward as Chomsky suggests, then why is the 28 year old cocaine sniffing leader of N. Korea making the threats that he has been over the last few months? Doesn't sound like someone wanting peace, does it?

Since Carter's presidency or since Clinton's? The Agreed Framework was established in 1994. Carter was involved in negotiations, but Clinton was president at the time.

Chomsky proposes a bilateral solution - as of yet not seriously attempted on a sustained basis - between two rational actors. The US appears to have a unilateral world-view (rather than a multilateral one) ever since the Cold War ended.

Chomsky mentions US-North Korean history and the Agreed Framework here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDGpm_Uuq8M

He discusses how the US "pledged to provide [North Korea] with the capacity for nuclear energy development" (the promised aid to which you're referring) here, so he evidently hasn't forgotten about it: https://chomsky.info/20060124/

The US, however, failed to deliver fully on its aid and oil delivery commitments (mainly due to the Republicans, who viewed the accord as "appeasement", taking control of Congress shortly after the agreement was reached). The US also failed on its commitments to establish full or normalised diplomatic relations and to phase out economic sanctions (which were in place since the armistice that ended the 1950-1953 Korean War, when the US pretty much destroyed Kim's entire country, and which have contributed very significantly to the absence economic growth in North Korea and the associated internal social problems of extreme poverty and mass starvation). There's further info on all that here: https://theconversation.com/why-the-uss-1994-deal-with-north-korea-failed-and-what-trump-can-learn-from-it-80578

Some former Clinton administration officials have also since admitted (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/13/cottons-misguided-history-lesson-on-the-north-korean-nuclear-deal/?utm_term=.8adcc7246b66) that they never thought they would have to build promised light-water reactors because they incorrectly assumed that the North Korean government would collapse before the reactors were built, so there was arguably bad faith there on the US side from the very outset.

North Korea did not test any missiles between 1993-1998 and US officials who were involved in the implementation of the agreement testified to Congress in 1998 that both the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency were satisfied that there had been "no fundamental violation of any aspect of the Framework Agreement" on the part of North Korea.

The aforementioned lapses/infractions on the part of the US, however, naturally resulted in North Korean frustration and suspected bad faith followed (if a working agreement could still have been said to exist at all on account of preceding US instances of bad faith) - in respect of the suspected development of highly-enriched uranium - on the North Korean side (thought to be post-1998 but admitted in 2003). After Bush (who was personally sceptical of the Framework Agreement) became US president in 2001, he designated North Korea as part of his "Axis of Evil" and ramped up US belligerence; that was the end of any real hope of maintaining an already-delicate cordiality.

North Korea had perhaps one nuclear weapon at the time Bush came to power and, according to Chomsky (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/04/us-disaster-race-noam-chomsky), "verifiably wasn't producing any more". By the time Bush left office, North Korea possessed somewhere between six and ten nuclear weapons to complement a missile system. As Chomsky notes, what a great neocon achievement that was... Trump's approach is similar to Bush's and it is demonstrably counter-productive if the aim is to limit North Korea's nuclear capability. You imply Chomsky's perspective is the stuff of fantasy, making out that it's based on some idyllic view of the world, but I'd suggest it's a lot more rational, practical and potentially constructive than the hostile and self-defeating Republican/Trumpian approach. Compromise and political solutions are the way forward; not military action or threats. Kim wants to survive and doesn't harbour hostility towards and suspicion of the US for the mere sake of it.

I'd imagine both sides at present would prefer peace, but they desire it on their own respective terms, which are informed by their own respective interests. There won't be a unilateral solution and the methods the US are trying now are the same methods that have failed time and time again over the past 70 years. This article, which also promotes a political rather than a military solution, is excellent: https://www.salon.com/2017/08/29/trump-and-the-geopolitics-of-crazy_partner/


So far, the prospects for negotiations have been rather dim. True, Trump has directed some backhanded compliments at Kim Jong-un (a “smart cookie”) and broached the possibility of talking person-to-person with the North Korean leader. Backchannel discussions with that country’s U.N. mission in New York have made modest headway over the last several months on issues like the detention of American citizens. But President Trump is, by nature, erratic, and a purposefully understaffed State Department and distinctly under-informed National Security Council are not exactly firing on all diplomatic cylinders. Then, of course, there’s the other alternative (an option also considered by previous administrations): launching a more concerted effort at regime change. That approach clearly has some traction both with the impetuous man in the Oval Office and within his administration. CIA chief Mike Pompeo has, for instance, spoken of an imperative to “separate” the regime from its nuclear weapons (and he didn’t mean through negotiations). National Security Advisor General H.R. McMaster has openly discussed a “preventive war” option against North Korea that sounds ominously like what the United States had in place for Iraq back in 2003. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley even declared at one point that “the time for talk is over.” (Presumably she meant the time for talk with, not at, since Donald Trump continues to excel at the latter.)

The fever dream of regime change has persisted in Washington for decades like a bad case of political malaria that repeated doses of realism have never quite eradicated. The irony is that North Korea is indeed changing, just not in response to what the United States is doing. As with China in the 1970s, Washington could encourage those changes by giving up its aggressive ambitions, stepping away from the lukewarm option of “strategic patience,” and actually sitting down to talk seriously with Pyongyang without preconditions. Lest you think it’s too late for negotiations, remember that the U.S. was on the verge of bombing Pyongyang in 1994 just before Jimmy Carter went to North Korea and negotiated what would eventually become an agreement to freeze the country’s nuclear program. (Yes, once upon a time at least, the Kim family was willing to put that program on hold.) Maybe it’s the moment for the purported “adults” in the Trump administration to persuade the president to refocus on his golf game, while some quiet diplomacy gets under way.

Kim's offer really isn't all that unreasonable. He's not even demanding the the US give up their nuclear programme, which is what the double-principled US are rather hypocritically demanding of him. When he sees the US asserting its right to possess nuclear weapons, it's hardly a surprise he feels his state should be entitled to the same. Nevertheless, he's offering to freeze the North Korean nuclear defence programme - which is what the US claims to desire - so long as the regime in Washington and its client states in the region stop threatening North Korea via military manoeuvres along its borders and airspace. It's the US who are flying jets along North Korean airspace, after all; not vice versa. And Kim hasn't got North Korean troops camped up in Canada or the Caribbean, unlike the US, which has its troops and navy ships scattered all over south-east Asia and the Pacific region, from Japan (which hosts 40,000 US troops) to South Korea (which hosts 35,000 US troops) to Guam (which hosts over 3,000 US troops and which is referred to by US military personnel as "a permanent aircraft carrier") to Thailand, the Philippines and Singapore (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/09/what-is-the-us-militarys-presence-in-south-east-asia).

Has Kim truly got a nuclear arsenal? He launches the odd test - the total number of which to date you can count one one hand and a finger - when he feels intimidated. Certainly, he talks up his nuclear prowess, but there's no evidence that he has an arsenal or full nuclear capability in the same sense other confirmed nuclear states do. He has a handful of simple nuclear weapons at best. The US, on the other hand, has the largest stockpile of nuclear warheads on earth and is the only nation to ever drop not one but two of them on civilian populations. Your views appear to be warped somewhat by American exceptionalism and entitlement.

[DannyInvincible]

As for why Kim has been reacting with threats, my guess would be because he feels intimidated by US foreign policy - the aim of which is clearly to overthrow him (despite the absence of any organised domestic North Korean opposition) - rather than because he's seeking to start a war with the world's only superpower for the simple sake of it. Such a war would be utterly self-destructive, if not suicidal, and I'm sure Kim knows full well that such would be the case; the literal flattening of his country and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of North Koreans due to 600,000 tonnes of US bombs dropped from the air (war-crimes by the Allies' Nuremburg definition, for which those found guilty of such at Nuremburg were hanged) during the Korean War are sure to live long in the collective North Korean memory and national psyche.

Why do you think Kim has used threatening language?

The rotten and oppressive nature of Kim's regime is not in doubt, but as Putin said, Kim would allow his people to "eat grass" as long as he feels threatened, so if humanitarianism and the welfare of the North Korean people is your priority or a genuine concern, there are ways to help them; options might include re-introducing the pariah state into the global order of nations, re-establishing normal (non-threatening) relations and lifting sanctions in order to enable and stimulate economic development. It worked with China in the past, so why not North Korea? (What has alleged "cocaine-sniffing" got to do with anything? It's hardly as if he's the only world leader who'll have taken drugs.)


And on the subject of Iran - Chomsky is out to lunch.
"Obama had to install an advanced air defense system near the Russian border to protect Europe from Iranian nuclear weapons -- which don't exist," They don't but for how long? What does he think they are doing with the $152 billion given them by Obama and Kerry in what was the most ridiculous 'deal' in the history of the world. There is no one in America with half a brain who feels Iran - and remember their leaders have called for death to America and the wiping of Israel off the face of the earth - is doing anything other than working towards a nuclear bomb, and sponsoring every terror group that comes their way.

Oddly, you say that without a hint of irony. The US is the biggest purveyor (not merely a sponsor (https://chomsky.info/the-leading-terrorist-state/)) of terrorism (by its own definition) on earth. Why are they seemingly entitled to nuclear weapons, to military systems and to generally throw their weight around in your global order, but Iran seemingly are not? Why do you apply a double standard? In an ideal world, nobody would be behaving in such a manner, but, as I said above in respect of North Korean designs on nuclear prowess, it's hardly a surprise that, when the US asserts its right as a sovereign entity to possess nuclear weaponry and behave in such a manner, other sovereign states like Iran wish to assert the exact same rights for themselves. You can't credibly make demands of others that you'd never make of yourself; it's totally hypocritical.

Ahmadinejad did not call for Israel to be wiped off the map. See here for a correct translation/interpretation of his words in respect of the Israeli regime: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155

The following is a more accurate translation: "This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history."

That has rather different connotations to "wanting to wipe a nation of people off the map".

From where do you think Iranian suspicion of and hostility to the US and its client regimes originates?

Here's an insight into the "Death to America" slogan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America#Interpretation_and_meaning


Mohammad Nahavandian, chief of staff for Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has said that:


If you go and ask anyone who uses that slogan [...] what he is against, it is interference in Iran's policies by overthrowing a nationally elected prime minister at the time of Mossadegh. For them, what they are against is the kind of government who shoots an airplane full of innocent passengers" (referring to Iran Air flight 655, an Iranian airliner mistaken for a military aircraft that was shot down by an American naval vessel). "For them, it's not the people of America, per se. For them, they are opposed to that sort of policy, that sort of attitude, that sort of arrogance. It's not a nation. It's a system of behavior."[25] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America#cite_note-25)

"Regarding the words 'Death to America', we mean American politics, not the American people", says Hussein al Hamran, head of Foreign Relations for Ansar Allah (Houthis).[26] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America#cite_note-26) Ali al-Bukhayti, a former spokesperson and official media face of the Houthis, has said: "We do not really want death to anyone. The slogan is simply against the interference of those governments [i.e. US, and Israel]".[27] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America#cite_note-27)

Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani has also dismissed the literal interpretation of the slogan, stating that the slogan is to express opposition to US intrusive policies rather than hatred against American people.[28] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America#cite_note-28)[29] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America#cite_note-29)

It's like when people in the north here (or indeed Ireland generally) refer to "the Brits" (in often scornful manner). They're referring to the British army, British politicians and/or the British establishment (on account of past or present British policy and conduct in relation to Ireland); not the ordinary people of Britain.

You don't think Iran might feel threatened by the US on account of historical and current US actions in the country and surrounding region?

As for your claim regarding Obama and Kerry "giving" Iran $125 billion, the reality of course isn't quite as you make out. See:

i) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/17/donald-trump/no-donald-trump-we-are-not-giving-iran-150-billion/
ii) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/16/donald-trump/donald-trump-iran-gets-keep-150-billion-even-if-us/
iii) http://time.com/4441046/400-million-iran-hostage-history/


Trump said under the Iran nuclear deal, "we give them $150 billion, we get nothing."

Trump is referring to the amount of previously frozen Iranian assets [frozen due to sanctions] the deal releases. To be clear, this is money that already belongs to Iran so we’re not "giving" them anything. The $150 billion is a high estimate, and most experts say the real figure is closer to $100 billion, while Iran is probably only able to access a fraction of that.

In exchange for lifting the sanctions, the United States and its allies get to block Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon in the near future.


Trump said of Iran that "if the (nuclear) deal gets rejected, they still get" $150 billion.

Experts told us that even if Congress rejected the nuclear deal -- thus maintaining current U.S. sanctions -- other countries could stop enforcing their own sanctions anyway. As a result, Iran would be able to access at least some of its assets that have been frozen under international sanctions. However, experts said it’s highly unlikely that this would amount to $150 billion, the maximum estimate of how much Iran could benefit by the lifting of all international sanctions without regard to Iran’s outstanding financial obligations. Without United States participation, the best estimate we could find was $40 billion.

TLDR; don't get your "facts" from Trump.

[mark12345]

I don't have time to read through all of what you have written and 'take it all in'. But I did browse through it.
You definitely come from a very different world than I do.

"Oddly, you say that without a hint of irony. The US is the biggest purveyor (not merely a sponsor) of terrorism (by its own definition) on earth. Why are they seemingly entitled to nuclear weapons, to military systems and to generally throw their weight around in your global order, but Iran seemingly are not? Why do you apply a double standard? In an ideal world, nobody would be behaving in such a manner, but, as I said above in respect of North Korean designs on nuclear prowess, it's hardly a surprise that, when the US asserts its right as a sovereign entity to possess nuclear weaponry and behave in such a manner, other sovereign states like Iran wish to assert the exact same rights for themselves. You can't credibly make demands of others that you'd never make of yourself; it's totally hypocritical."

There are nine countries in the world who have nuclear weapons as far as I remember, and none of them have behaved as irresponsibly as N. Korea.

Why should Iran not have nuclear weapons? Well, I dunno, maybe because they have vowed to wipe Israel off the map and are the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.
North Korea are basically Iran on steroids. Not only have they threatned America, they have fired test missiles and this Kim guy may just be as crazy as he appears.
Who knows if he has a bad day and just wants to end it all. They claim to have ICBM's so that is reason enough to take him seriously.
You do realise, don't you, that all attempts to appease North Korea with all manner of money thrown at them, has got us to where we are today.
There really is no tomorrow if we continue to go down the same path.
The nation of Japan is very frightened right now and China can't seem to tame the mad midget.

[BonnieShels]

Let's turn it around a bit. Should Israel be allowed to have WMD? And if so why should they have them over say Iran or Pakistan?

Do Israel's actions since 1947 not really give them impression of an unhinged nation? Is it because they are backed by the "big bully" that we have to accept it? I mean, whatever about Iran's populist and rhetorical threats, Israel actually has wiped a country off the map with its illegal and disgraceful settlement programme.

What about the USA? Should they have them considering the absolute destruction they have wrought on certain parts of the world from Nicaragua to Vietnam to Korea not to mention the entire Middle East?

And then Britain... I mean hardly a nation known for it's sensible foreign policy, never mind its mad domestic politics of the last 50 years.

---

No one should have nuclear weapons ideally. But it's a bit rich for the west to come along and dictate the what's what considering the mess that has been made by same. The Obama/Kerry deal was an attempt to normalise relations with Iran. The west needed another strong influencer in the region considering the ****heads in Saudi and the mess of post-Ba'ath Iraq and now Syria.

Then the great idiot comes along, shouts "MURICA FIRST" and then starts bossing around Iran and whoever else... come on. One or the other.

Nevermind that the NK rhetoric is only strengthened by having a nutter to argue back.

The sooner the better that the 2020 election comes or that clown is impeached, the better.

[DannyInvincible]

You definitely come from a very different world than I do.

The real world is what we call it. ;)


There are nine countries in the world who have nuclear weapons as far as I remember, and none of them have behaved as irresponsibly as N. Korea.

That's certainly debatable. The US is the only nation to drop not one but two nuclear bombs on civilian populations. In my opinion, the intentional killing of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two of the most irresponsible and immoral single criminal acts any country has ever committed throughout the entirety of human history. Would you actually disagree with that? What has North Korea done that even comes anywhere near that level of heinous and reprehensible irresponsibility?


Why should Iran not have nuclear weapons? Well, I dunno, maybe because they have vowed to wipe Israel off the map and are the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

Close buddies of the US, Saudi Arabia, are actually said to be the world's largest state sponsor of non-state terror: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-real-largest-state-sponsor-of-terrorism_us_58cafc26e4b00705db4da8aa

And Iran didn't "vow to wipe Israel off the map", as explained in my last post. What Ahmadinejad said was closer to the following: "This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history." That has an entirely different meaning.

Meanwhile, hasn't Trump pretty much threatened to wipe North Korea off the map in recent weeks? On that basis, why are the irresponsible and terror-sponsoring US (who also happen to be the world's largest administrator of state terrorism, by their own definition) allowed nuclear weaponry in your world but not other irresponsible or rogue states that similarly rely on terror to enforce their power and interests? Why not apply your principle evenly across the board and condemn/deprive them all instead of overlooking/defending US irresponsibility and singling the US out for special entitlements?


North Korea are basically Iran on steroids. Not only have they threatened America, they have fired test missiles and this Kim guy may just be as crazy as he appears.

North Korea have fired a total of six test missiles ever. The US, on the other hand, have conducted a whopping 1,054 nuclear tests and have dropped two nuclear missiles on civilian populations. Who did you say was on steroids again? :confused:

What qualifies you to make a judgment that Kim "may just be as crazy as he appears"? Most serious observers acknowledge that he's acting quite rationally, given the precarious circumstances in which he finds himself. For what it's worth, he was also described in pretty ordinary terms by his classmates when he attended school in Switzerland.


Who knows if he has a bad day and just wants to end it all. They claim to have ICBM's so that is reason enough to take him seriously.

Again, what qualifies you to engage in this sort of cod long-distance psychoanalysis? Why would he "just want to end it all"? Is he suicidal or something? Have you evidence for this?

Media Lens did a good write-up (http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2017/838-paul-mason-and-the-grand-propaganda-narratives.html) on this sort of uninformed cartoon-villainisation of Kim when Paul Mason engaged in similar nonsense recently (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/13/north-korea-missile-test-kim-jong-un-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-toys-halt-stand-off). They wrote:


But the really remarkable thing about Mason's article is the extent to which he demonised North Korean leader Kim Jong-un:


'People like Kim want to be remembered for a thousand years. And, as the current outbreak of swastikas on the walls of western cities show, if it's a phoneix-like [sic] rebirth you are after, you don't have to wait a thousand years.

'"I triggered a nuclear war with the USA and reduced South Korea to a toxic wasteland" would be, for Kim, an epitaph worth dying for. Even better if he could add, "and I destroyed the multilateral global order for ever".'

This is another classic GPN [Grand Propaganda Narrative]: while identity, location and appearance may change, there is always a fantastically insane 'Bad Guy' at large in the world who simply must be confronted by the West's heroic arms industries and tax-funded militaries, their budgets grown fat on fear-fuelled 'socialism for the rich'.

We were so shocked by Mason's comment that we contacted John Feffer, the director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies, and author of several books on Korean politics:


'Would be interested in your thoughts on this piece claiming Kim Jong-un would be willing to die to kill 50 million South Koreans.'

Feffer was kind enough to reply immediately:


'no indication that Kim believes such a thing -- narcissists usually prefer self-preservation at all costs.' (Feffer to Media Lens, February 14, 2017)

Korea specialists Markus Bell at the University of Sheffield and Marco Milani at the University of Southern California, commented earlier this month:


'a nuclear attack from Pyongyang appears highly unlikely. The government is fully aware that it would incur an overwhelmingly destructive military response from the US and South Korea'.

We also wrote to Mason:


'What's your evidence for the claim Kim Jong-un would be willing to die, if it meant he could kill 50 million South Koreans?'

As ever, Mason ignored us.

So, as Korea specialists Feffer, Bell and Milani suggest, Kim's conduct appears to indicate the exact opposite of what you claim; his conduct would suggest that he feels insecure or threatened and is desperately trying to preserve his position by developing a nuclear defence, which is something that he likely feels will ensure the US never directly attacks his country again.

And of course Kim should be taken seriously. That's why it's vital to stop threatening him and instead sit down and talk.


You do realise, don't you, that all attempts to appease North Korea with all manner of money thrown at them, has got us to where we are today.

It's the exact opposite actually. The hard-line approach of threats and non-dialogue has gotten us where we are today; on the brink of a nuclear war. Progress has been made when there has been dialogue and attempted accord, just like with China decades earlier. When the US has failed to live up to its commitments, that's when Pyongyang has decided to do its own thing. The documented history that I outlined in my post above demonstrates that.


There really is no tomorrow if we continue to go down the same path.
The nation of Japan is very frightened right now and China can't seem to tame the mad midget.

Maybe the US should stop threatening him then and sit down and talk. You don't think North Koreans might be frightened of the US considering the US killed hundreds of thousands of North Koreans with 600,000 tonnes of bombs from the air during the Korean War? The US has a formidable pedigree for this sort of genocidal, apocalyptic conduct; North Korea, on the other hand, has no track record of such.

And for what it's worth, the US is regarded (http://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/) as the biggest threat to world peace by the largest segment of people here in the real world - and by considerable distance - so you've got it way off in terms of who you think is frightening the people of the world.

[backstothewall]

Why should Iran not have nuclear weapons? Well, I dunno, maybe because they have vowed to wipe Israel off the map and are the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.


Close buddies of the US, Saudi Arabia, are actually said to be the world's largest state sponsor of non-state terror: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-real-largest-state-sponsor-of-terrorism_us_58cafc26e4b00705db4da8aa

Splitting hairs there Danny.

I mean you're right but Israel wouldn't be far behind!

[KrisLetang]

MOD EDIT: WTF is going on with the INDENTS man?



The US has a formidable pedigree for this sort of genocidal, apocalyptic conduct; North Korea, on the other hand, has no track record of such.

What about against his own people?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/10/25/north-korean-defector-describes-life-hell-for-christians.html

[KrisLetang]

Also love how he was described as "pretty ordinary" by his classmates in Switzerland. Is this akin to bin Laden sitting in the clock tower seats at Highbury? OJ Simpson had tons of friends. What does it have to do with anything?

[mark12345]

Let's turn it around a bit. Should Israel be allowed to have WMD? And if so why should they have them over say Iran or Pakistan?

Do Israel's actions since 1947 not really give them impression of an unhinged nation? Is it because they are backed by the "big bully" that we have to accept it? I mean, whatever about Iran's populist and rhetorical threats, Israel actually has wiped a country off the map with its illegal and disgraceful settlement programme.

What about the USA? Should they have them considering the absolute destruction they have wrought on certain parts of the world from Nicaragua to Vietnam to Korea not to mention the entire Middle East?

And then Britain... I mean hardly a nation known for it's sensible foreign policy, never mind its mad domestic politics of the last 50 years.

---

No one should have nuclear weapons ideally. But it's a bit rich for the west to come along and dictate the what's what considering the mess that has been made by same. The Obama/Kerry deal was an attempt to normalise relations with Iran. The west needed another strong influencer in the region considering the ****heads in Saudi and the mess of post-Ba'ath Iraq and now Syria.

Then the great idiot comes along, shouts "MURICA FIRST" and then starts bossing around Iran and whoever else... come on. One or the other.

Nevermind that the NK rhetoric is only strengthened by having a nutter to argue back.

The sooner the better that the 2020 election comes or that clown is impeached, the better.

The great idiot you refer to (Donald Trump) is the best president America has seen since the days of George Washington. He puts America first - what country should he put first, given that he's the president of America?
And what makes him an idiot? Please tell me what he has done wrong during his nine months in office. Apart from a very distasteful video on the campaign trail he has done nothing wrong and an awful lot right.
Jobless figures are at their lowest since 1973 and the Dow Jones is at its highest mark ever. He's working on a tax reform bill which will put quite a bit of money in the pockets of the middle class and should set the US economy going again.
And his foreign policy has been lauded by many in America.
You wouldn't happen to be listening to the liberal media when getting your news on Trump? That would explain a lot.

You ask should Israel be allowed to have WMD's? Absolutely they should. And why should't Iran and Pakistan. As far as I know both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. Iran - no way. Because they sponsor terrorism of all kinds. God knows what they'd do with a nuclear missile. You will recall the Israeli / Arab war of 2006 (I believe that's the correct year). They were attacked by over 600 rockets fired from Lebanon over the course of a year and never retaliated. Only when one of those rockets landed in a town tid they respond and that's what led to the war. So do you really think those who control Lebanon (in truth most Lebanese people would prefer peace with their neighbor but are manipulated by the very terror groups that Iran sponsors) are seeking peace? Or are they just looking for any excuse to wager war with the Israelis? I think you know the answer. And let's be honest. If the Israelis did not have nuclear weapons they would not exist in the Middle East.

[DannyInvincible]

Splitting hairs there Danny.

I mean you're right but Israel wouldn't be far behind!

Certainly, lump them high on the list as well. No problem with that at all.


What about against his own people?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/10/25/north-korean-defector-describes-life-hell-for-christians.html

It's a rotten regime, as I've said - no doubt about it - but let's get real. Are oppression, persecution of dissidents and poverty/starvation (on account of negligence and the misguided or paranoid prioritisation of certain policies - mainly security-related - over humanitarian concerns) on the same moral pedestal as flattening entire countries or vapourising entire populations? Personally, I don't think so, but maybe your moral compass differs from mine.

What, in your opinion, has Kim done that equates to acts like Hiroshima and Nagasaki or what the US did to North Korea during the Korean War? The persecution of Christians? Systematic persecution is bad, certainly, but is it seriously equivalent to the wanton death and destruction the US has regularly brought upon populations around the globe?


Also love how he was described as "pretty ordinary" by his classmates in Switzerland. Is this akin to bin Laden sitting in the clock tower seats at Highbury? OJ Simpson had tons of friends. What does it have to do with anything?

It wasn't the most crucial point I made, which is why I preceded it with, "For what it's worth...". It was additional or incidental info (based upon the words of Westerners who actually interacted with Kim) to challenge the cod psychoanalytical caricaturing from afar of Kim as some sort of erratic, unhinged and suicidal "loony-bin" who's intent on martyrdom, who doesn't know what he's doing or who's thoughts and actions are unpredictable.

His actions are completely predictable and rational and they are indicative of a man intent of self-preservation. There is a pattern: when the US threatens him, he feels intimidated and reacts with counter-threats and missile tests; when the US engages with his country in non-threatening dialogue, things have historically been much more constructive and fruitful. The latter is evidently the way to move this situation forward.

[mark12345]

The real world is what we call it. ;)



That's certainly debatable. The US is the only nation to drop not one but two nuclear bombs on civilian populations. In my opinion, the intentional killing of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two of the most irresponsible and immoral single criminal acts any country has ever committed throughout the entirety of human history. Would you actually disagree with that? What has North Korea done that even comes anywhere near that level of heinous and reprehensible irresponsibility?



Close buddies of the US, Saudi Arabia, are actually said to be the world's largest state sponsor of non-state terror: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-real-largest-state-sponsor-of-terrorism_us_58cafc26e4b00705db4da8aa

And Iran didn't "vow to wipe Israel off the map", as explained in my last post. What Ahmadinejad said was closer to the following: "This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history." That has an entirely different meaning.

Meanwhile, hasn't Trump pretty much threatened to wipe North Korea off the map in recent weeks? On that basis, why are the irresponsible and terror-sponsoring US (who also happen to be the world's largest administrator of state terrorism, by their own definition) allowed nuclear weaponry in your world but not other irresponsible or rogue states that similarly rely on terror to enforce their power and interests? Why not apply your principle evenly across the board and condemn/deprive them all instead of overlooking/defending US irresponsibility and singling the US out for special entitlements?



North Korea have fired a total of six test missiles ever. The US, on the other hand, have conducted a whopping 1,054 nuclear tests and have dropped two nuclear missiles on civilian populations. Who did you say was on steroids again? :confused:

What qualifies you to make a judgment that Kim "may just be as crazy as he appears"? Most serious observers acknowledge that he's acting quite rationally, given the precarious circumstances in which he finds himself. For what it's worth, he was also described in pretty ordinary terms by his classmates when he attended school in Switzerland.



Again, what qualifies you to engage in this sort of cod long-distance psychoanalysis? Why would he "just want to end it all"? Is he suicidal or something? Have you evidence for this?

Media Lens did a good write-up (http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2017/838-paul-mason-and-the-grand-propaganda-narratives.html) on this sort of uninformed cartoon-villainisation of Kim when Paul Mason engaged in similar nonsense recently (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/13/north-korea-missile-test-kim-jong-un-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-toys-halt-stand-off). They wrote:


But the really remarkable thing about Mason's article is the extent to which he demonised North Korean leader Kim Jong-un:


'People like Kim want to be remembered for a thousand years. And, as the current outbreak of swastikas on the walls of western cities show, if it's a phoneix-like [sic] rebirth you are after, you don't have to wait a thousand years.

'"I triggered a nuclear war with the USA and reduced South Korea to a toxic wasteland" would be, for Kim, an epitaph worth dying for. Even better if he could add, "and I destroyed the multilateral global order for ever".'

This is another classic GPN [Grand Propaganda Narrative]: while identity, location and appearance may change, there is always a fantastically insane 'Bad Guy' at large in the world who simply must be confronted by the West's heroic arms industries and tax-funded militaries, their budgets grown fat on fear-fuelled 'socialism for the rich'.

We were so shocked by Mason's comment that we contacted John Feffer, the director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies, and author of several books on Korean politics:


'Would be interested in your thoughts on this piece claiming Kim Jong-un would be willing to die to kill 50 million South Koreans.'

Feffer was kind enough to reply immediately:


'no indication that Kim believes such a thing -- narcissists usually prefer self-preservation at all costs.' (Feffer to Media Lens, February 14, 2017)

Korea specialists Markus Bell at the University of Sheffield and Marco Milani at the University of Southern California, commented earlier this month:


'a nuclear attack from Pyongyang appears highly unlikely. The government is fully aware that it would incur an overwhelmingly destructive military response from the US and South Korea'.

We also wrote to Mason:


'What's your evidence for the claim Kim Jong-un would be willing to die, if it meant he could kill 50 million South Koreans?'

As ever, Mason ignored us.

So, as Korea specialists Feffer, Bell and Milani suggest, Kim's conduct appears to indicate the exact opposite of what you claim; his conduct would suggest that he feels insecure or threatened and is desperately trying to preserve his position by developing a nuclear defence, which is something that he likely feels will ensure the US never directly attacks his country again.

And of course Kim should be taken seriously. That's why it's vital to stop threatening him and instead sit down and talk.



It's the exact opposite actually. The hard-line approach of threats and non-dialogue has gotten us where we are today; on the brink of a nuclear war. Progress has been made when there has been dialogue and attempted accord, just like with China decades earlier. When the US has failed to live up to its commitments, that's when Pyongyang has decided to do its own thing. The documented history that I outlined in my post above demonstrates that.



Maybe the US should stop threatening him then and sit down and talk. You don't think North Koreans might be frightened of the US considering the US killed hundreds of thousands of North Koreans with 600,000 tonnes of bombs from the air during the Korean War? The US has a formidable pedigree for this sort of genocidal, apocalyptic conduct; North Korea, on the other hand, has no track record of such.

And for what it's worth, the US is regarded (http://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/) as the biggest threat to world peace by the largest segment of people here in the real world - and by considerable distance - so you've got it way off in terms of who you think is frightening the people of the world.

Strange how a guy who thinks so clearly when it comes to football, has such weird notions when it comes to world politics. You are questioning the dropping of two (atomic bombs actually, not nuclear) on Japan at the end of World War 2. Really Danny? You are going to question the soldiers who saved your and my parents' lives? Would you be here typing on your keyboard today, if not for the actions of the brave American and British soldiers. That's what I love about us Irish. We are experts on every war we never fought in (save for the brave men from Ireland did join the war effort to fight the Nazis, and God Bless them). Trump has threatened to wipe N. Korea off the map and rightly so. He's not the one firing the ICBM's is he? If the whole nation of Japan is so scared, does that not tell you something? And how bad does KJU have it. Up to a few weeks ago he was doing pretty nicely with all the commercial trade from China. He was doing nicely, while his people starve to death if they're not imprisoned.

But perhaps Danny the events of the past two days will help the light bulb to go off for you. The whole Russia collusion thing has proved that Donald Trump has conspired with the Russians to affect the US election last year, hasn't it? Yeah, you should be seeing the real truth now that Hillary's selling of 20 per cent of America's uranium to Russia has been revealed. Hillary sat on a board to approve the deal, a deal which she and her husband got $145 million from. And guess who else was on the board? Rob Rosenstein, the guy who called for the special council to investigate Trump and Bob Muller the chief investigator of that council. Can you say 'conflict of interest'? Mr Muller, who was head of the FBI once, has been labelled as one of the top prosecutors in America. A man with such knowledge of the law and ethics somehow missed the conflict of interest involving himself and his cohorts. When you have those type of people controlling a media who have been trying to take Trump down for 18 months now, you should see that you are being lied to all day long (by the media corporations in America and by extension Britain and Europe). Hopefully, Danny, you will see what is going on in the real world.

[Charlie Darwin]

Give back the $152 million, Barack.

[mark12345]

Give back the $152 million, Barack.

Almost spot on Charlie. It was 152 billion with a b. Like your style though

[Charlie Darwin]

****, you're right. I can't believe I used an inaccurate figure there! What am I like?

[DannyInvincible]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnVpGoyKfKU

"One of the great memories of all time."

[Charlie Darwin]

What the **** is he talking about?

[strangeirish]

Laughable...Embarrassment to the Country.

Donald Trump claims to have a world-class memory, but it certainly wasn't on display during his deposition for a lawsuit over Trump University.
"I don't remember," Trump told lawyers 35 times during his December testimony, which was released on Wednesday.