Trump

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...

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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

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

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":

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Johnson

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). “How America Could Stumble Into War With Iran,” disclosed The Atlantic (2/9/17), “What It Would Take to Pull the US Into a War in Asia,” speculated Quartz (4/29/17). “Trump could easily get us sucked into Afghanistan again,” Slate predicted (5/11/17). The US is “stumbling into a wider war” in Syria, the New York Times editorial board (5/2/15) warned. “A Flexing Contest in Syria May Trap the US in an Endless Conflict,” Vice News (6/19/17) 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). “Putin’s Aim Is to Make This the Russian Century,” insists Time magazine (10/1/16). Russia isn’t “drawn into” Crimea; it has a secret “Crimea takeover plot” (BBC, 3/9/15). Putin doesn’t “stumble into” Syria; he has a “Long-Term Strategy” there (Foreign Affairs, 3/15/16). 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.

---

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/a...omparison.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Media Lens

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.

...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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/a...omparison.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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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/a...omparison.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.

$152 billion no less!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

$152 billion no less!!!

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

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-...-from-it-80578

Some former Clinton administration officials have also since admitted 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, "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/tru...crazy_partner/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Feffer

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.

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.

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

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) 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/commenti...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_...on_and_meaning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

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]

"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] 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]

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][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-me...n-150-billion/
ii) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...on-even-if-us/
iii) http://time.com/4441046/400-million-...stage-history/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Politifact

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Politifact

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

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

---

The real world is what we call it. ;)

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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...b00705db4da8aa

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 on this sort of uninformed cartoon-villainisation of Kim when Paul Mason engaged in similar nonsense recently. 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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...b00705db4da8aa

---

Splitting hairs there Danny.

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

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

Quote:

---

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...hristians.html