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...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?
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?
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 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.
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 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.
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
!!!
Bookmarks