The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Little Rocket Man's Risky Game
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In the morning darkness of Wednesday, Kim Jong Un launched an ICBM that rose almost 2,800 miles into the sky before falling into the Sea of Japan.

North Korea now has the proven ability to hit Washington, D.C.

Unproven still is whether Kim can put a miniaturized nuclear warhead atop that missile, which could be fired with precision, and survive the severe vibrations of re-entry. More tests and more time are needed for that.

Thus, U.S. markets brushed off the news of Kim’s Hwasong-15 missile and roared to record heights on Wednesday and Thursday.

President Donald Trump took it less well. “Little Rocket Man” is one “sick puppy,” he told an audience in Missouri.

U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley told the Security Council that “if war comes … the North Korean regime will be utterly destroyed.” She than warned Xi Jinping that “if China does not halt the oil shipments” to North Korea, “we can take the oil situation into our own hands.”

Is Haley talking about bombing pipelines in North Korea — or China?

The rage of the president and bluster of Haley reflect a painful reality: As inhumane and ruthless as the 33-year-old dictator of North Korea is, he is playing the highest stakes poker game on the planet, against the world’s superpower, and playing it remarkably well.

Reason: Kim may understand us better than we do him, which is why he seems less hesitant to invite the risks of a war he cannot win.

While a Korean War II might well end with annihilation of the North’s army and Kim’s regime, it would almost surely result in untold thousands of dead South Koreans and Americans.

And Kim knows that the more American lives he can put at risk, with nuclear-tipped missiles, the less likely the Americans are to want to fight him.

His calculation has thus far proven correct.

As long as he does not push the envelope too far, and force Trump to choose war rather than living with a North Korea that could rain nuclear rockets on the U.S., Kim may win the confrontation.

Why? Because the concessions Kim is demanding are not beyond the utterly unacceptable.

What does Kim want?

Initially, he wants a halt to U.S.-South Korean military exercises, which he sees as a potential prelude to a surprise attack. He wants an end to sanctions, U.S. recognition of his regime, and acceptance of his status as a nuclear weapons state. Down the road, he wants a U.S. withdrawal of all forces from South Korea and international aid.

Earlier administrations — Clinton, Bush II, Obama — have seen many of these demands as negotiable. And accepting some or even all of them would entail no grave peril to U.S. national security or vital interests.

They would entail, however, a serious loss of face.

Acceptance of such demands by the United States would be a triumph for Kim, validating his risky nuclear strategy, and a diplomatic defeat for the United States.

Little Rocket Man would have bested The Donald.

ORDER IT NOW

Moreover, the credibility of the U.S. deterrent would be called into question. South Korea and Japan could be expected to consider their own deterrents, out of fear the U.S. would never truly put its homeland at risk, but would cut a deal at their expense.

We would hear again the cries of “Munich” and the shade of Neville Chamberlain would be called forth for ritual denunciation.

Yet it is a time for truth: Our demand for “denuclearization of the Korean peninsula,” is not going to be met, absent a U.S. war and occupation of North Korea.

Kim saw how Bush II, when it served U.S. interests, pulled out of our 30-year-old ABM treaty with Moscow. He saw how, after he gave up all his WMD to reach an accommodation with the West, Moammar Gadhafi was attacked by NATO and ended up being lynched.

He can see how much Americans honor nuclear treaties they sign by observing universal GOP howls to kill the Iranian nuclear deal and bring about “regime change” in Tehran, despite Iran letting U.N. inspectors roam the country to show they have no nuclear weapons program.

For America’s post-Cold War enemies, the lesson is clear:

Give up your WMD, and you wind up like Gadhafi and Saddam Hussein. Build nuclear weapons that can threaten Americans, and you get respect.

Kim Jong Un would be a fool to give up his missiles and nukes, and while the man is many things, a fool is not one of them.

We are nearing a point where the choice is between a war with North Korea in which thousands would die, or confirming that the U.S. is not willing to put its homeland at risk to keep Kim from keeping what he already has — nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2017 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, North Korea 
Hide 64 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Another time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RebelWriter
    "...and Sam Donaldson leapt the length of his chain."

    And some people say Pat's not funny.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pbuchanan/little-rocket-mans-risky-game/#comment-2100192
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Randal says:

    Buchanan yet again writes the hard truth that so many Americans seem unable to face up to.

    Why? Because the concessions Kim is demanding are not beyond the utterly unacceptable.

    Exactly so. The US-uber-alles factions overplayed their hand by insisting that the US somehow uniquely cannot be expected to live in a world in which its enemies have even the potential to attack it, and by expecting others to play along yet again with the usual dance of US provocation after provocation followed by barefaced insistence that responses to the provocations are “acts of aggression” and “threats”.

    Welcome (again) to reality, America.

    But just because reason and basic ethics says the US cannot acceptably initiate open warfare with NK does not mean the US regime will not do so. That depends upon whether it is in the actual interests of those influencing regime policy for a war to happen, on how reasonable those people are, and how competently they can assess the likely consequences. All three are highly questionable in relation to the various elements of the US regime and foreign policy elite, as evidenced by US actions over the past three decades, most obviously in Iraq. It also depends upon all parties avoiding an unintended escalation to war – by no means guaranteed when missiles are flying and bombers are nosing at borders.

    The signals are mixed – there is a massive three carrier US military buildup in the area and actively menacing US operations in the NK vicinity that imply (and are clearly meant to imply) a potential US attack. Meanwhile senior US military and political voices assert variously that an attack on NK could and should be carried out, or that it cannot be done without unacceptable costs to SK civilians and perhaps US forces stationed in the area.

    My feeling, fwiw is that the US regime is in two minds, desperately tempted to impose its authority by brute force, but balking at the likely costs of an attack, and has for now come down on the side of caution. I think the threats are probably a watchful, posturing bluff, with the corollary that if an opportunity should arise to attack in circumstances in which the NK government can plausibly be landed with the blame for all the consequences, then an attack will be made. Costs versus benefits for wars are mostly political matters, with nations usually willing to shoulder immense costs if the cause is seen as just, but also willing to brutally punish leaderships that incur undue costs without seeming justification. Manipulation of opinion is standard in the US sphere, but can only go so far.

    A further complication is the perennial hope by the immensely “influential” Israel and Saudi lobbies of finally getting the US involved in a war against Iran. Surely those lobbies don’t want the distraction of a useless (in terms of their own interests) war on the other side of the world, the costs of which could easily make their own goals unachievable for the duration?

    Hopefully the US this time has taken the sane course, and blinked. That doesn’t mean a war won’t happen of course, even if it is correct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    A further complication is the perennial hope by the immensely “influential” Israel and Saudi lobbies of finally getting the US involved in a war against Iran. Surely those lobbies don’t want the distraction of a useless (in terms of their own interests) war on the other side of the world, the costs of which could easily make their own goals unachievable for the duration?
     
    Or maybe the plans they are cooking up are a bit more diabolical than we assume? I can think of a scenario where they can sell the Korean War II as a genuine Korean nuclear attack on the US, and then attack Iran on the back of the enormous public outrage? Iraq was done in a similar fashion after the seeming distraction of Afghanistan, after all, but on the back of the same outrage.

    After a nuclear war with North Korea, it might be possible to sell the frightened public that “no more rogue states should be allowed to get near the nuclear threshold”, and so Iran would be attacked. The nuclear war might change a few things domestically, too, like introducing a state of emergency (later made permanent), thereby doing away with the remnants of democracy.

    I hope no one is thinking about such a scenario in DC in the corridors of power.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Thank you, Mr. Buchanan, for such an intelligent article. It’s too bad you are not our Secretary of State now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. KenH says:

    Give up your WMD, and you wind up like Gadhafi and Saddam Hussein. Build nuclear weapons that can threaten Americans, and you get respect.

    The U.S. has yet to attack another nuclear power although Trump’s military junta of an administration seems crazy enough to contemplate that scenario with Russia. This is indeed a lesson that hasn’t been lost on Kim Jong Un.

    Frankly, Kim Jong Un has nothing to lose since history proves that even if you make unprecedented concessions to us we will still resort to regime change and occupation of the nation, so objectively speaking Kim Jong Un should stay the course.

    The danger is doing so is that Trump does appear to be willing to risk a major war on the peninsula to save face. And if that happens you can kiss MAGA and the wall goodbye and say hello to George W. Bush 2.0.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “.. you can kiss MAGA and the wall goodbye and say hello to George W. Bush 2.0.”

    Lies from the time they left his lips back in 2015. Those of us who doubted, including Linh Dinh, were attacked.

    4-D chess? Yep, you were rooked.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. nsa says:

    “…and force Trump to choose war”.
    Is anyone else tired of the geriatric Nixon-fluffing fraud, St. Pat, spooning out patent nonsense as some kind of definitive wisdom? Again, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE OF “WAR” WITH KOREA….none, zero, zilch. The reason is as simple as the six pointed star adorning the papal gold hat…..THERE IS NOTHING IN IT FOR THE CONNIVING JOOIES who use the USA like a $10 ghetto whore. The best any of the jooies posting at this site can come up with is the sharing of missile knowledge with Persia. Kimmie could level Hawaii and the JUSA kosher colony would still attack Persia at the behest of its bloodthirsty jooie masters……

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Little Rocket Man is defending against Imperial aggression. I wish him well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Bach says:

    Funny how a peace treaty never seems to be in the cards. It’s either pay them off with a gazillion dollars. Or war.

    Ironically, all NKorea ever really wanted was a peace treaty and to be treated like a normal country. Was that so much to ask for?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Flavius says:

    “Yet, it is a time for truth…”

    Yet, there isn’t much in our Diplomatic or Military behaviors of the last 20 and more years that we do truth; and for well longer than 20 years that we do the constitutionally prescribed way of war.
    It is unthinkable that once again a war that may well cost not thousands, but tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives is contingent upon the wisdom, or lack of wisdom, of one elected American official. I would add one highly inexperienced American official who is surrounded by packs of yapping dogs that he can’t help himself from prodding with a stick.
    I would like to think that if the question of war with NK were to be at least presented before Congress, there would exist a window for public outcry and reason would prevail; but I can’t convince myself of even that.
    In my opinion, Trump would save, not lose face, and at the same time enhance immeasurably confidence in his judgement, if he would can forthwith the execrable Nikki Haley.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bartok

    It is unthinkable that once again a war that may well cost not thousands, but tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives is contingent upon the wisdom, or lack of wisdom, of one elected American official.
     
    Got any evidence that Trump or any modern president 'acts alone'? The options he is provided with come from the Iron Triangle; no option that displeases the Iron Triangle can be presented to him.

    Note how the alphabet agencies have shut down Trump's attempt to begin to enact the foreign policy he campaigned on, namely, teaming up with Russia to fight terrorism. Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller, was an Obama appointee, that is to say he belongs to the Inner Party and the permanent government.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. MacArthur requested field commander’s discretion to employ nuclear weapons 47 years ago. If only Truman hadn’t cucked to the Pinkos who birthed the Little Rocket Man, who now deploys them against us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simply Simon
    What kind of nuclear weapons Hank, nuclear or strategic? Neither type would have been needed to win the Korean War had MacArthur used his head and not gone as far north as the Yalu River in the dead of winter with troops not prepared for the bitter Korean winter. Mac did not learn a thing from the mistakes of Napoleon or Hitler who ventured to fight the Russians on their territory and in their winter. After the successful Wonson harbor landing he had the North Koreans on the run. Once past the capital city of Pyongyang, victory was already his. All he had to do was establish a defensive perimeter around that city and the badly defeated North Koreans would have had to sue for peace. They had no where else to go and ultimate starvation would have faced their troops. At the Yalu river the Chinese had no trouble crossing the frozen surface, attacked and slaughtered our ill-prepared troops who fought desperately to retreat with minimum losses in places like the Chosen Reservoir. We were chased all the way back to the 38th parallel and beyond Seoul. After bitter fighting a DMZ was established along the 38th parallel where we remain to this day. The final result is history unfolding as we see it today.
    , @bluedog
    Yep and if they had stopped at the 38th as Ridgeway wanted to do instead of listening to MacArthur thousands of American lives would have been saved.
    , @anon
    Your boy Mac utterly and 100% assured Truman that there would never be any Chinese intervention in Korea. He was completely wrong on this and many other things.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. bartok says:
    @Flavius
    "Yet, it is a time for truth..."

    Yet, there isn't much in our Diplomatic or Military behaviors of the last 20 and more years that we do truth; and for well longer than 20 years that we do the constitutionally prescribed way of war.
    It is unthinkable that once again a war that may well cost not thousands, but tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives is contingent upon the wisdom, or lack of wisdom, of one elected American official. I would add one highly inexperienced American official who is surrounded by packs of yapping dogs that he can't help himself from prodding with a stick.
    I would like to think that if the question of war with NK were to be at least presented before Congress, there would exist a window for public outcry and reason would prevail; but I can't convince myself of even that.
    In my opinion, Trump would save, not lose face, and at the same time enhance immeasurably confidence in his judgement, if he would can forthwith the execrable Nikki Haley.

    It is unthinkable that once again a war that may well cost not thousands, but tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives is contingent upon the wisdom, or lack of wisdom, of one elected American official.

    Got any evidence that Trump or any modern president ‘acts alone’? The options he is provided with come from the Iron Triangle; no option that displeases the Iron Triangle can be presented to him.

    Note how the alphabet agencies have shut down Trump’s attempt to begin to enact the foreign policy he campaigned on, namely, teaming up with Russia to fight terrorism. Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller, was an Obama appointee, that is to say he belongs to the Inner Party and the permanent government.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Thank God for Pat Buchanan. However, there is another alternative besides those Mr. Buchanan suggests.

    The US could renounce the Zionist/neocon dream of becoming the ruler* of the first world-wide imperium. We could begin this process in the Far East by announcing that we are acceding to China its rightful place as a regional superpower and withdrawing all our military resources to our region, somewhere to the East of Wake Island. Part of this process should be ending our SEATO treaty obligations and liberating our colonies of Guam and various other Far East locations. At that point, the Korean peninsula would become entirely China’s problem. Countries in the region concerned about Chinese overreach, e.g., Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand,India, would also be forced to develop their own militaries and defensive alliances.

    As a result, a significant portion of the US military budget would no longer be necessary and could be put to better use, e.g., reducing the national debt or rebuilding infrastructure. Continuing this process of disengagement in other parts of the world, e.g., central Asia, the Near East, the Balkans, the Baltic, Europe generally, and Africa, would further advantage the US. Eliminating costly and dangerous foreign entanglements and releasing further funds for domestic spending.

    Ultimately, the US could become what the Founding Fathers and later great leaders like John Quincy Adams, saw as our destiny: a non-aligned, democratic, constitutional republic, serving as a beacon of hope for the rest of humanity.
    ———————————————————–
    *An imperial power, BTW, whose primary function would be, as it is now, be spend its blood and treasure protecting Israel from the consequences of that country’s constant violations of international law.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Or the USA could finally get the "peace dividend" that was supposed to be cashed in after the USSR collapsed over a quarter century ago.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Randal
    Buchanan yet again writes the hard truth that so many Americans seem unable to face up to.

    Why? Because the concessions Kim is demanding are not beyond the utterly unacceptable.
     
    Exactly so. The US-uber-alles factions overplayed their hand by insisting that the US somehow uniquely cannot be expected to live in a world in which its enemies have even the potential to attack it, and by expecting others to play along yet again with the usual dance of US provocation after provocation followed by barefaced insistence that responses to the provocations are "acts of aggression" and "threats".

    Welcome (again) to reality, America.

    But just because reason and basic ethics says the US cannot acceptably initiate open warfare with NK does not mean the US regime will not do so. That depends upon whether it is in the actual interests of those influencing regime policy for a war to happen, on how reasonable those people are, and how competently they can assess the likely consequences. All three are highly questionable in relation to the various elements of the US regime and foreign policy elite, as evidenced by US actions over the past three decades, most obviously in Iraq. It also depends upon all parties avoiding an unintended escalation to war - by no means guaranteed when missiles are flying and bombers are nosing at borders.

    The signals are mixed - there is a massive three carrier US military buildup in the area and actively menacing US operations in the NK vicinity that imply (and are clearly meant to imply) a potential US attack. Meanwhile senior US military and political voices assert variously that an attack on NK could and should be carried out, or that it cannot be done without unacceptable costs to SK civilians and perhaps US forces stationed in the area.

    My feeling, fwiw is that the US regime is in two minds, desperately tempted to impose its authority by brute force, but balking at the likely costs of an attack, and has for now come down on the side of caution. I think the threats are probably a watchful, posturing bluff, with the corollary that if an opportunity should arise to attack in circumstances in which the NK government can plausibly be landed with the blame for all the consequences, then an attack will be made. Costs versus benefits for wars are mostly political matters, with nations usually willing to shoulder immense costs if the cause is seen as just, but also willing to brutally punish leaderships that incur undue costs without seeming justification. Manipulation of opinion is standard in the US sphere, but can only go so far.

    A further complication is the perennial hope by the immensely "influential" Israel and Saudi lobbies of finally getting the US involved in a war against Iran. Surely those lobbies don't want the distraction of a useless (in terms of their own interests) war on the other side of the world, the costs of which could easily make their own goals unachievable for the duration?

    Hopefully the US this time has taken the sane course, and blinked. That doesn't mean a war won't happen of course, even if it is correct.

    A further complication is the perennial hope by the immensely “influential” Israel and Saudi lobbies of finally getting the US involved in a war against Iran. Surely those lobbies don’t want the distraction of a useless (in terms of their own interests) war on the other side of the world, the costs of which could easily make their own goals unachievable for the duration?

    Or maybe the plans they are cooking up are a bit more diabolical than we assume? I can think of a scenario where they can sell the Korean War II as a genuine Korean nuclear attack on the US, and then attack Iran on the back of the enormous public outrage? Iraq was done in a similar fashion after the seeming distraction of Afghanistan, after all, but on the back of the same outrage.

    After a nuclear war with North Korea, it might be possible to sell the frightened public that “no more rogue states should be allowed to get near the nuclear threshold”, and so Iran would be attacked. The nuclear war might change a few things domestically, too, like introducing a state of emergency (later made permanent), thereby doing away with the remnants of democracy.

    I hope no one is thinking about such a scenario in DC in the corridors of power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Certainly the kinds of apocalyptic scenarios you suggest can't be ruled out on grounds of any moral compunction or scruples on the part of the lobbies in question. Hopefully the practicalities are beyond them (though there are certainly those who won't buy that).

    I suspect that the costs of an attack on NK, both military and diplomatic, would make such a follow up impracticable anyway, unless the US regime gets very lucky. But as I noted above, the actual political impact of war costs on a nation is highly subjective, so a lot depends upon the context.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Rurik says:

    http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/11/29/john-bolton-north-korea-missile-test-diplomatic-options-running-out

    the money shot comes at just after 3:00 to 3:10

    where he spells out that N. Korea would be a ‘one stop shopping place for nuclear technology for Iran’

    bingo!

    the only sane solution to N. Korea is pressure on China, but then that could inconvenience some of the corporate interests that the GOP are whores for.

    Pat is right, and the ZUSA has proven for all the world to see that its treachery knows no bounds, and it will break any treaty or covenant of International Law in its abject obeisance to all things Israel.

    the good news?

    cancer is slowly eating away this evil little man’s brains

    it’s as if you can actually see him peering into hell, as his doddering mind wanders, one imagines his open mouth drooling spittle as his treasonous brain cells rot from the inside out.

    the only person on this planet I consider as nauseatingly odious and viscerally loathsome is Hillary Clinton herself.

    And so cancer and Donald Trump, for all their otherwise unpleasant characteristics, have done us all a service so momentous, as to be worth an honorable mention.

    as for NK, I suspect the reason ((they’re)) not insisting that China deal with lil’ Kim, is because ((they)) don’t want NK reined in, but rather destroyed. Guess how many tens or hundreds of thousands of Korean or American military or Hawaiian citizen’s lives the Zionists would sacrifice for another one of their enemies crushed under the might of their big, stupid ZUS thug rabid dog?

    (that’s a rhetorical question BTW ; )

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Randal says:
    @reiner Tor

    A further complication is the perennial hope by the immensely “influential” Israel and Saudi lobbies of finally getting the US involved in a war against Iran. Surely those lobbies don’t want the distraction of a useless (in terms of their own interests) war on the other side of the world, the costs of which could easily make their own goals unachievable for the duration?
     
    Or maybe the plans they are cooking up are a bit more diabolical than we assume? I can think of a scenario where they can sell the Korean War II as a genuine Korean nuclear attack on the US, and then attack Iran on the back of the enormous public outrage? Iraq was done in a similar fashion after the seeming distraction of Afghanistan, after all, but on the back of the same outrage.

    After a nuclear war with North Korea, it might be possible to sell the frightened public that “no more rogue states should be allowed to get near the nuclear threshold”, and so Iran would be attacked. The nuclear war might change a few things domestically, too, like introducing a state of emergency (later made permanent), thereby doing away with the remnants of democracy.

    I hope no one is thinking about such a scenario in DC in the corridors of power.

    Certainly the kinds of apocalyptic scenarios you suggest can’t be ruled out on grounds of any moral compunction or scruples on the part of the lobbies in question. Hopefully the practicalities are beyond them (though there are certainly those who won’t buy that).

    I suspect that the costs of an attack on NK, both military and diplomatic, would make such a follow up impracticable anyway, unless the US regime gets very lucky. But as I noted above, the actual political impact of war costs on a nation is highly subjective, so a lot depends upon the context.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    I suspect that the costs of an attack on NK, both military and diplomatic
     
    That’s possible, but it was no consolation to the tens of millions killed in the Second World War that Hitler’s goals were impracticable.

    I think the most important reason they don’t go for it is that they fear a military confrontation with China, and perhaps Russia. Especially because such a conflagration would either consume the globalist empire, or at least destroy any hopes of attacking Iran.

    But I’ve been thinking about why Trump started talking about North Korea during his first meeting with President Xi (instead of trade, which everyone assumed to be the topic). Immediately afterward he tweeted how he was pleased with Chinese cooperation against North Korea, and how as a result there was no need to start a trade war against them... I’m sure the North Korea problem was planted in his ears by people who wanted something else.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. anon says: • Disclaimer

    “Why? Because the concessions Kim is demanding are not beyond the utterly unacceptable.”

    False. And the reason it’s false is the character of the North Korean regime.
    I have to laugh at the credulousness of most of the commenters here.
    There’s a reason why there are laws against convicted felons owning handguns, and North Korea is not a responsibly led country that can be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
    Thank goodness we’re in the hands of Donald Trump and not the likes of people who think that every regime in the world is amenable to and deserving of identical treatment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nsa
    You, of course, can't quite seem to find the nearest recruiting office to volunteer your patriotic services to Uncle Samuel........
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. peterAUS says:

    The article assumes that the North Korean regime is monolithic and all of their power elite support the current leadership.

    That is the unknown of some importance, IMHO.

    A deal could be cut with those who are willing to:
    Remove the current leadership.
    Remove nuclear threat to US (starting from Hawaii).

    Nobody really knows the reality there.
    But…looking at examples, from Yugoslavia to Syria, those regimes do look, from outside, monolithic and strong….push them a little and they unravel.

    The article doesn’t touch that element of this game.
    It, simplistically, goes straight into big war between North Korea and US.

    Why not China supported coup in Pyongyang, for example.
    And some other options in between.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Syria didn't unravel. If KJU with nukes had been in Assad's seat it would have been a disaster, as bad as open war. If China could pull off a coup we would all breathe a little easier, but can they?
    , @englishmike

    A deal could be cut with those who are willing to:
    Remove the current leadership.
    Remove nuclear threat to US (starting from Hawaii).[...]

    The article doesn’t touch that element of this game.
    It, simplistically, goes straight into big war between North Korea and US.
    Why not China supported coup in Pyongyang, for example.
    And some other options in between.
     
    It's worth reminding ourselves that President Trump's original stance was that Kim Jong Un's North Korea is a problem for China to deal with, but that the US was prepared to take on the task if China proved unable to do so.

    Since the US has not yet launched an attack, can we assume that Trump is still following that "hands off" strategy, even if it means that Kim is (so far) winning?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Randal
    Certainly the kinds of apocalyptic scenarios you suggest can't be ruled out on grounds of any moral compunction or scruples on the part of the lobbies in question. Hopefully the practicalities are beyond them (though there are certainly those who won't buy that).

    I suspect that the costs of an attack on NK, both military and diplomatic, would make such a follow up impracticable anyway, unless the US regime gets very lucky. But as I noted above, the actual political impact of war costs on a nation is highly subjective, so a lot depends upon the context.

    I suspect that the costs of an attack on NK, both military and diplomatic

    That’s possible, but it was no consolation to the tens of millions killed in the Second World War that Hitler’s goals were impracticable.

    I think the most important reason they don’t go for it is that they fear a military confrontation with China, and perhaps Russia. Especially because such a conflagration would either consume the globalist empire, or at least destroy any hopes of attacking Iran.

    But I’ve been thinking about why Trump started talking about North Korea during his first meeting with President Xi (instead of trade, which everyone assumed to be the topic). Immediately afterward he tweeted how he was pleased with Chinese cooperation against North Korea, and how as a result there was no need to start a trade war against them… I’m sure the North Korea problem was planted in his ears by people who wanted something else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    **I’m sure the North Korea problem was planted in his ears by people who wanted something else.**

    http://www.businessinsider.com/elliott-managements-paul-singer-doesnt-care-what-you-think-2017-6

    "While Elliott says it is happy to work cooperatively when possible, this year it has been involved in four raucous shareholder activist campaigns on four continents. In addition to the U.S. battle with Arconic, it has taken on mining giant BHP Billiton in Australia, Samsung Electronics in South Korea, and Akzo Nobel in the Netherlands, which has been resisting a takeover by U.S. rival PPG Industries that Elliott supports. On May 9, Elliott said it had begun legal proceedings to try to oust Akzo chair Antony Burgmans for his refusal to entertain PPG’s offer. "
    , @Randal

    I think the most important reason they don’t go for it is that they fear a military confrontation with China, and perhaps Russia.
     
    Yes, the risk of this must be part of the costs side of their analysis, especially as China has recently repeated its insistence that it will intervene to support NK if the US initiates hostilities. Of course there are some around the US regime who seem to think a "limited" war with China now is desirable.

    Though the translation I saw seemed to leave open the possibility of allowing a US strike if NK continues with its progress towards a deterrent, perhaps leaving room for a dirty deal, or perhaps just trying to pressure the NKs into lowering the tension:

    "“China should also make clear that if North Korea launches missiles that threaten U.S. soil first and the U.S. retaliates, China will stay neutral,” it added. "

    I do not know how accurate the translation of the key term "threaten" is, though, so this might be incorrect.

    Especially because such a conflagration would either consume the globalist empire, or at least destroy any hopes of attacking Iran.
     
    Rurik above mentioned another reason why the Israel lobby might swing behind an attack on NK - fear of technology transfer from NK to Iran. But I think in this case it's mostly just McCain propagandising for any and every war as usual. The technical issues Iran would face are not really those NK faces. In Iran the issue is not the missile tech, which they've already got to a level more than adequate to hit Israel, it would more be a matter of physically obtaining the warhead material. NK can already give that to them, in theory.

    Of course, it's hard to know how much the supposed fear of imminent Iranian nukes claimed by Israel lobby types is real, and how much it is just propaganda to manipulate opinion towards the war they want. These people have lied so hard and for so long that it's generally safest just to assume they are lying whenever they open their mouths.

    But I’ve been thinking about why Trump started talking about North Korea during his first meeting with President Xi (instead of trade, which everyone assumed to be the topic). Immediately afterward he tweeted how he was pleased with Chinese cooperation against North Korea, and how as a result there was no need to start a trade war against them… I’m sure the North Korea problem was planted in his ears by people who wanted something else.
     
    That's a good observation and with probably some truth, though it is not the whole explanation imo.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Hank Rearden
    MacArthur requested field commander's discretion to employ nuclear weapons 47 years ago. If only Truman hadn't cucked to the Pinkos who birthed the Little Rocket Man, who now deploys them against us.

    http://b-29s-over-korea.com/Why-Truman-Fired-General-MacArthur/images/Mac-portrait.jpg

    What kind of nuclear weapons Hank, nuclear or strategic? Neither type would have been needed to win the Korean War had MacArthur used his head and not gone as far north as the Yalu River in the dead of winter with troops not prepared for the bitter Korean winter. Mac did not learn a thing from the mistakes of Napoleon or Hitler who ventured to fight the Russians on their territory and in their winter. After the successful Wonson harbor landing he had the North Koreans on the run. Once past the capital city of Pyongyang, victory was already his. All he had to do was establish a defensive perimeter around that city and the badly defeated North Koreans would have had to sue for peace. They had no where else to go and ultimate starvation would have faced their troops. At the Yalu river the Chinese had no trouble crossing the frozen surface, attacked and slaughtered our ill-prepared troops who fought desperately to retreat with minimum losses in places like the Chosen Reservoir. We were chased all the way back to the 38th parallel and beyond Seoul. After bitter fighting a DMZ was established along the 38th parallel where we remain to this day. The final result is history unfolding as we see it today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hank Rearden
    To answer your question, whichever sort of nuclear armament he had requested to be released to theater command. I'd guess the Mark 4 model, carried by B-29 aircraft.

    I agree with your assessment that it was and act of hubris to forge ahead to the Yalu in the freezing cold. Your alternate history planing is excellent. But once we're there at the Yalu, we're there. When you're facing a thousand screaming gooks is no time to pull punches. Light 'em up.

    http://grdurand.com/blogger/uploaded_images/get_off_my_lawn.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @peterAUS
    The article assumes that the North Korean regime is monolithic and all of their power elite support the current leadership.

    That is the unknown of some importance, IMHO.

    A deal could be cut with those who are willing to:
    Remove the current leadership.
    Remove nuclear threat to US (starting from Hawaii).

    Nobody really knows the reality there.
    But...looking at examples, from Yugoslavia to Syria, those regimes do look, from outside, monolithic and strong....push them a little and they unravel.

    The article doesn't touch that element of this game.
    It, simplistically, goes straight into big war between North Korea and US.

    Why not China supported coup in Pyongyang, for example.
    And some other options in between.

    Syria didn’t unravel. If KJU with nukes had been in Assad’s seat it would have been a disaster, as bad as open war. If China could pull off a coup we would all breathe a little easier, but can they?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Little Rocket Man’s Risky Game

    Fwiw, Pat Buchanan posted the same article at wnd.com under the title:

    Little Rocket Man is winning

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. nsa says:
    @anon
    "Why? Because the concessions Kim is demanding are not beyond the utterly unacceptable."

    False. And the reason it's false is the character of the North Korean regime.
    I have to laugh at the credulousness of most of the commenters here.
    There's a reason why there are laws against convicted felons owning handguns, and North Korea is not a responsibly led country that can be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
    Thank goodness we're in the hands of Donald Trump and not the likes of people who think that every regime in the world is amenable to and deserving of identical treatment.

    You, of course, can’t quite seem to find the nearest recruiting office to volunteer your patriotic services to Uncle Samuel……..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “…he wants a U.S. withdrawal of all forces from South Korea and international aid.”

    The Sudetenland is a small price to pay for peace in our time. Um, South Korea, I mean.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    “…he wants a U.S. withdrawal of all forces from South Korea and international aid.”

    The Sudetenland is a small price to pay for peace in our time. Um, South Korea, I mean.
     
    ROFL!

    The Hitler analogy descends from the merely silly to the outright ridiculous.

    Yes, "anonymous", there's almost no strategic difference between Adolf Hitler in charge of a resurgent superpower Germany dominant over Europe, still then the heart of world power, and little North Korea with its population in total the size of Shanghai's and its annual struggle to feed its own people.

    Why, the US agreeing to stop harassing and menacing NK will obviously immediately be followed by the annexation of the whole of South Korea, and from there NK troops will be outside Washington within a couple of years.
    , @anon
    The ludicrous "Hitler" card as inappropriate as the race card. Knew somebody would bring up Adolf and Munich......
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @peterAUS
    The article assumes that the North Korean regime is monolithic and all of their power elite support the current leadership.

    That is the unknown of some importance, IMHO.

    A deal could be cut with those who are willing to:
    Remove the current leadership.
    Remove nuclear threat to US (starting from Hawaii).

    Nobody really knows the reality there.
    But...looking at examples, from Yugoslavia to Syria, those regimes do look, from outside, monolithic and strong....push them a little and they unravel.

    The article doesn't touch that element of this game.
    It, simplistically, goes straight into big war between North Korea and US.

    Why not China supported coup in Pyongyang, for example.
    And some other options in between.

    A deal could be cut with those who are willing to:
    Remove the current leadership.
    Remove nuclear threat to US (starting from Hawaii).[...]

    The article doesn’t touch that element of this game.
    It, simplistically, goes straight into big war between North Korea and US.
    Why not China supported coup in Pyongyang, for example.
    And some other options in between.

    It’s worth reminding ourselves that President Trump’s original stance was that Kim Jong Un’s North Korea is a problem for China to deal with, but that the US was prepared to take on the task if China proved unable to do so.

    Since the US has not yet launched an attack, can we assume that Trump is still following that “hands off” strategy, even if it means that Kim is (so far) winning?

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Since the US has not yet launched an attack, can we assume that Trump is still following that “hands off” strategy, even if it means that Kim is (so far) winning?
     
    When dealing with a superpower "(so far) winning" isn't important.
    Plenty of examples where the opponent was (so far) winning and ended badly.

    As long as Kim doesn't have an ICBM warhead he can keep winning and US will keep its options open.

    The estimate is that Kim is a couple of years away from having that capability.

    So, in meantime Trump will definitely try all the available options save open attack on the regime there.
    From China sponsored coup through targeted assassination.......to (multiple tactical) nuclear strike.

    The KEY is that estimate.
    The estimate comes from the intelligence community.
    That community could have its own agendas when Trump is concerned.
    THAT could be a problem here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. bluedog says:
    @Hank Rearden
    MacArthur requested field commander's discretion to employ nuclear weapons 47 years ago. If only Truman hadn't cucked to the Pinkos who birthed the Little Rocket Man, who now deploys them against us.

    http://b-29s-over-korea.com/Why-Truman-Fired-General-MacArthur/images/Mac-portrait.jpg

    Yep and if they had stopped at the 38th as Ridgeway wanted to do instead of listening to MacArthur thousands of American lives would have been saved.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. peterAUS says:
    @englishmike

    A deal could be cut with those who are willing to:
    Remove the current leadership.
    Remove nuclear threat to US (starting from Hawaii).[...]

    The article doesn’t touch that element of this game.
    It, simplistically, goes straight into big war between North Korea and US.
    Why not China supported coup in Pyongyang, for example.
    And some other options in between.
     
    It's worth reminding ourselves that President Trump's original stance was that Kim Jong Un's North Korea is a problem for China to deal with, but that the US was prepared to take on the task if China proved unable to do so.

    Since the US has not yet launched an attack, can we assume that Trump is still following that "hands off" strategy, even if it means that Kim is (so far) winning?

    Since the US has not yet launched an attack, can we assume that Trump is still following that “hands off” strategy, even if it means that Kim is (so far) winning?

    When dealing with a superpower “(so far) winning” isn’t important.
    Plenty of examples where the opponent was (so far) winning and ended badly.

    As long as Kim doesn’t have an ICBM warhead he can keep winning and US will keep its options open.

    The estimate is that Kim is a couple of years away from having that capability.

    So, in meantime Trump will definitely try all the available options save open attack on the regime there.
    From China sponsored coup through targeted assassination…….to (multiple tactical) nuclear strike.

    The KEY is that estimate.
    The estimate comes from the intelligence community.
    That community could have its own agendas when Trump is concerned.
    THAT could be a problem here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @reiner Tor

    I suspect that the costs of an attack on NK, both military and diplomatic
     
    That’s possible, but it was no consolation to the tens of millions killed in the Second World War that Hitler’s goals were impracticable.

    I think the most important reason they don’t go for it is that they fear a military confrontation with China, and perhaps Russia. Especially because such a conflagration would either consume the globalist empire, or at least destroy any hopes of attacking Iran.

    But I’ve been thinking about why Trump started talking about North Korea during his first meeting with President Xi (instead of trade, which everyone assumed to be the topic). Immediately afterward he tweeted how he was pleased with Chinese cooperation against North Korea, and how as a result there was no need to start a trade war against them... I’m sure the North Korea problem was planted in his ears by people who wanted something else.

    **I’m sure the North Korea problem was planted in his ears by people who wanted something else.**

    http://www.businessinsider.com/elliott-managements-paul-singer-doesnt-care-what-you-think-2017-6

    “While Elliott says it is happy to work cooperatively when possible, this year it has been involved in four raucous shareholder activist campaigns on four continents. In addition to the U.S. battle with Arconic, it has taken on mining giant BHP Billiton in Australia, Samsung Electronics in South Korea, and Akzo Nobel in the Netherlands, which has been resisting a takeover by U.S. rival PPG Industries that Elliott supports. On May 9, Elliott said it had begun legal proceedings to try to oust Akzo chair Antony Burgmans for his refusal to entertain PPG’s offer. “

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @Simply Simon
    What kind of nuclear weapons Hank, nuclear or strategic? Neither type would have been needed to win the Korean War had MacArthur used his head and not gone as far north as the Yalu River in the dead of winter with troops not prepared for the bitter Korean winter. Mac did not learn a thing from the mistakes of Napoleon or Hitler who ventured to fight the Russians on their territory and in their winter. After the successful Wonson harbor landing he had the North Koreans on the run. Once past the capital city of Pyongyang, victory was already his. All he had to do was establish a defensive perimeter around that city and the badly defeated North Koreans would have had to sue for peace. They had no where else to go and ultimate starvation would have faced their troops. At the Yalu river the Chinese had no trouble crossing the frozen surface, attacked and slaughtered our ill-prepared troops who fought desperately to retreat with minimum losses in places like the Chosen Reservoir. We were chased all the way back to the 38th parallel and beyond Seoul. After bitter fighting a DMZ was established along the 38th parallel where we remain to this day. The final result is history unfolding as we see it today.

    To answer your question, whichever sort of nuclear armament he had requested to be released to theater command. I’d guess the Mark 4 model, carried by B-29 aircraft.

    I agree with your assessment that it was and act of hubris to forge ahead to the Yalu in the freezing cold. Your alternate history planing is excellent. But once we’re there at the Yalu, we’re there. When you’re facing a thousand screaming gooks is no time to pull punches. Light ‘em up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Are you the kid who stayed in your bedroom after school playing Avalon Hill war games while the rest of us were shooting hoops and stuff?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Randal says:
    @Anonymous
    "...he wants a U.S. withdrawal of all forces from South Korea and international aid."

    The Sudetenland is a small price to pay for peace in our time. Um, South Korea, I mean.

    “…he wants a U.S. withdrawal of all forces from South Korea and international aid.”

    The Sudetenland is a small price to pay for peace in our time. Um, South Korea, I mean.

    ROFL!

    The Hitler analogy descends from the merely silly to the outright ridiculous.

    Yes, “anonymous”, there’s almost no strategic difference between Adolf Hitler in charge of a resurgent superpower Germany dominant over Europe, still then the heart of world power, and little North Korea with its population in total the size of Shanghai’s and its annual struggle to feed its own people.

    Why, the US agreeing to stop harassing and menacing NK will obviously immediately be followed by the annexation of the whole of South Korea, and from there NK troops will be outside Washington within a couple of years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    South Korea has twice the population of North Korea. Its economy is at least forty times larger. It has a huge technological lead. It should be perfectly capable of defending itself. True, it has no nuclear weapons. But why would Kim want to conquer a pile of radioactive rubble? Had the USA left Korea say, twenty years ago, the issue of Nukes would never have happened.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Randal says:
    @reiner Tor

    I suspect that the costs of an attack on NK, both military and diplomatic
     
    That’s possible, but it was no consolation to the tens of millions killed in the Second World War that Hitler’s goals were impracticable.

    I think the most important reason they don’t go for it is that they fear a military confrontation with China, and perhaps Russia. Especially because such a conflagration would either consume the globalist empire, or at least destroy any hopes of attacking Iran.

    But I’ve been thinking about why Trump started talking about North Korea during his first meeting with President Xi (instead of trade, which everyone assumed to be the topic). Immediately afterward he tweeted how he was pleased with Chinese cooperation against North Korea, and how as a result there was no need to start a trade war against them... I’m sure the North Korea problem was planted in his ears by people who wanted something else.

    I think the most important reason they don’t go for it is that they fear a military confrontation with China, and perhaps Russia.

    Yes, the risk of this must be part of the costs side of their analysis, especially as China has recently repeated its insistence that it will intervene to support NK if the US initiates hostilities. Of course there are some around the US regime who seem to think a “limited” war with China now is desirable.

    Though the translation I saw seemed to leave open the possibility of allowing a US strike if NK continues with its progress towards a deterrent, perhaps leaving room for a dirty deal, or perhaps just trying to pressure the NKs into lowering the tension:

    “China should also make clear that if North Korea launches missiles that threaten U.S. soil first and the U.S. retaliates, China will stay neutral,” it added.

    I do not know how accurate the translation of the key term “threaten” is, though, so this might be incorrect.

    Especially because such a conflagration would either consume the globalist empire, or at least destroy any hopes of attacking Iran.

    Rurik above mentioned another reason why the Israel lobby might swing behind an attack on NK – fear of technology transfer from NK to Iran. But I think in this case it’s mostly just McCain propagandising for any and every war as usual. The technical issues Iran would face are not really those NK faces. In Iran the issue is not the missile tech, which they’ve already got to a level more than adequate to hit Israel, it would more be a matter of physically obtaining the warhead material. NK can already give that to them, in theory.

    Of course, it’s hard to know how much the supposed fear of imminent Iranian nukes claimed by Israel lobby types is real, and how much it is just propaganda to manipulate opinion towards the war they want. These people have lied so hard and for so long that it’s generally safest just to assume they are lying whenever they open their mouths.

    But I’ve been thinking about why Trump started talking about North Korea during his first meeting with President Xi (instead of trade, which everyone assumed to be the topic). Immediately afterward he tweeted how he was pleased with Chinese cooperation against North Korea, and how as a result there was no need to start a trade war against them… I’m sure the North Korea problem was planted in his ears by people who wanted something else.

    That’s a good observation and with probably some truth, though it is not the whole explanation imo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    with probably some truth, though it is not the whole explanation imo.
     
    There are many explanations, but only one of them involves Trump suddenly realizing that Kim was going to have a nuke pointed at his bedroom in the White House and hating the thought, and all this without the involvement of some lobbies or people with other goals in their minds.

    For example it's possible that the free trade crowd (those who make money on outsourcing to China) wanted to distract him and so told him that he shouldn't start a trade war with China, because look at the good work China has been doing to contain Kim. Since China obviously didn't manage to contain Kim, this still made Trump mad at China, but at least mad in a different way, where now the whole currency manipulation etc. package was a thing of the past, or at least totally negotiable. In that scenario, the free traders probably didn't much think about how the "mad" dictator could really be contained (or even what it would mean), so we got into a situation which Pat just described in the article: neither Kim, nor Trump can back down, because for Kim it would mean his almost certain premature death, while for Trump it'd mean a serious loss of face. Probably the people with knowledge of the North Korea situation were left out of the loop with Trump until Trump (being Trump) managed to ramp up the rhetoric to these unfortunate levels. I guess if you are a superpower with lobbies pushing your policies in one direction or another, it could be possible to be unwittingly pushed into a nuclear Mexican standoff situation without even realizing that's what you're getting into.

    But I wouldn't rule out the scenario I just wrote a couple comments above.

    I find the explanation you mentioned (NK as a source of weapons or technology for Iran) as particularly weak. The people believing it must be exceptionally stupid (well, talking about neocons, people like McCain and Bolton, anything is possible), because as you pointed out, Iran already has the technology both for missiles to reach Israel, and for building at least a gun design warhead, what it lacks is fissionable material. Since this material can easily be sourced to NK if Kim really was so stupid to sell it to Iran, it's highly unlikely Kim would sell it. Moreover, he needs the fissionable material just as badly himself. This is not something states normally sell to each other. It sounds more like a bogus reason to attack NK. (By the way the same reasoning was used against Iran recently, when it was claimed that Iran must've helped NK with missile and/or nuclear technology, according to some British intelligence sources. This contradicts the explanation that NK is dangerous because it'll help Iran. I guess you can say any claims contradicting each other, in the absence of a critical media people will swallow both statements whole, since nobody's a news nerd or nuclear weapon technology nerd the way we are, and so most people just vaguely remember that they read something bad about Iran in the context of North Korean nuclear weapons development, or vice versa, and just assume the stories must actually reinforce each other, when in fact they are contradictory.)

    In any event, I certainly wouldn't rule out a push for war (or hostility) against NK from totally unrelated lobbies.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Meh. No capability. Launching unguided SCUDS 2K miles straight up and then to bring it back to the Sea of Japan isn’t a capability. It’s a launch straight up, a splash straight down. Anyone, by the way, bother to calculate the damage this idiot could have done in the 1900 mile orbital altitude band with this missile? Not a word in the press, no outrage from NASA. Why? What about China? Was it coordinated with Chinese, Japanese, American and Russian space authorities so as to avoid collisions during this bullshit stunt? One wonders, was China appropriately notified so that some of HER orbital birds might have been allowed to sail by before the launch?NASA? What about the Space Station, that travels two or three hundred miles up depending on THEIR issues with collisions with other bodies. THIS is the ISSUE, not that “Korea can hit Washington”. I can hit the house across the street with a bottle rocket in Boston, so what? That doesn’t allow me bombing capability anywhere. The notion is simply, bullshit.

    Pat, you’re issuing red herrings. The other red-herring is the underground tests. I don’t believe them. What I believe is 5K tons of conventional dynamite set off in a deep hole. The megaton test I don’t believe at all, that entire valley would have collapsed and the region for thousands of miles in all directions would be RUINED.

    We’re going to find out one day, after thousands of lives and trillions or more dollars wasted (spent, put in the pockets of the American Jewish Defense Establishment), that the Norks had nothing, the signs they issued were only for show so we might fear to take them the way of Saddam and the rest. And after it’s figured out the war with the Norks was for naught, that our carriers got sunk for nothing, the only result, final analysis, will be that Seoul was immolated so the Jewish-Headed Defense Establishment here could get richer still. All those hundreds and hundreds of billions already banked and hundreds of thousands dead in the name of their profit. Not enough for Jews, we have to run it into more Trillions no matter how many Asian Goy die. Money. Follow the money. No Dollar-A-Year patriots there. Because there IS no America anymore.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    Meh. No capability.
     

    The other red-herring is the underground tests. I don’t believe them. What I believe is 5K tons of conventional dynamite set off in a deep hole. The megaton test I don’t believe at all,
     

    We’re going to find out one day, after thousands of lives and trillions or more dollars wasted (spent, put in the pockets of the American Jewish Defense Establishment), that the Norks had nothing
     

    that our carriers got sunk for nothing,
     

    and hundreds of thousands dead in the name of their profit. Not enough for Jews
     
    You are fuming Jim .I think you may have spittle on your keyboard . But let me recap your little soliloquy :
    Norks have no capability to accurately launch ICBMs , Norks have no capability to do underground nuke tests , Norks have no way to threaten us . However in a war we will nonetheless have hundreds of thousands of our own killed and also our aircraft carriers will be sunk by the Norks , the same Norks who cannot accurately launch ICBMs or bomb with precision accuracy .Oh yeah and its all the fault of Jews. Nice little UNZ special there !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Hank Rearden
    To answer your question, whichever sort of nuclear armament he had requested to be released to theater command. I'd guess the Mark 4 model, carried by B-29 aircraft.

    I agree with your assessment that it was and act of hubris to forge ahead to the Yalu in the freezing cold. Your alternate history planing is excellent. But once we're there at the Yalu, we're there. When you're facing a thousand screaming gooks is no time to pull punches. Light 'em up.

    http://grdurand.com/blogger/uploaded_images/get_off_my_lawn.jpg

    Are you the kid who stayed in your bedroom after school playing Avalon Hill war games while the rest of us were shooting hoops and stuff?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hank Rearden
    Never have played much computer games. Or sportsball either. Problem?

    “Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind."

    -TJ, Aug. 19, 1785
    http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/exercise
     
    His observation certainly holds true in your case.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Randal

    I think the most important reason they don’t go for it is that they fear a military confrontation with China, and perhaps Russia.
     
    Yes, the risk of this must be part of the costs side of their analysis, especially as China has recently repeated its insistence that it will intervene to support NK if the US initiates hostilities. Of course there are some around the US regime who seem to think a "limited" war with China now is desirable.

    Though the translation I saw seemed to leave open the possibility of allowing a US strike if NK continues with its progress towards a deterrent, perhaps leaving room for a dirty deal, or perhaps just trying to pressure the NKs into lowering the tension:

    "“China should also make clear that if North Korea launches missiles that threaten U.S. soil first and the U.S. retaliates, China will stay neutral,” it added. "

    I do not know how accurate the translation of the key term "threaten" is, though, so this might be incorrect.

    Especially because such a conflagration would either consume the globalist empire, or at least destroy any hopes of attacking Iran.
     
    Rurik above mentioned another reason why the Israel lobby might swing behind an attack on NK - fear of technology transfer from NK to Iran. But I think in this case it's mostly just McCain propagandising for any and every war as usual. The technical issues Iran would face are not really those NK faces. In Iran the issue is not the missile tech, which they've already got to a level more than adequate to hit Israel, it would more be a matter of physically obtaining the warhead material. NK can already give that to them, in theory.

    Of course, it's hard to know how much the supposed fear of imminent Iranian nukes claimed by Israel lobby types is real, and how much it is just propaganda to manipulate opinion towards the war they want. These people have lied so hard and for so long that it's generally safest just to assume they are lying whenever they open their mouths.

    But I’ve been thinking about why Trump started talking about North Korea during his first meeting with President Xi (instead of trade, which everyone assumed to be the topic). Immediately afterward he tweeted how he was pleased with Chinese cooperation against North Korea, and how as a result there was no need to start a trade war against them… I’m sure the North Korea problem was planted in his ears by people who wanted something else.
     
    That's a good observation and with probably some truth, though it is not the whole explanation imo.

    with probably some truth, though it is not the whole explanation imo.

    There are many explanations, but only one of them involves Trump suddenly realizing that Kim was going to have a nuke pointed at his bedroom in the White House and hating the thought, and all this without the involvement of some lobbies or people with other goals in their minds.

    For example it’s possible that the free trade crowd (those who make money on outsourcing to China) wanted to distract him and so told him that he shouldn’t start a trade war with China, because look at the good work China has been doing to contain Kim. Since China obviously didn’t manage to contain Kim, this still made Trump mad at China, but at least mad in a different way, where now the whole currency manipulation etc. package was a thing of the past, or at least totally negotiable. In that scenario, the free traders probably didn’t much think about how the “mad” dictator could really be contained (or even what it would mean), so we got into a situation which Pat just described in the article: neither Kim, nor Trump can back down, because for Kim it would mean his almost certain premature death, while for Trump it’d mean a serious loss of face. Probably the people with knowledge of the North Korea situation were left out of the loop with Trump until Trump (being Trump) managed to ramp up the rhetoric to these unfortunate levels. I guess if you are a superpower with lobbies pushing your policies in one direction or another, it could be possible to be unwittingly pushed into a nuclear Mexican standoff situation without even realizing that’s what you’re getting into.

    But I wouldn’t rule out the scenario I just wrote a couple comments above.

    I find the explanation you mentioned (NK as a source of weapons or technology for Iran) as particularly weak. The people believing it must be exceptionally stupid (well, talking about neocons, people like McCain and Bolton, anything is possible), because as you pointed out, Iran already has the technology both for missiles to reach Israel, and for building at least a gun design warhead, what it lacks is fissionable material. Since this material can easily be sourced to NK if Kim really was so stupid to sell it to Iran, it’s highly unlikely Kim would sell it. Moreover, he needs the fissionable material just as badly himself. This is not something states normally sell to each other. It sounds more like a bogus reason to attack NK. (By the way the same reasoning was used against Iran recently, when it was claimed that Iran must’ve helped NK with missile and/or nuclear technology, according to some British intelligence sources. This contradicts the explanation that NK is dangerous because it’ll help Iran. I guess you can say any claims contradicting each other, in the absence of a critical media people will swallow both statements whole, since nobody’s a news nerd or nuclear weapon technology nerd the way we are, and so most people just vaguely remember that they read something bad about Iran in the context of North Korean nuclear weapons development, or vice versa, and just assume the stories must actually reinforce each other, when in fact they are contradictory.)

    In any event, I certainly wouldn’t rule out a push for war (or hostility) against NK from totally unrelated lobbies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    only one of them involves Trump suddenly realizing that Kim was going to have a nuke pointed at his bedroom in the White House and hating the thought, and all this without the involvement of some lobbies or people with other goals in their minds.
     
    Well it's important to remember in connection with NK that, as always, US foreign policy stupidity/corruption is a bipartisan matter. The confrontation of NK didn't spring up with Trump's election out of nowhere. Under the Obama regime, John Kerry had pontificated that NK "would not be accepted as a nuclear power" and effectively dared it to launch more missile tests, B2s were flown menacingly over Korea and the gratuitous provocation of sanctioning Kim Jong Un was perpetrated in 2016:

    US sanctions North Korea's Kim Jong-un for the first time

    Trump certainly took things to a new level, but it was only really the logical continuation of a buildup of confrontation pursued by Obama (and going back to Bush II).

    None of which, of course, refutes your suggestion that, as always, there are likely to be all kinds of lobbies manipulating US policy towards confrontation.
    , @Rurik

    so most people just vaguely remember that they read something bad about Iran in the context of North Korean nuclear weapons development, or vice versa, and just assume the stories must actually reinforce each other, when in fact they are contradictory.)
     
    that seems rather convoluted for an Occam’s razor proponent.

    what I know, is that the US Senate and House and Pentagon and State Dept. and Dept. of Defense...

    and all the acronyms of Satan, like CFR and PNAC and AIPAC and all those Washington "think" tanks and lobbies on J Street and K Street...

    are all whores of Israel, and don't take a feculent breath that isn't rancid with an obsession for fealty to Israel.

    here, England too shows its prostrate obeisance

    http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/for-the-first-time-britain-opposes-un-resolution-on-syrian-golan/

    and shames itself in front of the International community as just another whore of Zion.

    so what that causes many of us to assume, is that if the whores of Zion (ZUS, UK, Paris, Berlin, etc...) are sabre rattling at some shit hole of a country, then there can only be one motivation for doing so.

    Just as everyone with a brain the size of a peanut and larger, by now knows that these whores of Zion have destroyed several nations in this nascent century in their abased, sniveling servile obeisance to all things Israel = genocide, torture, human rights atrocities, organ trafficking, land theft, war crimes, serial war mongering, human trafficking, support for ISIS, and just a cornucopia of evils. All laid at our collective door step here in the dying ((murdered)) West.

    that's what I know

    so when Bolton and the rest of the Zio-scum like David Frum and co. are all fulminating at N. Korea, then the only thing the rest of us can be certain about is that it has something to do with Israel.

    , @reiner Tor
    Here’s another example of how Iran is now invoked once again (alongside the only slightly less improbable China and Russia) to explain the leaps in the North Korean weapons development.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Randal says:
    @reiner Tor

    with probably some truth, though it is not the whole explanation imo.
     
    There are many explanations, but only one of them involves Trump suddenly realizing that Kim was going to have a nuke pointed at his bedroom in the White House and hating the thought, and all this without the involvement of some lobbies or people with other goals in their minds.

    For example it's possible that the free trade crowd (those who make money on outsourcing to China) wanted to distract him and so told him that he shouldn't start a trade war with China, because look at the good work China has been doing to contain Kim. Since China obviously didn't manage to contain Kim, this still made Trump mad at China, but at least mad in a different way, where now the whole currency manipulation etc. package was a thing of the past, or at least totally negotiable. In that scenario, the free traders probably didn't much think about how the "mad" dictator could really be contained (or even what it would mean), so we got into a situation which Pat just described in the article: neither Kim, nor Trump can back down, because for Kim it would mean his almost certain premature death, while for Trump it'd mean a serious loss of face. Probably the people with knowledge of the North Korea situation were left out of the loop with Trump until Trump (being Trump) managed to ramp up the rhetoric to these unfortunate levels. I guess if you are a superpower with lobbies pushing your policies in one direction or another, it could be possible to be unwittingly pushed into a nuclear Mexican standoff situation without even realizing that's what you're getting into.

    But I wouldn't rule out the scenario I just wrote a couple comments above.

    I find the explanation you mentioned (NK as a source of weapons or technology for Iran) as particularly weak. The people believing it must be exceptionally stupid (well, talking about neocons, people like McCain and Bolton, anything is possible), because as you pointed out, Iran already has the technology both for missiles to reach Israel, and for building at least a gun design warhead, what it lacks is fissionable material. Since this material can easily be sourced to NK if Kim really was so stupid to sell it to Iran, it's highly unlikely Kim would sell it. Moreover, he needs the fissionable material just as badly himself. This is not something states normally sell to each other. It sounds more like a bogus reason to attack NK. (By the way the same reasoning was used against Iran recently, when it was claimed that Iran must've helped NK with missile and/or nuclear technology, according to some British intelligence sources. This contradicts the explanation that NK is dangerous because it'll help Iran. I guess you can say any claims contradicting each other, in the absence of a critical media people will swallow both statements whole, since nobody's a news nerd or nuclear weapon technology nerd the way we are, and so most people just vaguely remember that they read something bad about Iran in the context of North Korean nuclear weapons development, or vice versa, and just assume the stories must actually reinforce each other, when in fact they are contradictory.)

    In any event, I certainly wouldn't rule out a push for war (or hostility) against NK from totally unrelated lobbies.

    only one of them involves Trump suddenly realizing that Kim was going to have a nuke pointed at his bedroom in the White House and hating the thought, and all this without the involvement of some lobbies or people with other goals in their minds.

    Well it’s important to remember in connection with NK that, as always, US foreign policy stupidity/corruption is a bipartisan matter. The confrontation of NK didn’t spring up with Trump’s election out of nowhere. Under the Obama regime, John Kerry had pontificated that NK “would not be accepted as a nuclear power” and effectively dared it to launch more missile tests, B2s were flown menacingly over Korea and the gratuitous provocation of sanctioning Kim Jong Un was perpetrated in 2016:

    US sanctions North Korea’s Kim Jong-un for the first time

    Trump certainly took things to a new level, but it was only really the logical continuation of a buildup of confrontation pursued by Obama (and going back to Bush II).

    None of which, of course, refutes your suggestion that, as always, there are likely to be all kinds of lobbies manipulating US policy towards confrontation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I am an avid inventor of (at least half-plausible) conspiracy theories, but I also readily discard them once I find a simpler (in the Occam’s razor sense) explanation.

    Probably you are right, this is just an example of the usual combination of imperial overreach and incompetence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Randal

    only one of them involves Trump suddenly realizing that Kim was going to have a nuke pointed at his bedroom in the White House and hating the thought, and all this without the involvement of some lobbies or people with other goals in their minds.
     
    Well it's important to remember in connection with NK that, as always, US foreign policy stupidity/corruption is a bipartisan matter. The confrontation of NK didn't spring up with Trump's election out of nowhere. Under the Obama regime, John Kerry had pontificated that NK "would not be accepted as a nuclear power" and effectively dared it to launch more missile tests, B2s were flown menacingly over Korea and the gratuitous provocation of sanctioning Kim Jong Un was perpetrated in 2016:

    US sanctions North Korea's Kim Jong-un for the first time

    Trump certainly took things to a new level, but it was only really the logical continuation of a buildup of confrontation pursued by Obama (and going back to Bush II).

    None of which, of course, refutes your suggestion that, as always, there are likely to be all kinds of lobbies manipulating US policy towards confrontation.

    I am an avid inventor of (at least half-plausible) conspiracy theories, but I also readily discard them once I find a simpler (in the Occam’s razor sense) explanation.

    Probably you are right, this is just an example of the usual combination of imperial overreach and incompetence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. KenH says:

    I wonder, would be be upset if Kim Jong Un threatened to fire nuclear missiles at Iran? More like Kim would be hailed by the (((neo-cons))) and be invited to visit Israel and break bread with Bibi as an honored guest. Trump might even invite him to Mar-a-Lago for some of that chocolate mousse that put Xi Jinping in our pocket.

    Kim Jong should turn himself into a Nork neo-con and this all goes away. Just learn to threaten nations that Israel doesn’t need or like and life gets easier.

    The American Knesset, er Congress, would be working up a billion dollar aid package for the Norks.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    • Replies: @anon
    Instead Lil Kim has aligned himself with the good guys. Humanitarian regimes that you are no doubt enamored with : Omar Bashir's Islamic Republic of Sudan . He is a nice guy. Only orchestrated one genocide that killed over a million and displaced another 800,000 in Darfur and another genocide that killed north off 2 million in South Sudan . But the guy hates Jews so lets overlook it !!!!!!!!!!!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Rurik says:
    @reiner Tor

    with probably some truth, though it is not the whole explanation imo.
     
    There are many explanations, but only one of them involves Trump suddenly realizing that Kim was going to have a nuke pointed at his bedroom in the White House and hating the thought, and all this without the involvement of some lobbies or people with other goals in their minds.

    For example it's possible that the free trade crowd (those who make money on outsourcing to China) wanted to distract him and so told him that he shouldn't start a trade war with China, because look at the good work China has been doing to contain Kim. Since China obviously didn't manage to contain Kim, this still made Trump mad at China, but at least mad in a different way, where now the whole currency manipulation etc. package was a thing of the past, or at least totally negotiable. In that scenario, the free traders probably didn't much think about how the "mad" dictator could really be contained (or even what it would mean), so we got into a situation which Pat just described in the article: neither Kim, nor Trump can back down, because for Kim it would mean his almost certain premature death, while for Trump it'd mean a serious loss of face. Probably the people with knowledge of the North Korea situation were left out of the loop with Trump until Trump (being Trump) managed to ramp up the rhetoric to these unfortunate levels. I guess if you are a superpower with lobbies pushing your policies in one direction or another, it could be possible to be unwittingly pushed into a nuclear Mexican standoff situation without even realizing that's what you're getting into.

    But I wouldn't rule out the scenario I just wrote a couple comments above.

    I find the explanation you mentioned (NK as a source of weapons or technology for Iran) as particularly weak. The people believing it must be exceptionally stupid (well, talking about neocons, people like McCain and Bolton, anything is possible), because as you pointed out, Iran already has the technology both for missiles to reach Israel, and for building at least a gun design warhead, what it lacks is fissionable material. Since this material can easily be sourced to NK if Kim really was so stupid to sell it to Iran, it's highly unlikely Kim would sell it. Moreover, he needs the fissionable material just as badly himself. This is not something states normally sell to each other. It sounds more like a bogus reason to attack NK. (By the way the same reasoning was used against Iran recently, when it was claimed that Iran must've helped NK with missile and/or nuclear technology, according to some British intelligence sources. This contradicts the explanation that NK is dangerous because it'll help Iran. I guess you can say any claims contradicting each other, in the absence of a critical media people will swallow both statements whole, since nobody's a news nerd or nuclear weapon technology nerd the way we are, and so most people just vaguely remember that they read something bad about Iran in the context of North Korean nuclear weapons development, or vice versa, and just assume the stories must actually reinforce each other, when in fact they are contradictory.)

    In any event, I certainly wouldn't rule out a push for war (or hostility) against NK from totally unrelated lobbies.

    so most people just vaguely remember that they read something bad about Iran in the context of North Korean nuclear weapons development, or vice versa, and just assume the stories must actually reinforce each other, when in fact they are contradictory.)

    that seems rather convoluted for an Occam’s razor proponent.

    what I know, is that the US Senate and House and Pentagon and State Dept. and Dept. of Defense…

    and all the acronyms of Satan, like CFR and PNAC and AIPAC and all those Washington “think” tanks and lobbies on J Street and K Street…

    are all whores of Israel, and don’t take a feculent breath that isn’t rancid with an obsession for fealty to Israel.

    here, England too shows its prostrate obeisance

    http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/for-the-first-time-britain-opposes-un-resolution-on-syrian-golan/

    and shames itself in front of the International community as just another whore of Zion.

    so what that causes many of us to assume, is that if the whores of Zion (ZUS, UK, Paris, Berlin, etc…) are sabre rattling at some shit hole of a country, then there can only be one motivation for doing so.

    Just as everyone with a brain the size of a peanut and larger, by now knows that these whores of Zion have destroyed several nations in this nascent century in their abased, sniveling servile obeisance to all things Israel = genocide, torture, human rights atrocities, organ trafficking, land theft, war crimes, serial war mongering, human trafficking, support for ISIS, and just a cornucopia of evils. All laid at our collective door step here in the dying ((murdered)) West.

    that’s what I know

    so when Bolton and the rest of the Zio-scum like David Frum and co. are all fulminating at N. Korea, then the only thing the rest of us can be certain about is that it has something to do with Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @englishmike

    here, England too shows its prostrate obeisance
    http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/for-the-first-time-britain-opposes-un-resolution-on-syrian-golan/
    and shames itself in front of the International community....
     
    Depends what you mean by "England".

    For the first time, Britain opposes UN resolution...

    The British delegate voted no...
     
    How does England have any say in the matter?

    How does "America"?
    , @anon

    by now knows that these whores of Zion have destroyed several nations in this nascent century in their abased, sniveling servile obeisance to all things Israel = genocide,
     
    Nigerian occupation of Biafra : 2 million plus killed
    Sudanese civil war : 2 million plus killed
    Sudanese occupation of Darfur : 1 million plus killed
    Indonesian occupation of Papua : 500,000 + killed
    Alawite occupation of Syria : 400,000 plus killed
    Russian occupation of Chechnya : 150,000 + killed
    Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara : 40,000 + killed
    Israel /Palestinian conflict : 22,000 killed

    torture, human rights atrocities
     
    Janjawee rape militia in Sudan . 20 year prison sentence for wearing Papua flag in Indonesia occupied Papua . Illegal and punishable by death penalty to convert from Islam to Christianity in :
    Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen . Death penalty for homosexuality : Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Cyrano says:

    If Kim Jong Un is a little rocket man, then who is Trump? Major Tom? In which case somebody should tell him that planet earth is blue and there is nothing he can do, except maybe in his stupidity – destroy it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Tom

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. @Priss Factor
    Another time.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZQzRBO1s6s

    “…and Sam Donaldson leapt the length of his chain.”

    And some people say Pat’s not funny.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @anonymous
    Are you the kid who stayed in your bedroom after school playing Avalon Hill war games while the rest of us were shooting hoops and stuff?

    Never have played much computer games. Or sportsball either. Problem?

    “Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind.

    -TJ, Aug. 19, 1785
    http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/exercise

    His observation certainly holds true in your case.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Generally Pat is right. Previous US and NATO (NATO is no more than a fig leaf of the US, of course) actions showed everyone very clearly that WMDs are the only insurance against “democratic” carpet bombing and regime change. Un learned his lesson, he won’t repeat the mistakes of Saddam or Gaddafi.
    However, let me add a few vignettes. First, Un is at home, whereas the US forces are thousands of miles from the US. Second, neither Un, nor his father, nor grandfather ever sent their warships to the US shores, whereas the US constantly sends its warships to Korea. Third, North Korea is not guilty of any aggression since 1953, whereas the US during this period attacked many countries, in most cases in blatant violation of the international law.
    Yes, both Un and Trump engage in typical kindergarten talk unworthy of leaders of any country. This is the only area where they are at the same level, and there is no reason to be proud of that level.
    So, all things considered, the US should stand down and stop its provocations if it wants any kind of agreement with the NK. Pat is right, this agreement will never include Un giving up his nukes (barring an unrealistic scenario where the US gives up its nukes).

    Read More
    • Replies: @DB Cooper
    Kindergarten talk is hardly unique to Trump. In fact America international politics always have a juvenile high school feel to it that plays well to a gullible and clueless American public.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. DB Cooper says:
    @Anon
    Generally Pat is right. Previous US and NATO (NATO is no more than a fig leaf of the US, of course) actions showed everyone very clearly that WMDs are the only insurance against “democratic” carpet bombing and regime change. Un learned his lesson, he won’t repeat the mistakes of Saddam or Gaddafi.
    However, let me add a few vignettes. First, Un is at home, whereas the US forces are thousands of miles from the US. Second, neither Un, nor his father, nor grandfather ever sent their warships to the US shores, whereas the US constantly sends its warships to Korea. Third, North Korea is not guilty of any aggression since 1953, whereas the US during this period attacked many countries, in most cases in blatant violation of the international law.
    Yes, both Un and Trump engage in typical kindergarten talk unworthy of leaders of any country. This is the only area where they are at the same level, and there is no reason to be proud of that level.
    So, all things considered, the US should stand down and stop its provocations if it wants any kind of agreement with the NK. Pat is right, this agreement will never include Un giving up his nukes (barring an unrealistic scenario where the US gives up its nukes).

    Kindergarten talk is hardly unique to Trump. In fact America international politics always have a juvenile high school feel to it that plays well to a gullible and clueless American public.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Technomad says:

    We can shut Kim down any time we want. All it takes is one call to Xi Jinping: “Listen, shit-for-brains, and listen well. If you don’t get that nasty little troll in Korea under control, preferably in a deep dark hole, and get someone in charge there who’s at least sane and knows his place, we, the US, will repudiate all public and private debt to China, and slap 5000% tariffs on all the crappy cheap stuff you sell us. Doubt my word? Try me!”

    The Chinese like their Wirtschaftswunder, and their support for the Kims is mostly habit and sentiment. If they get confronted with the option of losing Kim or having their entire economy collapse, Kim will be off to that big nuthouse far down below, where he can make a fourth at bridge with Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, and their master the Devil.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Why doesn’t the USA just withdraw from South Korea altogether? Isn’t 67 years long enough? Why should North Korea be any more of a problem or issue to America then it is to Mexico? Or any other country in the Americas? Why does the American government always go looking for trouble abroad?

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Why does the American government always go looking for trouble abroad?
     
    Because it's an excellent way of distracting attention from domestic problems that the government does not want to deal with.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Hank Rearden
    MacArthur requested field commander's discretion to employ nuclear weapons 47 years ago. If only Truman hadn't cucked to the Pinkos who birthed the Little Rocket Man, who now deploys them against us.

    http://b-29s-over-korea.com/Why-Truman-Fired-General-MacArthur/images/Mac-portrait.jpg

    Your boy Mac utterly and 100% assured Truman that there would never be any Chinese intervention in Korea. He was completely wrong on this and many other things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hank Rearden
    Why would you omit the fact that the State Dept. and the CIA said the Chinese wouldn't attack?

    Confident people in the US State Department, Dean Rusk among them, believed that the Chinese would not dare attack US forces in Korea. Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, believed it was a bluff and was concerned that a greater risk would arise if the US showed any "hesitation or timidity." A report by the Central Intelligence Agency dated 28 September 1950 held that China had missed its opportunity to intervene. http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch24kor4.htm
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Jus' Sayin'...
    Thank God for Pat Buchanan. However, there is another alternative besides those Mr. Buchanan suggests.

    The US could renounce the Zionist/neocon dream of becoming the ruler* of the first world-wide imperium. We could begin this process in the Far East by announcing that we are acceding to China its rightful place as a regional superpower and withdrawing all our military resources to our region, somewhere to the East of Wake Island. Part of this process should be ending our SEATO treaty obligations and liberating our colonies of Guam and various other Far East locations. At that point, the Korean peninsula would become entirely China's problem. Countries in the region concerned about Chinese overreach, e.g., Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand,India, would also be forced to develop their own militaries and defensive alliances.

    As a result, a significant portion of the US military budget would no longer be necessary and could be put to better use, e.g., reducing the national debt or rebuilding infrastructure. Continuing this process of disengagement in other parts of the world, e.g., central Asia, the Near East, the Balkans, the Baltic, Europe generally, and Africa, would further advantage the US. Eliminating costly and dangerous foreign entanglements and releasing further funds for domestic spending.

    Ultimately, the US could become what the Founding Fathers and later great leaders like John Quincy Adams, saw as our destiny: a non-aligned, democratic, constitutional republic, serving as a beacon of hope for the rest of humanity.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    *An imperial power, BTW, whose primary function would be, as it is now, be spend its blood and treasure protecting Israel from the consequences of that country's constant violations of international law.

    Or the USA could finally get the “peace dividend” that was supposed to be cashed in after the USSR collapsed over a quarter century ago.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    "...he wants a U.S. withdrawal of all forces from South Korea and international aid."

    The Sudetenland is a small price to pay for peace in our time. Um, South Korea, I mean.

    The ludicrous “Hitler” card as inappropriate as the race card. Knew somebody would bring up Adolf and Munich……

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Randal

    “…he wants a U.S. withdrawal of all forces from South Korea and international aid.”

    The Sudetenland is a small price to pay for peace in our time. Um, South Korea, I mean.
     
    ROFL!

    The Hitler analogy descends from the merely silly to the outright ridiculous.

    Yes, "anonymous", there's almost no strategic difference between Adolf Hitler in charge of a resurgent superpower Germany dominant over Europe, still then the heart of world power, and little North Korea with its population in total the size of Shanghai's and its annual struggle to feed its own people.

    Why, the US agreeing to stop harassing and menacing NK will obviously immediately be followed by the annexation of the whole of South Korea, and from there NK troops will be outside Washington within a couple of years.

    South Korea has twice the population of North Korea. Its economy is at least forty times larger. It has a huge technological lead. It should be perfectly capable of defending itself. True, it has no nuclear weapons. But why would Kim want to conquer a pile of radioactive rubble? Had the USA left Korea say, twenty years ago, the issue of Nukes would never have happened.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. dfordoom says: • Website
    @anon
    Why doesn't the USA just withdraw from South Korea altogether? Isn't 67 years long enough? Why should North Korea be any more of a problem or issue to America then it is to Mexico? Or any other country in the Americas? Why does the American government always go looking for trouble abroad?

    Why does the American government always go looking for trouble abroad?

    Because it’s an excellent way of distracting attention from domestic problems that the government does not want to deal with.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Paul C. says:

    The little man is a Freemason. There’s many pictures of him with his hidden hand in jacket. Therefore, it’s all a show. He’s in on the script, playing a part. Perhaps to keep a boogeyman out there for the MIC or to distract the masses (in the US and West) with a test rocket when “true” news is getting out. The point is, he’s not pulling the strings, which is the case worldwide as all governments are controlled by the cabal. The same folks who control every country’s currency and create money out of thin air. All nations are in debt but no one seems to know why. It’s like every NFL team having a losing record. It’s impossible. Unless you have private bankers stealing from each country, which is what we have. Not only theft, but 100% control. Think of every puppet world leader like Merkel flashing her masonic hand sign in EVERY photo. Think Macron, Cameron, Blair, Bush, Obama and virtually all leaders with a few exceptions, like Viktor Orban of Hungary. Trump is a mason too. That’s how his father became successful in real estate in NY and that’s the game Donald had to play too, to get access to all the capital needed. Hopefully, Trump is playing the game while still trying to do right by the country, His record thus far is mixed.

    Could N. Korea be sacrificed by the Luciferian elites, double crossing the little man? Absolutely. As long as they can get a World War out of it. Meaning, a lot of death. Otherwise the little man is of more value as a prop.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    The same folks who control every country’s currency and create money out of thin air. All nations are in debt but no one seems to know why. It’s like every NFL team having a losing record. It’s impossible. Unless you have private bankers stealing from each country, which is what we have. Not only theft, but 100% control.
     
    https://media.giphy.com/media/ienGOn91JnzIk/giphy.gif
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Rurik says:
    @Paul C.
    The little man is a Freemason. There's many pictures of him with his hidden hand in jacket. Therefore, it's all a show. He's in on the script, playing a part. Perhaps to keep a boogeyman out there for the MIC or to distract the masses (in the US and West) with a test rocket when "true" news is getting out. The point is, he's not pulling the strings, which is the case worldwide as all governments are controlled by the cabal. The same folks who control every country's currency and create money out of thin air. All nations are in debt but no one seems to know why. It's like every NFL team having a losing record. It's impossible. Unless you have private bankers stealing from each country, which is what we have. Not only theft, but 100% control. Think of every puppet world leader like Merkel flashing her masonic hand sign in EVERY photo. Think Macron, Cameron, Blair, Bush, Obama and virtually all leaders with a few exceptions, like Viktor Orban of Hungary. Trump is a mason too. That's how his father became successful in real estate in NY and that's the game Donald had to play too, to get access to all the capital needed. Hopefully, Trump is playing the game while still trying to do right by the country, His record thus far is mixed.

    Could N. Korea be sacrificed by the Luciferian elites, double crossing the little man? Absolutely. As long as they can get a World War out of it. Meaning, a lot of death. Otherwise the little man is of more value as a prop.

    The same folks who control every country’s currency and create money out of thin air. All nations are in debt but no one seems to know why. It’s like every NFL team having a losing record. It’s impossible. Unless you have private bankers stealing from each country, which is what we have. Not only theft, but 100% control.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul C.
    That's a perfect clip.

    Keep the masses distracted. Keep them fighting with each other. Don't let them ponder who makes up the Federal Reserve. Don't let them consider that private banking families have the right to create our currency and charge the gov't and Americans interest. We've all gone mad. There's no other way to explain it. And there's zero oversight into our shadowy rulers. We're sheep left for slaughter, in need of divine intervention.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @Rurik

    so most people just vaguely remember that they read something bad about Iran in the context of North Korean nuclear weapons development, or vice versa, and just assume the stories must actually reinforce each other, when in fact they are contradictory.)
     
    that seems rather convoluted for an Occam’s razor proponent.

    what I know, is that the US Senate and House and Pentagon and State Dept. and Dept. of Defense...

    and all the acronyms of Satan, like CFR and PNAC and AIPAC and all those Washington "think" tanks and lobbies on J Street and K Street...

    are all whores of Israel, and don't take a feculent breath that isn't rancid with an obsession for fealty to Israel.

    here, England too shows its prostrate obeisance

    http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/for-the-first-time-britain-opposes-un-resolution-on-syrian-golan/

    and shames itself in front of the International community as just another whore of Zion.

    so what that causes many of us to assume, is that if the whores of Zion (ZUS, UK, Paris, Berlin, etc...) are sabre rattling at some shit hole of a country, then there can only be one motivation for doing so.

    Just as everyone with a brain the size of a peanut and larger, by now knows that these whores of Zion have destroyed several nations in this nascent century in their abased, sniveling servile obeisance to all things Israel = genocide, torture, human rights atrocities, organ trafficking, land theft, war crimes, serial war mongering, human trafficking, support for ISIS, and just a cornucopia of evils. All laid at our collective door step here in the dying ((murdered)) West.

    that's what I know

    so when Bolton and the rest of the Zio-scum like David Frum and co. are all fulminating at N. Korea, then the only thing the rest of us can be certain about is that it has something to do with Israel.

    here, England too shows its prostrate obeisance

    http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/for-the-first-time-britain-opposes-un-resolution-on-syrian-golan/

    and shames itself in front of the International community….

    Depends what you mean by “England”.

    For the first time, Britain opposes UN resolution…

    The British delegate voted no…

    How does England have any say in the matter?

    How does “America”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Rurik says:

    Depends what you mean by “England”.

    well I don’t mean the Irish, or even the English (or British) people

    but rather the pedophile peerage and assorted scum (Toady Blair, etc..) in charge of destroying every semblance of British (and English) culture and ethnicity in the UK (and beyond) while using the last drops of British influence to buttress and bolster a racial-supremacist, genocidal regime (who, UNLIKE Nazi Germany, actually are!) hell bent on crushing the world’s people under a Zio/Orwellian jackboot.

    hope that clears that up

    How does England have any say in the matter?

    How does “America”?

    well, before England dashed its empire (and the future of its citizens) upon the rocks of butt-hurt fratricidal insanity that was WWII, England was a major power, and had tones of influence in the world. That’s why the Zio-scum went to them with the devil’s deal call the Balfour Declaration.

    So that England (with the treachery and help of others) could stomp a nascent Germany into the ground before it had a chance to threaten England’s supremacy of the empire where ‘the sun never sets’.

    their terrible folly is the world’s regret today.

    and set the stage for what we’re facing now. A Western world completely dominated by the ((International banking cabal)), that funded Bolshevism in the first place and (with England’s help) caused the slaughter of 60+ million souls- so that England could import Pakistani rape gangs to enslave their school girls as chattel.

    that’s why England and America have a say in the matter. Because we are ruled absolutely from Tel Aviv, ((London)) and ((New York City)).

    [btw, thanks for that ~ Merry Olde']

    (and the Palestinians no doubt ‘thank’ you too ; )

    - ya know, sometimes I wonder if the British people are sooo enamored of their “moral superiority” over Germans, that they’re willing to see every last bastion of English culture and heritage and tradition, including of course English ethnicity, demonized and trodden under in their abased race to prove that they’re not “racists”. [like those other, bad people, the Nazis!]

    sometimes I wonder if the only thing that buoys the British soul these days, is looking across the pond and consoling themselves, ‘well, at least we’re not ‘racists’ and ‘homophobic’, like those hackneyed bumpkins that voted for Trump! We let everyone rape our school girls and little boys!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. @reiner Tor

    with probably some truth, though it is not the whole explanation imo.
     
    There are many explanations, but only one of them involves Trump suddenly realizing that Kim was going to have a nuke pointed at his bedroom in the White House and hating the thought, and all this without the involvement of some lobbies or people with other goals in their minds.

    For example it's possible that the free trade crowd (those who make money on outsourcing to China) wanted to distract him and so told him that he shouldn't start a trade war with China, because look at the good work China has been doing to contain Kim. Since China obviously didn't manage to contain Kim, this still made Trump mad at China, but at least mad in a different way, where now the whole currency manipulation etc. package was a thing of the past, or at least totally negotiable. In that scenario, the free traders probably didn't much think about how the "mad" dictator could really be contained (or even what it would mean), so we got into a situation which Pat just described in the article: neither Kim, nor Trump can back down, because for Kim it would mean his almost certain premature death, while for Trump it'd mean a serious loss of face. Probably the people with knowledge of the North Korea situation were left out of the loop with Trump until Trump (being Trump) managed to ramp up the rhetoric to these unfortunate levels. I guess if you are a superpower with lobbies pushing your policies in one direction or another, it could be possible to be unwittingly pushed into a nuclear Mexican standoff situation without even realizing that's what you're getting into.

    But I wouldn't rule out the scenario I just wrote a couple comments above.

    I find the explanation you mentioned (NK as a source of weapons or technology for Iran) as particularly weak. The people believing it must be exceptionally stupid (well, talking about neocons, people like McCain and Bolton, anything is possible), because as you pointed out, Iran already has the technology both for missiles to reach Israel, and for building at least a gun design warhead, what it lacks is fissionable material. Since this material can easily be sourced to NK if Kim really was so stupid to sell it to Iran, it's highly unlikely Kim would sell it. Moreover, he needs the fissionable material just as badly himself. This is not something states normally sell to each other. It sounds more like a bogus reason to attack NK. (By the way the same reasoning was used against Iran recently, when it was claimed that Iran must've helped NK with missile and/or nuclear technology, according to some British intelligence sources. This contradicts the explanation that NK is dangerous because it'll help Iran. I guess you can say any claims contradicting each other, in the absence of a critical media people will swallow both statements whole, since nobody's a news nerd or nuclear weapon technology nerd the way we are, and so most people just vaguely remember that they read something bad about Iran in the context of North Korean nuclear weapons development, or vice versa, and just assume the stories must actually reinforce each other, when in fact they are contradictory.)

    In any event, I certainly wouldn't rule out a push for war (or hostility) against NK from totally unrelated lobbies.

    Here’s another example of how Iran is now invoked once again (alongside the only slightly less improbable China and Russia) to explain the leaps in the North Korean weapons development.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @anon
    Your boy Mac utterly and 100% assured Truman that there would never be any Chinese intervention in Korea. He was completely wrong on this and many other things.

    Why would you omit the fact that the State Dept. and the CIA said the Chinese wouldn’t attack?

    Confident people in the US State Department, Dean Rusk among them, believed that the Chinese would not dare attack US forces in Korea. Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, believed it was a bluff and was concerned that a greater risk would arise if the US showed any “hesitation or timidity.” A report by the Central Intelligence Agency dated 28 September 1950 held that China had missed its opportunity to intervene. http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch24kor4.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    It was MacArthur who insisted on pressing on beyond the 38 line. A disastrous decision made by a narcissist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Anonym says:

    Initially, he wants a halt to U.S.-South Korean military exercises, which he sees as a potential prelude to a surprise attack. He wants an end to sanctions, U.S. recognition of his regime, and acceptance of his status as a nuclear weapons state. Down the road, he wants a U.S. withdrawal of all forces from South Korea and international aid.

    What would be the advantage to the US in conceding any of this? The way I see it, if NK nukes something, they will be nuked into oblivion. If they don’t, they can bluster all they want, a war is unlikely. So status quo likely to prevail.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    What would be the advantage to the US?

    Hasn't it cost a fortune to keep tens of thousands of troops in South Korea for 67 years? Plus all their equipment? Wouldn't the US taxpayer get a break if all those troops were brought home? They could be demobilized or at least put on the Mexican border to be used against drug cartels, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Hank Rearden
    Why would you omit the fact that the State Dept. and the CIA said the Chinese wouldn't attack?

    Confident people in the US State Department, Dean Rusk among them, believed that the Chinese would not dare attack US forces in Korea. Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, believed it was a bluff and was concerned that a greater risk would arise if the US showed any "hesitation or timidity." A report by the Central Intelligence Agency dated 28 September 1950 held that China had missed its opportunity to intervene. http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch24kor4.htm
     

    It was MacArthur who insisted on pressing on beyond the 38 line. A disastrous decision made by a narcissist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonym
    Initially, he wants a halt to U.S.-South Korean military exercises, which he sees as a potential prelude to a surprise attack. He wants an end to sanctions, U.S. recognition of his regime, and acceptance of his status as a nuclear weapons state. Down the road, he wants a U.S. withdrawal of all forces from South Korea and international aid.

    What would be the advantage to the US in conceding any of this? The way I see it, if NK nukes something, they will be nuked into oblivion. If they don't, they can bluster all they want, a war is unlikely. So status quo likely to prevail.

    What would be the advantage to the US?

    Hasn’t it cost a fortune to keep tens of thousands of troops in South Korea for 67 years? Plus all their equipment? Wouldn’t the US taxpayer get a break if all those troops were brought home? They could be demobilized or at least put on the Mexican border to be used against drug cartels, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    Since when are these decisions made with regard to benefit to the US taxpayer and not the MIC?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Jim Christian
    Meh. No capability. Launching unguided SCUDS 2K miles straight up and then to bring it back to the Sea of Japan isn't a capability. It's a launch straight up, a splash straight down. Anyone, by the way, bother to calculate the damage this idiot could have done in the 1900 mile orbital altitude band with this missile? Not a word in the press, no outrage from NASA. Why? What about China? Was it coordinated with Chinese, Japanese, American and Russian space authorities so as to avoid collisions during this bullshit stunt? One wonders, was China appropriately notified so that some of HER orbital birds might have been allowed to sail by before the launch?NASA? What about the Space Station, that travels two or three hundred miles up depending on THEIR issues with collisions with other bodies. THIS is the ISSUE, not that "Korea can hit Washington". I can hit the house across the street with a bottle rocket in Boston, so what? That doesn't allow me bombing capability anywhere. The notion is simply, bullshit.

    Pat, you're issuing red herrings. The other red-herring is the underground tests. I don't believe them. What I believe is 5K tons of conventional dynamite set off in a deep hole. The megaton test I don't believe at all, that entire valley would have collapsed and the region for thousands of miles in all directions would be RUINED.

    We're going to find out one day, after thousands of lives and trillions or more dollars wasted (spent, put in the pockets of the American Jewish Defense Establishment), that the Norks had nothing, the signs they issued were only for show so we might fear to take them the way of Saddam and the rest. And after it's figured out the war with the Norks was for naught, that our carriers got sunk for nothing, the only result, final analysis, will be that Seoul was immolated so the Jewish-Headed Defense Establishment here could get richer still. All those hundreds and hundreds of billions already banked and hundreds of thousands dead in the name of their profit. Not enough for Jews, we have to run it into more Trillions no matter how many Asian Goy die. Money. Follow the money. No Dollar-A-Year patriots there. Because there IS no America anymore.

    Meh. No capability.

    The other red-herring is the underground tests. I don’t believe them. What I believe is 5K tons of conventional dynamite set off in a deep hole. The megaton test I don’t believe at all,

    We’re going to find out one day, after thousands of lives and trillions or more dollars wasted (spent, put in the pockets of the American Jewish Defense Establishment), that the Norks had nothing

    that our carriers got sunk for nothing,

    and hundreds of thousands dead in the name of their profit. Not enough for Jews

    You are fuming Jim .I think you may have spittle on your keyboard . But let me recap your little soliloquy :
    Norks have no capability to accurately launch ICBMs , Norks have no capability to do underground nuke tests , Norks have no way to threaten us . However in a war we will nonetheless have hundreds of thousands of our own killed and also our aircraft carriers will be sunk by the Norks , the same Norks who cannot accurately launch ICBMs or bomb with precision accuracy .Oh yeah and its all the fault of Jews. Nice little UNZ special there !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @KenH
    I wonder, would be be upset if Kim Jong Un threatened to fire nuclear missiles at Iran? More like Kim would be hailed by the (((neo-cons))) and be invited to visit Israel and break bread with Bibi as an honored guest. Trump might even invite him to Mar-a-Lago for some of that chocolate mousse that put Xi Jinping in our pocket.

    Kim Jong should turn himself into a Nork neo-con and this all goes away. Just learn to threaten nations that Israel doesn't need or like and life gets easier.

    The American Knesset, er Congress, would be working up a billion dollar aid package for the Norks.

    Instead Lil Kim has aligned himself with the good guys. Humanitarian regimes that you are no doubt enamored with : Omar Bashir’s Islamic Republic of Sudan . He is a nice guy. Only orchestrated one genocide that killed over a million and displaced another 800,000 in Darfur and another genocide that killed north off 2 million in South Sudan . But the guy hates Jews so lets overlook it !!!!!!!!!!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Rurik

    so most people just vaguely remember that they read something bad about Iran in the context of North Korean nuclear weapons development, or vice versa, and just assume the stories must actually reinforce each other, when in fact they are contradictory.)
     
    that seems rather convoluted for an Occam’s razor proponent.

    what I know, is that the US Senate and House and Pentagon and State Dept. and Dept. of Defense...

    and all the acronyms of Satan, like CFR and PNAC and AIPAC and all those Washington "think" tanks and lobbies on J Street and K Street...

    are all whores of Israel, and don't take a feculent breath that isn't rancid with an obsession for fealty to Israel.

    here, England too shows its prostrate obeisance

    http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/for-the-first-time-britain-opposes-un-resolution-on-syrian-golan/

    and shames itself in front of the International community as just another whore of Zion.

    so what that causes many of us to assume, is that if the whores of Zion (ZUS, UK, Paris, Berlin, etc...) are sabre rattling at some shit hole of a country, then there can only be one motivation for doing so.

    Just as everyone with a brain the size of a peanut and larger, by now knows that these whores of Zion have destroyed several nations in this nascent century in their abased, sniveling servile obeisance to all things Israel = genocide, torture, human rights atrocities, organ trafficking, land theft, war crimes, serial war mongering, human trafficking, support for ISIS, and just a cornucopia of evils. All laid at our collective door step here in the dying ((murdered)) West.

    that's what I know

    so when Bolton and the rest of the Zio-scum like David Frum and co. are all fulminating at N. Korea, then the only thing the rest of us can be certain about is that it has something to do with Israel.

    by now knows that these whores of Zion have destroyed several nations in this nascent century in their abased, sniveling servile obeisance to all things Israel = genocide,

    Nigerian occupation of Biafra : 2 million plus killed
    Sudanese civil war : 2 million plus killed
    Sudanese occupation of Darfur : 1 million plus killed
    Indonesian occupation of Papua : 500,000 + killed
    Alawite occupation of Syria : 400,000 plus killed
    Russian occupation of Chechnya : 150,000 + killed
    Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara : 40,000 + killed
    Israel /Palestinian conflict : 22,000 killed

    torture, human rights atrocities

    Janjawee rape militia in Sudan . 20 year prison sentence for wearing Papua flag in Indonesia occupied Papua . Illegal and punishable by death penalty to convert from Islam to Christianity in :
    Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen . Death penalty for homosexuality : Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Anonym says:
    @anon
    What would be the advantage to the US?

    Hasn't it cost a fortune to keep tens of thousands of troops in South Korea for 67 years? Plus all their equipment? Wouldn't the US taxpayer get a break if all those troops were brought home? They could be demobilized or at least put on the Mexican border to be used against drug cartels, etc.

    Since when are these decisions made with regard to benefit to the US taxpayer and not the MIC?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Paul C. says:
    @Rurik

    The same folks who control every country’s currency and create money out of thin air. All nations are in debt but no one seems to know why. It’s like every NFL team having a losing record. It’s impossible. Unless you have private bankers stealing from each country, which is what we have. Not only theft, but 100% control.
     
    https://media.giphy.com/media/ienGOn91JnzIk/giphy.gif

    That’s a perfect clip.

    Keep the masses distracted. Keep them fighting with each other. Don’t let them ponder who makes up the Federal Reserve. Don’t let them consider that private banking families have the right to create our currency and charge the gov’t and Americans interest. We’ve all gone mad. There’s no other way to explain it. And there’s zero oversight into our shadowy rulers. We’re sheep left for slaughter, in need of divine intervention.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    all too true Paul

    all too true
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Rurik says:
    @Paul C.
    That's a perfect clip.

    Keep the masses distracted. Keep them fighting with each other. Don't let them ponder who makes up the Federal Reserve. Don't let them consider that private banking families have the right to create our currency and charge the gov't and Americans interest. We've all gone mad. There's no other way to explain it. And there's zero oversight into our shadowy rulers. We're sheep left for slaughter, in need of divine intervention.

    all too true Paul

    all too true

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?