[kenberg]

As I have often noted, hardly originally, the history of the world is replete with violence, suffering brutality and death at the hands of others. A few observations.

American school children are taught, at least I was in the 1940s, to admire Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death". Or consider Winston Churchill's
"We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"
A very highly regarded speech, and I agree.

A common thread is that two possibilities, and only two, are offered. We will succeed, or we will die trying. If two opposing forces each take this view, a lot of people are going to die. If one side takes this view and the other doesn't, the side that does can get away with a lot.

There is a great deal of asymmetry. I am happily living my life, my main thought about North Korea is that I wish it would just go away. It won't. What does Kim want? Well, I don't know exactly, but surely it involves much greater power and influence for North Korea. To what extent is he prepared to go to the two options of either success or destruction? A good question, I doubt that anyone knows the answer. It is historical fact that leaders can go that route.

We, here in the good old USA, want stability. Of course we do, things are pretty good for us as they are, so let's keep it that way. This seems like the right idea, for us. Kim wants change. He wants more. Usually, giving someone who wants more just a bit more in the hope that this satisfies him doesn't work. We could cite Munich on this, often that is done, or we could ask Native Americans.

The fat is definitely in the fire and I do not think it is clear, or even all that likely, that there is a peaceful way out. The consequences will be awful for everyone, not only the direct participants. I hope that we can find a way. Recognizing that failure will be a horror is where we have to start, but it may not suffice.

As you can see, I am a bit pessimistic.

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2017-September-04, 09:11, said:

Hitler loved dogs

So did St. Anthony, the patron saint of animals.

[Al_U_Card]

Having no oil and no strategic value (SK is already a US "friend"), all that they have left is provocation. Having seen the result of US intervention and subsequent prosperity (SK, Vietnam etc.) perhaps the Glorious Leader is simply looking for a handout? All of the other oppressive dictators have gotten rich and prosperous if they are part of the US sphere of influence and maybe he just wants his slice of the pie? . The Chinese have not been much of a help so far...

[The_Badger]

North Korea Population Growth

The famine of the 1990’s is likely to have had a severe bearing on life expectancy in the country - not so much because of deaths at the time but because of the effect of malnutrition that follows people through the rest of their lives. In 2009, the CIA World Factbook claimed that the national average stood at 63.8 years which, in global terms is pretty poor – roughly comparable to former Soviet countries in Central Asia such as Turkmenistan (also fabled for its repressive government) and Kazakhstan.
Add in an infant mortality rate that is 12.5 times higher than that of its neighbour South Korea and the overall picture is actually pretty grim. The Government is certainly conscious that North Korea is outmatched by the population of South Korea, its southern neighbour and great rival, and has launched a number of drives to boost the total population. So far those drives have had limited effect – the current growth rate according to US estimates is around 0.5% per annum, which makes North Korea one of the slowest growing countries in the world.

Maybe these statistics (taken from worldpopulationreview.com) explain to some extent the bellicose posturing of Kim Jong-un. The country is practically "dying on its feet" compared to South Korea. To admit that communism has failed would be beneath him, perhaps. And the only way 'to prove' this isn't so is to take on the world's largest capitalist country in a rhetorical dogfight.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-September-04, 10:47, said:

So did St. Anthony, the patron saint of animals.

Sorry once again. (I keep forgetting that I need to write at a third grade level when hectoring you)

Lets try this again

Hilter was a bad man
He killed many many innocent people.

But Hitler sometimes did things that were not bad.
We can not not point to a single good act and say "Hitler Trump is a good person".

And that is what your post did.

[cherdano]

hrothgar, on 2017-September-04, 12:57, said:

Sorry once again. (I keep forgetting that I need to write at a third grade level when hectoring you)

Lets try this again

Hilter was a bad man
He killed many many innocent people.

But Hitler sometimes did things that were not bad.
We can not not point to a single good act and say "Hitler Trump is a good person".

And that is what your post did.

Richard, you have explained your point extremely clearly and in simple language, and nobody could disagree with you. I am sure ldrews will now understand what you meant and concede your point.

Right?

(Or maybe, just maybe, he is just trolling and doesn't really have an idea what point he is trying to make?)

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on 2017-September-04, 13:38, said:

(Or maybe, just maybe, he is just trolling and doesn't really have an idea what point he is trying to make?)

Mißverständnisse und Trägheit vielleicht mehr Irrungen in der Welt machen als List und Bosheit. Wenigstens sind die beiden letzteren gewiß seltener

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2017-September-04, 12:57, said:

Sorry once again. (I keep forgetting that I need to write at a third grade level when hectoring you)

Lets try this again

Hilter was a bad man
He killed many many innocent people.

But Hitler sometimes did things that were not bad.
We can not not point to a single good act and say "Hitler Trump is a good person".

And that is what your post did.

As you point out, Trump did a good act with respect to Hurricane Harvey. Perhaps more await us.

[Cyberyeti]

ldrews, on 2017-September-04, 08:27, said:

Yes, Trump's total disregard for other people's lives was evident in his handling of Hurricane Harvey.

A really good person would have donated the money behind the scenes and not done the whole "look at me aren't I wonderful" thing.

Given his history with asking supporters to make donations and then claiming them as his, I have to wonder whose money it actually is.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-September-04, 14:45, said:

As you point out, Trump did a good act with respect to Hurricane Harvey. Perhaps more await us.

No. I never said anything of the sort.
I said that a narcissistic madman can still do an isolated good act.

FWIW, I do believe that Trump has done a mediocre job on the Harvey front.
Moreover, this is a hell of a lot better than his wont.
However, I sure as hell am not labelling this as "good"

Had Trump say... used the power of the bully pulpit to solicit donations for Harvey victims rather than selling his hats... that might have risen to the level of a good act.
Had Trump dispatch the EPA to start looking into all those superfund sites that are leaking toxic waste into the ground water system... that might deserve some credit.

But showing up, bragging about the size of the storm, and then attacking Claire McCaskill
Not so much...

[nige1]

https://www.youtube....h?v=Sfpe28mv9n0

[The_Badger]

nige1, on 2017-September-04, 23:34, said:

https://www.youtube....h?v=Sfpe28mv9n0

LOL. Being a film buff I totally forgot about the final sequence from Dr Strangelove. Just feet from my computer is a glossy book about Stanley Kubrick and all his films, too.

A quick, horrible, funny - to me - thought came into my head that if Trump sits astride the bomb, and the bomb is destined for Kim Jong-un, then it would literally kill two birds with one stone. (Shame it would probably kill a lot of innocent people, too, though.)

[RedSpawn]

Al_U_Card, on 2017-September-03, 15:19, said:

From the Korean "conflict" ( IIRC, a UN police action that was US led) onward, has not NK been a satellite of the PRC? Were China to "ensure order" (read invade) would there be any outrage or resistance by the countries of the world?
So, a reasonable question would be: "Why w(d)ont they?" A convenient buffer and effective deflector of attention, NK's antics are more Chinese puppetry than regional agression.

https://www.usatoday...ukes/632063001/

Hmmmm.

[kenberg]

nige1, on 2017-September-04, 23:34, said:

https://www.youtube....h?v=Sfpe28mv9n0

My wife really does not like Dr. Strangelove, I really do. I saw it when it came out, I liked it then, I have not changed my mind. The strength is that it is logical. Crazy but logical. Logic leads from assumptions to conclusions and if you don't like the conclusions then you have to work on the assumptions.

Slim Pickens riding the bomb is unforgettable. But I had forgotten about the background of We'll Meet Again (Vera Lynn) set against the explosions. That juxtaposition was brilliant.

Added: I was stunned to see that Vera Lynn is still alive and kicking at 100. It's a song I remember from childhood.
See
https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Vera_Lynn
or
https://www.washingt...m=.261ecbc14292
and of course
https://www.youtube....h?v=HsM_VmN6ytk

[nige1]

kenberg, on 2017-September-04, 09:14, said:

As I have often noted, hardly originally, the history of the world is replete with violence, suffering brutality and death at the hands of others. A few observations. American school children are taught, at least I was in the 1940s, to admire Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death". Or consider Winston Churchill's

"We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"
A very highly regarded speech, and I agree.

A common thread is that two possibilities, and only two, are offered. We will succeed, or we will die trying. If two opposing forces each take this view, a lot of people are going to die. If one side takes this view and the other doesn't, the side that does can get away with a lot.
There is a great deal of asymmetry. I am happily living my life, my main thought about North Korea is that I wish it would just go away. It won't. What does Kim want? Well, I don't know exactly, but surely it involves much greater power and influence for North Korea. To what extent is he prepared to go to the two options of either success or destruction? A good question, I doubt that anyone knows the answer. It is historical fact that leaders can go that route. We, here in the good old USA, want stability. Of course we do, things are pretty good for us as they are, so let's keep it that way. This seems like the right idea, for us. Kim wants change. He wants more. Usually, giving someone who wants more just a bit more in the hope that this satisfies him doesn't work. We could cite Munich on this, often that is done, or we could ask Native Americans. The fat is definitely in the fire and I do not think it is clear, or even all that likely, that there is a peaceful way out. The consequences will be awful for everyone, not only the direct participants. I hope that we can find a way. Recognizing that failure will be a horror is where we have to start, but it may not suffice. As you can see, I am a bit pessimistic.

https://www.youtube....h?v=Xg9aQvjMS60

[RedSpawn]

Al_U_Card, on 2017-September-04, 12:04, said:

Having no oil and no strategic value (SK is already a US "friend"), all that they have left is provocation. Having seen the result of US intervention and subsequent prosperity (SK, Vietnam etc.) perhaps the Glorious Leader is simply looking for a handout? All of the other oppressive dictators have gotten rich and prosperous if they are part of the US sphere of influence and maybe he just wants his slice of the pie? . The Chinese have not been much of a help so far...

Trump and the U.S. War Department, I mean the Department of Defense, needs to be very careful about this whole North Korea situation.

With overtures of military intervention in:

1) Afghanistan; https://www.theguard...nistan-pakistan
2) North Korea; http://time.com/4926...h-korea-war-us/
3) Venezuela; http://www.cnn.com/2...view/index.html
4) Iran; http://www.campaigni...i/?q=node/14166 and
5) Syria https://www.washingt...m=.4501f82206c9

the United States is spreading itself too thin here. We need to choose our battles wisely and carefully instead of catering to our egos and our imperialistic bravado. I can't imagine we would become involved in four separate military entanglements simultaneously, but then again, a lot of us never thought Trump would become President either.

Anything and everything is possible in this new political reality.

[akwoo]

Maybe this is too sophisticated for Trump, but surely it must have crossed the minds of some of his advisors.

Maybe Trump *wants* South Korea (and Japan if possible) ruined but just doesn't want to be seen as the one doing it? It'd take out some serious economic competition.

[Zelandakh]

akwoo, on 2017-September-05, 16:14, said:

It'd take out some serious economic competition.

And also offer US companies some serious opportunities in the reconstruction afterwards...America first!

[The_Badger]

Today, Wednesday, North Korea is sabre-rattling again this time at the UN. Let's forget the rhetoric for a while.

What concerns me now is that North Korea might continue to fire missiles and weapons for practice, not aiming at any particular target, just for provocation, in the same way they conducted their hydrogen bomb test.

Given that many of these weapons have disintegrated while being used, and North Korean technology is nowhere near as sophisticated as in the West, what happens when one of these 'tests' lands near or on Japanese, South Korean or USA (Guam, for example) soil? What then? North Korea says sorry, this wasn't meant to happen?

That for me is the frightening scenario, a mistake or accident. But how is the UN and the international community going stop him testing all weapons, not just the nuclear ones? Kim Jong-un is a complete law unto himself. This situation is going to continue for years and years if no resolutions can be enforced by the (gutless - in my view) UN.

I tend to agree with Vladimir Putin - surprisingly - that further sanctions will hurt not just North Korea but the North Korean people generally. That, in itself, isn't an option. I fail to see any possible solution to the North Korean problem generally.

[Al_U_Card]

Zelandakh, on 2017-September-05, 22:48, said:

And also offer US companies some serious opportunities in the reconstruction afterwards...America first!

Un would be better off using his "tech" exploring for oil and gas. Once they find that, THEN they would get some real "attention".