Slashdot Mirror


Two Koreas Agree To End War This Year, Pursue Denuclearization (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in agreed Friday to finally end a seven-decade war this year, and pursue the "complete denuclearization" of the Korean Peninsula. Kim and Moon embraced after signing the deal during a historic meeting on their militarized border, the first time a North Korean leader set foot on the southern side. They announced plans to replace the 1953 armistice that ended hostilities with a peace treaty by year's end. Their statement on a "common goal of realizing, through complete denuclearization, a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula," stopped short of the "complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization" long sought by the U.S. and its allies. The statement didn't elaborate on what the term meant and Kim didn't personally utter the word during remarks Friday. "We have agreed to share a firm determination to open a new era in which all Korean people enjoy prosperity and happiness on a peaceful land without war," Kim told reporters, without taking questions. President Trump hailed the move, declaring "KOREAN WAR TO END!" on Twitter. He has agreed to meet with Kim at a time and place yet to be determined.

368 comments

  1. Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If Obama can get one for doing nothing... this should be a slam dunk.

    --
    5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
    1. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't do nothing. He droned some folks. Then he NGO'd (Soros'd?) some coups. Give him a little credit.

    2. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      I agree. Or more accurately, I think Obama should have his Nobel Peace Price revoked. The notion of giving a US President a Peace Prize is pretty much insane. The US has been in virtually constant war for the last 70 years.

    3. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What did Trump have to do with this?

    4. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Goaded them on until they neared collapse, and then made them come to the table.

      Sometimes the baby wins.

    5. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you'd have to show there was some intent. If two people are arguing, then a third person runs through the room flinging their poop at the walls and gibbering like a madman, it doesn't automatically mean the poop flinger is a master negotiator just because the argument gets cut short.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    6. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump are alpha male Presidents. They defeat their enemies George Bush (all of them), Jimbo Carter, Barack Obama, etc are panty waste girly men.

    7. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe NK was planning this all along and just wanted to see how far they could push the crazy man in the white house.

    8. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Obama can get one for doing nothing... this should be a slam dunk.

      Obama got one for telling people what they wanted to hear, not for actually doing anything. Pretty much sums up his entire presidency.

    9. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If Obama can get one for doing nothing... this should be a slam dunk.

      I believe he threatened nuclear war over twitter if he didn't get his way. I'm not certain Obama earned the peace prize, but giving one to this? I think not.

      What is this a I'm crazier than you and just stupid enough to actually press the button so do what I want or else?

      Sorry, if this works out well great, but I see nothing worth praise here. Most likely they simply don't need to be so overt about testing anymore and their program will go underground. We don't test live nuclear weapons any more either, but that doesn't mean we can't build them.

      That all being said, I hope it works out, though there is a long record of things not working out that makes me skeptical and no all of his predecessors were not incompetent.

    10. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last year's prize was given to an activist group for convincing the UN to pass a meaningless, symbolic nuke ban that was opposed and boycotted by every country that actually has them. If they snub Trump and Moon the very next year for denuclearizing Korea (assuming all goes well) they're officially a complete joke.

    11. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      You try being black. No, I mean try it. See?? Not so easy...

    12. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Stood in front of the UN and threatened to glass them if they didn't shape up and crashed their economy by directly sanctioning the Chinese companies that had been helping Kim dodge sanctions for years, all while extending an olive branch in a way that no previous president had before.

      In a way it's hilarious that Trump will win the peace prize for basically threatening nuclear war, but when every government involved agrees Trump was the key difference it will be hard for the Nobel committee (or the American media) to try to deny it for long.

    13. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They've been a joke for a long long time. There is a lot of that going around.

      Pulitzer prize is another good example. It was given to 'Red Star Rising' which was pure propaganda in hindsight. Never rescinded.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Knowing the Nobel committee, they'll give it to the Dear Leader for having his mountain collap--I mean having the courage to move mountains for peace.

    15. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when every government involved agrees Trump was the key difference

      I'm not sure about every government.

      After all, while South Korea, North Korea, China and Japan all agree at the highest levels...

      Here in the US, we've got plenty of Democrats and their underlings who refuse to agree that President Donald J. Trump is, in fact, President of the United States.

    16. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While I don't think the tweets were helpful, Trump did push for tougher sanctions against North Korea. Meanwhile, Trump also offered to engage in direct talks with North Korea, something past presidents have refused to do. North Korea has walked to negotiate directly with the United States, while previous presidents have insisted that any negotiations should be part of the six party talks. Trump stepped up the pressure, calling it "maximum pressure", while offering North Korea something the direct negotiations they wanted and a possible way out of the sanctions. Both the United States and South Korea have been clear that denuclearization is necessary to get the sanctions lifted. That is a substantial difference from the strategy of past presidents, and is a logical approach to foreign policy.

      The tougher sanctions likely had a significant impact on North Korea and made them more willing to negotiate. Trump's willingness for direct talks signaled a willingness for unprecedented direct talks. The tweets weren't helpful, but Trump's foreign policy did influence North Korea to make real concessions. Trump should get credit for that, and you're ignoring the real substance of his foreign policy.

      When the policies of several past presidents haven't worked, it's time to try something different. That's the same logic that Obama used to justify normalizing relations with Cuba, which is also a reasonable decision. Let's just hope that Trump's threats to about the Iran nuclear deal are an effort to get Iran to extend their promises past 2025 and not a sincere intent to withdraw. If Trump is taking the role of the bad cop while Macron has the role of the good cop to negotiate more with Iran, it may be effective. If Trump actually withdraws, that's incredibly foolish. Trump is just so erratic that it's hard to distinguish legitimate foreign policy from outbursts and uninformed bluster.

    17. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a big fan of trump, and he may have planned all this so we'd ignore all his hookers but it still may have made the world a better place.

    18. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is that you probably really believe this.

    19. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by poity · · Score: 4, Informative

      [x] Not be Bush.
      [_] Chant "Yes we can" during a campaign.
      [_] Drone strike a bunch of people.

      Trump hasn't met all the criteria for the Peace Prize yet, I'm afraid.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    20. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More like two people arguing whether Kiss or AC/DC is better with Trump coming in as the crazy friend high on LSD asking if he should bash the other guy's skull in. And then it's like "Uh no we're good, they're both good bands... we're friends, see" because I don't think this happened on its own. I think they realized that Trump might actually set off a new Korean war, regardless if that'd fuck both North and South Korea hard. So when push comes to shove they'd rather come to terms, at least while the crazy guy is in the room...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    21. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I think you'd have to show there was some intent. If two people are arguing, then a third person runs through the room flinging their poop at the walls and gibbering like a madman, it doesn't automatically mean the poop flinger is a master negotiator just because the argument gets cut short.

      Notwithstanding Korea, in your example, success speaks for itself.

    22. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I do not think the analogy is correct here.

      There is one unique quality in Trump is that he is willing to think out of the box. Thinking out of the box most of the time stupid, but without that some problems will just remain unsolved.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    23. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tulsa_Time, let me put this very clear, so we don't waste time nor the readers'.

      1) Obama got a "political" Nobel Prize; there was greater hope of a kind of guidance that he chose not apply, rather going for hearing all US citizen's wishes, including of those who didn't vote for him. A good President for the USA, I gather, but not exactly what the world expected. But he had his duties, so I concede he was more or less tied to them.

      2) Trump did nothing but whining. China did. May a Nobel prize for them. Or for Kim Jong Un to play its part on a solution for this eternal conundrum. Unless there is a prize for being spoiled, then I agree that Trump "virtue" helped the process.

      I hope Korea gets reunited one day and becomes a healthy country. I hope citizens of both countries can go one night soon to bed and sleep with less stress after all these years. I hope China play its cards well and tensions in the region can be reduced between itself, Koreas and Japan.

    24. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by shanen · · Score: 1

      Good metaphor and I wish I someday saw a mod point to give you.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    25. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump didn't think once, nor did he do anything. Kim is playing him for a fucking fat fool, as per usual.

    26. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trump surrounded NK with carriers and flew bombers off the coast. Moreover there are hard hitting sanctions that are harming Kim's ability to keep bribing his generals. This could have been done decades ago, but globalists find North Korea useful as a source of tension. The fact that millions suffer means nothing to them. Trump brought Kim to the table, but naturally nobody wants to give him credit because he's Hitler.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    27. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty abstract. Probably more to do with the nuclear accident they had recently

    28. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by HRC2020 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hillary would have done better. And she will do better when she wins the 2020 election. The entire world will be united under Hillary Clinton when she becomes president in 2020 or sooner.

      Onward Together!

    29. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Yes, Xi Jiping will be happy to receive it.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    30. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 3, Informative

      Trump also got serious about punishing the Chinese corporations that were supplying North Korea in defiance of the sanctions. Just ask ZTE. It's truly bizarre how deluded some people are about what actually happened here. Watch some Scott Adams videos if you want to know about the courtship ritual between Trump and Kim and the choices left open to Kim. While the lunatics were screeching WW3, Scott was explaining how there'd be peace pretty soon.

    31. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 0

      Yes, but did he do it because he's such an insightful analyst that he knew it was the best way to force Kim into a peaceful solution, or did he do it because he's a belligerent, childish bully?

      Trump brought Kim to the table

      Again: deliberately or accidentally?

      A lucky outcome doesn't justify a wrong move.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    32. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      You didn't acti refute any of his arguments.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    33. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 0

      That people shouldn't be awarded prizes for things they didn't deliberately set out to achieve? Yes, I do believe that.

      I'll give Trump credit for not continuing to be the belligerent, childish bully once the opportunity for peace presented itself, but that's not exactly rocket science. I've yet to see any evidence that his previous blustering rhetoric was any kind of 4D chess. His actions may have helped bring about a historic result, but that still doesn't mean he was right to take that stance in the first place. I don't think he was planning that far ahead.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    34. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by guruevi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It’s called negotiation and persuasion. Regardless of whether you agree with him, he has a way of getting under his opponents skins. CNN is still talking about the elections while Trump is changing policies right under our noses.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    35. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, Trump also offered to engage in direct talks with North Korea, something past presidents have refused to do.

      "Meanwhile" implies that he was planning ahead for this when he was shooting his mouth off with nuclear threats. I really don't think he was planning that far ahead. He seized the opporunity for talks when the solid opportunity presented itself, but not before. Any other president would have done the same; but any other president wouldn't have forced NK into that position - deliberately or accidentally, and the key poinit is that it could have quite likely been entirely accidental and unplanned - with such a ridiculous display in the first place.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    36. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      He's willing to act outside the box. I don't think thinking comes into it very much.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    37. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just keep telling yourself that, and how amazing the world would be if Hillary actually won the Whitehouse.

    38. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She didn't make any arguments, just a piss poor analogy demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge.

    39. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can someone win it twice?

      As improbable as this N Korea thing is, what happens on the off chance he also de-nukes Iran or negotiates peace between the Israelis and Palestinians?

    40. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly deliberately. He has been thinking about this since 1999:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyc4x8LltKQ

      "If they think you're serious, they'll negotiate, and it will never come to (nuclear war)".

      Trump then formed a coalition with China and Japan to hit North Korea with sanctions so severe, that they were going to run out of foreign currency and suffer economic collapse within the year:
      https://www.ft.com/content/db90592e-3876-11e8-8eee-e06bde01c544

      Given how everyone thought Trump was going to drag the world into a nuclear bomb exchange with North Korea, clearly Kim thought he was serious too.

      So, presented with these facts which ended up bringing Kim to the table, how are you going to resolve your clear cognitive dissonance and hatred towards Trump? Continue to deny reality and assume that Trump doesn't know what he's doing?

    41. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NK nuclear program was crippled 5 weeks ago by a massive explosion. That's the only reason NK is temporarily playing nice.

    42. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People like you said the same BS about Reagan and the dissolution of the USSR: it was all accidental, would've happened anyway, Reagan was an incompetent warmonger, blah blah blah. You simply refuse to grasp that a hardline, belligerent stance backed up with credible threats of military action actually work when facing down tyrannical dictatorships.

      Here's what really happened, and none of it was by accident:

      1. NK developed their nukes with the intention of saber rattling and getting their way since it's worked so well for the last 70 years.
      2. Trump let NK know we can and will turn them into a glowing parking lot if they don't stop doing that.
      3. Trump let China know he's quite serious about pushing the Big Red Button on NK and put pressure on China via tariffs, probably with the deal being China pushes NK to start behaving and Trump will remove the tariffs.
      4. China values their economic ties with the US far more than anything they're getting from NK, and further NK embarrassed the Chinese leadership with his nuclear testing.
      5. China, seeing it in their best interests to reign in NK, told them they wouldn't step in if Trump pushed the Big Red Button and Kim finally figured out he's playing with something that will get him burned. China also probably threatened severe economic pressure on NK if they continued to misbehave.
      6. NK, unable to survive economically without China and unable to withstand a US military without Chinese backing, wisely decided it's time to come to the the peace table before things get out of control.

      Even you ought to be able to put the pieces together. Trump visits China. Then Kim visits China. Shortly thereafter Kim changes its stance. Only a fool would consider this accidental. Trump leaned on China and China leaned on Kim. This is something Obama could've easily done -- and maybe earned a Nobel instead of being given one for "participation" -- but was too naive to do. But no doubt had this happened on his watch you'd have given him full credit and claimed him a master politician. But since it happened on Trump's watch it has to be accidental, right? Can't give Trump credit. That might validate his ideology and invalidate yours and that simply can't be allowed.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    43. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you always judge people not by the content of their actions and words, but by what you think they think?

      Admit it to yourself that if Obama, or Hillary, or literally anyone else did the exact same things Trump did in the exact same ways Trump did you would be posting praise instead of condemnation.

    44. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you're missing is the simple fact that Trump is the first US President since the war to fail to understand that we don't want a peace agreement to occur on the Korean Peninsula. North Korea is a necessary buffer between China and South Korea. North Korea is negotiating now because they have achieved leverage like never before. This is not going to go well in the long run.

    45. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Yumi+Saotome · · Score: 1

      The South Korean foreign minister "believes President Donald Trump is largely responsible for bringing North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to the negotiating table".

      https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26...

      Is your understanding of the Korean political situation more astute than hers?

    46. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 0

      You simply refuse to grasp that a hardline, belligerent stance backed up with credible threats of military action actually work when facing down tyrannical dictatorships.

      I never said it didn't or wouldn't work, but then again the word "work" assumes that this was all planned.

      Nothing you've posted suggests that Trump was doing anything other than being a belligerent asshole rather than acting like one as part of a cunning plan.

      But no doubt had this happened on his watch you'd have given him full credit and claimed him a master politician.

      Obama wouldn't and couldn't have done it for many reasons, not least that NK would never have bought it coming from him.

      Trump being a gibbering lunatic might just be one of several factors that contribute to a lasting peace between NK and SK. That doesn't make him any less of a gibbering lunatic.

      Can't give Trump credit. That might validate his ideology and invalidate yours and that simply can't be allowed.

      It's very childish to go stating your baseless conclusions as to what I'm thinking as fact, when you could instead argue your own point constructively.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    47. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      The Nobel committee would have a collective aneurysm before they'd even consider giving Trump any credit whatsoever for this. Meanwhile they're happy to give Nobel's to terrorists (Arafat) and people who've accomplished nothing except getting elected (Obama).

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    48. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 0

      He's "largely responsble" the same way the poop-flinger in my analogy is.

      Any "credit" he's getting is more about politics than genunely-earned plaudits at this point. Everyone, wonderfully, seems to be grasping the opportunity for peace with both hands, and if "praising" Trump helps that along, no-one in the middle of it is going to upset the apple cart at this point. The last thing the situation needs is someone criticising Trump because fuck knows what he'd do if they did. There are far more important things at stake. Trump got lucky, and long may that luck continue. Doesn't mean it was all some masterplan.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    49. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2, Insightful

      She's more useful not being in jail. Imprison her and she becomes a martyr. Right now she's a washed-up has-been that's so toxic even Democrats don't want anything to do with her anymore.

      Trust me, the sting of losing to Trump and having to live in political exile having never eclipsed her philandering husband's name is far more punishing than any cell could ever be.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    50. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd love to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Upon receiving it, I'd throw it into the trash can in front of everyone and immediately walk out the fucking building.

      It's insulting that it was given to criminals not deserving of it. Why would anyone of intellect wish to be associated with those that were undeserving of the award.

    51. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet here we have North Korea and South Korea talking again. Just can't give Trump even the slightest bit of credit. This sounds like republicans during Obama's first four years. If you don't acknowledge Trump's shit then you're going to get a rude awakening for 8 years of Trump's tyrannous rule

    52. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nothing you've posted suggests that Trump was doing anything other than being a belligerent asshole rather than acting like one as part of a cunning plan.

      And nothing you've observed has made a dent in that hardened cranium of yours to make you understand that Kim wouldn't have buckled to anyone except a belligerent asshole.

      Obama wouldn't and couldn't have done it for many reasons, not least that NK would never have bought it coming from him.

      Which, whether you realize it or not, proves my point. NK took Trump's threats seriously because they knew he was serious. Obama they laughed at and manipulated him like a child.

      Trump being a gibbering lunatic might just be one of several factors that contribute to a lasting peace between NK and SK. That doesn't make him any less of a gibbering lunatic.

      It's easier for you to chalk this up to total chance by a gibbering lunatic than to even consider the possibility this was all planned. This despite all the evidence in front of you that Trump's visit to China, Kim's subsequent visit to China, and Kim's sudden about face are very much intertwined.

      It's very childish to go stating your baseless conclusions as to what I'm thinking as fact, when you could instead argue your own point constructively.

      I have argued it constructively, even to the point of giving a numbered list backed up with observable evidence. You're just too stuck in your own mindset to listen to it. Hence I'm mocking you, as your response is exactly what I expected.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    53. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      No, I won't bother when the PP is a spew ofnonsense, which is by definition irrefutable (since it contains only emotional venting).

    54. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2

      He's willing to act outside the box. I don't think thinking comes into it very much.

      Thinking without acting sure got Obama a long way towards solving the Korean Peninsula situation didn't it?

      You're the one stuck in the box, unable -- no, unwilling -- to consider that Trump's tactics, while distasteful and odious to you, worked whereas the more genteel, cultured, thoughtful Obama didn't. To consider Trump successful would endanger your worldview. Hence you must assume Trump is a lunatic who by complete accident managed to bring NK to heel after decades worth of other administrations had failed.

      I've said it since the election and I stand by it: people like you aren't afraid of Trump being a bad President; you're terrified he will be a good one who succeeds where his predecessors failed. You're fearful such successes will prove your ideas and ideologies don't actually work in the real world. Therefore you deny them any credit for their accomplishments in order to protect your pride. You'll never learn, not because you're stupid but because you're stubborn.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    55. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Yumi+Saotome · · Score: 1

      As some anonymous coward pointed out in this thread:

      "Clearly deliberately. He has been thinking about this since 1999:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      "If they think you're serious, they'll negotiate, and it will never come to (nuclear war)".

      Trump then formed a coalition with China and Japan to hit North Korea with sanctions so severe, that they were going to run out of foreign currency and suffer economic collapse within the year:
      https://www.ft.com/content/db9...

      Given how everyone thought Trump was going to drag the world into a nuclear bomb exchange with North Korea, clearly Kim thought he was serious too.

      So, presented with these facts which ended up bringing Kim to the table, how are you going to resolve your clear cognitive dissonance and hatred towards Trump? Continue to deny reality and assume that Trump doesn't know what he's doing?"

      Looks like it was a deliberate plan. You may argue that it was a stupid plan and he got lucky, but he went out and achieved exactly what he said he would by having the world believe that he was the madman willing to enter into a nuclear exchange with North Korea just because of insults on Twitter. But then you would have to acknowledged that he had planned this all along in the first place.

    56. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Amen.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    57. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      They were waiting for someone real to come to the table and tell them they had a bigger rocket. Trump basically roasted this guy on the world stage and now he capitulates? On the surface I think this is great. I would like to hear "denuclearization" and "demilitarization" be thrown around some more but I doubt the media would be allowed to cover that for very long without being forced to trash them instead. We are spending our future in a perpetual standoff with eachother. There is probably a better way.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    58. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by crackspackle · · Score: 1

      Trump deserves credit for Korean thaw

      Fake news did, or at least that's what Trump called them yesterday on his Fox and Friends tirade.

    59. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0

      Seriously? The delusion is strong with this one... Yes, Trump did retroactively make NK crumble from the inside for decades, much like Bush Sr. did with East Germany. Of course!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    60. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your assessment might be correct... yet, he got it done, where less obnoxious Presidents have failed for 70 years.

      It might just be possible that being an obnoxious loudmouth isn't necessarily an impediment to being an effective President.

    61. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... difference from the strategy of past presidents ...

      But 'touch your toes' policy works so well on American allies; and if it doesn't, that's what all the US weapons are for; right, Mr S Hussein, Mr M Gaddafi?

      ... normalizing relations with Cuba ...

      The rest of the world didn't care that Cuba was 'evil' to the USA. The USA forgave China and Vietnam for their anti-Americanism a long time ago, there was no (international) benefit to vilifying Cuba. Obama had the sense and bravery to eliminate a pointless policy.

    62. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The notion of giving a US President a Peace Prize is pretty much insane.

      Al Gore got his as a consolation prize for not being president.

    63. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think people who admire Hillary this much should be called "cankle biters."

    64. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go ahead. Keep underestimating him because you don't like him. See where that gets you.

      He didn't accidentally get himself elected by deliberately pissing off the entire country.

    65. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You don't make billions of dollars by sitting on your ass and playing safe either. I'm continually surprised at the number of people who have never seen hardline diplomacy or negotiation, and have only lived in the era's of weak presidents. No other president has done that even though the opportunity has presented itself. Hell the clusterfuck with them nuclearizing was because a weak president didn't bargain hard, and push harder when they had the opportunity to. And instead of going hard when they broke the deal, they let it go on.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    66. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not 'our' fucking business to prevent peace from breaking out in Korea. It's for the Korean people to decide.

      I can't believe it's even necessary to have to say this.

    67. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but did he do it because he's such an insightful analyst that he knew it was the best way to force Kim into a peaceful solution, or did he do it because he's a belligerent, childish bully?

      So Trump did it by luck? Come on. If you're past the age of 16 you already know that luck doesn't exist.

    68. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by jander · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would add:

      7. NK Nuclear test mountain collapsed in on itself and would require significant resources to rebuild. Resources that they no longer have the economic means to acquire.

      Agreeing to denuclearize means they get a win without having to substantiate it....

      --
      An ounce of perception is worth a pound of obscure
    69. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      If Hillary was President, right now we would at this point be looking at three or maybe a low four digit casualty count in the ground war in Syria. (The globalist neo-con/libs really really really want that natural gas pipeline across Syria. There's some fuming going on behind closed doors)

    70. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Informative

      You try being black. No, I mean try it. See?? Not so easy...

      Ever try being asian/half-asian in the US and being subject to negative affirmative action policies? Blacks at least get pity points on admission, we get them taken away.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    71. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      That would be yet more proof that he is literally Hitler. Obviously.

    72. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by gravewax · · Score: 0

      No he didn't. So far North Korea has done exactly what it said it would do, the only thing that may have brought them to the table a little sooner is the likely collapse of their testing facility and the reasonableness of SK. If anything Trump has caused the delays of this happening sooner.

    73. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Democrat partisans sure do like promoting needless wars.

    74. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by quantaman · · Score: 2

      While I don't think the tweets were helpful, Trump did push for tougher sanctions against North Korea. Meanwhile, Trump also offered to engage in direct talks with North Korea, something past presidents have refused to do. North Korea has walked to negotiate directly with the United States, while previous presidents have insisted that any negotiations should be part of the six party talks. Trump stepped up the pressure, calling it "maximum pressure", while offering North Korea something the direct negotiations they wanted and a possible way out of the sanctions. Both the United States and South Korea have been clear that denuclearization is necessary to get the sanctions lifted. That is a substantial difference from the strategy of past presidents, and is a logical approach to foreign policy.

      The tougher sanctions likely had a significant impact on North Korea and made them more willing to negotiate. Trump's willingness for direct talks signaled a willingness for unprecedented direct talks. The tweets weren't helpful, but Trump's foreign policy did influence North Korea to make real concessions. Trump should get credit for that, and you're ignoring the real substance of his foreign policy.

      I was thinking that originally but now I'm not sure it has anything to do with Trump.

      NK is pursuing the same thing now it's always pursued, survival.

      Previously this took the form of gaining deterrence, first artillery, then Nukes, and finally Nukes that can hit the US. Until they had those things they were never going to engage in serious negotiations.

      But now they have all those things their deterrence is kinda maxed out, they can always improve their long range delivery, but realistically they've done the important thing which is prove they can deliver a Nuclear retaliation against the US.

      NK isn't talking because of sanctions, or because Trump reached out, they're talking because they got what they've always wanted, Nuclear deterrence, and now they want stability. Denuclearization isn't really on the table, but as long as everyone knows they have long range Nukes they're probably content to stop testing.

      Let's just hope that Trump's threats to about the Iran nuclear deal are an effort to get Iran to extend their promises past 2025 and not a sincere intent to withdraw. If Trump is taking the role of the bad cop while Macron has the role of the good cop to negotiate more with Iran, it may be effective. If Trump actually withdraws, that's incredibly foolish. Trump is just so erratic that it's hard to distinguish legitimate foreign policy from outbursts and uninformed bluster.

      There's no good cop/bad cop play here. Trump took the narrative that the Iranian deal was a bad deal and ran with it all campaign, it's only through the desperate efforts of his cabinet that he's stayed in.

      The problem with the "renegotiate" idea is that Trump has no leverage. It took Obama years to get Europe on board with the sanctions, if Trump decertifies the US sanctions come back but no one else will follow and Iran will be free to develop break-out capability again.

      That's not saying the Trump can't negotiate other things with Iran (stop supporting X we'll stop sanctioning Y) but there's no better Nuclear deal to be had.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    75. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Trump surrounded NK with carriers and flew bombers off the coast. Moreover there are hard hitting sanctions that are harming Kim's ability to keep bribing his generals. This could have been done decades ago, but globalists find North Korea useful as a source of tension. The fact that millions suffer means nothing to them. Trump brought Kim to the table, but naturally nobody wants to give him credit because he's Hitler.

      Kim wanted Nukes that could hit the US. Kim got Nukes that could hit the US. Therefore, Kim is ready to talk.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    76. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't disagree, but 70 years of US governments do disagree, they have always done their best to ensure peace doesn't breakout. peace means a loss of control and influence in the region for the US.

    77. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. CNN is still fake news. You know how you called it a "tirade"? Yeah, that's a value judgement, just like the fake news uses.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    78. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      Childish bully? Seriously? Educated people actually still believe that nonsense? Pff. Let's ask Saint Bernie Sanders what he thinks:

      "Trump took on the Republican establishment, he took on the Democratic establishment, took on the media establishment and he ended up winning the election to become president of the United States. And that is an extraordinary accomplishment. And it talks about perseverance, it talks about very strong political instincts, it talks about a way to connect with people. So I give Donald Trump his due."

      It's just that it's so emotionally rewarding to call Trump names. You know what's childish? Name-calling.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    79. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd wait and see. This isn't the first time North Korea has come to the bargaining table only to later start the saber rattling all over again.
      Personally, I'm of the opinion of a single unified Korea with the Kim Jong family either imprisoned for life or overthrown by it's own people. As long as the Kim Jong dynasty exists, and Korea still separated, I can't accept there being peace or cooperation for long. What's another 2 or 6 years for the Norks?

    80. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you're one of those that actually believes we have something special that other countries don't rather than that we had the luck of the geographic draw in WWII, had most of the world in our debt (literally) for quite some time, had the only major standing industrial infrastructure for a few years, and stole quite a few brilliant scientists from the defeated countries. Good luck with that.

      Balanced trade is not something we ever truly want. It's actually cool to be in the position of trading IOUs for real goods. But balanced trade is what we're going to end up getting in another decade or two if we can't play the protection racket.

      Open your eyes to the real world and the real underpinnings of our power before it's too late.

    81. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      I made a submission a while ago about the Game Theory behind nuclear standoffs, and how Trump's approach actually made a lot of sense from that perspective. Here's a quote from the article:

      Imagine you’re Trump or Kim Jong Un, essentially playing a game of chicken. You’re driving at high speed directly toward your opponent who’s also racing toward you. Neither of you wants to chicken out and veer away, but neither wants to die, either. Your best strategy? Rip off your steering wheel, make sure your opponent knows you’ve done so, and hit the gas.

      Not a Trump supporter, but hey I'm not gonna complain when a broken clock gives me the right time.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    82. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Burz · · Score: 2

      You're forgetting *China* imposed sanctions on NK. *That* is what lit a fire under them.

      And what lit a fire under the Chinese was having a madman on their border gain control of some H-bombs.

      Sanctions and breast beating from the US was more of the same. Trump deserves little if any credit though its given he'll try to claim it and his followers will mindlessly bleat it.

    83. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We might as well start putting some dictators in South America again.

      Let the world live in peace, for once.

    84. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say denuclearization is a win for everybody, especially SK and Japan.

      This childish "bu..but they'll get away with something" attitude and a need for an utter victory is what lead us to this situation for 70 years.

    85. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah bullshit. North Korea has lived under varying degrees of heavy sanctions for half a century and they could not give a shit about the breast beating of the US now or ever. What changed was they now have nukes, they achieved their goal and whats more Trump has now played into their hands by agreeing to meet and recognising him as an equal/leader. Combine this with the disaster of their test site and the "no more testing" is an easy bargaining chip for them to win concessions.

    86. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The citizen's wishes were state-sponsored terrorism in foreign nations via drones?

    87. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect China had a greater role. But the threat of the USA taking action and causing a flood of refugees into China was probably a factor.

    88. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congrats on a really useful and clever post!

    89. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect the offer of direct talks was to continue to be relevant when the centre of negotiations had moved to SK and China. Moon might get a Peace Prize, except you would have to award it to Kim too, which is unlikely.

    90. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You don't make billions of dollars by sitting on your ass and playing safe either.

      No, you make it by choosing your parents well.

      There is a theory that "sitting on your ass and playing safe" is actually a good thing to do for some people.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    91. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in that fantasy world, they will have been killed by the eye lazers of alien reptoid overlords in a hilary suit...

      When you imagine a future,all you've done is claim your opinion fact.

    92. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      What you makes you think I hold Bernie Sanders's opinion on everything in any high regard?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    93. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      You're really missing the point of what I'm saying, but since I've already said it there's not much point saying it again.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    94. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by pots · · Score: 1

      Obama got his peace prize because Bush, like Trump, was an America-firster and Obama signaled a return for the US to responsible global citizenship. Trump, like Bush, is the opposite of that. Of course he's not going to get a prize.

      I'm surprised at how much credit Trump is getting in this thread for this development. It's possible that his hysterics unsettled Kim a little, but it seems much more likely that China slapped him down.

    95. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It's also possible that he's pulling a Homer and his luck might run out at any time - taking everyone else's along with it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    96. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by tomhath · · Score: 1

      China slapped Kim down because Trump put pressure on China. Money talks, reading from a teleprompter walks.

    97. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats because Asians are typically much smarter and build civilisations, while n1gg3rs are stupid and build nothing.

    98. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Obama did not think or act outside the box a single day in his pathetic weathercock life.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    99. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I do not think you understand the point I was saying.

      Let me try from another perspective.

      Bacteria knows how to swim from the "bad" area to the "good" area. You know how? It does not think, it does not measure the gradient, it only know to do one thing: move faster or slower. That's it. When in "bad" area it moves faster, when in "good" area it moves slower. That is enough for bacteria to concentrate in "good" area instead of "bad" area.

      Obama is the stupidest of all bacteria. He did not know how to move faster. He is afraid to move faster because of the politburo that holds him.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    100. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Camarillo+Brillo · · Score: 1

      This has NOTHING to do with Donnyboy. That blowhard would take credit for the sunrise (and some morons would believe him too)

    101. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe by making the right noises DT has less reason for his presence in the reason and Kim is more interested in that outcome.

    102. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by dbreeze · · Score: 1

      qanonposts.com It likely didn't start with Trump, but he has been a vital piece in the good work of those behind it from the beginning.

      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
    103. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by fatwilbur · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Trump has no leverage?? He played his cards perfectly here - even looking at his "worst" tweets, he was basically calling Kim's bluff. This was literally a country that can't even provide electricity for it's citizens trying to act tough against the world's largest military power. He got China to back off from NK's support by trying to provoke the US. Only NK is that stupid, and perhaps Russia as well but they actually have some power to back up their words.

      And most (Chinese) companies violating the sanctions quickly realize the US is a far, far, far more valuable trading partner than NK ever will be if they were called out on their actions.

      It finally took someone to play hardball to solve the problem. Same thing will happen with Palestine.

    104. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      I do not think you understand the point I was saying.

      What I don't understand is why you're bringing up Obama.

      I haven't said anything about Obama, yet you seem to think you know exactly what I think of him. Not sure how you managed that. Moreover, you seem illogically focused on disproving all the things I haven't said about Obama.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    105. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some federal judge in Hawaii has ordered the Korean War to continue.

    106. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      Trump should get credit for that, and you're ignoring the real substance of his foreign policy.
      No he should not.

      Despite your "insightful" rant, Trump has nothing to with it. And referring to north Korea as "they" when it is only one single person we are talking about, makes clear you have no clue.

      The only two persons deserving credit for this is Kim Jong Un from NK and Moon Jae-in from SK. Unless I miss something and other negotiators are involved.

      Hint: NK agreed to this despite of the US sanctions, not because of them.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    107. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Trump has no leverage?? He played his cards perfectly here - even looking at his "worst" tweets, he was basically calling Kim's bluff. This was literally a country that can't even provide electricity for it's citizens trying to act tough against the world's largest military power. He got China to back off from NK's support by trying to provoke the US. Only NK is that stupid, and perhaps Russia as well but they actually have some power to back up their words.

      And most (Chinese) companies violating the sanctions quickly realize the US is a far, far, far more valuable trading partner than NK ever will be if they were called out on their actions.

      It finally took someone to play hardball to solve the problem. Same thing will happen with Palestine.

      I was actually talking about Iran when it came to Trump having no leverage.

      He does have leverage when it comes to NK, but it's more limited than you imply. The sanctions are only effective as their enforcement, and China has a lot of latitude in how strictly they enforce them and to the extent they turn a blind eye to smuggling. And the companies who trade in NK are regional, so they don't care about US markets.

      Plus sanctions only hurt the citizens, not the leaders, and Kim isn't that concerned about his citizens. He'd prefer them to be better fed, and there's always the worry that too much starvation leads to revolution, but sanctions are really for show.

      Obama couldn't stop Kim and neither could Trump, that's why Kim now has long range Nukes and is willing to talk.

      So far, Kim is the only one who's actually gotten what he wants out of this whole thing.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    108. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      Since when does NK have no electricity?
      How do they actually build nukes without it?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    109. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Lucky you are not president, you look pretty dumb to me.

      I wonder what conclusions you are making when I'm back from my China trip.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    110. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Exactly!
      I was searching for words to write something like this but my english escaped me today :)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    111. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Wrong analogy, Kim is Hitler.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    112. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Great reasoning there, Sparky. Better hope they didn't both read it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    113. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Watch some Scott Adams videos if you want to know about the courtship ritual between Trump and Kim and

      Scott Adams as in the delusional author who used to write a funny comic? Not sure I'll be taking analysis from anyone who things that "fossils are bullshit".

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    114. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Trump surrounded NK with carriers and flew bombers off the coast. Moreover there are hard hitting sanctions that are harming Kim's ability to keep bribing his generals.

      You say that like it's been a change. North Korea has been under constant threat of extermination since the 50's, and Clinton started annual practice invasions of North Korea in the 90's - that go on to this day.

      North Korean nuclear weapons are regime change insurance, nothing more, nothing less. The only thing that American promises to commit genocide against them would do is get them to produce more nukes and longer range missiles, not less.

    115. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      She's more useful not being in jail. Imprison her and she becomes a martyr.

      She wont go to jail for the same reason her husband dropped the Iran Contra investigation, the same reason Obama didn't prosecute Bush for war crimes, the same reason Trump wont prosecute Obama for starting wars without Congressional authorization. They're all a part of the same club and aren't about to send anyone to prison least they end up there themselves.

      Right now she's a washed-up has-been that's so toxic even Democrats don't want anything to do with her anymore.

      With the voters, yes, but the party has been working very, very, very hard to make it clear they DGAF about the voters. From the DNC arguing in court they have the right to rig primaries to Steney Hoyer just getting taped on doing just that. The Clintons are still influence peddlers and most Democratic officials owe them favors - favors the Clintons are happy to call in.

    116. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Scott Adams as in the "delusional" author whose predictions keep coming TRUE. Maybe his model of reality is better than yours. I looked up what Adams said about fossils and it appears that another thing he has said is true: his critics mine the past to find things to dismiss him for but don't bother to actually listen to what he has said, and so, are forced to simply make shit up.

    117. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If something comes of it, sure. However, there were a lot more people involved than just Trump. Moon and the rest of the SK government deserve most of the credit. Even Xi helped achieve this outcome, it would seem.

      However, before everyone gets too excited, remember that this isn't the first time the North has made such an overture. For all we know, this could just be another gambit. I wouldn't buy my tickets for Stockholm just yet.

    118. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by doccus · · Score: 1

      Hillary isn't even gonna run in 2020.. It'll be (Gag!) Oprah!

    119. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by doccus · · Score: 1

      You really believe this psyco can suddenly become a peacenik?n I think there's really underlying reasons forcing him into it, or he wants to put everybody at ease before he pushes the button. It's either that or all the higher ups are not getting "gifted" anymore, so pushing Kim to this.. Or China forced him... Nothing to do with western politics tho. So no Nobel for Trump.. solly!

    120. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by doccus · · Score: 1

      p.s. yeah.. i did get the humor!

    121. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Maybe his model of reality is better than yours.

      He thinks fossils are bullshit, so I'm going to go with a "no" on that one.

      He also engaged in some good JAQing off about the death toll estimate of the holocaust. Apparently that doesn't fit his "model of reality" either despite being well documented.

      But then again, he does have a "certified genius level IQ" according to him, so who am I to argue, eh?

      his critics mine the past to find things to dismiss him for but don't bother to actually listen to what he has said

      Yes this is a thing. If someone has a record of spouting large amounts of bullshit, the rational thing to do is simply ignore them in favour of people who have a better record. After all my time is limited and I can't listen to everything everyone has to say then evaluate all of it with an open mind.

      If he's pissy about people ignoring him because of the bullshit, then perhaps he should spout less bullshit.

      are forced to simply make shit up.

      It's ironic you said that: your accusation of "making shit up" is in fact making shit up.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    122. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      Hillary would have done better. And she will do better when she wins the 2020 election. The entire world will be united under Hillary Clinton when she becomes president in 2020 or sooner.

      Onward Together!

      Sarcasm? I sure hope so.

      Yes. It's got to be. Nobody could be that delusional, other than possibly HRC herself. (The "2020 or sooner" was the tipoff.)

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    123. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see what you mean, but honestly I see this as a win for Kim regardless. As long as he is acknowledged as the ruler of North Korea, and the peninsula still separated in two, he wins. North Korea doesn't need the war to go on anymore anyway. Either he can bide his time and wait for Trump to leave office, or he can have North Korea begin the long road to modernization, allowing him to raise the economy and living standards up while being acknowledged as a legitimate regime.
      Unless Trump and Moon are planning to arrest Kim and invade the North, this isn't quite the slam dunk some people are making it out to be.

    124. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter how many they call in. The dems are done, so long as they keep pandering to corporate interests over their voters.

      The fact that Hillary lost is still a myth to some of them, the rest are in denial blaming everyone but Hillary herself. She's an aristocrat who has decided she wants to be Queen, consequences be dammed, and anyone who says no is her enemy that "misunderstands" her at best, or public enemy #1 at worst. Those facts alone should make her ineligible for the position by default. No one should become the head of state or hold any public office just because they want to. And that's before you get into the whole calling in favors, rigging the election, forcing out more popular candidates, not having any policy platform to run on, etc. that she also did last time. She's corrupt and should never hold public office ever again. You think its bad under trump? At least he was upfront about the BS, under Hillary, it would be exactly the same, the only difference would be that it was not reported on as much in the media.

      The dems still haven't learned their lesson. It will definitely be a shit show to watch in 2020, when we see just how much BS the US is willing to bare for 8 years. (Although history says she'll probably win, if for nothing more than "at least she's not trump!" Once again we are always feeding the lesser evil wolf, while starving to death the good wolf.)

    125. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > While I don't think the tweets were helpful

      You probably also thought Trump wouldn't win. It's clear you don't understand him. Certainly the media does not.

      While we won't know if Trump really is the "peace in our time" candidate until about 7 years from now, he's off to a really fucking great start.

    126. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > People like you said the same BS about Reagan and the dissolution of the USSR: it was all accidental, would've happened anyway, Reagan was an incompetent warmonger, blah blah blah. You simply refuse to grasp that a hardline, belligerent stance backed up with credible threats of military action actually work when facing down tyrannical dictatorships.

      ---

      I'm going to emphasize how correct this guy is. When I voted for Obama, I was hoping for someone who would approach our rivals and frankly our enemies with a better vision of a shared future. Obama did exactly that. It had some success, but mostly we saw Obama faced with a disgusting lack of respect that is due to our leader. They didn't trust him, and they took advantage of him. Well, ok. If you don't want to make a good deal with Obama, you can make whatever deal Trump will give you when he isn't banging porn stars or grabbing pussies.

      If the rest of the world wants to take advantage of the generosity offered by Mr. Obama, they can deal with Mr. Trump for eight years. And if they don't learn their lesson, well, we may not have another Donald Trump, but we definitely have some rich assholes we can follow up with. Iran and North Korea can get a diplomatic president to talk with when they have fucking earned it.

    127. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      And it was over a power point presentation denying the prize to a woman that had dedicated her life to peace. Survived the Nazis. Nope, Algore and his power point presentation (over bullshit, none of the stuff he claimed turned out to be true) is much better than her lifetime of work.

    128. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      responsible global citizenship? Letting ISIS take over much of Syria and Iraq? Destroying Libya and now they have slave markets? Yemen coup? The multi-million migration for those shithole countries into Europe along with terrorist attacks and thousands of rapes? Costing me thousands of dollars for less healthcare? The Muslim Brotherhood taking over Egypt? The #bringbackourgirls response to Boko Haram? Uranium one deal? Racial tensions the highest since MLK? Doing nothing as Russia toke over much of Ukraine? Chinese expansion in the pacific?

    129. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by pots · · Score: 1

      I'm confused about your comment. How are you connecting this to what I said? Are you claiming that Obama was going to do something that you would blame for costing you thousands of dollars for healthcare, and that the Nobel Committee should have known that you were going to blame it for this, and that your blame for his part in this thing that you think is responsible for costing you thousands of dollars in healthcare would, when it happened, represent poor global citizenship? Or you saying something else? I can't say that your comment made much sense to me.

    130. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read what you replied to? Leverage was regarding the Iran deal. Entirely different from the NK situation.

    131. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The citizen's wishes were state-sponsored terrorism in foreign nations via drones?

      Everyone is a terrorist from the opponents' point-of-view.

      You may be young, but I was here (I mean here at Slashdot) after the 9/11 attacks. For months a campaign was established to gather the necessary momentum to capture the perpetrators; and it was used to attack Iraq. Of course, Osama bin Laden wasn't there.

      After a lot of deaths, in the next government, there was still enough hate to persecute and kill him in Pakistan -- or so they say...

      Now, the United States is supposedly a democracy and the hunt was the subject of years of press coverage. Not all Americans wanted him dead, but the USA has a death penalty for a reason: somehow at least a significant part of the population find it to be a valid punishment. IMHO, that extends to any enemy at hand.

      I'll admit some people in the USA might disagree with such stance and simply not be able to do anything to stop it. Considering the widespread will to carry firearms, I don't expect such portion to be meaningful.

      But enough babbling: who do you think pays for the huge US military expenses? If you think it is the government, a hint: it's not. If you think it's the corporations, another hint: it is also not them.

      It's the common people, when they pay taxes, when they buy products from corporations from a government or corporations who promote war. Those same people won't ask their representatives to stop.

      Sometimes, it's for a good reason like preventing chemical weapons from being used; but we need a stronger UN to do that, not the USA. But nobody wants it, because if the UN gets stronger it will eventually prevent the USA (or any other country in the Security Council) from being aggressive, effectively reducing a country's ability to pursue its interests (which might involve killing people with drones).

    132. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > it doesn't automatically mean the poop flinger is a master negotiator

      Note it doesn't mean the opposite either. Besides, throwing poop is better than throwing missiles from drone that murder innocent people more often than not.

    133. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll give him NK (assuming it works out and not by NK taking over SK... which would be bad). I imagine the Kims believe (correctly) that he doesn't care how they run NK, while previous administrations made noises about how they had to change.
      But he never made billions. He was given buildings in NY, managed by a cadre of real estate professionals. As soon as he took any part in the business, he almost went bankrupt. They took the real estate business away from him, and left him the branding business, which was basically to keep him busy and out of trouble. That did ok, but not great, until he was hired (hired) to be in The Apprentice. Which he did not create.
      He's a terrible businessman.

    134. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the Kims (not NK) wants is to remain in power. All previous administrations wanted them out. Trump doesn't care. They want to negotiate with him because he's much friendlier to authoritarians.
      Maybe it's a good thing, but that's what it is.

    135. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Childish people who hate Trump typically were for Bernie.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    136. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      r/aznidentity reader detected

    137. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      No, you make it by choosing your parents well.

      So not working hard is the reason bill gates did so poorly. Makes sense.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    138. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      r/aznidentity reader detected

      There's half a dozen class action lawsuits on this already, and it's already well known. The LAtimes even did a piece on it back in 2015. Affirmative action is cancer in a meritocracy, which is the way society *should* be going. The people promoting socjus however, have really been pushing "sexuality, skin colour and race" as most important factor.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    139. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great comment, but I'm going to go with stupid.

    140. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, remember that time Hitler put pressure on other countries in order to prevent war and make the world safer? Yeah, Trump's just like that!

    141. Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Not sure what you're disagreeing with - sure the Dems are done with voters but, like I said, the party DGAF about voters. They would rather go on maintaining control of the party - and lose elections in the process - rather than do anything that annoys their donors.

      What I expect will happen: Dems will make modest gains this fall and maybe take back the house. And then Trump will win a solid re-election over Corporate Cory or Kamela "slave labor" Harris. Mostly because Kenn Star, I mean Robert Mueller's witch hunt still wont have produced a shred of evidence to support the idea that Trump colluded with Russia to swing the election. Trump can hammer that fact 24/7 on the Democrats and the corporate media.

      And he'll be right.

    142. Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is amusing to me that you attribute master machinations to a man has frequently demonstrated he could never articulate such plans, let alone enact them. Do you see elephants in the clouds and a face on the moon?

  2. Thank you Dennis Rodman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Awesome job Dennis! Thanks for your help!

    1. Re:Thank you Dennis Rodman! by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, you're supposed to believe that Obama set this all up in perfect stealth mode over a year ago, or that Hillary should get the credit because this would have spontaneously happened on her watch while she was continuing Obama's failed policies.

  3. but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But is there a way of accusing Trump of doing something wrong here? If you haven't been able to link Trump to this, and blame him for something, you aren't resisting!

    1. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHY DIDN'T HE LET OBAMA DO THIS?!

      I'm kidding.

      Also caps is free expression so fuck the filter.

  4. Camp Humphries by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It'll be interesting to see how they negotiate the removal of US forces from South Korea. The US has its biggest bases and airfields in all of Asia over there, and I can't imagine removing them is going to sit well with the Pentagon.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Camp Humphries by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Modern day gulag? check
      Starving citizens? check
      Brutal, oppressive and tyrannical dictatorship? check.

      (replying with snarky whataboutism -- "oh but the US blah blah" -- changes nothing, is utterly irrelevant to discussing NK, and absolutely means your mother will contract cancer within the next year. Caution is urged!)

      But once the heat ratchets down a little bit, the norks will go right back to the status quo. This changes nothing, other than a few BFF photo-ops.

      Wake me when it's unification time.

    2. Re:Camp Humphries by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Why? They had no problem closing the German bases fairly recently.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Camp Humphries by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      It'll be interesting to see how they negotiate the removal of US forces from South Korea. The US has its biggest bases and airfields in all of Asia over there, and I can't imagine removing them is going to sit well with the Pentagon.

      Who cares what the pentagon thinks. If we would focus on US citizens, not other countries and illegals, we could make at least our corner of the world a better place. Foreign wars only make well connected people rich while the common man on both sides dies.

    4. Re:Camp Humphries by mschoolbus · · Score: 1

      The US will not agree, unless South Korea wants to get cut off..

    5. Re:Camp Humphries by Solandri · · Score: 2

      The biggest U.S. military presence in Asia is in Japan. The treaties which ended WWII prohibited Japan from building up a military which it could project overseas. They're only allowed to have a self-defense force (which is why that name often shows up in Japanese anime). In exchange, the U.S. is responsible for protecting Japan from foreign attack. So by necessity it has a large military presence in Japan (though Japan has shoved most of it into Okinawa, whose people are discriminated against by mainland Japanese).

      From a logistical standpoint, Japan is an easier destination to reach from the U.S. (and vice versa). A great circle route between the U.S. and South Korea takes you over part of North Korea and Russia, which has resulted in simple mistakes producing tragic consequences in the past.

    6. Re:Camp Humphries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the debate over illegal immigration was about US citizens...?

    7. Re:Camp Humphries by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The biggest U.S. military presence in Asia is in Japan

      That's true, but it's not the same as saying the biggest US bases and airfields are in South Korea. Desiderio Army Airfield is listed as the biggest and busiest US airfield in Asia. Maybe my information is out of date though.

      Either way, we've got a lot of personnel and materiel over there. It'll be interesting to see what losing those bases does to those South Korean local economies.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Camp Humphries by schwit1 · · Score: 1

      Won't happen. The Chinese now control the South China Sea which means the US will want to keep its options available.

    9. Re:Camp Humphries by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Why? They had no problem closing the German bases fairly recently.

      The US still has lots of bases and airfields on the European mainland, though, doesn't it?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:Camp Humphries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From what? As someone who has actually lived in South Korea, working on a US base as a DoD contractor, what exactly will they be missing? South Korea is already quite a ways ahead of the US in terms of development and technology.

    11. Re:Camp Humphries by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They built an artificial island. Their Navy is still relatively weak, just not as weak as it was 10 years ago. In a 'shooting war' they are toast.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re: Camp Humphries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doctors in Venereal Disease clinics will be thrown out of work?

    13. Re:Camp Humphries by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I think the main one left in Europe is in Italy. The US still has lots of bases and airfield in Asia, but they are less important now. For a couple decades now, the US has had the ability to launch planes from Missouri, bomb a target in the middle east (or anywhere else in the world, really), and return home so the pilot can sleep in America after the mission. With that kind of projection ability, foreign bases are a lot less important, and to some degree all you need is refueling stations. Of course troop movements still take time, but with North Korea ending their war, there doesn't seem to be any place that requires troops to arrive withing a few hours notice (remember, airstrikes still can happen anywhere with a few hours notice). It is strategically acceptable in most areas of the world (I'm making my own judgment call there, but I think the Pentagon agrees) to ship the troops from the US mainland, especially since the US owns the seas.

      I only know from unclassified comments, but it seems like (again, to me) the Pentagon worries more about losing the ability to wage wars in multiple locations simultaneously (roughly, total military size) than they do about closing foreign bases.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:Camp Humphries by mapkinase · · Score: 2

      Adding: one of the largest US _tank_ brigades in the world is in South Korea.

      Trump is cracking on China, America's enemy number one, and it brings the fruits.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    15. Re: Camp Humphries by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Their new 'island' is a few heavy seastorms away from being a reef again. The sea is very unforgiving, and time is on it's side.

    16. Re:Camp Humphries by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The US still has about 40 bases in Germany. Also a base in Kosovo, Camp Bondsteel, that is surprisingly big.

      Even though a bunch of bases in Germany closed, we have a lot of "co-bases" with NATO left where the main force is American.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re: Camp Humphries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly what the people who didn't want us to fight the Nazis said.

    18. Re:Camp Humphries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, though you're just touching on the reality of this. The potential negative effects of peace on the Korean peninsula go far beyond the loss of bases. Note also that Kim Jong Un is coming to the bargaining table with more leverage than Korea has ever had. This is a disaster from the viewpoint of true American interests in the region.

    19. Re:Camp Humphries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was a dependent in Germany in the early 90s. I could not believe the number of bases we had back then. There are a number of German cities with multiple Army/Air Force bases. Crazy.

    20. Re: Camp Humphries by mschoolbus · · Score: 1

      The insurance policy of the US military. Goes beyond North Korea.

    21. Re: Camp Humphries by gravewax · · Score: 1

      The insurance policy of good relations with China and Japan is always going to be a far better insurance policy than the US can ever provide. SK is a well developed country, without the threat of war hanging over it from North Korea a total divorce from US political influences would likely be a hugely positive development for them.

    22. Re:Camp Humphries by gravewax · · Score: 1

      In a shooting war between any of the major powers ALL NAVY vessels are weak or obsolete and would be the first casualties in any major conflict, especially any Navy operating a significant distance from its home base.

    23. Re:Camp Humphries by Gryle · · Score: 1

      I think the main one left in Europe is in Italy

      No, not even close. Wikipedia has a list of military bases in Europe. The bases in Italy provide easy access to the Mediterranean. The bases in Germany, particularly Grafenwoehr and Hoehnfelds, are large-scale maneuver training areas, used by both NATO members and US allies.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    24. Re:Camp Humphries by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The biggest air base of the united states air force, on the world, is Rammstein, Germany.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    25. Re:Camp Humphries by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      They're only allowed to have a self-defense force

      Which is all anyone needs, anyway. Costa Rica doesn't even have an army - guess how many times they've been invaded. This is about the U.S. finding an excuse to occupy as many countries as possible, not defending anyone.

    26. Re:Camp Humphries by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      An invading force in the Chinese sea would face the Chinese Air Force and most likely long range cruise missiles and ground to sea missiles, you don't need a navy anymore to defend a coast line. Those times are long gone.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    27. Re:Camp Humphries by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      China is enemy of _no one_ (except you count Tibet), since the Vietnam war is over, they were not even remotely involved in any war.
      That the US consider China an enemy is a pure US thing. Why the funk would they, the Chinese, fight you? Attack you?
      On the other hand China is the leading nation in development aid for Africa ... they put America the shame in many things. Perhaps that is why you now want to call them "enemy"?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    28. Re:Camp Humphries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about future Democrat voters.

    29. Re:Camp Humphries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Navy is an obsolete concept, their is no point in having a strong one for anything but minor squabbles with small countries. In an age where hyper sonic missiles are real and both China and Russia have them and the US won't be far behind ALL modern navy ships are little more than floating coffins waiting for a conflict to start, it doesn't matter how powerful your NAvy is when it will be resting at the bottom of the ocean an hour after a major conflict starts. ships simply cannot compete against missiles that travel FASTER than your average high powered rifle bullet, any major conflict would see all military ships wiped from the face of the planet in the first few hours.

    30. Re:Camp Humphries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Block a straight with a navy, the ships have a choice of ramming them and likely sinking. You just have to hold your ground not fire and you win.
      Block a straight with aircraft. The ships erm, carry on sailing. All you can do is ask them politely not to or else open fire. Either way you lose.

  5. Trust, but verify by TomR+teh+Pirate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Kim has made a lot of commitments, none of them worth the paper they were printed on. I'll believe it when the inspectors believe it.

    1. Re:Trust, but verify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This right here. This dude and his family runs concentration camps.

      Trump did what none of the presidents before him did. He shamed China into doing something.

      Basically "hey china take care of this shit"
      "nope"
      "yeah hey world check out these pics of China braking our sanctions"
      "hmm yeah so what"
      "hey I am thinking about trade sanctions"
      "lets talk"

      Basically NK was no longer politically useful for China. Now the real work begins. Getting them to clean their shit up.

    2. Re:Trust, but verify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent propaganda. You have learned well your role.

    3. Re:Trust, but verify by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      You do not need a commitment to flick up an underground nuclear testing site. You just flick it up and, voila.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    4. Re:Trust, but verify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect it has more to do with Xi's enhanced position than shame.

    5. Re:Trust, but verify by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Cool! Should NATO bomb Los Alamos down to bedrock, or should the Russians do it?

    6. Re:Trust, but verify by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      "hey I am thinking about trade sanctions"
      "lets talk"

      Lulz. The next time you're at a store, just try and find a consumer product that isn't made in China. If they wanted to play hardball, all they'd have to do is block exports to the U.S. for a week and Wal-Mart alone would take of the problem for them.

    7. Re:Trust, but verify by dyfet · · Score: 1

      Here is the thing, peace is really cheap for Kim. He doesn't have to give up his kidnapped sex slaves or dynastic rule or address any past crimes at all. He can lock-in those gains. On the other hand, I really doubt he has any illusions of the dynasty and his pampered ass surviving another Korean war. Keeping his own pampered ass comfortable is far more important than the old party line of unification. For Moon, the motivations are related; clearly he has no illusions of the US caring about how many millions of Korean may die or how many decades of Korean prosperity will be wiped out just so that Trump can show he has a "bigger button". Letting Kim has his fantasy play land in the north is the price of survival for Moon's South Korea, and one he is very willing to pay given the options.

  6. Some day maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lemme know when the war is actually over and NK has no more nukes. We've been down this road to many times before. No reason to not keep trying but even less reason to get excited yet.

    1. Re: Some day maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy. Unite NK and SK, call it UK, then NK has no more nukes because UK has them all

  7. Cock Holster 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm surprised nobody produced a fakeface porn movie short of Putin humping Trump. It seems Korean innovation romps home again ahead with Kim and Moon snogging for the cameras for real. Trump is obviously feeling left out and according to the latest reports wants in on the action. Will Kim and Moon Thwart him? Will Trump be left holding his own dick? Is the news just a pretext for Putin getting a desperate Trump on his knees again?

    1. Re:Cock Holster 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not familiar with Rules of the Internet 34 are you.

  8. How did we come to this? by Mystiq · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm still confused how this even happened. Is Trump such a dick that North Korea wants to be the good guys again because they're afraid for their safety? What is the state media narrative in North Korea right now?

    1. Re:How did we come to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      NK has always wanted reunification. So, this is in line with THEIR wishes, not ours. The catch is the terms that they will insist on for denuclearization. This will almost certainly require US forces to leave South Korea. And then what's to guarantee that Kim won't invade?

    2. Re:How did we come to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What is the state media narrative in North Korea right now?"

      We have won the war with the US. Soon prosperity again for everyone.

    3. Re: How did we come to this? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I'm still confused how this even happened

      Someone gave Kim a ride in a TR-3B and it went down something like this.

    4. Re:How did we come to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Trump imposed sanctions.

      Yes, sanctions have been tried before, but past presidents started with soft sanctions... then said "but we don't want to hurt the starving people" or got screwed by the regime conveniently changing their mind on supposed "negotiations" at the last second.

      Trump started sanctions at a 10, and quickly cranked things up to 11. But despite these tough sanctions, n.korea was still flexing its muscle (launching many test missiles). That is when the US discovered trade ships still delivering goods from china to n.korea, after which, the navy started patrolling the area and doing "military exercises", back when everyone was sure "okay we might wake up and witness nuclear armageddon tomorrow". The US has been at war with chinese and n.korean businesses... it's war, 2018 style. For the first time ever, the sanctions seemed to have actually had an effect on the elite of n.korea.

      You cannot discount trumps visit to china, either. Like it or not, many in the chinese populace viewed trump as a rock star and he was warmly received all through out asia. The olympics were all for show, but just the fact that n.korea was there, and recognized on the world stage, might have had something to do with kim getting the courage to venture out.

      I'm almost too embarrassed to admit that if this really happens, Trump deserves the nobel... at least more than Obama did. And that's coming from a two time Obama voter.

    5. Re:How did we come to this? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      It wouldn't have happened if North Korea didn't want it, so they deserve credit. Kim Jong Un has spent a lot of time outside North Korea so he knows how things are.

      Beyond that, Trump talks like the "internet tough guy." You know how when someone threatens to punch your face on the internet, you just laugh? Once North Korea realized that Trump's threats ("I have a BIGGER nuclear button!") were just noise, they gained confidence that he wasn't actually trying to destroy them. This contrasts with Bush's way of aggressiveness, which sounded malicious ("Axis of Evil"). (I will allow someone else to analyze Obama's way of talking).

      Also Trump pushed China hard to put pressure on North Korea, so that surely helped, too.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:How did we come to this? by eaglesrule · · Score: 2

      With Trump making noises about putting tariffs on Chinese imports and adding to the cooling off of Chinese growth, support for North Korea may have come up on the bargaining table.

      There is also the matter of the collapse of the nuclear test facility with unknown repercussions within N Korea.

      It didn't seem clear that appeasement through saber rattling was going to work with Trump. With peaceful overtures comes a way to ease sanctions and dependence on Chinese support.

    7. Re:How did we come to this? by Junta · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of evidence that their nuke testing went badly (cave in destroying the site) and thus they may feel the need to give up on it. They may be trying to suddenly cash in their chips before everyone is 100% certain that they stopped testing because they had to. They presumed a successful nuclear program was within reach and the key to dominating through intimidation, and they had a reality check. Pivoting to saying "well.. we proved ourselves and we don't have anything to prove to anyone, so... uhh.. yeah we'll come to the table now... not because we see no other option, but because we want to... yeah that's it"

      The reports of the cave in seemed to mark the change in rhetoric, the response to Trump's brinkmanship seemed to pay back the aggressive words with interest, right up until the incident.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    8. Re:How did we come to this? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      It's a combination of factors. Trump and his hardline stance giving Kim no room for belligerent talk. South Korea recently electing a very liberal President (some even call him communist). And Kim still being relatively new to the reins of power in North Korea (2011).

      The combination of the three has produced a unique situation where the political stances which had been the status quo for over 50 years can be thrown out without anyone losing face. The long-term North Korean stance has been that South Korea is a puppet state of the U.S., and until now they've refused to negotiate solely with South Korea, always insisting on negotiating with the U.S. instead. The U.S. in turn has insisted that all major belligerents in the war be involved in any peace treaty talks (North and South Korea, U.S., China, and Russia). And South Korea's leadership has with a couple short exceptions been fairly conservative, and unwilling to yield almost anything to North Korea.

      Trump broke with the 5-country peace treaty stance the U.S. has held for decades, and agreed to meet with Kim one-on-one. It's a Nixon-goes-to-China situation, where only a hard-line opponent could give ground on a long-held position without losing face. Kim broke with North Korea's insistence that South Korea was a puppet state and that any peace treaty be negotiated between it and the U.S., and agreed to meet Moon directly as representatives of two nations. And Moon agreed to meet Kim, which former Korean Presidents from conservative parties probably wouldn't have been able to do without being kicked out of power by their own party.

      Kim also happens to be a k-pop fan. And one of the best ways I've found for reconciling two people with an acrimonious history is to start with something they both like. It sounds cheesy, but it forces you to think of the other side as being comprised of real people just like yourself, not nameless faces onto which you can project decades of ingrained stereotypes and prejudices.

    9. Re:How did we come to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that we have these lovely little things called more carrier battlegroups than the entire rest of the fucking world combined?

      They have these things, called planes. Planes that carry enough ordnance to reduce Kim, his family, his advisors, and his entire nation into smoldering ruins.

      Man, you people aren't armchair generals, you're armchair privates at best.

    10. Re:How did we come to this? by Junta · · Score: 1

      Well, the nuclear testing cave in that people are pretty sure happened probably contributed... I mean the change in tone seemed to happen very suddenly after that.

      Either their testing damaged their capabilities to continue their program irreparably, or having a major seismic instability introduced on their border strained things too far with China inducing them to intervene...

      I think they suddenly realized *they* needed to denuclearize, and better to make it seem like a favor to foreign relations than a defeat.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    11. Re:How did we come to this? by Junta · · Score: 1

      The whole "oh, NK is peaceful, they say they want reunification!" was an odd take on the sentiment. They've *always* wanted unification. Unification sounds all nice and happy, but that's also what a totally successful invasion would have looked like.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    12. Re:How did we come to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The old game was Kim getting on his soap box, making loud noises and yelling about nuking the US and posturing, and occasionally demonstrating to get UN Sanctions lifted.

      So Trump parked 3 Aircraft carriers and a bunch of subs on his door step and began giving loud speeches about nuking Kim to the international audience. Also, popping off rockets now and again by accident and going "Oops". China thought that was posturing, then he ordered air strikes in Libya on chemical weapons right before his visit. "Such Dreadful things, chemical weapons, I hate them". That scared China into asking everyone to "let calmer attitudes prevail". So now Kim's advisers are literally shatting bricks, China's asking Kim WTF did you do, Kim' is sitting there playing a game of chicken but instead of being in a car with your opponent he's standing in the street nude, and Trump is acting completely irrational and crazy; you wouldn't take a politician seriously if he says he's going to nuke you, but an absolute madman? So what do they do?

      They begin saying what Trump wants to hear (they give him his political victory); they will denuclearize and sign a peace treaty with the South, and begin quietly hiding what they have in mountains for later if they are needed.

      Trump forced a new game; that game is, North Korea now acts like a respectable country with its own ambitions instead of a bunch of imbeciles. Arguably, that is a game that's better for everyone.

      I sincerely hope the border gets opened and people can go visit eachother. That needs to happen, badly.

    13. Re:How did we come to this? by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Also Trump pushed China hard to put pressure on North Korea, so that surely helped, too.

      The point being Obama had eight years in which he could've done exactly the same things and had this happen on his watch...but didn't. Same goes for Clinton. If nothing else it proves the touchy-feely-hug-them-and-they'll-love-us approach was and remains the most idiotic way to influence tyrannical dictators. You'd think we'd have learned that given how well it worked in the 1930's but Obama was apparently too naive -- or too prideful -- to learn from history.

      Some of you here may not be old enough to remember liberals everywhere demonized Reagan the same way they're demonizing Trump now. "OMG HE'S A MADMAN WHO'S GOING TO START ARMAGEDDON!" They didn't realize that such a perception was the fucking point. People like Hitler, Kruschev, Saddam Hussein, Ghadaffi, and the Kim clan only respect one thing: power. So long as they perceived America as unwilling to pull the trigger, they acted however they saw fit. As soon as the Oval Office was occupied by someone they knew would pull that trigger, they changed their tone. It's an ugly way to play the game but sometimes it's the only option. Shrinking from it only emboldens people like Kim.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    14. Re: How did we come to this? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's a little extreme. Trump did good work but things have changed internally in North Korea, too. Clinton might have been able to finish the peace at this time, there are still too many unknowns to make a judgement. If Kim writes an autobiography I will read it eagerly. As for your post, your partisan rhetoric sounds angry and provokes eye rolls from people who are more sophisticated, people who understand that the situation is complex.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:How did we come to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The North Koreans had to learn the hard way that nuclear weapons are kind of a white elephant. Unlike the USA, they don't have vast deserts the size of a country to quarantine indefinitely. I'm given to understand that the test site was also dangerously close to a volcanic peak, and there was fear they could destabilize it enough to cause an eruption.

      Also, the US and USSR had MAD -- Mutually Assured Destruction. North Korea could seriously wound the USA at best, then be totally destroyed. What's the point? The cult of Kim doesn't promise 70 virgins or anything. They want to live too.

      So they're out of options. The best option, peace, is being tried now that all other alternatives have been exhausted.

    16. Re:How did we come to this? by q_e_t · · Score: 1
      Reagan was actually morally opposed to nuclear weapons, which was a significant factor in pushing for talks.

      Sure, us liberals loved to hate him back then, but he was a better man than we realised. An example would be his letters, with personal cheques, to distressed citizens.

    17. Re:How did we come to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reagan was rightly hated for pushing the free market fundamentalism form of capitalism. It's been known since the first few months of Obama's term that Obama was to the right of Reagan, so far has the Overton Window moved not just in the USA but throughout the commercialised media of the western world. He wasn't hated for being a shitbag, he was hated for being a know nothing who believed a select group of asshats about their economic theoris that never panned out as they claimed (but DID pan out for their own prosperity).

      The hate wasn't for Reagan, but for the part of the policies that saw a disconnect between the American Dream and the American Reality. His policies (along with Thatcher's) saw productivity continue to increase as usual but wages stagnate. At that point, hard work was not rewarded by more money, it was only rewarded by keeping your job.

    18. Re:How did we come to this? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      He's not that big of a dick. It just shows how crazy our press and the Democrats are here that even North Korea is better at working with Trump than they are. That is how out of whack our press and the Dems are. I predict they will lose big in the 2018 elections.

    19. Re:How did we come to this? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I'm still confused how this even happened. Is Trump such a dick that North Korea wants to be the good guys again because they're afraid for their safety? What is the state media narrative in North Korea right now?

      State media... something about Dear Leader being a great peacemaker for the good of the great socialist republic or some such.

      What actually happened was that China threatened to stop protecting North Korea. Most of this will have been driven by Beijing.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  9. MASH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So Hawkeye can finally go home to his wife? Damn, that will bum him out.

    1. Re:MASH by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Hawkeye wasn't married.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    2. Re:MASH by Digital+Avatar · · Score: 1

      Sure he was. He was married to a dry martini.

    3. Re:MASH by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      He was married in the original novel, not in the TV series loosely based on it.

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

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  10. Trumps super negotiator powers by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Trumps super negotiator powers

  11. Kim won by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    we've acknowledged him as the legitimate ruler of North Korea. That's what this was about. As soon as Trump said he'd meet with Kim, Kim won. He doesn't need the nukes any more. He's still got enough firepower to flatten South Korea, so he's still got his hostage situation. The nukes were just a trick to get us to the table and to get us to legitimize his reign. Worked too.

    On the one hand I should be upset we're giving approval to yet another dictatorship. On the other hand NK is hardly the first and Trump just got outmaneuvered and lost his shot at an Iraq style war. On the other other hand there's still Iran, and they don't have a hostage to protect them.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Kim won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He still needs the nukes, and he won't give them up. He might pretend to, though. More likely, he will offer denuclearization in exchange for concessions that the US won't be willing to make.

    2. Re:Kim won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A neocon? I thought you guys died off.

    3. Re:Kim won by eaglesrule · · Score: 2

      North Korea is ripe for unfettered capitalism and indentured slave labor, though. Surely that has to factor in somehow.

      So the Job Creators get to fatten themselves that much more, Kim skims off the top and stays in power to live like a Saudi prince, this frees us up for a war with Iran to the delight of the military industrial complex, and Trump gets to crow that he accomplished something. What's wrong with that plan?

    4. Re:Kim won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if he isn't the "legitimate" ruler of North Korea, then who is?

    5. Re:Kim won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > we've acknowledged him as the legitimate ruler of North Korea. That's what this was about.

      He is the legitimate ruler of North Korea. Pretending we are still at war, pretending that China would be ok with that, pretending that the monarchy that is in its third generation is just some junta, it is all fucking pretending. If Bush, Obama, or Trump had launched a land invasion of North Korea, backed by our most powerful non-nuclear weapons, would that actually be the removal of an illegitimate regime, or would that be toppling an existing actual power? How would it be reported, how would it be received, in the hearts and minds of all concerned?

      It's been decades since the USG could plausibly claim that the Kim dynasty is not legitimate, not in charge, etc. Trump is doing what others were afraid to do. His threats are plausible, his actions steady, his success undeniable.

    6. Re:Kim won by fatwilbur · · Score: 1

      "acknowledged him as the legitimate ruler" - this is a very weak point I think something only an anti-Trump zealot would highlight as a negative here. Whether "acknowledged" in some official manner or not, he is most definitely the top person in power in NK and running the show there, the de facto ruler. Whether or not you agree with their form of government (I sure as hell don't), not acknowledging him as leader sounds like the old way of doing things, and we saw how well that worked.

  12. Too bad Obama already won the Nobel peace prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    for promising to do this...

  13. Prodigy... by ElitistWhiner · · Score: 1, Funny

    US has been in conflict with North Korea beginning 1866 with the current Korean War de jure dating back from present to 1950. A decade would be about right to de-escalate, de-nuclear, disentangle the peninsula from the source of conflicts that remain.

    1. Re:Prodigy... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

      US has been in conflict with North Korea beginning 1866

      Interesting notion. Especially since North Korea didn't exist until 1945. Before that, Korea was a single nation, ruled variously by the Chinese, the Japanese, and even occasionally the Koreans....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Prodigy... by novakyu · · Score: 1

      Even more interesting notion. When has Korea ever been truly independent of foreign control?

    3. Re:Prodigy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When has any other country been truly independent of foreign control? Every country gets manipulated by its environment.

    4. Re:Prodigy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read up on the history of Gogoryo and Joseon?

    5. Re:Prodigy... by novakyu · · Score: 1

      And yet, vast majority of Goguryeo's territory has nothing to do with current Korea. Once again, what an interesting notion, "Korea being ruled by Koreans." And let's not talk of Yi Dynasty.

  14. Finally took action that mattered by thesupraman · · Score: 3, Informative

    And finally pushed people to take action on taking away the flow of luxury goods to 'the great leader' and his cabal.
    Since prior to that, their life of luxury has been untouchable, why why WOULD they want anything to change?

    The old approach was to do things that in effect punished the general population, but never EVER touch those in control,
    after all they are the ruling elite, and you just cannot do anything to THEM, think of the children!

  15. It's because he's... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So ronery, so ronery.

  16. Wow by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People are really over-reacting to this - on both sides. It's certainly better news than if the two presidents had walked away from the table shouting "LOCK AND LOAD!" - but, right now, it's just words, and there have been plenty of words before.

    Moon isn't an idiot - he's well aware he's got 25 million of his people living in and around a city that's only 35 miles from North Korea. He hasn't committed to much of anything... nor has Kim. "Ending" a war which has effectively been over for 70 years is a symbolic gesture, but little more than that.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are overreacting. Trump will never be the frontrunner/nominee/president.

    2. Re:Wow by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Because of Trump's sanctions, Kim has only three choices open to himself: (1) attack the US or South and die the same day, (2) ride his Communist economy down to zero without the outside world and be killed by his own people within two years, or (3) become a globe-trotting elite rock star who oversees the strongest growth his people have ever known. Which would you choose? "Wow" is a tell-tale sign of cognitive dissonance.

    3. Re:Wow by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Talk to people in Korea before you say the war has been over. Just because people aren’t continuously exchanging gun fire doesn’t mean there are no people dying in war zones.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re:Wow by bussdriver · · Score: 2

      People should wise up and watch a good old movie to get some apparently new thoughts:
      https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0...

      NK has been saying stuff about deals forever; plenty of informed people realized that they didn't have a nutcase leader and they were going to get a position of power and some form of equality (nukes) so they could negotiate as one of the "big boys." The Iraq war only proved what a lot of smart people thought since the cold war. When they could theoretically nuke US leaders back, I expected them to adopt the same sort of line other nuclear adversaries.

      Don't be so naive and think Trump had hardly anything to do with this... NK is going out of it's way to see all the actually important players 1st and do all the real work. China deserves most the 3rd party credit; the next super power... who is shrewd enough to become the unquestionable world power before the formal boasting begins.

    5. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My pessimistic take on this is that NK saw just how well the Crimean situation turned out for the Russians. In order to swing something like that, they need a lot of plants. It's hard to get plants when you're actually at war. So, end the war, send plenty of your operatives in under various covers to spread throughout the SK communities, and in about 15-20 years, light your signal and take what's yours.

    6. Re:Wow by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      but, right now, it's just words,

      This is something that everyone seems to have forgotten. The red vs blue armies are so quick to shout "Trump is awesome" and "This is not Trump's doing we're lucky we're not at war" to realise what has actually happened:

      Two leaders had dinner and smiled at a camera.

      And that was it.

    7. Re:Wow by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      NK has been saying stuff about deals forever; plenty of informed people realized that they didn't have a nutcase leader and they were going to get a position of power and some form of equality (nukes) so they could negotiate as one of the "big boys."

      North Korea's threats are retaliatory - "we can hit you back if you strike us" - and their nuclear weapons program is pure regime change insurance. Americans may have forgotten that they killed three million Koreans in an illegal war, flattening every city in the north, but they haven't. Nor are they willfully blind to the annual practice invasions the U.S. has been running every year since the Clinton Administration. Which means every year NK has to mobilize a million people in case this time it's for real. During planting season - and then you use the resulting food shortages to complain about those craaaazy North Koreans some more.

    8. Re:Wow by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The war in Europe ended 1991, with the so called 2+4 talks/treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Before that WEST Germany was considered occupied. German police had no right to stop an american soldier who was speeding, not even if he overrun a pedestrian.
      The war is over when all parties agree so, not just because a cease fire or an occupation last 40 or 70 years (and even then it might be tricky).

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Wow by swillden · · Score: 1

      "Ending" a war which has effectively been over for 70 years is a symbolic gesture, but little more than that.

      Have you been to the DMZ? The war has been on hold, but hasn't been over. Both sides are armed to the teeth and serious as shit there.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:Wow by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      The Korean war began on 25 June 1950 when North Korea invaded South Korea, and so far NK has been unwilling to end it.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    11. Re:Wow by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      The WWII was over when the axis powers surrendered unconditionally. This was in 1945.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    12. Re:Wow by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Not for germany ... the war in germany ended 1991, perhaps you want to read my previous post: AGAIN

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  17. What does he need them _for_? by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As long as he can blast Seoul into rubble (and he can) I just don't see him needing them. He's got plenty of deterrent right there. It's not like the Israelis who, thanks to anti-Semites and their deeply rooted hate (boarding on psychosis), have to worry about nut cases rolling in to exterminate them and just not caring about conventional weaponry. The NK/SK dynamic has always been a hostage situation. It's odd that the media never really talks about it. Then again like I said we're shopping around for our next big war. Looks like NK is out of the running. Syria & Iran are next up.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:What does he need them _for_? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      There would be an insane artillery dual. But N Korea's guns are in fixed implacements that have been zeroed for decades. They wouldn't get off more than a few rounds. Less, if they were shooting at the civilian areas rather than the S Korean guns.

      The people I've known that served in the Korean DMZ are of the opinion that they were there to keep the South from going North, for decades now. Look at the relative size of the economies.

      If it wasn't for China, the second Korean war would have happened in the 1980s and wouldn't have taken but a couple of days.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re: What does he need them _for_? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Seoul is his own people. The civil war is to wind down. Koreans killing Koreans is the old way.

      All the armchair generals here, and all over the US when it comes to Korea, fail to acknowledge that it is a Korean issue for Koreans to resolve.

      One of the really big breakthroughs is Kim's willingness to negotige with the South Korean president directly. For many, many years the North Korea refused to acknowledge the South Korean government as anything more than a US controlled puppet. The NK side for years always referred to south Korea with a lower case 's'.

      This is the time for Koreans on both sides of the line on the map to make change, if they can. One thing I have been disappointed about is the lack of attention to how the people in the north are reacting.

    3. Re:What does he need them _for_? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      As long as he can blast Seoul into rubble (and he can) I just don't see him needing them. He's got plenty of deterrent right there. It's not like the Israelis who, thanks to anti-Semites and their deeply rooted hate (boarding on psychosis), have to worry about nut cases rolling in to exterminate them and just not caring about conventional weaponry. The NK/SK dynamic has always been a hostage situation. It's odd that the media never really talks about it. Then again like I said we're shopping around for our next big war. Looks like NK is out of the running. Syria & Iran are next up.

      You're always a bit braver when the gun is pointed at your head instead of your neighbour's.

      The artillery is a good deterrent, but not a great one when the US and China are your biggest threats. NK needs long range nukes if it wants to make sure that one of the giants doesn't decide they can "probably" solve the Kim problem without risking Seoul.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  18. I don't see that happening by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    any more than we pulled out of Japan. NK is still a military threat to SK anyway. And why would SK spend money on defense when we're doing it for them?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I don't see that happening by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      any more than we pulled out of Japan. NK is still a military threat to SK anyway. And why would SK spend money on defense when we're doing it for them?

      Asian press has been reporting that the US out of South Korea will be one of Kim's conditions. It's not unprecedented. In 1991, Bush Sr removed all US nukes from South Korea.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  19. We've been doing that for ages by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    what triggered this is folks think Trump and his Cabinet are crazy enough to actually go to war and let NK make good on their threat to flatten Seoul.

    I still don't like this outcome. We've not acknowledged Kim Jun Un's regime as legitimate. At least legally (and practically, since there's plenty of folks who don't follow politics enough to know NK's a monarchy and not a Democracy).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: We've been doing that for ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No.
      Three triggers.
      First, China is sick of their shit.
      Second, their military power is smoke and mirrors.
      Third, they're afraid that Trump is a big enough asshole to call their bluff, even if it means a few thousand people in south Korea get killed.

    2. Re:We've been doing that for ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "folks think Trump and his Cabinet are crazy enough to actually go to war "
      Trump is unpredictable and nobody knows exactly what he will do and this is a good thing. He is a poor President but he is necessary. The status quo needs to be challenged on both the domestic and international relations sides. Prior to Trump the US had been 100% predictable when it came to addressing international relations. Being predictable gives your adversaries the upper hand in almost every conflict. If you know what your adversary is going to do you can adjust your actions accordingly. Russia knew it could invade Crimea and start a civil war in Ukraine because the US reaction was totally predictable. Russia figured a few meaningless economic sanctions was a small price to pay for taking control of it's former eastern bloc vassal states. Russia thought they would have a friendly US President who would withdraw the Obama era sanctions instead they have received quite a few hard kicks in the nuts by an unpredictable US President. Trumps unpredictability finally got China to enforce the economic sanctions targeting NK. Trumps tariff war threats against China has also finally got China talking about addressing the US complaints against China for it's unfair trade practices, currency manipulation, and intellectual property theft. China is dealing with an unpredictable US President who thinks the US could actually win a trade war with China. Trumps boisterous Twitter attacks on the NK missile man was unprecedented and certainly not Presidential. Trump's unhinged ramblings about destroying an entire country using the big button on his desk really broke the mold. It's one thing for some little country with a few nuclear bombs to threaten the US but it is an entirely different matter when a country with enough nuclear missiles to blow up the world 3 times over openly threatens to use them. I actually thought Trump sounded rather excited about the prospect of pushing his big button.
      When Trump questioned the usefulness of NATO and complained about countries not fulfilling their funding commitments those behind in their payments suddenly ponied up the money owed.

      Trump scares people. He is not a politician and never even tries to be one. He is not a Republican or Democrat. He is not a liberal or conservative. He has shown no interest in playing politics with the DC power elite and he seems to enjoy attacking the media. He certainly doesn't play the identity politics practiced today. He is not a statesman or skilled orator. He is everything a President shouldn't be but when his Presidency is over he may be remembered as the President who finally ended the NK-SK war. The President who reminded US allies that relations between countries go both ways. If you are going to constantly criticize and berate the US don't expect US military support and lopsided trade deals to continue. He may be the President who finally forced the Palestinians to face reality, disarm, and sue for peace with Israel. Moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem is just a kick in the head for the Palestinians who need to realize they have lost 3 wars against Israel and if there is a 4th the US will not prevent Israel from ending the conflict any way they see fit.

    3. Re:We've been doing that for ages by datavirtue · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Spot on.

      But I say "Presidential, professional: Who gives a fuck. People want real."

      Fake, pretend fuckers have been dragging us down into the ditch for far too long.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    4. Re: We've been doing that for ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the mountain they were using for nuclear testing collapsed. Oops.

      Kind of hard to start a new test site while their economy is crippled.

    5. Re:We've been doing that for ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What triggered this is that the NK nuclear test site collapsed after the last test and is no longer usable. The mountain is too unstable for any more tests. Rather than restarting the test program somewhere else (where? It's a small country), Kim is leveraging the event to get concessions from the South and the US without losing anything.

    6. Re: We've been doing that for ages by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Kind of hard to start a new test site while their economy is crippled.

      Honest Q: When has the North Korean economy not been crippled?

    7. Re: We've been doing that for ages by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      When it was propped up by the soviet union...
      For many years, the north was ahead of the south economically. That only changed after the collapse of the USSR.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    8. Re: We've been doing that for ages by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I've heard the saying "making a mountain out of a molehill", but never the other way round.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:We've been doing that for ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sort of like Chris pretending not to be Chris.

    10. Re: We've been doing that for ages by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Not quite that late. North Korea fell back in the early seventies or so.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    11. Re: We've been doing that for ages by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The outcome isn't done yet. War still isn't over, and both Korea's want unification.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re: We've been doing that for ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and both Korea's want unification.

      But under what style of government? Maybe it's too soon to actually be talking about such things, but I find it odd that among all this talk of reunification, I'm not seeing anything about how that reunification would happen.

    13. Re:We've been doing that for ages by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      When ever was winning a war not legitimate to rule over the country you conquered?
      Oh, you don't consider NK won the war? But they do!

      You accepted Yugoslavia, East Germany, you more or less accept Taiwan, what is wrong with accepting NK?

      In my book you still occupy unlawfully Hawaii!

      Lets talk about world peace when you have released Hawaii into its rightful liberty and reign if his rightful Queen (or is there a King right now?)

      How many years does it take that you accept the reality of a global map?

      Catalonia is on the map still part of Spain. Similarly NK is its own country, and Hawaii is part of the US.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re: We've been doing that for ages by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That is nonsense ...
      Go read a book about it!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    15. Re:We've been doing that for ages by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      We've not acknowledged Kim Jun Un's regime as legitimate.

      Given the number of democracies overthrown by the United States and that fact that it supports three quarters of the world's dictatorships, having the U.S. judge a country's legitimacy is like setting up your sister on a blind date with Ted Bundy.

    16. Re: We've been doing that for ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the post WW2 transfer of power in Korea, South Korea had the dictator and North Korea had the populist candidate. As you might expect, the US backed the dictator and the war ensued.

    17. Re:We've been doing that for ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh, during this insane, Hitlerest, fascist president's run, it looks like there will be one less dictator.

    18. Re:We've been doing that for ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is utterly predictable.

      They will not do the right thing unless there's no other option.

      Kim saw this (and the fate of non-nuclear states), and played them like a master - the rest of the world saw this outcome as soon as the first nuke went off. Notice how the sabre rattling from the US turned into blowing raspberries after that moment? "Oh, please Mr Xi, please Mr Lavrov, you have do something!"

      The emperor now has no clothes.

    19. Re:We've been doing that for ages by g01d4 · · Score: 1

      He is a poor President but he is necessary.

      I think the jury is still out on this for both foreign and domestic issues. China (South Sea) and Russia (Crimea, Ukraine, Syria) haven't changed and even excluding Syria the Mideast is still a massive, well, shit hole The current Korean Kumbaya moment will need to stand the test of time to demonstrate its value. It's also as much or more due in large part to the recent Korean president whose attitude towards the North differs from his predecessor. Domestically Trump's unpredictability has, if anything, hindered his working with Congress, limiting any accomplishments to something a little more than a 'triangulating' Democrat might achieve.

    20. Re:We've been doing that for ages by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Spot on.

      But I say "Presidential, professional: Who gives a fuck. People want real."

      But they ended up with Trump... the most fake and pretend mother fucker of them all.

      Trump is an example that people will happily flock to a pleasing lie that makes them feel better than accept a slightly uncomfortable truth. An extreme example.

      So what you really meant to say was "Presidential, professional: Who gives a fuck. People want their egos massaged and biases confirmed"... because that's what Trump did. Hes as real as a page 3 girl's tits.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  20. Who is the more dangerous fool? by shanen · · Score: 1

    Having trouble trying to imagine the technology-based link of this article. How SNS run amok allows super-liars to take over countries and cling to power? Doesn't seem to apply very well to North Korea, especially back when Kim's grandfather became dictator.

    Big picture context: China does NOT want a strong and unified Korea. That could be quite troublesome. China would probably prefer an extremely weak and unified Korea, but if they can't get that, then the current divided mess is acceptable. There isn't going to be any REAL peace in Korea unless China approves. I actually thought the Chinese were going to make a deal of taking Taiwan in exchange for giving up North Korea...

    I think that right now Kim Jong-Un is just teeing Trump up for a YUGE kick. Kim is NOT going to retire to a dacha, no matter what Putin promises, and he knows it. Kim is just pretending to be the reasonable dictator. Case 1: He's going to trust Trump to tell the truth? Case 2: He's trusting Trump to phuck it up and give him a YUGE enemy? Dictators LOVE enemies, and the more incompetent the better. Actually Trump already teed himself up. By threatening to walk out to "win", Trump has defined a game of reverse chicken. Whoever walks out first "wins". If they ever meet, I'm betting Kim walks out first.

    If anyone is actually pulling Kim's strings, it must be Putin. The punchline there is that Putin is making money on every side. By controlling the timing, he can make money betting on every side. No one actually knows where his money is hidden, but he can even sell his own companies short when he triggers stuff that looks bad for them, then bet on the other side when he flips the switch.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:Who is the more dangerous fool? by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You should probably pay more attention to S.Korean politics. They just finished having an election there after the previous president was impeached and was a batshit crazy feminist that believed she was the reincarnation of a god and actively operated drugging dens for teen girls and the head of one of their largest multinational companies was directly bribing the president for policy. And, illegally destroyed documents(server wipes) tying all of this together. But was too stupid to destroy handwritten notes. Her daughter is singing like a bird and so loudly that it's damn right hilarious to save herself from life imprisonment. The two other options between Moon were, soft-China and soft-Japan neither won. Moon on the other hand has had a reunification desire after a friend of his was assassinated by Park's father in the 1960's for pushing for reunification.

      In the end it doesn't matter what China wants, or even Japan, or the US. It's S.Korea and N.Korea's choice, and it looks like finally it might just happen with help from all parties involved.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Who is the more dangerous fool? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China wants this. This is happening because Kim Jong Un took his little choo-choo train to China a few weeks ago, and they told him to do this. They didn't do this in fear of Trump's threats. It is more like a judo move where they are using Trump's momentum to achieve their goals.

      They evaluated South Korea as being more terrified by Trump's threats than North Korea - after all, the fight would be on their soil - and they evaluated North Korea's bargaining position to be the strongest ever now that they are a nuclear power. China is the world's largest industrial power now and is ready to start casting themselves as the sane superpower unifying the Asian economies with South Korea being one of the biggest catches. We can no longer stop it.

  21. Obama got his for "Not being.Bush".. by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    , and holds onto it despite continuing and expanding many of Bush's policies and wars while in office..

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    1. Re: Obama got his for "Not being.Bush".. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We tried to warn you how far Oabama was going to/was moving the Overton window... You didn't listen, I stead called us racist. Enjoy the world you created.

  22. The war hawks in US won't like that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last thing they want to see is a unified Korea that no longer need US military "protection", not to mention the close to billions of dollars they get from the South Korean government.

    1. Re:The war hawks in US won't like that by guruevi · · Score: 0

      I’m not sure China would like it. South Korea is a US ally and the US has got both parties at the table. If North Korea becomes westernized and their economy funded by the US like South Korea, China will lose a powerful deterrent.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  23. It just happened... by elcor · · Score: 1

    You can feel how much the invisible is influencing the world these days. It is nice that everybody finally agreed to get out of this mess and move onto something more joyful. Thanks.

  24. Completely Unrelated by quantaman · · Score: 1

    I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that NK has to take a break from Nuclear tests since they literally nuked their Nuclear test site into oblivion.

    The thing to remember is that NK cares about the survival of the regime above all else. Kim Jong Un has no intention of denuclearization or re-unification.

    I suspect his end game is Nukes, a mostly closed border, no US army on his doorstep, and no one trying to orchestrate regime change.

    If the US, South Korea, and China are happy with that the war can probably end.

    --
    I stole this Sig
    1. Re:Completely Unrelated by avandesande · · Score: 1

      And how do you know all this? Maybe Kim is a little bit more clever than you think he is and doesn't believe the current path for NK is sustainable. We recently made peace with Cuba without interfering with the current political structure and without hangings. Perhaps Kim sees himself as the savior that will reestablish some sense of normalcy to NK. Just a thought but I bet being a dictator in NK is both isolating and boring.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
  25. Well Done President Trump! by Ferretman · · Score: 1

    IF (and it's a big if) this pans out you definitely deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Ferret

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    1. Re:Well Done President Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why the fuck would he deserve it for efforts primarily performed by china and south korea? Trump is a fucking blowhard that has only hampered the situation.

    2. Re:Well Done President Trump! by gravewax · · Score: 1

      think you meant well done Moon Jae-in? basically really only 2 things that have lead to the possibility of peace, Moon Jae-in's efforts and North Korea's collapse of their test site. If they even nominated Trump it would be truly a last straw for the peace prize, it was bad enough when they gave it to Obama, it would make the whole thing into an even worse joke.

  26. it's a trap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once South Korea is toothless, China will invade. You read it here first.

  27. He probably doesn't care by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    what triggered this is folks think Trump and his Cabinet are crazy enough to actually go to war and let NK make good on their threat to flatten Seoul.

    No! What really triggered this is folks think Trump is literally Hitler!

    (Gotta love the gymnastics people are attempting, just to put Trump in a bad light here.)

    The reality is that he probably doesn't even care about the Nobel prize - he probably viewed North Korea as another problem to fix, and went and fixed it. Next up: Iran.

    My take, after watching his actions over the past couple of years, is that he doesn't actually care what people think or say about him.

    So please tell us how he's flinging poo everywhere, has no plan and doesn't think and doesn't read and is stupid and immature and is literally Hitler...

    ..and has somehow just racked up yet another massive win.

    For the world.

    1. Re:He probably doesn't care by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My take, after watching his actions over the past couple of years, is that he doesn't actually care what people think or say about him.

      Trump is in the unique position of being more popular than the press. Flinging dung at him will only work if people like you. The cast of characters that are constantly on the air waves flinging dung, are neither liked nor trusted. Not one bit.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  28. I think your underestimating modern weapons by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and by modern I mean the last 50 years. Remember, it's 2018. Even if his stuff is 50 years old we're talking the 70s. And he's been blowing off his populaces well being for weapons this entire time. I'm guessing he's got plenty of OK stuff from the Soviets.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I think your underestimating modern weapons by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      They did not get any military stuff from the soviets since the 1970s, most likely neither from the Chinese.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  29. We don't think Trump is Hitler by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    we think he's a proto-Hitler. He's not competent enough (or brutal enough) to be the next Hitler. What we're afraid of is that he's eroding the institutions that are supposed to stop the next (real) fascist. He's also probably going to tank the economy (between the Walstreet deregulation, massive debt for tax cuts and general graft and incompetence). And nothing helps a fascist rise to power better than an economic crash.

    I know this all seems like hyperbole, but I also know that, as a historic fact, folks said the same thing back when Hitler came to power. Patter recognition. We humans can do it if we try...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patter recognition. We humans can do it if we try...

      Except for when crime statistics are concerned. Apparently because that's racist!

    2. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, *you* think he's a proto-hitler. The same guy that isn't rounding up people, but is more then happy to come out swinging against him. The same guy who isn't telling the police to shoot people, but is more then happy to attack them publicly win or lose. The same guy who places blame on both groups, but also says both groups have good people in them. And you're screeching "but he didn't DENOUNCE THEM!" just like the media told you. He's put people into place who are ardent believers that the constitution isn't a "living breathing document" but foundational to the point that it's sacrosanct and all law should be build around, and not that the constitution should fit the law. He's doesn't care to play nice with the media, this isn't a fault. It's a bonus. Trust in media is declining worldwide and he isn't the cause of it, the media itself is.

      For a fascist, proto-fascist, next hitler he's doing a pretty shit job. You have no pattern recognition in this, if you did you would have been screeching at Obama when he was using EO's to create policy by fiat, and leaving the US in the current cluster fuck with DACA among other massive abuses of executive power bypassing the house and the senate. Hell you would have been screeching when Obama was preforming extra-judicial killings of american citizens without trial. At least Bush Jr. attempted to give some semblance of legal rights how badly it was regardless.

      God damn give your fucking head a shake. At this point, it seems like the anti-trumpers would have been happier with another war or three. And considering all the neocons who flipped from Bush Jr's side after the tea party groups drove them out, and to the democrats and progressive left? I'm not fucking surprised.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure can get verbose without making any coherent point. All we ever hear from Trump supports is "but, Obama", "but, Hillary". FFS

    4. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure can get verbose without making any coherent point. All we ever hear from Trump supports is "but, Obama", "but, Hillary". FFS

      Pot-kettle-black.

    5. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      folks said the same thing back when Hitler came to power.

      Hitler rose to power preaching socialism and labor unions. Fucking think for once.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re: We don't think Trump is Hitler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which Hitler backpedaled on when he came to power.

    7. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by Burz · · Score: 0

      Almost all Trump and other Republican office holders have been doing is saber-rattling *and* persecuting people at home and elevating white supremacists.

      Using illegal immigration to whip up racist resentment and then directing that towards African Americans (boy, is that term apt now!) is an especially nasty tactic. Listening to Trump's propaganda, you'd almost think that migrant workers from Central America were teaching classes to African Americans on how to commit voter fraud.

      Swelling the ranks of ICE and sending them onto people's property without warrants. Breaking up families and stripping citizenship over the smallest of irregularities (e.g. immaterial) in forms and interviews.

      Relentless attacks against the press, including threats, and regularly excluding them en-mass except for a tightly-held group of mouthpieces.

      And most of this is *illegal* which is why Republicans are also waging war against legal professionals and the judiciary. That is the final straw.

      Hitler had a lot more time to acquire this kind of momentum, and it should go without saying that one doesn't even have to be a Hitler to be a fascist. R's in Congress are goose-stepping much more closely than Nazis were at 18 months in. Enough.... Trump and his accomplices can continue to scream maniacally at the FBI, but from jail cells.

    8. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The same guy that isn't rounding up people

      Er: https://www.citylab.com/equity...

      > The same guy who isn't telling the police to shoot people, but is more then happy to attack them publicly win or lose.

      Or roundly praise and encourage police brutality: http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

      > The same guy who places blame on both groups, but also says both groups have good people in them.

      Whilst one of those groups are literal neo-Nazis that killed people, and others are counter-protesters against that. I'm not sure how supporting murderous neo-Nazis is a plus in your argument as that's certainly a little bit Hitlerish.

      > He's put people into place who are ardent believers that the constitution isn't a "living breathing document" but foundational to the point that it's sacrosanct and all law should be build around

      As long as it fits their hard-right interpretation of the constitution rather than a fair, objective interpretation, and he stacked the courts to make sure it stays that way. The problem with the constitution isn't that it's black and white between those who back it and those that don't, it's that it's way too ambiguous in many areas, and it's a question of whose interpretation is right. The fact you think there's a single correct interpretation and that those who back it can be the only true defenders of the constitution doesn't make you right, it just makes you a hard line uncompromising wing nut.

      > Trust in media is declining worldwide and he isn't the cause of it, the media itself is.

      Nope. The media isn't remotely responsible for Russian disinformation campaigns, nor is it responsible for the populism that rallies people against them with lies, from people like Trump, Le Penn, and Farage. That's firmly on the populists and the propagandists - the media would love to be able to continue reporting facts without being attacked for it, but each time they do and it's related to Trump he sows distrust by claiming they're lying, simply for publishing the facts. That's the very essence of populism, and yes, it's also exactly Hitler's modus operandi.

      Thankfully however, you're largely wrong, and most people haven't fallen for it. Trust for traditional media has actually risen overall, "increased distrust in the media" is almost entirely based off the back of distrust in social media, precisely because of the expose of the disinformation campaigns being run off the back of social media. Whilst trust in traditional media saw a dip during the running of fake news propaganda campaigns that were run in support of the Trump camp, the aftermath of that has led to a bounce in support for traditional media, and a plummet in the trust of social media. Here's the UK picture for example:

      https://www.campaignlive.co.uk...

      Effectively what we're seeing is pushback from attempts to turn public trust against the media - whilst it worked for folks like Trump and the Brexit crowd at first, when people realised they were being lied to in populist campaigns, they railed against it and returned to supporting the traditional media because they know it's more trustworthy than the networks on which the populist disinformation campaigns were run.

      Sure he's not created concentration camps, or invaded his neighbours, that's not all Hitler relied upon, and Trump most definitely has used a large number of Hitler's tactics. In fact, here's a bunch of people allied with Trump and his political ideology admitting exactly that:

      https://www.indepe

    9. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to he confusing Hitler with Rohm. Rohm was murdered by Hitler in 1934, just as soon as he was no longer useful.

    10. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      At this point, it seems like the anti-trumpers would have been happier with another war or three.

      Don't worry, by all accounts that is still coming.

    11. Re: We don't think Trump is Hitler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? I didn't read any mention of Bush in the GPs post.

    12. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the constitution is sacrosanct, then maybe pay attention to Article I, Section 9.

    13. Re: We don't think Trump is Hitler by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Once a socialist always a socialist!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Hitler rose to power saying he'd imprison socialists and union leaders. He ran on a platform of scapegoating Jews, which he claimed was behind both movements. Just what the fuck are you talking about?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    15. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by LordAba · · Score: 1

      we think he's a proto-Hitler. He's not competent enough (or brutal enough) to be the next Hitler. What we're afraid of is that he's eroding the institutions that are supposed to stop the next (real) fascist. He's also probably going to tank the economy (between the Walstreet deregulation, massive debt for tax cuts and general graft and incompetence). And nothing helps a fascist rise to power better than an economic crash. .

      And the left are trying to erode free speech in a way that can be used by the next dictator as well... look at the UK almost sending a man to jail for a Nazi joke. I view Trump as the lesser evil here. The alt right haven't been as big in the news lately now that antifa are being negatively viewed in the media as well... and it's still social death to be actually racist (as opposed to the fake racist that social Marxists like to throw around). I personally think we are doing better, except for the fighters in the courts trading free speech for feelings.

    16. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by LordAba · · Score: 1

      Patter recognition. We humans can do it if we try...

      Except for when crime statistics are concerned. Apparently because that's racist!

      The interesting thing is that... it really isn't about race. It's more about single family homes. ~70% of Black children come from single parent homes. The race that is doing the best in the US (Asian) are ~15% from single families. Coming from a single parent home tends the child towards lower economic status while growing up, higher chance of committing a crime, lower education, etc... they are basically behind at nearly all points of their life.

      Granted, try talking about family values to the people who blame racism on everything and see how far that gets you. I'm not even talking about "traditional" values... I have no problem with a married gay couple adopting (since last I looked they tended toward stable relationships and higher economic strength than straight married couples). Just, you know... condoms are fucking cheap.

    17. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      And you're screeching [...]

      I would say that it's ironic such an accusation is coming from you, but that would be the height of understatement.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    18. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      ~70% of Black children come from single parent homes.

      That's because the fathers are put in prison by white people!

      (InB4 AmiMoJoke)

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    19. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, one dumb headline and you Trumpers are tripping over yourselves to praise him.

      I'll tell you what...when the de-nuclearization actually happens, then you can have your victory party and pat yourselves on the back.

      THIS IS JUST MORE BULLSHIT FROM THE BULLSHITTERS AND IN A FEW MONTHS THERE WILL BE MORE SABER RATTLING

    20. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The media is a war propaganda mouth piece, it's still the same shit as the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Obama's wars in Libya and Syria, the fraudulent and fabricated claims of Syria using weapons that are parroted by every single member of the mass media, lest they lose their career. If you want an analogy, what we lived through this month is like Hitler's invasion of Poland again, except a "humanitarian"-inspired false flag followed with "humanitarian" strikes.

      The Hitler is "multilateral", or trilateral maybe. We have a dotard, female and baby-faced Hitler triumvirate that will rain down missile on these evil chemical Syrians and their allies that dare resist the "democratic" and "humanitarian" terrorists.
      I don't disagree with the beginning of your post, but you seem to believe in Russiagate conspiracy theories, conflating the entirety of the fake news problem with the Russian government. What I may see, comfortably from abroad, is hysterical internal US politics and shitposting, and profit-motivated click farms that were operated during (or after) elections by random kids and individuals.
      The only evidence of "Russian influence" I seen is.. the Russian media. The media is the media. That's why they reported news, political and other, on the internet.
      Yourself asked us to trust the media!

      It's one good thing to denounce neo-Nazis : few will disagree with that. But while you may denounce Nazis, racists, go-back-to-the-kitchen etc. there's this hysterical and equivalent witch hunt against Russians and their evil "influence" and treachery and how having a link with any Russian or anything Russian or influenced by Russians is highly "suspicious" and any such association (of unsubstantiated and tenuous nature) is tantamount to treason.
      This is, my friend, extremely similar to a modern version of antisemitism.

    21. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about what actually happened in Germany, facts in evidence due to the films of over a decade of Hitlers speeches. What are you talking about?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    22. Re: We don't think Trump is Hitler by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Which Hitler backpedaled on when he came to power.

      Does it matter? He roses to power preaching socialism and workers rights, therefore his base of support consisted of people that wanted socialism and workers rights. Those are the people that became concentration camp guards and worked in his war factories. Hitler drove the message all the way from the left, through the extreme left, and settling on the extreme right. The socialist workers right people because the extreme right, not like the narrative you fucks have been spinning where people like Dave Rubin are "extreme right."

      ..and today the left is attacking Trump from the right with their McCarthyism and their pro-war pro-bombing position on the middle east

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    23. Re: We don't think Trump is Hitler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll leave this here

      "And considering all the neocons who flipped from Bush Jr's side..."

      And considering all the neocons who flipped from Bush Jr's side

      And considering all the neocons who flipped from Bush Jr's side

      One more time. Fuck it:

      And considering all the neocons who flipped from Bush Jr's side

    24. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I would say that it's ironic such an accusation is coming from you, but that would be the height of understatement.

      Well well, if it isn't the person who can't click on links that would refute their talking points. Life sure is tough in that bubble isn't it?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    25. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Let me see, them flyover peoples are getting 'uppity' and need to be knocked down huh? Where have I heard that one before...oh right. It was from democrats, with regards to blacks. Strange that when a political party which labeled itself as "working class" refuses and then pisses all over a large segment of it, people have enough. Never mind that you should be more worried with antifa and their communist agitation or anything.

      So let's get this right: Expecting law enforcement, to do their jobs hands untied and issues to be dealt with by the courts is white supremacy. Especially with dealing with illegals, who of course directly impact african americans the most by taking jobs at a lower rate of pay. See the shining example of two bakeries in Illinois in the last month. Or the fact that the previous administration implemented the highest "catch and release" program under any president in US history.

      Requirements for sanctuary, or temporary residency require that you tell the truth. If you lie, out you go. FYI the system is extremely lenient on retroactive changes if you do so in person.

      Relentless attacks on the press? Oh, so he's telling the secret service to go shake down some WAPO reporters? Hey, you know who actually did that? Obama, repeatedly. Not only did he do that, but he illegally wiretapped multiple reporters from AP, AFP, Rueters, and Fox.

      Funny how you were happily complacent when the previous government was doing the things you're proscribing to Trump and he's *not* doing.

      I'm not sure which is more pathetic. That you think the "R's in congress are goose stepping" or that you just finished blindly ignoring the democrats implementing a purity test for party affiliation. You fucking hack.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    26. Re: We don't think Trump is Hitler by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      And considering all the neocons who flipped from Bush Jr's side

      What's the problem? You don't like the fact that all those neocons flipped from the republicans after the tea party drove them out, and were welcomed with open arms by the democrats? You know why don't you? Because they both hate the more centrist, smaller government movement in the republicans that have been building over the last decade. Go on, look up all those speech writers, pundits, inner-circle people who couldn't find a war they didn't like. Go look where they are now, what think-tanks they work for, who pays them. You're gonna run into an awful lot of democrat/progressive/big-hollywood people involved.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    27. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Wow, one dumb headline and you Trumpers are tripping over yourselves to praise him.

      I'll tell you what...when the de-nuclearization actually happens, then you can have your victory party and pat yourselves on the back.

      THIS IS JUST MORE BULLSHIT FROM THE BULLSHITTERS AND IN A FEW MONTHS THERE WILL BE MORE SABER RATTLING

      I remember you, it was back in 1987 and you were spewing the same garbage against Reagan. I'm not sure what's most pathetic with the left today and I mean this in the truest sense. That you're so die-hard against anything positive in this, or that I can find across multiple leftwing sites, that if Trump has anything to do with this it's "so bad for us, that another war would be a better option." Disgusting.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    28. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I personally think we are doing better, except for the fighters in the courts trading free speech for feelings.

      And trying to make that law don't forget. As can be seen in Canada, where the Liberal Party is trying to change the definition of allowable evidence including the revocation of exculpatory evidence which could find an individual innocent.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    29. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by mjwx · · Score: 1

      we think he's a proto-Hitler. He's not competent enough (or brutal enough) to be the next Hitler. What we're afraid of is that he's eroding the institutions that are supposed to stop the next (real) fascist. He's also probably going to tank the economy (between the Walstreet deregulation, massive debt for tax cuts and general graft and incompetence). And nothing helps a fascist rise to power better than an economic crash.

      I know this all seems like hyperbole, but I also know that, as a historic fact, folks said the same thing back when Hitler came to power. Patter recognition. We humans can do it if we try...

      So less of a Hitler and more of a Pinochet or Franco... although I suspect Franco was far more competent.

      I'll say it out loud, the reason why Trump is compared to Hitler is that both of them made it popular and acceptable to openly be a bigot. However I cant see Trump holding together a government through force of will like Hitler did.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    30. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We actually have sent someone to jail for using the N word on twitter.
      Apparently this caused offence to someone and was deemed racist in the context it was used - quoting words from a song by Kanye.
      Their defense was that it's ok for Kanye to stand before 20,000 people at Glastonbury and use racist and offense language because its' entertainment but it's not ok for them to quote him on twitter.

      They lost and have been given a custodial sentance.

    31. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      socialists

      That's wrong, it was communists. Because the german communist party had been funding a group called antifa who'd been running around for several years, burning businesses, attacking people who refused to bow to them and so on. Are you that fundamentally ignorant of history? Never mind, the answer to that is likely yes.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    32. Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me see, them flyover peoples are getting 'uppity' and need to be knocked down huh? Where have I heard that one before...oh right.

      Basket of deplorables...

  30. this is excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the South Korean President who gets the game ball here. Trump will certainly try to take credit for it, as he should and as any past President would have, but caring about that is viewing everything through a US-centric lens. It's fantastic news. What happened is the new South Korean President is a lefty peacenik by Korean standards and the north now has the bomb, their test facility caved in, they have radiation problems and Kim would rather be a super-celeb on the world stage dating Korean pop stars and partying with Denis Rodman, Trump, I dunno Britney Spears and a bunch of strippers.

    Just wait until he gets a load of quality western cocaine!

  31. War Not Only Inevitable But Imminent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No change has occurred: NK hasn't given up anything and the USA hasn't either.

    This is all a setup for a preemptive tactical nuclear strike on NK's conventional arms north of Seoul and on known nuclear and military sites. After that, the USA will do cleanup (no invasion, only search-and-destroy missions on suspected WMD storage sites) until it is believed nothing dangerous remains.

    NK will be handed off to the Chinese to run, SK will remain a free and separate democracy.

    Next stop, Iran.

    1. Re:War Not Only Inevitable But Imminent by irving47 · · Score: 2

      Aw, man... We're DUE for SOMEthing good happening in this arena (international politics). I'm *not* hippy-leaning, but "give peace a chance."

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
  32. Even imcompetents beat you now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If he's so incompetent, why does he keep beating you?

    Enjoy the cognitive dissonance. "Though this be madness, yet there be method in it," as the Bard said.

    He's not stupid. He's not incompetent. You're the one who is out of the loop here. The rest of us actually saw him winning it and realized he would ahead of time when you guys were utterly shocked that he won and frantically trying to figure it out.

    1. Re:Even imcompetents beat you now? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      He also keeps losing.

      But to answer the point about the two things he "won": ultimately he won the primary and the general election because it's easy to win when you don't follow the rules. Trump doesn't follow the rules. Those who follow the rules aren't brazenly bigoted and divisive in an election, scapegoating everyone from undocumented Mexican immigrants to Muslims, nor do you promote violence, they know it's an easy win but it destroys the country in the long term. Trump did anyway.

      You don't accept help from foreign powers. Trump did anyway.

      You don't encourage people to commit crimes against your opponent and take advantage of the results. Trump did anyway.

      Combined with a milquetoast press that hated Trump's rival even though it knew she was more qualified, and was more than happy to repeat the most batshit insane conspiracy theories about her from the well oiled right wing machine that's been churning these things out since the early 1990s, and with Comey's refusal to the two candidates equally, and Trump had a hidden advantage. And even then, he only won because our elections are broken, and consider trees more important than people.

      Otherwise, he's been mostly losing. The election candidates he's backed have consistently failed. His attempts to turn bigotry into policy have been overturned and obstructed by everyone from judges to five star generals. He can't keep hold of any of this staff. The Republicans in Congress have pretty much ignored him when passing legislation.

      By any reasonable metric, he's a failure. He can only "succeed" when he does by breaking the rules. Just as his property empire is built upon unpaid contracts and convenient bankruptcies.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Even imcompetents beat you now? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      "Doesn't follow the rules" played the primary fully within the rules, didn't rig it, got the most delegates, beat the field. Unlike the democrats who: rigged their primary, paid off the primary opposition, used super delegates to ensure only one person won. Then, when she was running received multiple donations for foreign nationals including saudi arabia, and russia.

      Yeah, he's losing so much that this is the first time in 15 years people have seen a 4% increase in their wages while the price of goods remained flat against the GDP.

      But hey, let's look at Hillary's reasonable metric of success. She helped further destabilize the middle east, killed a dictator that was in the state of modernizing his country. Which then fell into warring semi-antonymous areas who held their own military power(the only reason why ISIS was unable to get a foothold there). Then bragged about how it was a great thing. Then she wanted to drone someone at a foreign embassy, on allied soil. Boy we're just getting started with that success.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  33. Re:Public masturbation of 184564 by Mashiki · · Score: 0

    Imagine being this bitter and out of touch.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  34. Re:Public masturbation of 184564 by shanen · · Score: 0

    Z^-2

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  35. A new Golden Age is upon us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump is ushering a new Golden Age for humanity. He has opened our minds to things once thought impossible. All hail Emperor for Life Trump!

    [][]\/[][]D -4- []_[]

  36. This *is* nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed under obama the same thing happened at least twice:NK pissed about looking dangerous,got told to stop, asked for some help and they would then stop, got the help and stopped.

    And given this is what's happening this time too, in what way is this any different from the "terrible deal with iran" that drumpf continues to whine about? He was here at the time.That's all.

  37. Have nukes, get respected. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    It's that simple.

    Especially if you're enemy no1 and show that you're ready to use them.

    I'm looking at you, Ukraine.
    Or you think Putin would've pulled off his little stunt if the Ukraine were still armed with ICBMs?

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:Have nukes, get respected. by quenda · · Score: 1

      Or you think Putin would've pulled off his little stunt if the Ukraine were still armed with ICBMs?

      If you mean the annexation of Crimea, then yes. ICBMs would have been about as useful as a hand grenade in a dispute over a taxi fare.

  38. Trump hasnt made billions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's lost billions. Dumping his cash in a index linked fund would have made more money. And he still hasn't got billions anyway,maybe never did.

  39. Gullible by spinitch · · Score: 1

    A totalitarian slave state is not likely going to give up its survival means. More likely a ruse to lift sanctions that will then falter. Of course need to play along on the remote chance progress might occur but should hedge that outcome. E.g Seoul residents should migrate further away from border.

    1. Re:Gullible by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      that's right the USA isn't going to stop attacking people that didn't attack it, wars and rumors of war are profitable and keep the sheeple patriotic

  40. Polack navy's new submarine sinks by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    The NK nuclear program was crippled 5 weeks ago by a massive explosion.

    That's pretty ironic, if only in an Alanis Morissette kinda way.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Polack navy's new submarine sinks by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Reminds me about the movie "Dogma" ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  41. Re:Public masturbation of 184564 by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    Imagine being so bitter that you can't refute anything either. What a sad life.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  42. US is the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean just like the US, as a country, where it is common for a new president to go back on things promised by the previous president? Did you forget TPP already?

    That's not including the flip-flop by the same president, which also aren't rare.

  43. Peace breaks out by Camarillo+Brillo · · Score: 1

    It's about fucking time! MASH has been off air since 1983,

  44. qanonposts.com by dbreeze · · Score: 1

    If you're truly interested in what's going on behind the curtain, I recommend you spend some time catching up and get in the fight. As much as Alex Jones is vilified, he is right about one thing: There IS a war on for your mind...

    --
    When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
  45. NK was CIA op from way back... by dbreeze · · Score: 1

    qanonposts.com Catch up, or get left behind in ignorance and fear.

    --
    When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
  46. New south Korean president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a Korean family. It's the new president in South Korea that has much more to do with this than trump. You may recall the previous president was imeached in an influence scandal after months of high profile protests. There was a hard swing left as an example. President moon is of a generation and type that really want and fight for peace. The last left wing president also made huge strides towards peace (, before bush stuffed it up.

  47. When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    If you know what your adversary is going to do you can adjust your actions accordingly. Russia knew it could invade Crimea and start a civil war in Ukraine because the US reaction was totally predictable.

    That might work when you're playing with conventional weapons, which could take years and cost millions of lives.

    However it could also cause one side to think they're in a "use 'em or lose 'em" situation and overreact leading to a really futile and stupid gesture on somebody's part.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  48. Ho-Hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same old, same old. If anyone thinks this is anything but a gambit from Kim, they need to spend a few decades in North Korea. For some reason, Kim currently needs to buy time. It might be because one of his test sites collapsed and they might need a couple years to start up again.

    This isn't about Trump, and it isn't about the anonymous great leader of S. Korea; it's about Kim and no one else. In the end the pusillanimous Europeans will push the US to give something up in exchange for "peace" with N. Korea, and then a few years later, we will find that Kim was cheating all along. Joke's on us. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 14 times, we are idiots.

  49. Every word in that post was false by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Insert Luke picture here.

    we've acknowledged him as the legitimate ruler of North Korea. That's what this was about.

    No. This is about the fact that Americans killed three million Koreans in an illegal war, flattening every city in the north. Americans may have let that one slip down the memory hole but they haven't - along with the dozens of democracies the CIA has overthrown since the 50's. There's also the annual practice invasions the U.S. has been running every year since the Clinton Administration. Which means every year NK has to mobilize a million people in case this time it's for real. During planting season - and then you use the resulting food shortages to complain about those craaaazy North Koreans some more.

    This is about North Korea wanting to get off the Regime Change list, and it's nuclear weapons are Regime Change Insurance. Nothing more, nothing less. North Korea has tried negotiating with each new administration but are blown off teach time.

    He still needs the nukes, and he won't give them up.

    As long as he can blast Seoul into rubble (and he can) I just don't see him needing them. He's got plenty of deterrent right there.

    Come again? A top Republican outright said attacking North Korea would be totally worth it and those hundreds of thousands of South Koreans (at least) would just be collateral damage. Democrats DGAF about civilian casualties, either - Obama was happy to send drones after children and the Clinton Administration let half a million Iraqi kids die from sanctions.

    And then there's John Bolton, who's such a warmonger 'he makes Dick Cheney look like Noam Chomsky'. And Trump just named him his top advisor on warmongering. So if you were in North Korea facing that kind of history, and these kinds of war criminals, would you be so carefree in giving up your deterrence?

  50. American Exceptionalist BS by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    People like you said the same BS about Reagan and the dissolution of the USSR: it was all accidental, would've happened anyway, Reagan was an incompetent warmonger, blah blah blah. You simply refuse to grasp that a hardline, belligerent stance backed up with credible threats of military action actually work when facing down tyrannical dictatorships.

    All that belligerence delayed the collapse of the USSR as aggressive foreign threats only inspire patriotism among the people. Same reason Ahmadinejad enjoyed popular support he wouldn't have had with constant American threats to bomb Iran for a nuclear weapons program that Bush and then Obama knew full well Iran didn't have.

    Here's what really happened minus the neocon gaslighting

    FTFY.

    1) The U.S. killed three million Koreans in an illegal war in the 50's

    2) The U.S. flattened every city in North Korea in said illegal war

    3) The U.S. has been practicing invasions of North Korea every year since the 90's

    North Korea's nuclear weapons are regime change insurance against your imperial warmongering. In some small back corner of your mind even you know you're full of shit here - compare the number of countries attacked by North Korea since the 50's (one, South Korea in tit for tat exchanges of artillery) to the number of countries the U.S. has bombed in just this century.

    1. Re:American Exceptionalist BS by corydoras · · Score: 1

      Yes, this.

      Thinking that North Korea is now backing down because they created a military threat to themselves is absolutely backwards. The threat has always been there.

      Now they have teeth, and no one's going to dare invade.

    2. Re:American Exceptionalist BS by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      All that belligerence delayed the collapse of the USSR as aggressive foreign threats only inspire patriotism among the people.

      As usual, your ideology so blinds you to reality you cannot see the forest for the trees. Reagan realized the USA could never compete with the USSR in a straight-up conventional conflict. The USSR had too much manpower and conventional resources (tanks, planes, etc.). So Reagan came up with the novel idea of playing to the USA's strengths, mainly technology and the economic benefits of capitalism. In essence, we spent the USSR to death by rendering their massive conventional strengths obsolete with, among other things, stealth technology. Had SDI become a reality we'd have rendered their strategic forces largely obsolete as well, although I'll freely admit the USA might've spent itself into oblivion implementing it. The socialist planned economy of the USSR was horrifically inefficient and could not compete. The Cold War was won economically, not militarily.

      As for the "illegal" Korean War...just stop. Please. The United Nations Participation Act of 1945 authorized the President to provide US troops for UN missions. If you wish to insist the Act itself is unconstitutional then please get the SCOTUS to agree with you and then I'll agree with you. Until then, you're just frothing. Missouri v. Holland (1920) holds treaty obligations may empower the Federal Government powers otherwise outside its domestic constraints and provided the basis for the UNPA.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    3. Re:American Exceptionalist BS by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      your imperial warmongering

      Oh I almost forgot: the 1960's called. They want their communist propaganda slogans back along with your entire collection of Che Guevara t-shirts. Peace out Comrade!

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  51. Re:Crazy AF John Bolton, is that you? by doccus · · Score: 1

    The status quo needs to be challenged on both the domestic and international relations sides. Prior to Trump the US had been 100% predictable when it came to addressing international relations. Being predictable gives your adversaries the upper hand in almost every conflict.

    You just justified Kim acting (as portrayed in western media) as a crazy hothead willing to nuke Japan.

    Russia knew it could invade Crimea

    Russia didn't invade shit, propagandist. Russia had an existing base in Crimea - if moving troops through there is an "invasion" then your dumb ass invades 30 locations in Germany alone each year.

    and start a civil war in Ukraine because the US reaction was totally predictable.

    It was the United States that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine, you nazi POS. Do try and explain why it was totally legit for the U.S. to spend five billion to 'bring Ukraine the future it deserves' but totally illigit for Russia to accept Crimeas vote to succeed from the junta.

    Thank for saving me having to write the exact same thing. It seems that there's two camps, those that follow what's REALLY going on.. which takes (heaven forbid!) some actual effort, or the MSM / "Newsmax" crowd, who gladly swallow the pablum spoonfed them...
    THX for not being the latter!

  52. Re:Crazy AF John Bolton, is that you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't lose your head komrade you will blow your cover. Here have a vodka and stare at a picture of shirtless Putin hugging a bear... there there...see how you start feeling all warm and fuzzy inside?

  53. Trump ran on populism too by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    so yeah, populism works to get fascists in power. Preaching doesn't mean doing. Looks at Jim Baker and Clefary Dollar. It's easy to fool desperate people because, Hey, what Have You Got to Lose? Now, who else do we know who used that line...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Trump ran on populism too by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Yeah, so did Justin Trudeau. Does that mean he's Hitler as well? About Macon? May? They both did as well, gee it's almost like you scream fascist so often that it's losing all it's meaning. Just like "racist, sexist, homophobic" and so on. The fact that you fail to understand that the reason Trump won was because he *is* the warning shot across the bow to the establishment, and you've still not figured that out is rather telling.

      Watch the election in Ontario, Canada. Because it's about to happen again, and guess what? It's directly due to the policies, beliefs, ideas, and values that you, and others like yourself have pushed for years.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  54. Re:Public masturbation of 184564 by shanen · · Score: 0

    Z^-3

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  55. Re:Public masturbation of 184564 by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    Come on little coward, it's not that hard. Why don't you tell everyone which parts are fake, besides that all being public record.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  56. Re:Public masturbation of 184564 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-4

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  57. mod parent up by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    too bad I don't have mod points. Really good points I wish I remembered to make.

    1. Re:mod parent up by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      thanks :)

  58. Re:Public masturbation of 184564 by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    So if you're so scared of competing opinions and fact, why even bother posting here? Or is your echo chamber so important to you that you think it should apply to everyone.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  59. Re:Public masturbation of 184564 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z--5

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.