[Atlantis]

@Ter, when we talk about the sponsors of terrorism, we need to put the US at the very top of the list. It's the bread and butter of the empire. Terror and regime change is what the empire does on a professional basis. Following with some distance on that list are the Brits and the Saudis. Far behind are the freelancers and the amateurs like Iran and Turkey.

I don't want the Iranians to have nuclear weapons, but I understand anybody wanting nukes as a protection against US and Israel aggression. The Brits and Yanks have interfered in Iran since the Brits first struck oil in Iran in 1909. The CIA coup against the democratically elected PM Mosaddegh in 1953, the years of brutal repression by the US puppet Reza Shah, etc., have left deep marks in the ME and even in Europe. The US has a record of disarming a country before invading it. It's not the Iranians that have to prove their good faith; it is up to the Yankee imperialists to prove that they will respect the sovereignty of another country. To do so, they first need to stop strangling the economy of the country.

Regarding the control of nuclear weapons, the only way is a process of constant monitoring by an international organization.

Notwithstanding that the current regime is retarded, Iran is a real country with a great history. Its people have great intellectual prowess rooted in millennia of cultural achievements. It's not comparable to pariahs like the Saudis, who are a bunch of brainless camel drivers that happen to have struck oil.

Who can go on believing the myth that the US is protecting us with a president who is a danger to the world and to his own people? That narrative is fast collapsing even in the eyes of the most naive. What remains is a rogue superpower that can only be contained by all people of good faith uniting against it.

[4cal]

No nation in the history of humanity has done less relative to its military, financial, and diplomatic strength than the United States.

[Ter]

@Atlantis
Thank you for expressing your point of view clearly and politely.
What you said makes sense.

Let's hope that the possibility of military action restores some kind of balance and maybe even civility to the Region.

I want to add one point: the politicians in the US and in Europe have been screwing the public for the last fifty years at least. Which led to the Trump Presidency, Brexit, and AFD and so on. Wherever I look I see extreme polarisation : in the UK about BREXIT, in Germany about the immigrants, in the US about Trump. With an added effect that the mainstream news media have lost credibility. That kind if damage will be difficult to repair or even forget.

Let's see.

[Atlantis]

Let's hope that the possibility of military action restores some kind of balance and maybe even civility to the Region.

It beats me how you can mention "civility" and "military action" in the same breath. The two are at the exact opposites of human behavior.

I want to add one point: the politicians in the US and in Europe have been screwing the public for the last fifty years at least. Which led to the Trump Presidency, Brexit, and AFD and so on. Wherever I look I see extreme polarisation : in the UK about BREXIT, in Germany about the immigrants, in the US about Trump. With an added effect that the mainstream news media have lost credibility. That kind if damage will be difficult to repair or even forget.

The loss of faith or trust in the "establishment" is due to the lies the empire needs to propagate in order to justify what cannot be justified: crimes against humanity in the name of greed.

That trust needed in the established order to keep us falling into utter chaos with mangled bodies of newborn babies torn apart limb by limb cannot be recovered by adding lies upon lies. The lie that is Donald Trump is bigger than all the lies of previous administration combined.

No, let's not see what will invariably happen because the outcome is predictable and destructive.

[Ter]

It beats me how you can mention "civility" and "military action" in the same breath. The two are at the exact opposites of human behavior.

I disagree. If one party shows up as the meanest dog on the block, the others better behave or get badly beaten up.

The loss of faith or trust in the "establishment" is due to the lies the empire needs to propagate in order to justify what cannot be justified: crimes against humanity in the name of greed.

We are not on the same wavelength here.
I was referring to the mainstream media becoming hysterical about Trump. They have seemingly lost all feel for proportion, they became farcical.

No, let's not see what will invariably happen because the outcome is predictable and destructive.

I don't see any alternative but to wait and see. There is nothing you or I or anyone else here can do about it.

[MistyTiger]

Bolton is a blathering fool who needs to be admitted to a nursing home and shot up with meds. I didn't like him during the Bush era and I doubt he has improved since then. He's as bad as Rumsfeld if not worse.

[foxdemon]

Bolton is a blathering fool who needs to be admitted to a nursing home and shot up with meds. I didn't like him during the Bush era and I doubt he has improved since then. He's as bad as Rumsfeld if not worse.

At least Rumsfeld knew when to resign. We haven’t seen hide nor hair of him since. These days people seem to think they can continue to hold high office regardless of what they do wrong. Maybe there are a few people around who could learn from Rumsfeld’s example?

[Potemkin]

At least Rumsfeld knew when to resign. We haven’t seen hide nor hair of him since. These days people seem to think they can continue to hold high office regardless of what they do wrong. Maybe there are a few people around who could learn from Rumsfeld’s example?

Rumsfeld didn't jump, he was pushed. Left to his own devices, he'd still be in office to this day. Lol.

[foxdemon]

Rumsfeld didn't jump, he was pushed. Left to his own devices, he'd still be in office to this day. Lol.

Certainly there were many who wanted him gone. He actually tendered his resignation twice, but junior refused it the first time. In the end junior was Rumsfeld’s only supporter. Sort of an unknown known. To Everybody else it was a known, but to junior it was an unknown that Rumsfeld’s time was up.

[Ganeshas Rat]

I think it is a very logical appointment. In the best interests of both DPRK and South Korea is to unite. We've already seen the movements in this approach and it should be clear now that the whole point with the nuclear program was for Kim to get more bargaining chips in the later deal of reunification of Korea. The main opponent of United Korea is the US. Now they plan to physically destroy DPRK and need a warmonger to handle this process.

It's the same as with Corinth. That joined the Achaean League and was destroyed by Rome in punishment for this.

[One Degree]

I think it is a very logical appointment. In the best interests of both DPRK and South Korea is to unite. We've already seen the movements in this approach and it should be clear now that the whole point with the nuclear program was for Kim to get more bargaining chips in the later deal of reunification of Korea. The main opponent of United Korea is the US. Now they plan to physically destroy DPRK and need a warmonger to handle this process.

It's the same as with Corinth. That joined the Achaean League and was destroyed by Rome in punishment for this.

A unified Korea is in the best interests of political entities but is detrimental to individuals. The more people under one government the more unfair to individuals. Only power brokers benefit. Individuals are served best by smaller government entities. How do you combine such disparate governments? One system will be dominant. Due to geography, North Korea’s (China) system will eventually dominate a unified Korea.

[Ganeshas Rat]

The more people under one government the more unfair to individuals. Only power brokers benefit. Individuals are served best by smaller government entities.

What will Ameicans would say if someone proposed them to break into smaller government entities to serve their interests best? I don't doubt such a man would be torn apart immediately by a rageful mob. It's one thing to openly despise people of Kansas for stupid hats and just another thing to joke with national unity. I am sure that all Koreans birth, grow and die being absolutely sure that Korea should be united and it's not possible to change, just an unconditional immanent thing.

But you probably mean that the more entities the better because of your regionalist views. Well, I assume the united Korea is the better way to the world you suppose the ideal as any Korea can't decentralize itself because of the existential threat from their counterpart, but their synthesis will definitely create a very weak (because of its duality) state in the form of a confederation or a federation.

[Crantag]

A unified Korea is in the best interests of political entities but is detrimental to individuals. The more people under one government the more unfair to individuals. Only power brokers benefit. Individuals are served best by smaller government entities. How do you combine such disparate governments? One system will be dominant. Due to geography, North Korea’s (China) system will eventually dominate a unified Korea.

A unified Korea is in the interest of the families which are divided by the separation of the countries, though. In fact, the Koreans are of course one people.

Since the end of the Korean War in 1953, there has been virtually no contact between the citizens of the two countries, including the many families who were divided during the turmoil that engulfed Korea after liberation from Japanese rule and during the three-year Korean War. Many people in both North Korea and South Korea have lost contact with the rest of their family, and are unable to communicate with them due to strict regulations across borders.

[One Degree]

@Crantag
You are using emotional arguments complete with photos to increase the emotional impact. 1953 was a very long time ago. The division of families is a history that has no meaning except to the few very elderly. It has no practical purpose.
The future should be decided by pragmatism, not misplaced emotion.

[Crantag]

@Crantag
You are using emotional arguments complete with photos to increase the emotional impact. 1953 was a very long time ago. The division of families is a history that has no meaning except to the few very elderly. It has no practical purpose.
The future should be decided by pragmatism, not misplaced emotion.

You don't know anything you are talking about.

The reason the people in the photos are emotional relates to the context, which I provided in quote, e.g. that the people can have no contact with one another.

This is not a desirable status quot for the people, which is entirely contrary to what you claimed, where I quoted you.

I don't think you are very knowledgeable about this topic matter, but that doesn't stop you from making things up to fill the knowledge gaps, apparently.

[One Degree]

You don't know anything you are talking about.

The reason the people in the photos are emotional relates to the context, which I provided in quote, e.g. that the people can have no contact with one another.

This is not a desirable status quot for the people, which is entirely contrary to what you claimed, where I quoted you.

I don't think you are very knowledgeable about this topic matter, but that doesn't stop you from making things up to fill the knowledge gaps, apparently.

You used a very small, and soon to die, portion of the population to argue for the entire population. My knowledge of Korea may be less than some, but people are people everywhere. You are not truly emotionally attached to people you have not seen in 65 years. You definitely are not emotionally attached to relatives you have never met. It makes a nice emotional picture, but is devoid of any honest relationship. In short, it is propaganda.

[Crantag]

You used a very small, and soon to die, portion of the population to argue for the entire population. My knowledge of Korea may be less than some, but people are people everywhere. You are not truly emotionally attached to people you have not seen in 65 years. You definitely are not emotionally attached to relatives you have never met. It makes a nice emotional picture, but is devoid of any honest relationship. In short, it is propaganda.

You are really fixated on the pictures.

The point was that the people are denied contact.

You have no understanding of the Korean people, as you dismiss this as meaningless, but I assure you that to the Korean people it is not meaningless.

It seems like you don't like to have your own invented notion dismissed as horseshit.

[One Degree]

You are really fixated on the pictures.

The point was that the people are denied contact.

You have no understanding of the Korean people, as you dismiss this as meaningless, but I assure you that to the Korean people it is not meaningless.

It seems like you don't like to have your own invented notion dismissed as horseshit.

Propaganda convinces people they have emotions that it is irrational for them to actually have. You can convince people they are upset because they have not seen a relative they have never met, but this is emotional nonsense. You basically invent feelings to coincide with political motivations. I have distant relatives all over the world and what happens to them has no emotional impact, because their is no political motivation to convince me there should be.

[Crantag]

Propaganda convinces people they have emotions that it is irrational for them to actually have. You can convince people they are upset because they have not seen a relative they have never met, but this is emotional nonsense. You basically invent feelings to coincide with political motivations. I have distant relatives all over the world and what happens to them has no emotional impact, because their is no political motivation to convince me there should be.

Stop trying to change the subject with base accusations.

I posted pictures because they say something. I looked up the pictures because they represent a situation I am aware of, namely the historical situation of rare reunions among Korean families.

The Korean People have been the victims of policies which have divided families, going back to the period of Japanese occupation from 1908, and the forced movement of families or parts of families to work as laborers. Many of these families have never been reunited (this includes those in China, those in Sakhalin, those in North/South Korea, etc.)

It is in fact a sore spot for Koreans.

You drew upon your ignorance to make some asinine statement which is entirely divorced from reality about how you thought the governments want reunification, whereas such a reality would be bad for the people. I made a reply, in which I used some brief historical details to allude to a broader point, used a tiny bit of rhetoric, and posted a few pictures, which I found through searches. I did so while drawing on much deeper knowledge of the entire situation than merely what I have presented in here.

You, now, are trying to misdirect, because you don't like being told you are wrong.

[One Degree]

[quote][You, now, are trying to misdirect, because you don't like being told you are wrong./quote]
What am I wrong about?
I am not misdirecting. I am trying to demonstrate the difference between reality and fantasy. The difference between what we really think and what we are told to think. A few people in Korea have true feelings, but most are too young for their feelings to be anything other than imposed by propaganda.
I am not trying to diminish the real feelings of Koreans, but most people are so consumed by imposed feelings, they never question what they really feel. How popular would it be for a young Korean to admit he has no real feelings for distant relatives he has never met? He is coerced into accepting false feelings as legitimate while believing his real feelings are a failing. This is true everywhere, not just Korea. The media tells us what we are suppose to feel and incredibly we believe it.
The human brain, when presented a question it can not answer, will eventually decide the question is a statement of fact based upon pure fantasy. We are wired to know the answers and we, therefore, willingly accept any answer that is popular if we don’t bother to truly analyze our feelings on the subject. We crave answers.
Our feelings are only real if we spend the energy thinking instead of simply listening to others.
Your example of Koreans being upset over lost relationships is a perfect example of imposed emotion. This is why I appear to have misdirected. I wanted to shed light on a reality. It would be unnatural for young Koreans to have true feelings on the issue imo. They simply accept the indoctrinated emotion unless they decide to spend the effort analyzing their true emotions.
This is my only point. No intent to denigrate Koreans specifically.