North Korea threatens to nuke Guam by mid-August...

[Snarky Oracle!]

 

[Mel O'Drama]

For those who may be a little concerned, First Dog has helpfully shown how to explain the possible end of the world to children.

 

[Presea]

Here I am, working on research papers and getting ready to go on internships, and I have to wonder what the heck it is all for now. Thanks to two world "leaders" who don't give a damn about the residents of the countries they control, I might actually die now! Just what have I done to deserve this!? I guess it's time to ask my aunt if she'll take me with her when she moves out of North America. Either that, or pray that they give me some kind of heads up so I can escape to Canada in time. F*** all of these worthless politicians. They have ruined my life.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

U.S. and North Korea Could Wage Nuclear War if Trump Thinks His ‘Manhood’ Is Being Attacked, Warns Ex-CIA Director

• Newsweek
  

The escalating nuclear crisis between the United States and North Korea boils down to a battle between “two bullies” that could have devastating consequences if President Donald Trump feels “his manhood” is being attacked. That’s the verdict of former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Leon Panetta.



“You’ve got two bullies chiding each other with outrageous comments—and it doesn’t help the situation in terms of trying to resolve something that has to be resolved peacefully...because the consequences of nuclear war would be devastating,” Panetta told Politico Tuesday at the Panetta Institute for Public Policy at California State University, Monterey Bay.



He added: “The question is: Does [Trump] get so frustrated with the North Korean leader—who’s yelling every other day—that he feels that somehow the North Korean leader is attacking his manhood? This is a guy who, if he feels that, does he decide, ‘OK, enough is enough’? So we’re living on that brink right now. We’re not sure what direction this is going to take.... It’s a very dangerous world that’s out there, and it’s going to require a lot of decisions on some tough issues.”


Panetta was speaking shortly after Trump sent a stark warning to North Korea.


“North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States,” Trump told reporters. “They will be met with fire and the fury like the world has never seen.”

The comments followed a report from The Washington Post citing U.S. intelligence that North Korea had produced a miniaturized nuclear warhead that could be affixed to missiles. Last month, under the guidance of leader Kim Jon Un, North Korea successfully tested two intercontinental ballistic missiles, which it claimed could be mounted with nuclear warheads and could target the United States mainland.


The Washington Post has since reported that the White House rejects the analysis that Trump’s comments represent a nuclear escalation. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Trump's statement was simply sending a “strong message” and was the most effective way of communicating with Kim.


Yet, following Trump’s remarks, North Korea’s state news agency KCNA said that the country’s military was “examining the operational plan” to strike the U.S. territory of Guam. And Panetta cautioned that while Trump may be no stranger to bombastic rhetoric, it does not mean that the consequences should not be taken very seriously.


“I know the mood of the American people is, 'Yeah, this is Trump...but I have to take care of my family. Life goes on,'” Panetta said. "But reality is, the commander in chief can make a helluva decision that could really impact the lives of Americans.”

Newsweek

 

[Presea]

U.S. and North Korea Could Wage Nuclear War if Trump Thinks His ‘Manhood’ Is Being Attacked, Warns Ex-CIA Director

• Newsweek
  

The escalating nuclear crisis between the United States and North Korea boils down to a battle between “two bullies” that could have devastating consequences if President Donald Trump feels “his manhood” is being attacked. That’s the verdict of former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Leon Panetta.



“You’ve got two bullies chiding each other with outrageous comments—and it doesn’t help the situation in terms of trying to resolve something that has to be resolved peacefully...because the consequences of nuclear war would be devastating,” Panetta told Politico Tuesday at the Panetta Institute for Public Policy at California State University, Monterey Bay.



He added: “The question is: Does [Trump] get so frustrated with the North Korean leader—who’s yelling every other day—that he feels that somehow the North Korean leader is attacking his manhood? This is a guy who, if he feels that, does he decide, ‘OK, enough is enough’? So we’re living on that brink right now. We’re not sure what direction this is going to take.... It’s a very dangerous world that’s out there, and it’s going to require a lot of decisions on some tough issues.”


Panetta was speaking shortly after Trump sent a stark warning to North Korea.


“North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States,” Trump told reporters. “They will be met with fire and the fury like the world has never seen.”

The comments followed a report from The Washington Post citing U.S. intelligence that North Korea had produced a miniaturized nuclear warhead that could be affixed to missiles. Last month, under the guidance of leader Kim Jon Un, North Korea successfully tested two intercontinental ballistic missiles, which it claimed could be mounted with nuclear warheads and could target the United States mainland.


The Washington Post has since reported that the White House rejects the analysis that Trump’s comments represent a nuclear escalation. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Trump's statement was simply sending a “strong message” and was the most effective way of communicating with Kim.


Yet, following Trump’s remarks, North Korea’s state news agency KCNA said that the country’s military was “examining the operational plan” to strike the U.S. territory of Guam. And Panetta cautioned that while Trump may be no stranger to bombastic rhetoric, it does not mean that the consequences should not be taken very seriously.


“I know the mood of the American people is, 'Yeah, this is Trump...but I have to take care of my family. Life goes on,'” Panetta said. "But reality is, the commander in chief can make a helluva decision that could really impact the lives of Americans.”

Newsweek

Frankly, I am surprised that anyone can take Trump's threat seriously with the way he was acting in that video. The dude looks like he is about to wet his pants with the way he keeps hugging himself and practically stuttering his words while his eyes bulge around. Yeah, I bet there is some real fire and fury going on down in his underwear! Still, it was stupid of him to say all of that. I think that this is one time where the law needs to be ignored so that Trump can be forcibly removed from office and thrown in a confined room with no access to Twitter or any other forms of communication or news from the outside world.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Frankly, I am surprised that anyone can take Trump's threat seriously with the way he was acting in that video. The dude looks like he is about to wet his pants with the way he keeps hugging himself and practically stuttering his words while his eyes bulge around. Yeah, I bet there is some real fire and fury going on down in his underwear! Still, it was stupid of him to say all of that. I think that this is one time where the law needs to be ignored so that Trump can be forcibly removed from office and thrown in a confined room with no access to Twitter or any other forms of communication or news from the outside world.

Regrettably, I'm afraid you're way misreading Trump's body language. He's too arrogant and stupid to be frightened when appropriate.

 

[Presea]

Regrettably, I'm afraid you're way misreading Trump's body language. He's too arrogant and stupid to be frightened when appropriate.

Heh. I guess it was just wishful thinking on my part. I've been trying to find possible signs of anything that can stop Trump from going any further with this. Unfortunately, he just shot off his mouth AGAIN today.

 

[Emelee]

Could these two idiots just STFU?! While I do agree that something should be done about Kim Jong Un, this sure isn't what I had in mind. Has Trump ever heard the word diplomacy? And how to use that first.

Now, Trump has alienated North Korea & Russia even more. And the EU isn't a fan of him either. Mexicans aren't loving him. Plus his beef with muslims from certain countries (not Saudi Arabia though, as he has personal business going on there - despite most terrorists coming from there...). And lets not forget how he is pissing people & media off in the US too.

One thing that Trump does very well is alienating people.

 

[Rove]

While I do agree that something should be done about Kim Jong Un, this sure isn't what I had in mind. Has Trump ever heard the word diplomacy? And how to use that first.

Therein lies the problem, diplomacy. North Korea has no interest in the word and you could also add China and Russia in that mix. I pity the people of North Korea who know nothing about the outside world. Imagine living under such an oppressed society like that. No freedom of religion, speech, thought, expression. No freedom of the press to question political leaders. No soapchat!

Diplomacy can only work if all parties are prepared to arrive at the table. Recent sanctions by the 15 member security council will have little to no effect on such a man like Kim Jong Un. He'll ignore that silly U.N., and continue to gorge on another banquet to fill that enormous frame of his. Sometimes, just sometimes, it takes an even bigger bully to teach some upstart how the real world functions.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

Since there isn't any particular threat from North Korea this week that wasn't there last week or the week before and the only thing that's changed is the rhetoric of the US President, plus he's now also managed to casually threaten Venezuela (and the Pentagon of course know nothing about it, as usual) I suspect:

a) Mueller is closing in and he'd rather start a nuclear war in order to desperately deflect from his crimes, and/or
b) the malignant narcissist got himself into a war or words with another one and he's too tiny of a man to stop

I'll actually paraphrase Trump himself, one of the things he said at one of his rallies, and say:

GET 'IM OUTTA THERE!!! GET 'IM OUTTA THERE ALREADY!!!

 

[Emelee]

Therein lies the problem, diplomacy. North Korea has no interest in the word and you could also add China and Russia in that mix. I pity the people of North Korea who know nothing about the outside world. Imagine living under such an oppressed society like that. No freedom of religion, speech, thought, expression. No freedom of the press to question political leaders. No soapchat!

Diplomacy can only work if all parties are prepared to arrive at the table. Recent sanctions by the 15 member security council will have little to no effect on such a man like Kim Jong Un. He'll ignore that silly U.N., and continue to gorge on another banquet to fill that enormous frame of his. Sometimes, just sometimes, it takes an even bigger bully to teach some upstart how the real world functions.

I feel truely sad for the people of North Korea - they don't know how horribly bad they have it.
That being said - Trump seems to believe that it's his way or the highway. If you don't do what he says, it's gonna be sanctions and military threats. Well... his way isn't the only way. Most of Americans don't even think that his way is the right way. And the way he speaks and behaves is appalling.

So it's like putting a bunch of spoiled 3 year olds in a sandbox, and have them figure out world peace. Trump isn't the cruelest one of them, but he is the loudest baby of the bunch. He risks getting a pan of sand in his face by the other babies if he doesn't shut up soon.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

 

[Frank Underwood]

Chomsky on North Korea & Iran: Historical Record Shows U.S. Favors Violence Over Diplomacy

From April 26, 2017:

Over the last month, the Trump administration has escalated tensions between both North Korea and Iran. Vice President Mike Pence has warned North Korea, saying all options are on the table—including preemptive military strikes. Will either of these conflicts escalate to outright war? For more, Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman asked world-renowned linguist, professor and political dissident Noam Chomsky, during a wide-ranging interview Monday night at the First Parish Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

AMY GOODMAN: At this point, as President Trump nears his 100th day, North Korea and Iran have been a major focus. Are you concerned that with the president at the lowest popularity rating, I think, in any president’s history at this point, that he will focus abroad, as he has in the last few weeks, dropping the MOAB, the "Mother of All Bombs," in Afghanistan, bombing the Syrian government, and yet focusing specifically on North Korea and Iran—in North Korea, McMaster, General McMaster, the national security adviser, saying tensions with North Korea are coming to a head. Do you think there is a possibility that the U.S. would attack North Korea?

NOAM CHOMSKY: I mean, this administration is extremely unpredictable. Trump probably has no idea what he’s going to do five minutes from now, so you can’t—literally—so you can’t really make predictions with much confidence. But I doubt it very much. The reason is very simple: An attack on North Korea would unleash—no matter what attack it is, even a nuclear attack, would unleash massive artillery bombardment of Seoul, which is the biggest city in South Korea, right near the border, which would wipe it out, including plenty of American troops. That doesn’t—I mean, I’m no technical expert, but as far as I can—as I read and can see, there’s no defense against that. Furthermore, North Korea could retaliate against American bases in the region, where there’s plenty of American soldiers and so on, also in Japan. They’d be devastated. North Korea would be finished. You know, so would much of the region. But if attacked, presumably, they would respond, very likely. In fact, the responses might be automatic. McMaster, at least, and Mattis understand this. How much influence they have, we don’t know. So I think an attack is unlikely.

But the real question is: Is there a way of dealing with the problem? There are a lot of proposals: sanctions; a big new missile defense system, which is a major threat to China, it’ll increase tensions there; military threats of various kinds; sending an aircraft carrier, the Vinson, to North Korea, except by accident—it happened to be going in the opposite direction, but we’ll forget that. But these are—those are the proposals, that kind of proposals, as to how to solve.

Actually, there’s one proposal that’s ignored. I mean, you see a mention of it now and then. It’s a pretty simple proposal. Remember, the goal is to get North Korea to freeze its weapons systems, weapons and missile systems. So one proposal is to accept their offer to do that. Sounds simple. They’ve made a proposal. China and North Korea proposed to freeze the North Korean missile and nuclear weapons systems. And the U.S. instantly rejected it. And you can’t blame that on Trump. Obama did the same thing a couple of years ago. Same offer was presented. I think it was 2015. The Obama administration instantly rejected it.

And the reason is that it calls for a quid pro quo. It says, in return, the United States should put an end to threatening military maneuvers on North Korea’s borders, which happen to include, under Trump, sending of nuclear-capable B-52s flying right near the border. Now, maybe Americans don’t remember very well, but North Koreans have a memory of not too long ago, when North Korea was absolutely flattened, literally, by American bombing. There was—there was literally no targets left. And I really urge people who haven’t done it to read the official American military histories, the Air Quarterly Review, the military histories describing this. They describe it very vividly and accurately. They say, "There just weren’t any targets left. So what could we do?" Well, we decided to attack the dams, the huge dams. That’s a major war crime. People were hanged for it at Nuremberg. But put that aside. And then comes an ecstatic, gleeful description of the bombing of the dams and the huge flow of water, which was wiping out valleys and destroying the rice crop, on which Asians depend for survival—lots of racist comment, but all with exaltation and glee. You really have to read it to appreciate it. The North Koreans don’t have to bother reading it. They lived it. So when nuclear-capable B-52s are flying on their border, along with other threatening military maneuvers, they’re kind of upset about it. Strange people. And they continue to develop what they see as a potential deterrent that might protect the regime from—and the country, in fact—from destruction. This has nothing at all to do with what you think about the government. So maybe it’s the worst government in human history. OK. But these are still the facts that exist.

So, why is the United States unwilling to accept an agreement which would end the immediate threats of destruction against North Korea and, in return, freeze the weapons and missile systems? Well, I leave that to you. And remember, that’s bipartisan in this case. Could negotiations go—the usual argument is "Well, you can’t trust them," and so on and so forth. But there is a history. And I—there’s no time to run through the history. It’s quite interesting. Begins in 1993, when Clinton—under Clinton, the North Koreans made a deal with Israel to terminate North Korean missile shipments to the Middle East, which is a great, serious threat to Israel and the world, and, in return, Israel would recognize North Korea. Now, the Clinton administration wouldn’t accept that. They pressured Israel, which has to do what they’re told, to withdraw from it. And North Korea responded by sending—by firing their first intermediate-range missiles. I won’t go on with the rest. It’s a very interesting story.

There was actually an agreement in 2005 that North Korea would completely dismantle its nuclear weapons and missile systems, end them, finish, dismantle them, in return for a nonaggression pact from the United States, an end to threats, provision by the West—that means by the United States—of a light-water reactor, which can’t produce nuclear weapons but could produce—be used for peaceful purposes, research, medical, other purposes. That was basically the agreement, 2005. Didn’t last very long. The Bush administration instantly undermined it. It dismantled the consortium that was supposed to provide the reactor. And it immediately imposed—pressured—and when the U.S. pressures, it means it happens—banks to block North Korean financial transactions, including perfectly legitimate trade. So the crazy North Koreans started producing missiles and nuclear weapons again. And that’s been the kind of record all the way through.

So, yeah, maybe the most horrible regime in human history, but the fact of the matter is the regime does want to survive, and it even wants to carry out economic development—there’s pretty general agreement about this—which it cannot do in any significant way when it’s pouring resources, very scarce resources, into weapons and missile production. So they have considerable incentive, including survival, to perhaps continue this process of reacting in a kind of tit-for-tat fashion to U.S. actions. When the U.S. lowers tensions, they do. When we raise tensions, they go on with these plans. How about that as a possibility? I mean, it is—if you look at the press, it’s occasionally mentioned. In fact, there was not a bad article in The Washington Post about it recently by a U.S. professor who teaches in South Korea. So, occasionally, it’s this strange possibility of letting the North Koreans do exactly what we want them to do. Sometimes this is mentioned, but it’s pretty much dismissed. We can’t do that sort of thing.

There are similar questions to raise about Iran. So, Iran is, you know, the—again, the adults in the room, like Mattis and so on, say it’s the greatest threat to peace, you know, the greatest sponsor of terrorism, on and on. How is it a sponsor of terrorism? Well, could go through that. So, for example, in Yemen, it’s claimed that they are providing some aid to rebel tribesmen, Houthi tribesmen, in Yemen. OK, maybe they are. What is the United States doing in Yemen? It’s providing a huge flood of arms to its Saudi Arabian ally, who are destroying the country, who have created a huge humanitarian crisis, huge numbers of people killed, massive starvation. They’re threatening now to bomb a port, which is the only source of aid for surviving people. But Iran is the major source of terrorism.

And if you look around the world, there’s many questions like this. I don’t want to go on too long. But, very strikingly—and this—there’s one lesson that you discover when you carefully look at the historical record. What I just described about North Korea is pretty typical. Over and over again, there are possibilities of diplomacy and negotiation, which might not succeed—you can’t be sure if you don’t try them—but which look pretty promising, which are abandoned, dismissed, literally without comment, in favor of increased force and violence. In fact, that’s also the background for the 1953 moment, when the clock moved to two minutes to midnight and the U.S. faced the first serious threat to its security, that, in fact—you know, since probably the War of 1812—could have been avoided. There’s pretty good evidence that it could have been avoided. But it was—the possibility was literally not even considered. And case after case is like this. It’s worth looking at the historical record from that perspective, to ask whether that general comment has some validity. I think, if you do, you’ll find that it has considerable merit.

Source: https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/26/chomsky_on_north_korea_iran_historical

Lindsey Graham says we should "destroy" North Korea. "If thousands die, they're gonna die over there."