Who Is Kim Jong Un Actually Talking To Us Or His Own People?

a reply to: MissSmartypants

Good men have been doing a lot in Afghanistan and Iraq for more than 15 years. How's that working out for us?

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Again you misstate what I said? I said nothing about us needing to appease, I mentioned the policy of appeasement in the past?

If you think that a brutal dictator, whose citizens have no basic human rights, should have nuclear weapons after announcing he is going to make a first strike, I don't know what else to say. We are at an impasse, so let's just agree to disagree.

Letting the Supreme Leader have nuclear toys is akin to giving a loaded gun to a toddler. Sooner or later it will be fired in someones direction.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Agree to disagree. But your last statement could also be said of POTUS.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Again you misstate what I said? I said nothing about us needing to appease, I mentioned the policy of appeasement in the past?

If you think that a brutal dictator, whose citizens have no basic human rights, should have nuclear weapons after announcing he is going to make a first strike, I don't know what else to say. We are at an impasse, so let's just agree to disagree.

Letting the Supreme Leader have nuclear toys is akin to giving a loaded gun to a toddler. Sooner or later it will be fired in someones direction.

You're absolutely right. And regardless of how anyone feels about it, we (the U.S.) are the policemen of the world.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

but please fill me in as to why we invaded Iraq?

Exactly - and why did the west invade Libya...crickets!!!

Got to keep the MIC burning money and rebuilding after the fact.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Its good for the drug trade business -

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: TobyFlenderson

but please fill me in as to why we invaded Iraq?

Exactly - and why did the west invade Libya...crickets!!!

Got to keep the MIC burning money and rebuilding after the fact.

We invaded Libya so Gaddafi couldn't follow through on a gold dinar universal African currency.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Blaine91555

Why do we have to appease anything? Who the hell are we to tell them anything about the way they run their country? Why do we have the right to have nukes but we won't allow them to have them? How is this reasonable other than might makes right?

While it's cute to try to pin this fully on the U.S., keep in mind that the U.N. doesn't want Kim to have nukes. Nor does China and probably in fact, most sound-thinking countries. And also remember.. it's not NK that wants nuke. It's very specifically one spoiled man-child. You talk about bullying.. what bullying? Has the U.S. prior to this nukefest by NK threatened them, when NK didn't act first?

Most administrations pre-Trump while trying to work with NK, has been very civil with the country. To the point in fact, where many call prior administrations completely ineffective in dealing with them. That's a far cry from "bullying" the country.

Like it or not, the U.S. is allies with SK. And the NK regime has threatened to wipe out SK for decades. I know when I was there mid-80s, Kim's granddad near the end of his reign, was threatening to take Seoul so he could be buried there when he died. Why people try to defend their regime and say they are doing nothing wrong boggles the mind.

U.S. actions in other countries you may not agree with, doesn't make them guilty of whatever you think they are doing with NK. Kim should NOT be allowed to have nukes, and it's funny that people don't understand why.

a reply to: fleabit

Overwhelming financial sanctions = bullying. You say they've threatened SK for decades and yet . . . .

Of course no one wants more nukes, including China. Every nation that develops nukes lessens the amount of power those already with nukes have.

My bottom line is that for all but the first 8 months of my son's life, we've been at war. Those wars were horrendous mistakes, IMHO. I don't want anymore war. If someone tries to attack, of course we should defend ourselves. But no one has attacked us, at least not since 9/11 (depending on what narrative you believe). When MSM starts beating the war drums and I see all sorts of actions throughout the country that try to hype that up my assumption is that big $ is behind the push.

Trump promised to get us out of the wars we are in (so did Obama). And now it looks like he's pointing us toward another one. I hope it's just counter rhetoric on his part but it feels like more than that to me.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: fleabit

Overwhelming financial sanctions = bullying. You say they've threatened SK for decades and yet . . . .

Of course no one wants more nukes, including China. Every nation that develops nukes lessens the amount of power those already with nukes have.

My bottom line is that for all but the first 8 months of my son's life, we've been at war. Those wars were horrendous mistakes, IMHO. I don't want anymore war. If someone tries to attack, of course we should defend ourselves. But no one has attacked us, at least not since 9/11 (depending on what narrative you believe). When MSM starts beating the war drums and I see all sorts of actions throughout the country that try to hype that up my assumption is that big $ is behind the push.

Trump promised to get us out of the wars we are in (so did Obama). And now it looks like he's pointing us toward another one. I hope it's just counter rhetoric on his part but it feels like more than that to me.

There are so man6 people suffering under unjust rule who desperately needsomeone to rescue them. Are you one of those people needing rescue?
No? That's what I thought.

originally posted by: fleabit

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Blaine91555

Why do we have to appease anything? Who the hell are we to tell them anything about the way they run their country? Why do we have the right to have nukes but we won't allow them to have them? How is this reasonable other than might makes right?

While it's cute to try to pin this fully on the U.S., keep in mind that the U.N. doesn't want Kim to have nukes. Nor does China and probably in fact, most sound-thinking countries. And also remember.. it's not NK that wants nuke. It's very specifically one spoiled man-child. You talk about bullying.. what bullying? Has the U.S. prior to this nukefest by NK threatened them, when NK didn't act first?

Most administrations pre-Trump while trying to work with NK, has been very civil with the country. To the point in fact, where many call prior administrations completely ineffective in dealing with them. That's a far cry from "bullying" the country.

Like it or not, the U.S. is allies with SK. And the NK regime has threatened to wipe out SK for decades. I know when I was there mid-80s, Kim's granddad near the end of his reign, was threatening to take Seoul so he could be buried there when he died. Why people try to defend their regime and say they are doing nothing wrong boggles the mind.

U.S. actions in other countries you may not agree with, doesn't make them guilty of whatever you think they are doing with NK. Kim should NOT be allowed to have nukes, and it's funny that people don't understand why.

Finally...a voice of reason.

a reply to: MissSmartypants


I think he is a paid actor, just like most of the worlds "leaders" and politicians. They love to play the biggest stages but they are always speaking directly to the closest audience.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

I guess you're against sovereignty then? There's a lot of people in the US suffering too. Would it be okay for Canada to attack us to help our poor and needy? Also, do you think they will be suffering less after we attack them? You know they wouldn't be suffering so badly if we lifted the economic sanctions against them, right? But no, you'd rather bomb them. Because that helped the people of Iraq and Afghanistan so much.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: MissSmartypants

I guess you're against sovereignty then? There's a lot of people in the US suffering too. Would it be okay for Canada to attack us to help our poor and needy? Also, do you think they will be suffering less after we attack them? You know they wouldn't be suffering so badly if we lifted the economic sanctions against them, right? But no, you'd rather bomb them. Because that helped the people of Iraq and Afghanistan so much.

You sound young and still idealistic. With time and experience one discovers that things are rarely the way they rightfully should be and oftentimes the good that results from an action, or more likely a series of actions, will not be immediately apparent.

a reply to: EA006

I know

Hillary Emails Reveal NATO Killed Gaddafi to Stop Libyan Creation of Gold-Backed Currency
www.globalresearch.ca...

a reply to: MissSmartypants

I'm 50 years old and have not lived a life of privilege. Tell me, are the people in any country we are active militarily better off now than they were before we began bombing them. In Afghanistan it's been almost 16 years now. How long are the good results supposed to take?

I would submit that you are the naive one, blindly following the beat of MSM and PTB even though NK has nothing to do with you.