Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   History's Greatest Monster has some wise words and personal insight into solving the North Korea issue   ( washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, North Korea, United States, Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, South Korea, peaceful North Korea, North Korean officials, potentially devastating consequences  
•       •       •

8453 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Oct 2017 at 3:05 AM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-10-06 08:25:19 AM  
I find the article a bit thin.  The conference seems like a good idea, but...
1)  Any conference would have to include Japan, and probably others in missile range...
2)  Kim Jong Un won't come because he has nothing to gain

The only leverage is through his economy, which is mostly China.  We are doing that.

This is all likely to end without bloodshed.
 
2017-10-06 08:48:57 AM  

libranoelrose: Ed Grubermann: Banned on the Run: "Greatest Monster" =/= Carter =/= good president

Well meaning, good guy, ineffective administrator

We didn't elect him to be a good administrator. We elected him because he was an honest man, and we needed that after the Nixon debacle.

Did you see him at the Panama Canal transfer?


You.meam that time he obeyed the law?
 
2017-10-06 09:10:18 AM  
After what he did to Batman, I really don't value Joel Schumacher's input on NK.
Sci Fi Con Fight | Robot Chicken | Adult Swim
Youtube QZe4WFk8n9I
 
2017-10-06 09:15:07 AM  
If only he'd been in a position to execute something like this.
 
2017-10-06 09:19:21 AM  

mike4688: I'm the Jimmy Carter, punkin' instigator.
I'm the fear addicted, danger illustrated.



Have you heard this cover of that song?  I totally dig it. Hope you do, too.
 
2017-10-06 09:30:20 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-10-06 09:51:23 AM  

Birnone: FlyingBacon: Hes one of those do nothing president. Only last 4 years. If he thinks he got all the answers, why didnt he win another 4 years?

If the hostages got rescued he would have been seen as one of the greatest Presidents. The rescue attempt didn't go well, and so we got Reagan. That's how it goes.

This is why I'd take the threats Trump makes seriously. He knows that no matter how farked up his term may be, one big military score would make him a hero. He knows he could easily own the next election if he could hit the jackpot somewhere. Obviously it not going to be in the usual suspects(Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan). So where does that leave?


North Korea! Boom!
 
2017-10-06 10:11:31 AM  

Northern: How many times did Ted run for POTUS?  Last time was when the public found out about the woman he killed when driving drunk, which ended his campaign.


Well, no. Not even a little bit factual.

Kennedy mounted a coat check girl full-blown primary challenge to Carter in 1980.

Polls in '78-79 showed Kennedy leading Carter among Democrats by wide margins, so for Ted it was "er, ah, hold my scotch" and in he went.
 
2017-10-06 10:12:59 AM  

FlyingBacon: Hes one of those do nothing president. Only last 4 years. If he thinks he got all the answers, why didnt he win another 4 years?


3/10.  Try again.
 
2017-10-06 10:30:28 AM  
Love carter.   Going to be a shame when he dies and the right trashes the hell out of him.
 
2017-10-06 10:50:08 AM  
B-b-but Fark told me that Kim was completely crazy, and would fire off a barrage of missiles at any minute!

What do you mean, "he's actually a 'rational actor' and just wants to preserve how own rule" ?!
 
2017-10-06 10:58:34 AM  

anustart: Remember the good old days, when even unpopular Presidents were still able to be the adult in the room?


Remember when cabinet meetings only allowed adults in the room?
/could be wrong
//I remember lots of shenanigans in Reagan's White House
///don't remember much before that
/V: never forget "[W.] Bush has the same mentality of me.  Of course, I'm in fourth grade..."
 
2017-10-06 11:27:42 AM  

sardonicobserver: 2)  Kim Jong Un won't come because he has nothing to gain


I disagree on this point.  Meetings with these leaders is EXACTLY what he wants.  It places him on an equal footing from a prestige perspective.  As for what he has to gain, he wants recognition and a full peace treaty with the U.S.  Now, he wants that in order to pressure the ROK to accept a transitional reunification model that makes the North lots of money without giving up power, (basically a one-nation, 2-system solution) but he would absolutely accept high-level negotiations if he thinks it lets him keep his power and his nukes.  The nukes aren't going away until there are no U.S. troops in South Korea.

I'm not saying I support his position (I don't), only that this is what his position IS.
 
2017-10-06 11:29:26 AM  

Boxingoutsider: Going to be a shame when he dies and the right trashes the hell out of him.


There are a few intellectually-consistent progressives who have more than enough reason to be disgusted with Carter, for he is hardly the prince of peace he claims to be.

Maybe you'll learn something here.

1977-79. Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia is in full swing. It would have been understandable not to want to get involved in southeast Asia, but we didn't have to actually back Pol Pot, did we?. Citation: straight from Carter's own national security adviser:

And to insure that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge would fight the Vietnamese occupiers, the Carter Administration helped arrange continued Chinese aid.

''I encourage the Chinese to support Pol Pot,'' said Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser at the time. ''The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.''


Carter also continued the Ford/Nixon/Kissinger practice of selling arms to the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia that was committing genocide in East Timor.

Peaceful pro-democracy protests in South Korea? Surely Carter would get behind those what with being so devoted to peace, right? Nope. He backed the military dictatorship's goons. They were charming.

Over a two-day period, those troops used their M-16s and bayonets to kill and injure hundreds of people in Gwangju's streets demanding an end to military rule and seeking the restoration of democracy.

I'll let you breathe a moment so you can get in the obligatory "b-b-b-b-b-b-but Camp David."

Carter got that deal by throwing buckets of money at the two parties, one of them a military dictatorship in its own right, and as the finer points were arranged, gave wet sloppy White House beejays to the deal's go-betweens - a couple of real human rights luminaries, Nicolae Ceausescu and King Hassan II.

This would've been bad enough coming from Republicans, but the Carter myth is built on him being far better and more noble than all this.

Anyway, that's just a few of Saint Jimmy's greatest hits. I skipped the ones where Carter was merely incompetent, but if you want some pure comedy gold read his remarks on Robert Mugabe's 1980 visit to the White House.
 
2017-10-06 11:31:02 AM  

Boxingoutsider: Love carter.   Going to be a shame when he dies and the right trashes the hell out of him.

He have it coming... Fark Carter!
 
2017-10-06 11:38:30 AM  

anustart: Remember the good old days, when even unpopular Presidents were still able to be the adult in the room?


I'm surprised no one has accused you of being a Trump supporter for making a generic comment about the state of the political environment.
 
2017-10-06 11:45:46 AM  

Birnone: If the hostages got rescued he would have been seen as one of the greatest Presidents.


One military operation defines his presidency?    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  That's a good one.
 
2017-10-06 11:54:44 AM  

Magnus: Birnone: If the hostages got rescued he would have been seen as one of the greatest Presidents.

One military operation defines his presidency?    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  That's a good one.


Why not?  The LACK of one military operation is often the first thing cited by his detractors to define it.
 
2017-10-06 11:58:22 AM  
Gulper Eel:There are a few intellectually-consistent progressives who have more than enough reason to be disgusted with Carter, for he is hardly the prince of peace he claims to be.

Maybe you'll learn something here.
(snip: wall of text)



If anyone ever asks me what a superficial analysis looks like, this would be a beautiful example.  Carter failed in many of those instances, but to imply he was completely to blame is astoundingly naive.
 
2017-10-06 11:59:01 AM  

anustart: Magnus: Birnone: If the hostages got rescued he would have been seen as one of the greatest Presidents.

One military operation defines his presidency?    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  That's a good one.

Why not?  The LACK of one military operation is often the first thing cited by his detractors to define it.


I know people that like him and hate him and neither one mentions the hostages at all.
 
2017-10-06 12:07:21 PM  

trappedspirit: anustart: Magnus: Birnone: If the hostages got rescued he would have been seen as one of the greatest Presidents.

One military operation defines his presidency?    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  That's a good one.

Why not?  The LACK of one military operation is often the first thing cited by his detractors to define it.

I know people that like him and hate him and neither one mentions the hostages at all.


I don't understand what that statement's supposed to demonstrate. It's still one of the most common and widely-strewn criticisms of his Administration.

One-issue critiques are omnipresent in politics. Some people have a long list of stuff they hate about Ted Kennedy, but Chappaquiddick is still the go-to topic for many (as we've seen here). Ask most people the first thing they don't like about Bill Clinton and you'll get some variation on "Monica Lewinsky".  For Reagan, it's Iran-Contra.  For GHW Bush it's "Read My Lips".  Ask a Western Canadian about Pierre Trudeau and 90% of the time the first subject is the National Energy Policy. For Bejamin Netanyahu it's settlements in the Occupied Territories.  The list is practically endless.
 
2017-10-06 12:19:13 PM  
So why didn't he do it when he was President?
 
2017-10-06 12:27:08 PM  
It's hard to refute what he lays out.  Still seems to outline a lose / lose situation for both parties and the entire world community.

Even if our leaders were or became inclined to give them the peace talks, normalized relations, and relief of sanctions they want, there's absolutely no way we could permit them to retain any nuclear weapons.  Which they can't possibly agree to, after what happened to Libya and per their fears about Iran.

But if we do allow them to keep so much as one tactical nuke, the message to every other rogue state and malefactor on Earth is:  you can blackmail the U.S. with nuclear weapons to get what you want.  You don't even need good delivery systems.  Just point 'em at your neighbors, or at least the nearest Democracy you can find!
 
2017-10-06 12:28:26 PM  

anustart: trappedspirit: anustart: Magnus: Birnone: If the hostages got rescued he would have been seen as one of the greatest Presidents.

One military operation defines his presidency?    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  That's a good one.

Why not?  The LACK of one military operation is often the first thing cited by his detractors to define it.

I know people that like him and hate him and neither one mentions the hostages at all.

I don't understand what that statement's supposed to demonstrate. It's still one of the most common and widely-strewn criticisms of his Administration.

One-issue critiques are omnipresent in politics. Some people have a long list of stuff they hate about Ted Kennedy, but Chappaquiddick is still the go-to topic for many (as we've seen here). Ask most people the first thing they don't like about Bill Clinton and you'll get some variation on "Monica Lewinsky".  For Reagan, it's Iran-Contra.  For GHW Bush it's "Read My Lips".  Ask a Western Canadian about Pierre Trudeau and 90% of the time the first subject is the National Energy Policy. For Bejamin Netanyahu it's settlements in the Occupied Territories.  The list is practically endless.


It's supposed to demonstrate that there are people who don't see the point in using the hostage situation in judging Jimmy Carter.
 
2017-10-06 12:43:40 PM  

TheOtherGuy: But if we do allow them to keep so much as one tactical nuke, the message to every other rogue state and malefactor on Earth is:  you can blackmail the U.S. with nuclear weapons to get what you want.


The problem with that statement is twofold:
1. It implies that the U.S. feels entitled to decide what other countries do. That plays directly into their narrative of the "big bad American bully".
2. It makes the biggest issue seem like it's about preserving America's street cred rather than about solving the regional tensions.

Realistically, there's nothing America can do to arbitrarily force North Korea to denuclearize (despite what all the hawks and exceptionalists claim).  Therefore, you have to look for the next best options.  If military conflict is going to be avoided and nuclear weapons are going to be eliminated from the Korean Peninsula, it is getting more and more likely that America is gong to have to reach (and HONOR) a compromise of some sort with the DPRK, the ROK, China and Japan all on board.
 
2017-10-06 01:03:18 PM  

Gulper Eel: It's fashionable for good and wise progressives (just ask 'em) nowadays to treat Carter like the second coming of Nelson Mandela


No, we acknowledge that he wasn't a good president. But some of us are old enough to know why america elected him. No rose-colored glasses needed. And we also remember that he's not as bad as Republicans like to portray him these days.
 
2017-10-06 01:07:51 PM  

stuffy: So why didn't he do it when he was President?


NK wasn't a threat and he was more worried about the unending war in the Middle East.
 
2017-10-06 01:12:46 PM  

anustart: Carter failed in many of those instances, but to imply he was completely to blame is astoundingly naive.


It's not a question of failing. It's not like everything would have worked out but he just got a long stretch of bad breaks.

He and his foreign policy team specifically and repeatedly either chose the wrong course or continued predecessors' wrong courses (which he had the freedom to change, but didn't). In most cases even doing nothing would have been better.

A farker many years ago told me Carter tries to see the best in everybody. That's fine for a Sunday school teacher, but as president it makes you the world's chump.
 
2017-10-06 01:15:45 PM  

anustart: Magnus: Birnone: If the hostages got rescued he would have been seen as one of the greatest Presidents.

One military operation defines his presidency?    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  That's a good one.

Why not?  The LACK of one military operation is often the first thing cited by his detractors to define it.


I define his presidency by that cardigan sweater.  That's why.
 
2017-10-06 02:18:24 PM  

Ed Grubermann: Hillbilly Jim: Didn't work for George H W Bush and he was levels and levels above Trump in just about any category.

The problem with Bush the Not as Bad was that the chickenhawks were not satisfied with just driving Iraq out of Kuwait and sabotaged him. They wanted the war that Bush the Lesser fought and they punished his father for not giving it to them, even though he abided by the terms of Gulf War 1.


Citation? Pretty much they knew exactly what they would have got if they went in at that point which is what JR experienced which was religious strife. Only excuse that it would have been different when OIF  happened was that after all the sanctions they figured people would be happy to be liberated. Yeah that worked
 
kgf
2017-10-06 02:43:08 PM  
So, don't know if anybody's said this before, but Washington Post articles can only be read by subscribers, so linking to their articles means only Post subscribers get to see them.  Or am I missing something?
 
2017-10-06 03:01:45 PM  

anustart: TheOtherGuy: But if we do allow them to keep so much as one tactical nuke, the message to every other rogue state and malefactor on Earth is:  you can blackmail the U.S. with nuclear weapons to get what you want.

The problem with that statement is twofold:
1. It implies that the U.S. feels entitled to decide what other countries do. That plays directly into their narrative of the "big bad American bully".
2. It makes the biggest issue seem like it's about preserving America's street cred rather than about solving the regional tensions.

Realistically, there's nothing America can do to arbitrarily force North Korea to denuclearize (despite what all the hawks and exceptionalists claim).  Therefore, you have to look for the next best options.  If military conflict is going to be avoided and nuclear weapons are going to be eliminated from the Korean Peninsula, it is getting more and more likely that America is gong to have to reach (and HONOR) a compromise of some sort with the DPRK, the ROK, China and Japan all on board.


Well I was speaking to address the issue from the perspective of the American leaders whose choices will change this situation one way or the other.  You and I can feel any way we want about it, but, for the next few years anyway, we don't really have a voice.

As far as the wealthy and powerful of America are concerned, they do feel entitled to decide what other countries do.  Why else do we need to spend so much of GDP on defense, and multiple times what everyone else spends in absolute terms?  It's not for "defending" anything.  We ARE, to a certain extent if not completely, the bully that the North Koreans make us out to be.  Kind of like they are, to a certain extent if not completely, as willing to murder millions of innocents to get what they want, as our media paints them to be.

That said, there most certainly is something that can be done to de-nuclearize the peninsula.  It's just looking more and more like that thing involves millions of deaths.  I think the disconnect is that, since the overwhelming majority of those deaths will not likely be American citizens, at least some of us, the common people find it utterly unthinkable... while our leaders merely consider it unpalatable or risky.
 
2017-10-06 03:26:35 PM  
Since the end of WW2, only 3 US presidents managed to serve their entire terms without bombing anyone:
Eisenhower, Ford and Carter.

Remember that when you're looking for heroes.
 
2017-10-06 03:39:34 PM  

anustart: sardonicobserver: 2)  Kim Jong Un won't come because he has nothing to gain

I disagree on this point.  Meetings with these leaders is EXACTLY what he wants.  It places him on an equal footing from a prestige perspective.  As for what he has to gain, he wants recognition and a full peace treaty with the U.S.  Now, he wants that in order to pressure the ROK to accept a transitional reunification model that makes the North lots of money without giving up power, (basically a one-nation, 2-system solution) but he would absolutely accept high-level negotiations if he thinks it lets him keep his power and his nukes.  The nukes aren't going away until there are no U.S. troops in South Korea.

I'm not saying I support his position (I don't), only that this is what his position IS.


Good points.  But we don't really know for certain what his position is.  You may be assuming that he is smart and well informed so that his goal is a two-system unification that would be acceptable to South Korea.  I think his goal is to reverse the results of the war and armistice of 1953, i.e. to run South Korea as part of the DPRK, with the US locked out.  Even if a two-system unification is contemplated, Kim Jong Un will need to be in the top position over both, a non-starter.  So, I don't see a negotiated solution, and collapsed negotiations could lead to the next step, a DPRK strike to put everyone else in their pace and take charge.

Failure to agree on the possibilities and compromise within the acceptable range of involved parties is what has led to most wars in recent memory.  If Kim Jong Un can't get what he thinks that South Korea, Japan, the US, and China will settle for, which is giving up South Korea with our without a fight, he may try to settle our hash with a strike of some kind.  The intelligent thing to do is to keep him talking on Twitter or whatever while we pull the plug on his economy, which is just a wee bit smaller than that of Tulsa, OK, or so I have recently read.

China will likely cooperate because they have a growing but yet dim realization that they have cultivated a cancer on their butt, and because the hand inside the puppet will get bloodied if the puppet gets hammered, if you will forgive my mixed metaphors.

Russia is playing "lets you and him fight" while China is trying to get everyone to ignore the man behind the curtain.  That means everybody is still talking.  The action that is not in the news is what is really going on.
 
2017-10-06 04:13:06 PM  

NephilimNexus: Since the end of WW2, only 3 US presidents managed to serve their entire terms without bombing anyone:
Eisenhower, Ford and Carter.


We started outsourcing a lot of the dirty work after WWII.

See, if we sell the weapons to a dictator and THEY bomb somebody, it's okay.

After berating Gerald Ford during the campaign for feeding the Shah's ravenous appetitie for arms, Carter has buckled under and approved the sale to Iran of seven sophisticated air radar systems worth $1.2 billion. Iran has now passed Israel as the largest recipient of American arms, and there is talk of striking more deals--these involving advanced bombers.

Such sales are immoral in view of the Shah's flagrant violation of human rights. The police state he runs has a reprehensible history of torturing political prisoners, and transactions with the Shah look decidedly hypocritical when squared against Carter's much-touted human rights stand.
 
2017-10-06 04:48:00 PM  

fusillade762: There is no remaining chance that it will agree to a total denuclearization, as it has seen what happened in a denuclearized Libya and assessed the doubtful status of U.S. adherence to the Iran nuclear agreement.

This is one of the many things 45 doesn't realize. If he backs out of the Iran deal without a good reason the rest of the world is never going to trust us in any kind of negotiation for as long as he's predisent.


Iran isn't sticking to their side of the deal, therefore our hands aren't bound by it either.

"The strategy is an effort by the Trump administration to make the nuclear agreement only part of a multidimensional approach to pressure Iran on many fronts, including its missile program, its support for militant groups like Hezbollah and its intervention in the Syrian civil war on behalf of the Assad government."

It would be helpful if the media would tell the whole story, instead of spinning it as if the US will lose face on the world stage for modifying an agreement.
 
2017-10-06 04:53:22 PM  
Carter had a chance to end the war when he was President, and didn't.  But now that there's a republican President, Carter wants to state how easy it would be, and pretend the NK regime is rational.
 
2017-10-06 09:57:38 PM  

Hillbilly Jim: Birnone: FlyingBacon: Hes one of those do nothing president. Only last 4 years. If he thinks he got all the answers, why didnt he win another 4 years?

If the hostages got rescued he would have been seen as one of the greatest Presidents. The rescue attempt didn't go well, and so we got Reagan. That's how it goes.

This is why I'd take the threats Trump makes seriously. He knows that no matter how farked up his term may be, one big military score would make him a hero. He knows he could easily own the next election if he could hit the jackpot somewhere. Obviously it not going to be in the usual suspects(Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan). So where does that leave?

Didn't work for George H W Bush and he was levels and levels above Trump in just about any category.


Which is why I said the usual suspects are out. It's been shown a big win there isn't going to do it. Think about as a 'what if'. Do people think removing North Korea as a threat, once and for all, would not be a game changer? This is a country that has been a thorn in the side of the world for sixty years or so. This is a problem no one has been able to solve, diplomatically or militarily.

That's a hell of a temptation if someone was looking for some way to make their mark on the world as a great leader. Of course, it's also a hell of a gamble. Carter took that gamble, and he was seen as wimpy and ineffectual before that mission happened.
 
Displayed 38 of 88 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report