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  
•       •       •

8376 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Oct 2017 at 3:05 AM (2 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2017-10-05 08:28:38 PM  
21 votes:
Remember the good old days, when even unpopular Presidents were still able to be the adult in the room?
2017-10-06 12:00:44 AM  
17 votes:
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.
2017-10-06 02:01:59 AM  
15 votes:

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.


Yes, he does understand all of that.

He's not content with the U.S. being chaotic, he has to make the entire world chaotic.

What if, and this is a HUGE what if, Trump and Putin both want the world to themselves.

Putin is driving wedges into every single country he can (Brexit, Catalonia, etc.) so that he can conquer them.

Trump think's he's going to get a part of it as well by going along with it. Of course, Putin has absolutely no intention of doing so, but he plays to Trump's narcissism to get what he wants.

I know it's easy to deride Trump as stupid. He certainly appears to be. But it's possible that everything he's ever done, from even before the election, has come from a misguided sense of overwhelming greed.

He doesn't care about the U.S. He doesn't care about the world. He cares about himself and his offspring. (Except Tiffany for whatever reason.)

And all of the "good things" that he does for his idiotic base is to shore up his power in any way he can.

If his ends get threatened in any real way, expect him to go ballistic. And I don't mean just throwing temper tantrums.

Even if Mueller finds damning incontrovertible proof.
Even if the House votes to impeach.
Even if the Senate moves to remove him from office.
Who is going to make him leave if he does not choose to do so?

This also includes him losing in 2020, assuming that he even allows an election to take place if he doesn't think he will win.

To what extreme will he go to ensure his family's success in this endeavor?

And to what extreme will he go if he realizes that he has no chance to succeed?

/Phew
//For a minute there
///I lost myself
2017-10-06 03:32:11 AM  
9 votes:
"Greatest Monster" =/= Carter =/= good president

Well meaning, good guy, ineffective administrator
2017-10-06 03:38:46 AM  
7 votes:
Carter's assessment is fundamentally correct. The only thing Li'l Kim and the Bling Generals want is to remain in power.

This is achievable on a human scale (unlike the cosmic destiny-level bring back the Caliphate stuff that Isil and AQ want, which is to say, they don't really want anything) which means we can offer them a vision of the future which gives them that while also giving us what we want.

This absolutely works as a threat reduction strategy. It worked with the IRA - they wanted a united Ireland, we offered them a roadmap which has a that as a possible outcome through peaceable means; they (largely) stopped blowing people up and went into government. Even though Stormont looks a bit precarious at the moment no-one thinks the hard men are about to pick up the armalites again.

It's more or less worked (admittedly after they suffered serious military reversals at government hands) with the various South American terrorist factions. You might argue it's worked in Vietnam, a close analogue of DPRK, although what seems to have worked more is capitalism.

There are still ways out of this.
2017-10-06 08:03:55 AM  
5 votes:

Gulper Eel: Ed Grubermann: 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.

UsikFark: Carter is a wonderful, dusty man.

jso2897: As an administrator, he beats the living, bleeding shiat out of the thing that sits in the Oval Office today.

Okay, now get the stars out of your eyes.

It's fashionable for good and wise progressives (just ask 'em) nowadays to treat Carter like the second coming of Nelson Mandela - but during Carter's term in office they were all set to toss him aside in favor of Ted Kennedy, the walking, talking, pantsless-staggering, waitress-fondling embodiment of the limousine liberal don't-you-know-who-I-AM it's-okay-when-we-do-it ethos.

Michael and Sonny were gone so they wanted Fredo, basically.


Hah,
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.
The funnier quote from the 1980 election is related to the fact that evangelicals chose the flaky Californian actor with multiple divorces over the deeply religious, committed family man.
2017-10-06 05:57:44 AM  
5 votes:
Last time Carter tried to help out on North Korea was 1994. It went badly.

Carter came back from his freelance meeting with Kim Il Sung waving some "peace in our time" horseshiat agreement around, Clinton was royally pissed but bit his lip and played along...and we got rolled.

Wonderful man, Carter - but a piss-poor judge of international leaders' intentions, and with a particular blind spot for dictators. 

You know that feeling you get when Dick Cheney says he's going on a hunting trip? Same thing, only with nuclear weapons.
2017-10-06 05:13:05 AM  
5 votes:

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

Well meaning, good guy, ineffective administrator


As an administrator, he beats the living, bleeding shiat out of the thing that sits in the Oval Office today.
2017-10-06 05:47:33 AM  
4 votes:

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.
2017-10-06 05:17:57 AM  
4 votes:

biggamehickman: 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?

Gas was expensive


Inflation was crippling, his solution for energy shortages was for us to wear sweaters and just deal with having less, he complained about the 'malaise' the country was in, he was helpless in dealing with Iran taking and holding US hostages (recall the infamous 'rescue' that turned into a rout). The country was well sick of him long before Reagan appeared on the scene and offered a way out. Carter is a nice, well-meaning man who was a disaster as president.
2017-10-06 03:22:33 AM  
4 votes:

biggamehickman: 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?

Gas was expensive


Ted Koppel's little show didn't help. Coming out of Vietnam, Watergate, high inflation, the country couldn't handle the Iranian Hostage Crisis.
2017-10-06 03:19:28 AM  
4 votes:

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?


Gas was expensive
2017-10-06 03:16:27 AM  
4 votes:

HedlessChickn: 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.

Yes, he does understand all of that.

He's not content with the U.S. being chaotic, he has to make the entire world chaotic.

What if, and this is a HUGE what if, Trump and Putin both want the world to themselves.

Putin is driving wedges into every single country he can (Brexit, Catalonia, etc.) so that he can conquer them.

Trump think's he's going to get a part of it as well by going along with it. Of course, Putin has absolutely no intention of doing so, but he plays to Trump's narcissism to get what he wants.

I know it's easy to deride Trump as stupid. He certainly appears to be. But it's possible that everything he's ever done, from even before the election, has come from a misguided sense of overwhelming greed.

He doesn't care about the U.S. He doesn't care about the world. He cares about himself and his offspring. (Except Tiffany for whatever reason.)

And all of the "good things" that he does for his idiotic base is to shore up his power in any way he can.

If his ends get threatened in any real way, expect him to go ballistic. And I don't mean just throwing temper tantrums.

Even if Mueller finds damning incontrovertible proof.
Even if the House votes to impeach.
Even if the Senate moves to remove him from office.
Who is going to make him leave if he does not choose to do so?

This also includes him losing in 2020, assuming that he even allows an election to take place if he doesn't think he will win.

To what extreme will he go to ensure his family's success in this endeavor?

And to what extreme will he go if he realiz ...


you have now been officially farkied as someone who knows chaos theory.

"you'll find out" he says..he will push any button he has to when Meuller comes down on him. Let's hope he does it quick enough so that Trump doesn't have that chance.
2017-10-06 05:40:54 AM  
3 votes:

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.
2017-10-06 04:45:13 AM  
3 votes:

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?


Carter's administration eventually did negotiate the release of the hostages. The Iranians didn't want to renegotiate with Reagan and it was Carter who told Reagan at 8:30 AM on January 20th, 1981 that the hostages were about to be released.

Some even think Reagan told the Iranians to wait to release the hostages.

Neither of those put Regean in a good light unless you just hate Carter and need to derp.
2017-10-06 03:57:04 AM  
3 votes:
Jimmy Carter?  OMFG you reminded me of a time when shiat wasn't real.

Wait.  I want my life back.

Seriously.  This one sucks.
2017-10-05 08:57:37 PM  
3 votes:
WTF does my ex-gf have to do with North Korea?
2017-10-06 08:48:57 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:00:49 AM  
2 votes:

Gulper Eel: Last time Carter tried to help out on North Korea was 1994. It went badly.

Carter came back from his freelance meeting with Kim Il Sung waving some "peace in our time" horseshiat agreement around, Clinton was royally pissed but bit his lip and played along...and we got rolled.

Wonderful man, Carter - but a piss-poor judge of international leaders' intentions, and with a particular blind spot for dictators. 

You know that feeling you get when Dick Cheney says he's going on a hunting trip? Same thing, only with nuclear weapons.


Exactly right.  He is like Neville Chamberlain on LSD sometimes.
2017-10-06 07:58:29 AM  
2 votes:
Jimmy Carter should stick to nailing 2x4s and stay away from the keyboard, his idiocy has unsurprisingly not improved with age.
2017-10-06 07:46:06 AM  
2 votes:
Yes. Lets keep the regime with the generational prisons in power.
2017-10-06 06:57:59 AM  
2 votes:

jjorsett: biggamehickman: 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?

Gas was expensive

Inflation was crippling, his solution for energy shortages was for us to wear sweaters and just deal with having less, he complained about the 'malaise' the country was in, he was helpless in dealing with Iran taking and holding US hostages (recall the infamous 'rescue' that turned into a rout). The country was well sick of him long before Reagan appeared on the scene and offered a way out. Carter is a nice, well-meaning man who was a disaster as president.


Also, the Soviet Union reached peak strength under Carter, taking advantage of all Carter's distractions to invade Afghanistan.

I was alive back then. The Nixon/Ford/Carter years make Trump seem like the slight turbulence that the pilot apologizes for during your flight.
2017-10-06 05:54:50 AM  
2 votes:
Figuring out what the other guy wants is always an important step in negotiating a solution.
2017-10-06 05:44:51 AM  
2 votes:
The North Koreans should know it's easy to persuade Carter to support them. All they need to do is what the Saudis did, pump in millions in Arab petrodollars into Carter's global endeavors.
2017-10-06 04:42:49 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2017-10-06 04:29:06 AM  
2 votes:

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?
2017-10-06 04:04:50 AM  
2 votes:

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.


They'll just never trust us.  American Supremacy is dead.
2017-10-06 03:54:06 AM  
2 votes:

HedlessChickn: Catalonia


Is that the reason now? Putin?

I can buy Brexit. Brits are that stupid. Catalonia? I'd buy SPAIN selling itself to Putin before Catalonia.
2017-10-06 03:35:06 AM  
2 votes:

HedlessChickn: Yes, he does understand all of that.


No.  He doesn't.
2017-10-06 03:17:56 AM  
2 votes:
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?
2017-10-06 12:43:40 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:27:08 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:07:21 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:29:26 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:27:42 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:30:28 AM  
1 vote:
Love carter.   Going to be a shame when he dies and the right trashes the hell out of him.
2017-10-06 08:25:19 AM  
1 vote:
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 07:11:46 AM  
1 vote:

Ed Grubermann: 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.


UsikFark: Carter is a wonderful, dusty man.


jso2897: As an administrator, he beats the living, bleeding shiat out of the thing that sits in the Oval Office today.


Okay, now get the stars out of your eyes.

It's fashionable for good and wise progressives (just ask 'em) nowadays to treat Carter like the second coming of Nelson Mandela - but during Carter's term in office they were all set to toss him aside in favor of Ted Kennedy, the walking, talking, pantsless-staggering, waitress-fondling embodiment of the limousine liberal don't-you-know-who-I-AM it's-okay-when-we-do-it ethos.

Michael and Sonny were gone so they wanted Fredo, basically.
2017-10-06 05:01:42 AM  
1 vote:
All due respect to mister Carter there, that wasn't so much a message to trump or Kim Jong Un. It was a message to Nato and the State department.
2017-10-06 04:47:45 AM  
1 vote:

UsikFark: Carter's administration eventually did negotiate the release of the hostages. The Iranians didn't want to renegotiate with Reagan and it was Carter who told Reagan at 8:30 AM on January 20th, 1981 that the hostages were about to be released.

Some even think Reagan told the Iranians to wait to release the hostages.

Neither of those put Regean in a good light unless you just hate Carter and need to derp.


I live around a lot of people who need to derp....

*Sigh*
2017-10-06 04:18:03 AM  
1 vote:
Carter is a wonderful, dusty man.
2017-10-06 03:52:33 AM  
1 vote:
Kissinger or Cheney?
2017-10-06 03:48:08 AM  
1 vote:
vignette.wikia.nocookie.net
2017-10-06 03:39:31 AM  
1 vote:
I'm the Jimmy Carter, punkin' instigator.
I'm the fear addicted, danger illustrated.

I am Jimmy Carter, twisted Jimmy Carter.
You're the Jimmy Carter, twisted Jimmy Carter.
I am Jimmy Carter, twisted Jimmy Carter.

I'm the biatch you hated, filth infatuated - yeah
I'm the pain you tasted, well intoxicated

I am Jimmy Carter, twisted Jimmy Carter.
You're the Jimmy Carter, twisted Jimmy Carter.

I'm the self inflicted, mind detonator - yeah.
I'm the one infected, twisted animator.

I am Jimmy Carter, twisted Jimmy Carter.
You're the Jimmy Carter, twisted Jimmy Carter.
I am Jimmy Carter, twisted Jimmy Carter.
2017-10-05 09:06:45 PM  
1 vote:
But we know this.
Their strategy has always been about self preservation of the dynastic rule.

delay, threaten, demand
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

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